JUDGMENT

The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.552 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara. The said claim petition was submitted by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on

08.06.2016.

2. The accident occurred, when the motorcycle ridden by him was hit by a scooter bearing registration No.KL-30 B 789 ridden by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The said scooter was owned by the 2nd respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. In the claim petition he claimed that he was a contractor aged 60 years with a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. He sustained permanent disablement due to the injuries in the accident.

The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

3. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein they admitted the coverage of the policy. However, they disputed the liability on various grounds. The negligence, as well as the quantum of compensation, were also disputed.

4. The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and as documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A11 were marked from the side of the appellant. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ext.X1. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter, and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.2,94,042/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate cost. This appeal is submitted by the appellant seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. Heard Sri.Joseph M.P., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.A.Raziya, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The dispute in this appeal pertains to the quantum of compensation alone. The main contest is with respect to the amount awarded under the head of disability and consequential loss of earning capacity of the appellant. As per the Ext.X1 certificate, the Medical Board certified the extent of disability of the appellant as 23%, but the Tribunal scaled down the same to 15%. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the same was not at all proper. The Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability certified in Ext.X1 mainly on the ground that, according to the Tribunal, the same was on the higher side. However, as the said certificate has been issued by a competent medical board constituted by the proper authority, consists of a panel of expert doctors, I am of the view that the Tribunal should not have sat in appeal over the percentage of disability certified therein. Of course, the Tribunal could have justified in interfering in the percentage of disability certified therein if the assessment made therein suffers from any gross illegality or unreasonableness. However, no such discrepancies are highlighted in the case on hand, warranting interference by scaling down the percentage of disability certified in Ext.X1. Therefore, I am of the view that the percentage of disability as certified in Ext.X1 has to be accepted and it is ordered accordingly.

7. The next element for determining compensation for disability and loss of earning power is the monthly income. Even though, in the claim petition the appellant claimed that, he was a contractor, during evidence, PW2 was examined as his employer, who stated that the appellant was a supervisor employed by him with a monthly income of Rs.20,000. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that, to substantiate his monthly income, the appellant produced Ext.A8 salary certificate, and to prove the same, PW2, the employer was examined. However, the Tribunal observed that, during the course