The court upheld the Tribunal's findings on notional income based on lack of evidence, affirming reasonable compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.179/2017 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 30/11/2018. The sole respondent herein is the third respondent in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioners, on 17/10/2016 at about 11:25 a.m., the deceased was walking through the side of the road at Vadakkenchery and when he reached near Royal junction, bus bearing registration No.KL-48-1000 driven by the second respondent knocked him down as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries to which he succumbed.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/driver filed written statement. It was contended that there was no negligence on the side of the second respondent.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. The amount claimed was also disputed.

5. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the respondents. No oral evidence was adduced by either side.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹6,91,000/- together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioners have come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned counsel for the claim petitioners submits that the deceased, a 68 year old man was earning ₹15,000/- per month. That fact he was a Collection Agent is proved through Ext.A1 FIR. That being the position, the Tribunal fixing the Per contra notional income at ₹12,000/- was not justified. , it was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that no oral or documentary evidence was produced to prove that the deceased was getting an income of ₹15,000/- per month. That being the position, the amount of ₹12,000/- fixed as notional income is just and reasonable and does not call for any interference.

10. In the absence of evidence and in the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. , (2011) 13 SCC 236, the amount of ₹12,000/- fixed as notional income appears to be just and reasonable and hence I do not find any grounds for interference into the same.

sans In the result the appeal merit is dismissed.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.