SUMA BALAN Vs. JOHNY M.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accident was on 1.2.2013. A person by name Balan died in the accident. While walking by the side of the road he was knocked down by a goods carriage vehicle. The cause of the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. It was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The above are facts either admitted or proved.

(2.) Heard Sri.P.V.Chandramohan and Sri.P.M.M.Najeeb Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant and the 2nd respondent respectively.

(3.) Balan was survived by his wife alone. She was the claimant. She contended that her husband who was running a hotel and doing business in share market was having a monthly income of Rs 40,000/-. Certain documents were also produced to prove the income. If Balan had a monthly income of Rs 40,000/-, certainly there must be an income-tax assessment. No income-tax return was produced to prove the monthly income of Balan to be Rs 40,000/-. Therefore the tribunal was right in rejecting the claim of the claimant that her husband had a monthly income of Rs 40,000/-. What was possible for the tribunal was to take a notional income. The tribunal took it at Rs 5,000/- per month. That was indeed palpably low. The accident was in 2013. Even a daily labourer could earn in 2013 double the amount fixed by the tribunal. I find it appropriate to fix Rs 10,000/- as the notional income.