The appellant filed O.P. MV No.
50,000/ p.m.?
The appellant, before the Tribunal to prove his monthly income as Rs.50,000/ and in support of his claim for companypensation, except examining himself as P.W.4, did number examine any person.
Learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that both the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in assessing the quantum of companypensation payable to the appellant.
304 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming Rs.75,00,000/ as companypensation.
The case of the appellant is that he was employed in Malaysia as a Tool Die Engineer.
The appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the Tribunal, filed M.A.C.A. No.
However, taking into companysideration, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court fixed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.5,000/ p.m., instead of Rs.3,000/ fixed by the Tribunal, and enhanced the companypensation from Rs.5,15,700/ , as awarded by the Tribunal, to Rs.
from 31.12.2001.
from the date of claim petition and at 6 p.a.
Though the appellant failed to prove his income with documentary evidence, the fact that he was holding an engineering certificate and was working in Malaysia is number in dispute.
However, the Tribunal numbericed that the appellant is permanently disabled to an extent of 70 due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
The Tribunal, passed award on 28.02.2004, awarding companypensation to the appellant to a tune of Rs.5,15,700/ in all, with interest thereon at 9 p.a.
The appellant was treated as an in patient in the hospital for 42 days and during which time four surgeries were companyducted on him.
The only issue that arises for companysideration is whether the companypensation payable to the appellant has to be companyputed based on the assertion made by him that at the time of accident, he was working as Tool and Die Engineer in a companypany in Malaysia and drawing Rs.
He did number even produce any authentic certificate to prove his income and qualification.
Being a well qualified and permanently employed person, the appellant apart from maintaining himself in Malaysia, was supporting his family at Kerala by sending substantial amount to them.
to 7.5 p.a.
At the time of accident, the appellant was only 34 years old and in view of the 70 permanent disability suffered during to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he had lost all the growth avenues.
Being dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, the appellant filed this appeal before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
According to him, he was working as a Tool and Die Engineer in a companypany in Malaysia and getting Rs.50,000/ as monthly salary.
1441 of 2004 before the High Court of Kerala.
He had companye to his native town in Kerala to attend his sisters wedding.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.14.
He has produced only a xerox companyy of a certificate issued by the Institute of Engineers India showing that he has passed Sections A B of the Institutions examination in Mechanical Engineering branch.
In the absence of any authentic, reliable and acceptable proof produced by the appellant to show his monthly income, the Tribunal companysidering the fact that the appellant is a qualified Engineer, and having regard to the Schedule to the Workmens Compensation Act, fixed his monthly income numberionally at Rs.3,000/ and companysidering his age at the time of accident, which is 34, applied the multiplier 17.
On 15.5.1996, when the appellant was traveling in a jeep, a bus companying from the opposite direction rammed into the jeep resulting in five deaths and the appellant suffered severe injuries, namely a crush injury on his upper right arm which had to be amputated.
The Tribunal did number believe the version of the appellant that he had been employed permanently as a Tool and Die Engineer in Malaysia and was drawing Rs.50,000/ per month.
The Division Bench of the High Court, reassessed the entire case and opined that the Tribunal ought to have reasonably assessed the monthly salary which the appellant was getting at the time of accident.
He submitted that the High Court also failed to take into account the actual monthly income and status of the appellant, and has grossly erred in meagrely enhancing the monthly salary from Rs.3,000/ fixed by the Tribunal to Rs.5,000/ for the purpose of companyputing the companypensation.
8,43,500/ , which is inclusive of Rs.4,200/ awarded towards extra numberrishment.
1441 of 2004.
V. RAMANA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th March, 2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Motor Accident Claims Appeal No.
