COMMON JUDGMENT

As these appeals arise out of the same award, between the same parties and of the same Tribunal, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

2. The petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries that he sustained in an accident on 26.10.2003. It was his case that, on the aforesaid date, while he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL 8V 876 through the Thirssur-Kanimangalam road, a car bearing registration No. KEH 8145 (car), driven by the first respondent in a negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. The petitioner sustained serious injuries including an head injury, depressed fracture of the right supra orbital rin, fracture of the right Zygoma and a comminuted fracture upper 1/3rd of the Tibia and a fracture of the upper end of the Fibula. He was treated as an inpatient for a period of 63 days at the Elite Mission Hospital, Thrissur. The petitioner was a business franchise of a courier service and was earning a monthly income of Rs.8000/- The car was owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. Hence, the petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.7,73,000/- from the respondents, which claim was limited to Rs.7,00,000/-.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings and were set exparte.

4. The third respondent had filed a written statement admitting that the car had a valid insurance coverage. Nevertheless, the third respondent contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant. The third respondent prayed for exoneration of its liability.

5. The petitioner examined witnesses as PWs1 and

2 and marked Exhibits A1 to A13 (a) in evidence. The respondents did not let in any evidence.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the petitioner to recover from the third respondent an amount of Rs.3,71,120/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed MACA No.1220/2012 and aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the third respondent/insurer has filed MACA No.2520/2012.

8. Heard; Sri.P.G. Suresh., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K.S.Santhi, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/insurer.

9. The common question that emerges for consideration in the appeals is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just?

Negligence and Liability

10. Exhibit A2 final report filed by the police establishes that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent. Indisputably, the second respondent was the owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the car. The respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit Exhibit A2 final report. Similarly, the third respondent has not proved that the second respondent had violated the insurance policy conditions. Therefore, the third respondent is to indemnify the liability of the second respondent arising out of the accident.

Income

11. The petitioner had claimed that he was a business man running a franchise of a courier service concern and was earning a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. In order to substantiate the said pleading, he had examined PW1, who issued Exhibit A10. In Exhibit A10, the petitioner’s income for the financial year 2003-2004 has been shown as Rs.3,80,569/-. The Tribunal, for the reason that Exhibit A10 was issued by the District Manager and not by the franchisee, one Seethalakshmi, declined to accept the income certified in Exhibit A10.

12. On a re-appreciation of the material, I hold that it was imperative for the petitioner to have got his incom