JUDGMENT

The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.604/2009 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri.

2. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 16.11.2008. According to the appellant, the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by him was hit by another motorcycle ridden by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent was the owner of the said motorcycle and it was insured with the 3rd respondent. According to the appellant, at the relevant time he was working at Jidha in Saudi Arabia as a salesman in a shop with a monthly income of Rs.40,000/-. Consequent to the accident, he sustained permanent disability which prevented him from pursuing his job abroad. He was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and the compensation was claimed in such circumstances.

3. The 1st respondent filed a written statement denying the negligence on his part and contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant himself. It was also contended that the motorcycle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent and therefore, if at all there is any liability that has to be indemnified by them. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy for the motorcycle ridden by the 1st respondent, but they denied the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them.

4. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, the appellant himself and the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ext.X1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

5. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.1,19,710/- and the 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation with proportionate costs. This appeal is submitted in such circumstances by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Heard Sri. K.T. Sidhique, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. K.P. Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/ insurer.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amounts awarded by the tribunal on various heads were very meagre and require reconsideration. It was specifically contended that, even though a monthly income of Rs.40,000/- was claimed, which the appellant was drawing from his employment abroad, the monthly income accepted by the tribunal was Rs.3,000/-. Moreover, the tribunal scaled down the percentage of disability certified by the Medical Board as well.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would contend that, the monthly income was fixed by the tribunal by considering the Indian Standards as the appellant could not adduce any convincing evidence to establish his claim of monthly income of Rs.40,000/-.

9. I have carefully gone through the records. To substantiate the monthly income, the appellant places reliance upon Ext.A4 which is a certificate issued by his employer. However, the said certificate cannot be acted upon, as the same was not attested and the same was not properly proved as well. However, Ext.A13 series are the passports of the appellant and his family members which would indicate that, he was working abroad and he had also taken his family along with him abroad. While being examined as PW1, the petitioner had asserted that, he was residing in Saudi Arabia along with his family. The endorsements contained in Ext.A13 series passports of the appellant and his family members would fort