RAVINDRAN PILLAI Vs. SREEJITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND respondent appears through counsel. Notice to the first respondent is dispensed with in view of the decision I proposed to be taken in the appeal.

(2.) THIS appeal arises from the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.P.(MV)No.3071 of 2006 awarding a lump sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation to the appellant for the injuries he suffered in a motor accident on 24.05.2006. The motor cycle which the first respondent owned and was riding hit the appellant. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent.

(3.) THE appellant who was aged 72 years at the relevant time was running a cement shop. His monthly income is stated to be Rs.5,000/-. There is no evidence to show that on account of the injury the appellant suffered the shop was closed and he lost business. But the appellant could have personally managed the shop during the relevant time and in his absence somebody else had to manage it. Bearing that in mind loss to the appellant is fixed as Rs.2500/- per month.