[ MACA 1836/2011, MACA.987/2011, MACA.2044/2011 ]

These appeals arise from a common award passed by

the Tribunal in two claim petitions. The present appeals

are from O.P.(MV) No.223 of 2004.

2. The claimant, appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1836 of

2011, was travelling in a bus bearing registration

No.KL-13/A 7495 when it collided with another bus and the

appellant suffered serious injuries. The accident occurred

on 25.09.2003. The appellant had to amputate his right hand

from above elbow. The appellant claimed a compensation for

the injuries suffered as also the disability occasioned.

The Tribunal found both the bus drivers to be negligent and

mulcted liability at 50% on each of them. Though the

Insurance Companies have also approached this Court

[M.A.C.A.Nos.987 and 2044 of 2011], there is no challenge

to the negligence so found by the Tribunal. The appeal of

the assessee is confined to the enhancement claimed and

those of the insurers assail the quantum granted by the

Tribunal.

3. The appellant-claimant was admitted to Unity

Health Complex, Mangalore, where amputation of right

- 7 -

forearm above elbow was conducted. The appellant had also

suffered some laceration scalp with cerebral concussion as

noticed in Exhibit A10 wound certificate. Exhibit A11

discharge summary evidences the amputation having been

carried out and hospitalization for a period of 14 days.

4. The expenses claimed were given in toto as per

the bills produced by the claimant-appellant. For

transportation also, an amount of Rs.4,900/- was granted,

most of which were supported by vouchers.

5. To prove his employment, the claimant has

produced Exhibit A16 series, which are attested copies of

two Passports in relation to himself. In fact, the copies

of the Passports show that the claimant was continuously

employed abroad and that too in the Sultanate of Oman. For

proving the income, the appellant produced Exhibit A15. The

learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that

though the document is shown as tourist taxi bills in the

award, actually Exhibit A15 is an income certificate. This

Court has examined Exhibits A14 and A15. It is seen that

Exhibit A14 is a series of taxi bills and Exhibit A15 is a

certificate issued by the Omani employer of the injured,

wherein his salary was shown as Omani Rial 142 per month.

- 8 -

6. This Court has also gone through the deposition

of the injured-appellant, by name Narayanan. As pointed out

by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company,

the award only shows the examination of one Noushad, who

was the claimant in the other application. However, the

deposition of P.W.2 is seen from the records. It is also

indicated that the 3^rd respondent and the 6^th respondent,

both the Insurance Companies, have cross-examined the

appellant-claimant. From the deposition it is seen that

there is no serious dispute raised against Exhibit A15,

though questions were generally asked on the same. Despite

the fact that Exhibit A15 was shown as taxi bills, the

records show the contrary. It is also seen from the

document Exhibit A15 that it has been duly attested. The

Oman Chamber of Commerce & Industry has attested the

signature of the authorised signatory of Khalfan Khamis

Rashid Al-Mujrafi, the employer of the injured. The

document is also attested by the Embassy of India at

Muscat, which attestation is of the signature and seal of

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sultanate of Oman. Hence,

there is no reason why reliance should not be placed on the

said document. The claim was that the appellant was

entitled to a monthly income in Indian rupees of 15620/-

- 9 -

and the Tribunal adopted only Rs.10,000/-. The exchange

rate on adopting the said computation would be Rs.110/- per

Omani Rial. There is no dispute on the exchange rate at

that point of time, raised by the Insurance Companies in

their cross-examination. In fact