the monthly income taken by the Tribunal was only Rs.3,000/-, whereas the claim in this regard was Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would oppose the aforesaid contention. However, it is seen from the records that even though the monthly income of Rs.5,000/was claimed by the appellant, absolutely no evidence to support the said claim was adduced. The appellant was also not himself examined, and there is no evidence with regard to the nature of the avocation and the income derived therefrom. In such circumstances, I do not find any unreasonableness in the fixation of monthly income as Rs.3,000/-, mainly because the accident occurred in the year 2001. However, it is seen that the amount awarded towards loss of earnings was only for a period of one month. It is discernible from the records that the petitioner had undergone inpatient treatment for fifteen days. More than that, as per Ext.A7 CT Scan of the brain, fracture of the skull is also reported. Considering the serious nature of such injuries, he would have been prevented from going out and pursuing his avocation for at least three months. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant the compensation for three
