IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 794 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.1432/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ CYRIL SANJU GEORGE, POLICKAL HOUSE, PARAKULAM BHAGOM, MUTTAMBALAM KARA, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE THOMAS T. VARGHESE SHUBHA ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUMESH KUMAR, KONATHAPATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. ANIL KUMAR, THAMARASSERIL HOUSE, KANJIRAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.794 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in OP(MV)No.1432/2004. The claimant, a Government employee, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.41,000/= with 7% interest. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. A perusal of the award would indicate that he had sustained fracture on the patella as well as on the fibula and tibia and his leg was under plaster cast for a period of two months and a disability certificate was issued by Dr. Regi Varghese, Assistant Professor, Orthopedics, Medical College, Kottayam fixing at 9%. There was waste of quadriceps muscle, difficulty in sqatting and there was restriction of movements. There was slight malunion of the fracture with angulations. He was drawing a salary of Rs.14,013/= per month. The : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.794 OF 2009 Tribunal found that he would not have been in a position to attend the office for two months. It has found that his salary is Rs.14,000/= but only awarded Rs.8,000/= towards loss of earnings. I feel, it has to be enhanced and therefore, I enhance it by Rs.2,000/=. 3. So far as the disability is concerned, it is true that till the age of 55, as a Government servant, he may not have loss of earnings. But, after retirement, he will be capable of doing some work and therefore, disability compensation has to be given from at least at the age of 55. If his post retirement income is taken as Rs.2,000/=, disability at 5% and a multiplier of 9 as pointed out in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298) is taken, the disability compensation would come to Rs.10,800/=. Since no amount is taken into consideration for allowing the disability compensation till the age of 55, his practical difficulties and day today inconvenience in life may have to be considered and an amount of Rs.7,000/= is awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment which makes a total of Rs.17,800/= out of which Rs.10,000/= is awarded. : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.794 OF 2009 So, the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.7,800/= under that head and in total Rs.9,800/=, which I round as Rs.10,000/=. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/= with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of the petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl