Court determined appropriate compensation and disability assessment in motor accident case modifying previous tribunal award.

J U D G M E N T

The claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1407 of 2017, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, has instituted this Appeal seeking to challenge the award dated 29.04.2020.

2. Heard Sri.P.V.Chandramohan, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri.S.K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

3. The claimant had contended before the Tribunal that he was a driver (heavy) by profession, earning a monthly income of Rs.24,000/-, and produced Ext.A11 document to support the afore. Though the employer who issued Ext.A11 certificate was also examined, the Tribunal, by the impugned award, has fixed the notional income as Rs.12,000/-. The only reason stated by the Tribunal for not accepting Ext.A11 certificate is that the same is not an "authenticated" document. I have perused the certificate at Ext.A11. The same has been issued by one 'Shihab P.A.', pointing out that the claimant was employed by him for driving his tipper lorry. The certificate states that the employment was permanent. It further states that the salary of the claimant was fixed at Rs.24,000/- and that the claimant has not been attending work after the accident since the claimant was not in a position to drive the vehicle due to injuries sustained in the accident. This Court is of the opinion that there are various unrecognized sectors, like the employment in a tipper lorry, where the employer would not be in a position to issue any certificate other than the one in the nature of Ext.A11. Under such circumstances, the stand of the Tribunal, that Ext.A11 could not be acted upon, requires to be deprecated. However, the question arises as to whether the income stated in the certificate, in its entirety, requires acceptance. This Court is of the opinion that, on the totality of the facts and circumstances as well as the pleadings before the Tribunal, the notional income can be fixed reasonably at Rs.18,000/- per month. To that extent, the Award of the Tribunal is modified.

4. The second issue that arises for consideration is the percentage of disability quantified by the Tribunal as 9%. The claimant has sought to rely on Ext.A7 Disability Certificate issued by Dr. B.Babu. But, the Tribunal has stated that, since the doctor concerned has admittedly not treated the claimant at any point of time, the certificate could not be acted upon. However, the fact remains that the doctor in question was, admittedly, the Assistant Professor in Orthopaedics attached to the Government Medical College, Thrissur. A perusal of the afore certificate at Ext.A7 would also reveal that the doctor has carried out an extensive examination of the claimant. The certificate has also been issued after carrying out clinical as well as radiological examinations. The certificate makes extensive reference to the injuries suffered by the claimant as well as the split-up percentage as regards the disability. The doctor also certifies that the claimant may require future surgery to remove the implant in the right leg. In view of the afore, especially when the doctor is attached to the Government Medical College, only for the reason that the doctor had not individually treated the patient, in my opinion, the disability quantification at Ext.A7 does not require to be discarded. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the disability as certified by the doctor. This is especially so in the light of the certificate issued by the employer of the claimant stating that, after the accident, the claimant was not in a position to drive the vehicle; therefore, he has not been employed by him. In such circumstances, the award of the Tribunal will stand modified, accepting the assessment of the disability as available in Ext.A7.

5.