IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 783 of 2005()
1. K.RAJA, S/O.KOVINDAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.DAVID, VELLALER EAST STREET,
... Respondent
2. M.S.RETHNAKUMAR,
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.S.MAMMU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :21/11/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ.
————————————–
M.A.C.A. No.783 of 2005
—————————————
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008
Judgment
Koshy,J.
Appellant/Claimant sustained injuries in a motor
accident on 4.9.1999. He claimed a total compensation of
Rs.30,00,000/-. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,91,500/- as total
compensation and directed the third respondent-insurance company
which insured the offending vehicle to deposit the same. The only
dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. As a result of
the accident, appellant sustained crush injury on the right hand,
above elbow level and his right hand from above elbow level was
amputated. Doctor certified 70% disability as can be seen from
Ext.A7, disability certificate. Even going by the schedule under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, amputation of the hand above elbow
is 70%. There is no dispute regarding the injuries sustained by the
appellant, but, Tribunal noticed that he was a Development Officer
in the United India Insurance Company Limited. Being a public
sector undertaking, he was not thrown out. He continued to get
salary and, therefore, Tribunal fixed a notional income of Rs.2,000/-
M.A.C.A.No.783/2005 2
after retirement and calculated compensation for disability taking 5
as the multiplier as he will retire only at the age of 60 and for a
motor accident victim aged 60 multiplier under the second schedule
is 5. Tribunal also fixed Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities. It is the
contention of the appellant that as a result of the accident and
amputation of his hand, his promotion chances are lost. Appellant
also produced Ext.A13, Development Officers’ Scheme Book which
shows that a Development Officer would have got incentives for the
work done but because of the accident he is unable to write and
thus he lost the chance to earn incentives and he was receiving only
minimum salary, that too, loosing the promotional prospects. It is
contended that these aspects were not considered by the Tribunal
while assessing the compensation for disability. Appellant produced
Ext.A12 quotation for an artificial limb. He also produced Ext.A11
certificate wherein it is stated that cost of artificial limb will not be
reimbursed by the company. Medical expenses alone were
reimbursed and that was not awarded by the Tribunal also. Only
Rs.10,000/- was awarded for the incidental expenses not covered by
bills and the actual medical bills were not reimbursed by the
Tribunal as it is reimbursable by the company. Appellant has to
suffer the difficulties till the end of his life. Chances of getting a job
after retirement are also lost. Appellant sustained injuries at the
age of 38. The amount of incentive he was receiving is reflected in
M.A.C.A.No.783/2005 3
Exts.A9, A10 and Ext.A14 statement. According to the appellant, he
lost everything. Since the accident occurred at the age of 38,
multiplier to be fixed as per the second schedule is 16. We are of
the opinion that compensation cannot be calculated in this case on a
multiplier basis as the appellant continued to be in employment
upto 60 years of age, but, at the same time, he lost all incentives
and chances of promotion were also lost. Further, he also lost the
opportunity of getting another job after retirement. In addition to
that, he had to purchase artificial limb cost of which was not
reimbursable by the company. Taking all these aspects, we are of
the view that the appellant is entitled to get another Rs.1,50,000/-
as additional compensation. The said amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company
with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On
deposit of the amount, appellant is allowed to withdraw the same.
Appeal is allowed in part as above.
J.B.Koshy
Judge
Thomas P. Joseph
Judge
vaa
M.A.C.A.No.783/2005 4
J.B. KOSHY
AND
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ.
————————————-
M.A.C.A.No. 783/2005
————————————-
Judgment
Date:21st November,2008