A. SAINULABDEEN Vs. SHAJI AND SUBIN P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the 1st respondent in O.P. (MV). No. 495 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. The above original petition with some other original petitions, all arising from a motor accident involving the motor vehicle owned by the appellant, was disposed by a common award dated 20.12.2006 by the Tribunal. Appellant/owner of the vehicle is challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant in O.P. (MV). No. 495 of 2001. Claimant has sought compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the loss and injuries suffered by him in the motor accident from the appellant and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally. Claim was resisted by appellant disputing the negligence imputed against the driver and also contending that the claim is excessive and unreasonable. Tribunal, after considering the materials tendered, found that the negligence imputed against the driver of vehicle has been established, and awarded compensation of Rs. 37,555/- to the claimant directing the appellant/owner to pay such sum with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation. Admittedly, claimant suffered a fracture to the radius of his right hand and he underwent hospitalisation for four days from 03.03.2001 to 06.03.2001. Towards medical expenses, he had incurred a sum of Rs. 17,315/-, over which, there is no dispute at all. He was awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering by the Tribunal taking into account the fracture sustained which is also not disputed. However, the claim awarded towards compensation for the disability suffered at Rs. 12,240/- is assailed by the appellant contending that it is excessive. Claimant produced a certificate issued by a doctor showing that he suffered 4% permanent disability. At the time of occurrence, he was aged 25 years. Though he did not produce any material to prove his income potentiality, considering his age, income was notionally fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,500/-. Income so fixed which was based to award compensation with reference to the disability certificate produced is on the higher side is the grievance of the owner. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner contended that non-examination of doctor who issued the disability certificate when there was a challenge to that certificate from the appellant was fatal. The tribunal should not have acted upon the certificate to award the claimant disability compensation, according to counsel. Income of the claimant fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per month with no material not even the oral evidence of claimant is totally unsustainable is the further submission of counsel. I do not find any merit in the challenges canvassed to impeach the award of the Tribunal. If at all the appellant/owner had any challenge to Ext. A11 disability certificate issued by the doctor, he should have taken steps to examine the doctor who issued that certificate. It cannot be stated that the certificate could not have been received in evidence without the claimant taking steps to examine such doctor. Ext. A11 certificate showing the percentage of disability of the claimant is amply supported by other treatment records. Further more, there is no challenge that he sustained fracture to his radius. In Ext. A11 certificate, the doctor has noted the basis for assessing the percentage of disability suffered by claimant. When such be the case, challenge against that certificate canvassed by the appellant is only to be rejected. Considering the age of the claimant, which was 25 years at the time of occurrence, I do not find any impropriety in the Tribunal fixing his income notionally at Rs. 1,500/- for awarding him just compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident. There is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed.