The judgment underscores that adequate opportunities for presenting evidence are crucial for determining fair compensation in personal injury claims.

J U D G M E N T

These two appeals are connected and therefore, I am disposing these two appeals by a common judgment. MACA No.1261/2010 is filed against the award dated 30/12/2009 in OP (MV) No. 764/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irijalakuda. MACA No.1262/2010 is filed against the award dated 30/12/2009 in OP (MV) No. 1100/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irijalakuda. (Hereinafter the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal). The above two claim petitions were disposed by the tribunal along with OP(MV) No.751/2006 and 1079/2006.

2. The short facts are like this:-

The petitioners and the other claimants were passengers in a bus bearing Registration No. KL-8/S 162 driven by the 2nd respondent. While over taking a lorry, the bus went off the road and hit on a tree at the side of the road, resulting in an accident in which the petitioners and others sustained serious injuries.

3. To substantiate the case, Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the petitioner. After going through the evidence and documents, the Tribunal allowed OP (MV) No. 764/2006 and OP(MV) No.1100/2006 in part and granted a compensation of Rs.94,250/- in OP(MV) No.764/2006 and Rs. 38,550/- in OP(MV) No. 1100/2006. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation these two appeals are filed by the petitioners.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

5. There is no dispute regarding the policy of the offending vehicle. The case of the petitioners is that, they sustained serious injuries including disability. A specific contention is raised in the appeal memorandum in MACA No.1261/2010 which is extracted hereunder;

“ When the case came up for trial the learned Tribunal opined that the entire documents produced by the petitioner can be marked if not opposed by the respondents Accordingly the entire documents were allowed to be marked unopposed. The salary certificate issued by the employer M/S JCT electronics Chandigarh was produced along with the list of documents dated 05/08/2009, with which the other documents including the certificate of disability and the discharge summery was produced. The learned Tribunal did not mark the salary Certificate and did not place any reliance on the same while calculating and fixing the monthly income of the petitioner. The monthly income of the petitioner was taken @ rupees 2000/- totally ignoring the fact that there is no contra evidence to rebut this aspect. The doctor who treated the petitioner has issued a certificate of disability even though marked in evidence was not adverted to on the ground that the same is not proved and no amount of compensation was awarded for permanent partial disability.”

6. Similar contention was raised in MACA No.

1262/2010.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the Tribunal has not considered the disability certificate produced by the petitioners. The learned counsel also submitted that, one of the disability certificate produced along with the claim petition was not even marked. The learned counsel submitted that, this Court may kindly accept the disability certificate and fix a just compensation. The learned counsel also submitted that, in MACA No. 1262/2010 the petitioner produced Ext. A5 salary certificate. The tribunal has not considered the same also while fixing the compensation for loss of earning.

8. It is an admitted fact that, no oral evidence is adduced in this case. It is also an admitted fact that, even though the disability certificate is produced, the same is not marked in a manner known to law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this Court may kindly rely those documents and pass a just compensation. The tribunal rejected those disability certificates mainly for the reason that, the same is not proved. This Court can not find fault with the tribunal. Then the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, an opport