IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 986 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.1719/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ---------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 30, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, T.C.7/1169, PREETHA NIVAS, CHITTALINKARA, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 2. K.CHANDRAN, S/O. KALU, ARAKKUPARAMBU, MALAYINKANDATHIL VEEDU, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DRIVER, M.S.P. CAMP. 3. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CWC BUILDING, L.M.S. COMPOUND, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.986 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though counsel for the appellant submitted that notice is served on one of the counsel for the Insurance Company pursuant to our order dated 15.9.2008, there is no appearance for the Insurance Company. We have gone through the award and going by the relief we propose to grant to the appellant, we do not think there is any need to keep the matter pending for appearance of the Insurance Company. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing counsel for the appellant. 2. The main contention raised by the appellant is that compensation for disability granted only for the period after retirement by applying multiplier 8 is incorrect. According to counsel, appellant is entitled to compensation by applying the multiplier applicable to his age which was 24 years at the time of accident. We do not think this argument is acceptable because appellant was employed in some Government organisation at the time of accident and the accident has not affected his earning or employment prospects. Therefore, we feel award of compensation for loss 2 of earning after normal age of retirement is perfectly in order. However, we feel that income fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month for fixing compensation for disability is too low. We, therefore, estimate and refix the monthly income at Rs.4,000/- which entitles the appellant for an additional compensation of Rs.15,360/- under this head. Having regard to the nature of injuries, we feel the appellant should be granted compensation for loss of employment for another three months which we round up and fix at Rs.10,000/-. The additional compensation of Rs.25,360/- should be deposited by the Insurance Company with interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of application till date of deposit. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms