A.E. GEORGE Vs. SUSEELAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants in O.P. (M.V) Nos. 90 and 91 of 1982 are the appellants in these two appeals filed under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sri Damodaran, whose legal representatives had filed the latter application, was riding a bicycle. The claimant in the former application was riding on the carrier. While in the national high way infront of the Pulayar Maha Sabha Building at Eramallur, at about 8 PM. on 22-1-1977, a passenger car bearing registration number KLF 9226, hit the bicycle. Both the persons were thrown on the road. Sri Damodaran, the rider of the bicycle, was run over by the car. He died on the spot. The other person sustained injuries. He was removed to the General Hospital where he was under treatment from 22-1-1977 to 10-41977. The parents, the widow and children of the deceased filed O.P. (M.V.) No. 91 of 1982 whereas the injured filed O.P (M.V.) No. 90 of 1982 under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claims were for rupees one lakh for the injured and Rs. 1,40,500/- in respect of the deceased. The widow of the deceased, the injured and two others were examined on behalf of the claimants. They also produced and marke seven documents. One of such documents was Ext. A6 medical certificate-cum-report issued by the Orthopaedic Surgeon of the General Hospital. There was a statement in that certificate to the effect that at the time of the admission of the injured in the General Hospital as an inpatient it was stated that he was a coolie earning Rs. 5/- per day, PW 1, the widow of the deceased, claimed that her husband was earning Rs. 500/- per mensum on daily wages. The injured, when examined as PW 3 claimed that he was receiving Rs. 15/- per day and that be was earning Rs. 450/- per month. There was no cross-examination in relation the monthly earnings of either of the two persons as spoken to by those two witnesses.

(2.) THE Tribunal, however, found that the income of the injured i.e. the appellant in M.F.A. 673/83 and claimant in O.P. (M.V) 90/82 was only Rs. 5/- per day for the reason that there was such a statement in Ext. A6 medical certificate-cum-report. He found further that both of them were admittedly coolies and both of them were proceeding at the time of the accident to collect their wages. The Tribunal, therefore, assumed that the wages of the deceased and the injured were Rs. 150/- per month. It was on that basis that the Tribunal worked out the compensation. Though the aggregate of the various items of compensation was Rs. 25,7571- only an amount of Rs. 20,800/- was awarded to the injured and Rs. 31,000/-was awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased.

(3.) SRI Mathew Jacob, Counsel for the respondent insurer in both these cases submitted that excepting for Ext. A 6 there was no other document on the basis of which the daily wages or the monthly earnings of the deceased and the injured could have been ascertained. He submitted further that the acceptance of that amount as daily income of the injured as applicable to his colleagues along with who he was proceeding at the time of the accident to collect the wages cannot be considered as improper or unsustainable.