The court ruled that attested foreign salary certificates are prima facie evidence of income, and contributory negligence was not established against the deceased drivers.

JUDGMENT

The order of this Court shall dispose of three appeals, two filed by the Insurance Company and one filed by the claimants in O.P(MV) No.1358 of 2017 on the files of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda for enhancement of the compensation.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

On 25.05.2017, at about 4.50 p.m. while one Amal Roy was riding a car bearing Registration No. KL 46/G-3230 along with one Alphin George through Vallarpadam Container Road and when they reached near Mulavukad bridge they met with an accident when the car dashed against an illegally parked heavy goods vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 43/D-9868 violating the traffic rules since it was in a no parking area and in the middle of the highway very close to center median. The claimants of both deceased Amal Roy and Alphin George approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda by preferring two separate applications are under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . The claimants in O.P. (MV) No. 1358 of 2017 are the father, mother and sister of the deceased Amal Roy, whereas the claimants in O.P.(MV) No. 1361 of 2017 are the father, mother and siblings of the deceased Alphin George. The legal heirs of deceased Amal Roy contended that late Amal Roy was a Marine Engineer working at Qatar and was drawing an income of Rs.8,500/- Qatar Riyal. In support of their claim, the appointment letter attested by the chamber of Commerce as well as the Embassy was produced before the tribunal. The legal heirs of deceased Alphin George contended that he was working in a private firm and was having a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. In support of the aforesaid contention the claimants produced the salary statement and the bank statement. They also examined PW1 the employer to depose that the deceased Alphin George was earning a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/-. Since both the applications were jointly tried by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. Exts. A1 to A37 were jointly marked. The insurance company did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence but raised objection regarding the occurrence of the accident and contended that the accident was only due to the negligent driving of the deceased Amal Roy. According to the insurance company, since the accident occurred at around 4.50 p.m., and if due care was taken by the driver the accident could have been averted. Thus there was an attempt made to fasten the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle i.e., deceased Amal Roy and thereby the insurance company attempted to invoke the liability for payment of compensation. The tribunal on appreciation of evidence rejected the contention of the insurance company as regards to the claim for contributory negligence against the deceased Amal Roy and proceeded to consider the case on merits. On further consideration of the contention of the legal heirs of deceased Amal Roy, the tribunal found that the claimants were successful in proving the avocation of the deceased Amal Roy as a Marine Engineer but however proceeded to reduce the income actually earned by late Amal Roy and fixed the income at Rs.1 lakh and granted the compensation as follows.

Sl. Head of Claim Amount Claimed Amount Basis Vital No. (Rs.) Awarded details in a (Rs.) nut shell

1 Funeral expenses 50,000 15,000

2 Transportation 10,000 5,000 expenses

3 Medical expenses 2,00,000 1,22,391

4 Pain and suffering 5,00,000 15,000

5 Loss of dependency 4,00,00,000 1,19,17,850 7,01,050x17

6 Loss of love and2,00,000 Nil affection

7 Extra nourishment 10,000 Nil

8 Loss of estate 50,00,000 15,000

9 Damage to clothing 5,000 Nil 10 Loss of expectation of50,00,000 Nil life

11 Shock and anxiety 2,00,000 Nil

12 Loss of only son 5,00,000

13 Loss of gratuitious2,00,000 Nil service to parents

14 Loss of consortium Nil 80,000