IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 674 of 2005() ---------------------- OP(MV).285/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- SIDDIQ.A., S/O.ABDUL RAWTHER, MUTHOORIYIL HOUSE, MANGARAM, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, NOW RES. AT PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOTTAYM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PAUL P.EAPEN, 15/242 (3) A -9, ALTHARA ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SREENI G.S., S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, SREENILAYAM, PULIMEL, PALOOR P.O., NOORANAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.VARGHESE.J.PUNNACHALIL FOR R1 & R2 SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 674 of 2005 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair .J, This apepal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the injuries sutained by the apepllant. We have heard counsel appearing for the apellant and standing counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. The contention raised by the appellant is that he was entitled to compensation for disability eventhough the injury has not caused any reducntion in pay for the prospects in emplyoment. We feel some force in this contention because being a technical man the employee with the Telecom Department the apeplant will be entitled to earn income even after retirement in a private employment . Therefore the disability has relevance after retirement. The next contention raised is with regard tot he lower amount of compensation granted for the leave period which is over 200 days. The counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that there is no evidence was given to prove that such leave by the appellant as on loss of pay basis. Considering all these and the fact that the appellant was in the hospital of nearly two months we enhance the total compensation by Rs. 30,000/- with direction to deposit the additional compensation with interest at the rate of 7 ½ % per annum from the date of application til the date of payment. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. -2- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 674 of 2005 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 29th October , 2008