Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
VINOY P.R. @ BINOY – Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMED SAGEER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the claimant's appeal. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments made by counsel. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's observations on income and disability assessment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. final judgment and modification details. (Para 5) |
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. Th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
