A salary certificate, if corroborated by other evidence, serves as conclusive proof of income, and the Tribunal must use actual income and appropriate multipliers to calculate compensation for permanent disability rather than relying on notional income.

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal) passed in O.P.No.2458 of 2001 dated 17.12.2005, the claimant has preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the claimant filed claim application against respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 19.07.2001. The claimant was alleged to have been working in vegetable market at Shamshabad, Hyderabad and earning an amount of Rs.2,500/-per month. It was alleged that on 19.07.01 at about 7.30 p.m., the claimant as a pillion rider, proceeding on a scooter bearing No.ATY 116 along with his friends Satish and D.Srinivas, from Shamshabad to Hyderabad. When they reached Shivarampally Village in front of the Diamond Weigh Bridge, a lorry bearing No.MP 07/A 9624 (in short ‘the offending vehicle’) proceeding from Shamshabad side came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the scooter. As a result, the claimant and his friends fell down and sustained grievous bleeding injuries and fractures. Immediately, they were shifted to the Osmania General Hospital. Satish, the rider of the scooter, died on the spot. The police of Rajendranagar Police Station registered a case vide crime No.315/01. The claimant lost his eye sight and he received a fracture injury to the left hand besides other multiple injuries all over the body. The claimant alleged to have spent more than Rs.25,000/- for medical expenses. Due to the accident not only the claimant but also his family members are also put to great hardship. Respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle. As such, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal and respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and the expenditures incurred and the manner of the accident. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and the claim made by the claimant is excessive and untenable and prayed to dismiss the claim application.

5. Based on the rival contentions, the learned Tribunal framed three issues. During the course of trial, the claimant got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of respondents, Ex.B1-Insurance Policy is marked and no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.87,000/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand) with interest at 6% per annum under various heads. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred the present Appeal to enhance the compensation.

7. Heard Sri M. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri K. Vasanth Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and perused the entire record including the grounds of Appeal.

8. Now the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

“Whether the appellant/claimant has made out any valid and sustainable grounds for enhancemen