IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1971 of 2010()
1. SAIDALAVI, S/O.MUHAMMED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ABDUL SALAM P.K,
... Respondent
2. AZEEZ.N, S/O.KUNHASSAN
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :06/01/2011
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1971 OF 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)
2648/05. The claimant, a 38 year old man, sustained
injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.28,735/-. Dissatisfied with the
same the claimant has come up in appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as
well as the insurance company. The only point which I
am considering in this case is regarding the loss of
earning capacity that has occasioned on account of the
amputation of toes. I find from the award that the
Tribunal has given compensation other than one for loss
of earning capacity or permanent disability. As per the
award other than the great toe there is amputation on
the other four toes but the wound certificate made
M.A.C.A. 1971 OF 2010
-:2:-
available before me would show that there is partial
amputation of the first and 2nd toe with complete
amputation of the 3rd toe. The amputation of toe is a
schedule injury under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
As per schedule I of part II, when one toe other than
the big toe is completely amputated the loss of earning
capacity comes to 3%. When there is amputation of
two toes of one foot excluding the great toe i.e. the
amputation part with some loss of bone the loss of
earning capacity is assessed at 2%. Therefore for the
complete amputation of one toe and in view of the
partial amputation of two toes the loss of earning
capacity can be taken at 5%. Considering the year of
the accident, an amount of Rs.2,000/- can be fixed as a
reasonable income per month. According to Sarala
Varma’s case 2009 ACJ 1298(Sarala Varma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation) the multiplier to be used in
between the age group of 36 and 40 is 15 therefore
M.A.C.A. 1971 OF 2010
-:3:-
when the disability is taken at 5%, income at Rs.2,000/-
and a multiplier of 15, the disability compensation would
come to Rs.18,000/-. Under all other heads I find the
Tribunal has awarded a reasonable compensation and
that does not call for any interference.
3. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and
the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of
Rs.18,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the
date of petition till realisation and the insurance
company is directed to deposit the same within a period
of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-