STATE Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THALASSERY, REP. BY THE MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.A.C.A. No. 343 of 2011 is filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd./the 3rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No. 792 of 2008 on the files of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara. Cross Objection No. 77 of 2011 is filed by the respondents/claimants in the above appeal.

(2.) A motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.5.2008 near Orkkatteri Service Station. The deceased Ismail sustained very grievous injuries in the said motor vehicle accident and succumbed to the injuries. The wife, children and aged father of the deceased moved the above referred claim petition before the Tribunal for a total compensation of Rs. 25,00,000.00, alleging negligence on the side of the driver of the Jeep as cause of the accident and further arraigned the driver, owner and insurance company of the said vehicle as respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Jeep and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 11,83,000.00. The Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 12,000.00. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.A. No. 343 of 2011. The claimants also filed the Cross Objection raising a contention that the compensation awarded is not a just compensation and the quantum assessed is on a lower side.

(3.) When the appeal came up for hearing the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted before us that here is a case where the deceased was allegedly working abroad. It is the further submission that without considering the fact that the employment and income of the deceased are not properly proved, the Tribunal considered monthly income of Rs. 12,000.00 for assessment purpose. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Valsamma Vs. Binu Jose (2014 (1) KLT 10). It is the submission that while the income of a person working abroad is considered, the uncertainty in the job and the high expense that will be incurred for his personal maintenance are to be considered by the Court. It is also the submission that when uncertainty regarding the job is therein, the Tribunal erred in considering an income treating him as working abroad. It is also the submission that in this case, the Tribunal adopted Rs. 12,000.00 as the monthly income without any basis. Hence, an interference by this Court on that regard is necessary.