IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1431 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.9/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.JACOB MATHEW P. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- ZAKARIA T.J., S/O. LATE JOSEPH, A-20 POLICE QUARTERS, PUTHURVAYAL VYTHIRI TALUK, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.KHALID FOR R1 SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER FOR R1 SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1431 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent who sustained injuries in a road accident. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The main contention raised by the Insurance Company is that respondent sustained injuries mainly to the fingers of the right arm which led to amputation of two third of the middle finger and one third of the index finger. However, inspite of the injury and disability sustained by the respondent, the respondent continues in the Police service and is stated to be a Head Constable. If the disability sustained has not led to loss of salary or employment prospects during service, then there is no justification for granting compensation based on the percentage of disability for the period respondent was to continue in service. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that disability has long 2 standing effect and after retirement, respondent would not be able to take up a post-retirement assignment and earn income. Besides this, counsel pointed out that MACT has not considered as to whether there was any loss of prospects in promotion in as much as without the full index finger, the respondent's disability would have led to disentitlement for promotion as an Inspector in the Police Department. If promotion prospects are affected leading to disability for higher promotion on account of injury and loss of the fingers in part, then respondent would be entitled to compensation under that head. We notice that since date of accident, the respondent had put in another five years of service by now. Therefore, the MACT will be in a position to appreciate the loss of prospects in employment, if any, already suffered on account of injury or yet to happen based on Service Rules and eligibility for promotion. Even though we uphold in principle the contention of the Insurance Company that percentage of disability taken by the MACT and compensation granted during period of service are not justified, we do not think we should recompute compensation without reference to loss of promotion prospects, if any, in service. 3 We, therefore, set aside the award and remand the matter to the MACT for reconsideration with specific reference to Service Rules on promotion chances for the respondent and loss of prospects, if any, for promotion and grant compensation by taking into account actual disability. The MACT is directed to give opportunity to both parties and dispose of the matter afresh within three months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment from either party. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms