The tribunal's determination of a deceased victim's monthly income based on professional expertise, supporting documentation, and credible employer testimony is considered just and reasonable and will not be interfered with in appeal.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 3^rd respondent/insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.594 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta, challenging the award passed by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the claimants and respondents 1 and 2 before the tribunal.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows :-

On 21.07.2018 at about 07.30 pm while the deceased was walking through the road, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-11-V-1014 ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the deceased. As a result of the accident, he had sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 25.07.2018. The claimants approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹81,42,000/- limited to ₹50,00,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent/rider and 2^nd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the accident. It is further submitted that the vehicle was duly insured with 3^rd respondent and hence 3^rd respondent is liable to pay compensation. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying negligence. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked and Pws 1 and 2 were examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹54,79,300/- with interest @ 8% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer. Challenging the award passed by the tribunal, the insurance company has come up in appeal.

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

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the monthly income fixed by the tribunal at ₹25,000/- was on the higher side. It was vehemently contended that the documents produced by the claimants themselves would indicate a monthly income of only ₹21,000/-. Though PWs 1 and 2 were examined, no supporting documents were produced to establish that the deceased was drawing an amount of ₹25,000/- as salary. Hence, it was contended that the monthly income fixed at ₹25,000/- is on the higher side.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the tribunal, after considering Exts.A8 to A13 and the oral testimony of PW2/the employer of the deceased, rightly fixed the monthly income at ₹25,000/-.

7. On a perusal of Exts.A10 and A11 reveals that the deceased was an expert Ayurvedic therapist. Taking into account his expertise in the field and his experience as a therapist, the Tribunal fixed his monthly income at ₹25,000/-. Even during cross- examination of PW2, no question was put to him regarding his statement that the deceased was being paid a salary of ₹30,000/- per month. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal had fixed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹25,000/-. I find no reason to interfere with the said finding. As far as the other heads are concerned, I am not inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, since it appears to be just and reasonable.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.