IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 532 of 2001()
1. C.P. POLLEY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.Y. ABU SALIH
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :23/07/2007
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------
M.F.A.532 OF 2001
-------------------------------------
Dated 23rd July, 2007
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
Appellant/petitioner met with a motor accident in
which he sustained very serious injuries. He claimed a
compensation of Rs.6,50,000/=, but, the Tribunal awarded only
Rs.1,57,435/=. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in
this appeal and we are considering that question only as
finding regarding negligence, liability of the insurance
company etc. have become final. Appellant was the Branch
Manager of South Indian Bank. His monthly salary, taking
basic pay and DA, was Rs.14,537/=. He was aged 51 at the time
of accident. As far as the disability is concerned, he
sustained serious injuries on his right leg. The doctor
certified 40% disability. The Tribunal has seen the appellant
and observed as follows:
“I had occasion to see the petitioner
on the date of the trial. At present he
is ambulated with a clutch. He is wearing
a leg cast on the right leg up to knee.
To know the present condition of his leg
the petitioner was asked to remove the leg
cast in my presence. The right leg has a
disfiguration with a bent at a lower 3rd.
There is slight shortening to that leg.
There is scar on the pelvic region due to
the graft taken from that area. There isMFA.532/2001 2
scar of skin grafting on the left thigh
also. I could feel by touching that his
clavicle is not united. So,
undoubtedly, the injuries sustained by
him has caused a residual disability to
the petitioner.”
It is true that since he was not terminated from service and
he was continuing in his job, compensation need not be
calculated on a multiplier basis. But, we have to take into
consideration that he has to continue the difficulties
throughout his life. The difficulty for getting another job
after retirement due to his disability cannot be ruled out.
After considering the facts that there was disfiguration,
clavicle was not united, there was bent at lower third and
there was shortening by two inches, the Tribunal has awarded
an amount of Rs.50,000/= for disability and loss of earning
capacity. He was on leave for 180 days out of which
Tribunal has reimbursed only for the privilege leave taken.
Privilege leave could have been encashed at the time of
retirement. Thus, for loss of actual earnings for 69 days
of privilege leave taken, Rs.33,435/= was given. It is
pointed out that at the time of retirement, leave salary
will be calculated on the basis of the last drawn wages. He
had availed sick leave for 108 days from his credit.
Therefore, in future, he has to take loss of pay leave.
Casual leave also could have been taken for other purpose,
MFA.532/2001 3
that is lost. If leave salary for 180 days is calculated,
the amount payable will be Rs.87,222/=. After deducting
Rs.33,435/= awarded by the Tribunal, balance will be
Rs.53,787/=. He has to suffer the disability throughout his
life. Considering the nature of injuries, he needs future
treatment. Taking all these matters, for loss of earning
due to disability, consequential loss of amenities, loss of
earning power after retirement and for future treatment
together we grant Rs.60,000/= more than that was awarded by
the Tribunal. The above amount should be deposited by the
third respondent insurance company with 7% interest from the
date of application till its deposit.
The appeal is partly allowed.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
K.P.BALACHANDRAN
JUDGE
tks