SURENDRAN V. Vs. RUKIYA MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P.(MV)

(2.) The appellant's case in the lower court is that on the date of accident he was standing on the side of the road, at that time KL-46/2163 driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the appellant. As a result, he sustained bi-condylar fracture left knee, abrasion left cheek, left knee, left thigh, finger and lacerated wound forehead right side. He was treated in the Medical College hospital. The driver, owner and the insurer did not dispute the accident. Claimant did not adduce any oral evidence, but his documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A7 and respondents documents were marked as Exts.B1 to B3. The disability certificate shows that the appellant sustained permanent disability of 40%.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he was a business man and was getting Rs. 8,000.00 per month and the learned Tribunal took only Rs. 4,500.00 as his monthly income. Ext.A6 disability certificate shows 14% disability, but it was reduced to 10% by the Tribunal. The above illegality is to be rectified.