JOBY Vs. A A SAHADEVAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant is the appellant. He suffered injuries on a road traffic accident on 25.6.2000. He limited his claim for compensation to Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.1,58,240/-. The details of which are shown below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_307_LAWS(KER)7_20112.htm</FRM>

(2.) The claimant claims to be aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned order on the following grounds:

(3.) First of all, it is contended that against the salary certificate produced which shows that his monthly income was Rs.4,000/-, the Tribunal chose to accept only Rs.2,000/-. The learned counsel points out that even in the FIR, it is made very clear that the appellant is an employee of Kalyan Jewellers who had issued Ext.A10 leave and salary certificate. For obscure reasons the person who issued Ext.A10 was not examined. It will not be in apposite in this context to note that the assertion of the appellant was that he was getting a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. Salary certificate shows only Rs.4,000/-. The appellant explains the same by the theory that he gets Rs.2,000/- in addition to his salary as commission. We cannot find fault with the Tribunal for not swallowing Ext.A10. But in any case considering the age of the appellant and the fact that even in the FIR, he is described as an employee of Kalyan Jewellers, we are of the opinion that a presumption of prudence can be drawn that his monthly income could not have been below Rs.2,500/-. Entry 6 of Schedule 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act which stipulates that even a non earning person in 1994 can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.1,250/- per mensem for the computation of compensation, deserves reference now.