IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 953 of 2005()
1. ANILKUMAR @ ANI, S/O. SANKARA DAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. SATHEESAN, S/O. MADHAVAN,
3. THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE CORPORTION
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent :SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :13/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.953 of 2005
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
R.BASANT, J.
Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He
had claimed an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for the
personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident. The
accident took place on 09.02.06. The appellant claimed that he
was a Junior Executive in Rashtradeepika drawing a monthly
income of Rs.2,500/- per mensem. He was an inpatient for a
period of 13 days. He had allegedly suffered disability also as a
result of the accident.
2. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced.
Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The Tribunal on consideration of
the materials before it, came to the conclusion that the appellant
is entitled for only an amount of Rs.53,000/- as compensation.
The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned judgment.
Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge against the
impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant
specifically challenges the amounts awarded under two specific
M.A.C.A.No.953 of 2005 2
heads. The learned counsel contends that for the loss of earning
suffered by him, only an amount of Rs.8,500/- has been awarded
reckoning that he had lost his earning for 5 months. Monthly
earning was reckoned only at Rs1,700/-. The counsel contends
that the salary certificate Ext.A8 produced by him clearly shows
that he was getting an income of Rs.2,500/- per mensem through
his employer.
3. The counsel further contends that the Tribunal erred
grossly in not granting any amount as compensation for
reduction in earning capacity consequent to the disability
suffered. The Tribunal had awarded only an amount of
Rs.25,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of amenities
after taking note of Ext.A9 disability certificate which showed
that the appellant had suffered disability to the extent of 26%.
4. When the matter came up before this Court, it was
directed that the alleged disability of the appellant be assessed
by the medical board. Accordingly we have now received the
disability certificate which shows that the appellant had suffered
the permanent partial disability to the tune of 16%. The same
can be accepted and there is no dispute on that aspect.
M.A.C.A.No.953 of 2005 3
5. It had also been revealed from Ext.A9 certificate that
in 2003 when the appellant was examined by the doctor, he was
not continuing his employment with M/s.Rashtradeepika and he
had secured employment in the Government service as U.D.C.
The Tribunal thought that this was deliberate suppression of
information from the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the
appellant accepts that the appellant had subsequently secured
employment in Government service and he is now working as
U.D.C. But the counsel is unable to precisely apprise this Court
of the date on which he ceased to be an employee of
Rashtradeepika and secured the employment in Government
service.
6. The learned counsel submits that in any view of the
matter in Government service it can safely be assumed that the
monthly earning of the appellant is more than Rs.2,500/-. Merely
because the appellant had secured employment in Government
service, it cannot be assumed that no compensation is payable
for reduction in earning capacity. It is now established beyond
doubt that the appellant had suffered physical disability of 16%.
Even assuming that there is no reduction in the pay packet, the
Tribunal should not have lost sight of the fact that with the
M.A.C.A.No.953 of 2005 4
disability suffered by him he would be compelled to put in extra
effort to do the same work which he without disability would
have been able to perform. That dimension of the disability must
at any rate have been taken into account even assuming that the
appellant was a U.D.C in the Government service on the date of
the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
from Government service the appellant will be obliged to retire
on superannuation at the age of 55 years and this substantial
disability suffered by him would certainly affect his prospects of
reemployment after superannuation from his service. At least a
reasonable multiplier must have been taken even assuming that
till the age of 55 years the appellant may not suffer any actual
reduction in his earnings.
7. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant. We note that Rs.2,500/- is certified to be the
average earning of commission of the appellant. We are of the
opinion that it would be absolutely safe to reckon the
multiplicand at Rs.2,000/- and the multiplier at 8 in the facts and
circumstances of the case. For the loss of amenities, the
appellant has been adequately compensated by the award of the
amount of Rs.25,000/- by the Tribunal. We are, in these
M.A.C.A.No.953 of 2005 5
circumstances, satisfied that the further amounts can be
awarded under the heads of loss of earnings and reduction in
earning capacity consequent to physical disability suffered at the
accident. For 5 months’ loss of earnings, the appellant will be
entitled for a further amount of Rs.1,500/- and for the reduction
in earning capacity consequent to disability, the appellant will be
entitled to an amount of Rs.30,720/- [ie. Rs.2,000 X 12 X 8 X
16/100].
8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that
the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.32,220/-
[30,720 + 1,500] (Rupees Thirty two thousand two hundred and
twenty only) as per the details shown above. The appellant will
also be entitled for interest as already directed by the Tribunal,
for the entire amount, from the date of the petition.
9. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON)
rtr/-