(1.) It was on 12.2.2006 the accident. The appellant sustained injuries in the accident. He was a pedestrian. He was knocked down by an auto rickshaw. It was insured with the 3 rd respondent. But its driver did not have a valid driving licence. The vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The above are facts either admitted or proved.
(2.) Heard Sri.P.V.Chandramohan, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2(owner and driver) and Sri.Lal George, the learned counsel for the
(3.) rd respondent. 3. The appellant was a tailor at the time of the accident. He claimed to have a monthly income of Rs 6,000/-. The tribunal fixed a notional income of Rs 4,000/- per month. The notional income taken by the tribunal was certainly on the lower side. Rs 6,000/-per month was not beyond the reach of a tailor in 2006. I find no justification in the tribunal's decision to reduce the monthly income of the appellant from Rs 6,000/- to Rs 4,000/-.