Compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be substantiated with adequate evidence, failing which the awarded amount may be modified by the Court.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the third respondent/insurance company in O.P (MV) No.1093 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondent herein was the claimant before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 24.01.2009 while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KL-11-W- 5924, a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-10-AA- 9378 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, he had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹6,50,500/- limited to ₹6,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, being the driver, and the second respondent, being the owner of the offending vehicle, filed a joint written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant and that the offending vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 and Ext.B1 and Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹15,91,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 3^rd respondent/insurer. The third respondent/insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges mainly under the following heads:-

Loss of earnings:- The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that, at the time of the accident, the claimant was working as an Electrical Supervisor at J.S. Enterprise in Bangalore and was earning an amount of ₹16,464/- per month. However, while awarding compensation towards loss of earnings, the tribunal awarded an amount of ₹4,93,920/- without any proper reasons. No document was produced by the claimant to prove that there was any loss of earnings.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant could not go to work for almost 2 1/2 years due to the serious injuries sustained in the accident and therefore, considering the income of the claimant, the tribunal has rightly awarded the said compensation under the said head.

The petitioner admittedly was an Electrical Supervisor working at J.S. Enterprise in Banglore. There is no dispute regarding the income taken by the tribunal. Ext.A4 series documents produced reveal that he was treated as an inpatient from 24.01.2009 to 10.02.2009 ie; for 22 days; thereafter from 16.02.2009 to 25.02.2009 ie for 9 days; again from 13.05.2009 to 18.05.2009, for 5 days; from 14.08.2010 to 20.08.2010, for 6 days; and from 07.05.2011 to 09.05.2011, for 2 days. The claim petition was filed in the year 2010. In the claim petition, the claimant was represented by his power of attorney holder and his brother Joy Thomas. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant is living abroad with his wife. In order to claim the monthly income, the claimant had produced the pay slips issued from the establishment where he was working which was accepted by the tribunal. However, in order to prove his loss of earnings, no evidence was adduced nor any document was produced by the claimant. The claimant did not mount the box to give evidence. However, in paragraph 15 of the award, the tribunal concluded that considering the injuries and the treatment, the claimant could