ANITHAKUMARI AND ORS. Vs. RAVEENDRAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was on 28.8.2005 the accident. A person by name Mohanan died in the accident. He was 53 years old then. He was employed abroad. His widow and son are the claimants. Mohanan who was riding a motor cycle was knocked down by a lorry driven and owned by the first respondent. The accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The above are facts either admitted or proved.

(2.) Heard Sri.George Varghese and Smt.K.S.Santhi, the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the second respondent respectively.

(3.) Mohanan was admittedly employed abroad. Ext A9 is his passport. It is entered therein that he was working as an electrician in UAE. The claimants contended that Mohanan had a monthly income equal to Rs 20,000/-. As held in Valsamma v. Biju Jose (2014 (1) KLT 10) for fixing the compensation the income of a person employed abroad will have to be assessed in the context of Indian standards. Therefore the claim of Rs 20,000/- as such cannot be accepted, particularly in the absence of any evidence. The tribunal had taken a notional income of Rs 5,000/- . That was certainly on the lower side. The accident was in 2005. Mohanan was an electrician, a skilled worker. Therefore his income in 2005 can be taken as Rs 7,500/-.