IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 440 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.654/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV) -------------------------------------------- BALAKRISHNAN S/O. AYYAPPAN NAIR, KALLENGATTU HOUSE, KODAKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) ------------------------------------ 1. A.A.GEORGE, S/O. ANTONY, ARIKKAT HOUSE, ALOOR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. JAISON S/O. LONAPPAN, KOOLA HOUSE, URAKAM P.O. 3. MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KODUNGALLUR. ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.440 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. The appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He sustained fracture of right clavicle along with head injury. During the course of treatment he developed parkinsonism and vertigo. He was working as a Postman in the Postal Department. After prolonged treatment for about 2 years he had to quit the job as an invalid person. He is getting invalid pension from the Postal Department. While awarding compensation the Tribunal had considered his loss of salary during the period which he spent on leave. The total amount of loss with respect to reduction in pension as well as the total loss of salary for the period till his due date of retirement was also granted. Further, the Tribunal had calculated future loss of earning on the basis of 20% disability for a period of 8 years. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent-Insurance 2 Company. The appellant contended that the amount of Rs.700/- adopted as notional income for the purpose of awarding compensation on account of loss of future employment is inadequate and 20% disability adopted for the purpose of such calculation is unrealistic. 3. But we find that the appellant was aged 55 years at the time of accident. Eventhough he developed subsequent problems which incapacitated him from continuing with the job, there is no clear evidence that those diseases are resultant out of the injury sustained. Further on an anxious consideration of the award, we feel that reasonable amount of compensation has already been granted under different heads. We do not find any convincing reason calling interference with the award passed by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal deserves no merit and is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms