IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 783 of 2005() -------------------------------- OPMV.973/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT ----------------------------------- K.RAJA, S/O.KOVINDAN, AYSWARYA, NEDUVANVILA, PARASSALA, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. C.DAVID, VELLALER EAST STREET, KRISHNANCOIL, NAGARCOIL. 2. M.S.RETHNAKUMAR, T.VELLALAR EAST STREET, KRISHNANCOIL, NAGARCOIL. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., 3RD FLOOR, C.W.C. BUILDING, L.M.S.COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.783 of 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellant/Claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 4.9.1999. He claimed a total compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,91,500/- as total compensation and directed the third respondent-insurance company which insured the offending vehicle to deposit the same. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. As a result of the accident, appellant sustained crush injury on the right hand, above elbow level and his right hand from above elbow level was amputated. Doctor certified 70% disability as can be seen from Ext.A7, disability certificate. Even going by the schedule under the Workmen's Compensation Act, amputation of the hand above elbow is 70%. There is no dispute regarding the injuries sustained by the appellant, but, Tribunal noticed that he was a Development Officer in the United India Insurance Company Limited. Being a public sector undertaking, he was not thrown out. He continued to get salary and, therefore, Tribunal fixed a notional income of Rs.2,000/- M.A.C.A.No.783/2005 2 after retirement and calculated compensation for disability taking 5 as the multiplier as he will retire only at the age of 60 and for a motor accident victim aged 60 multiplier under the second schedule is 5. Tribunal also fixed Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities. It is the contention of the appellant that as a result of the accident and amputation of his hand, his promotion chances are lost. Appellant also produced Ext.A13, Development Officers' Scheme Book which shows that a Development Officer would have got incentives for the work done but because of the accident he is unable to write and thus he lost the chance to earn incentives and he was receiving only minimum salary, that too, loosing the promotional prospects. It is contended that these aspects were not considered by the Tribunal while assessing the compensation for disability. Appellant produced Ext.A12 quotation for an artificial limb. He also produced Ext.A11 certificate wherein it is stated that cost of artificial limb will not be reimbursed by the company. Medical expenses alone were reimbursed and that was not awarded by the Tribunal also. Only Rs.10,000/- was awarded for the incidental expenses not covered by bills and the actual medical bills were not reimbursed by the Tribunal as it is reimbursable by the company. Appellant has to suffer the difficulties till the end of his life. Chances of getting a job after retirement are also lost. Appellant sustained injuries at the age of 38. The amount of incentive he was receiving is reflected in M.A.C.A.No.783/2005 3 Exts.A9, A10 and Ext.A14 statement. According to the appellant, he lost everything. Since the accident occurred at the age of 38, multiplier to be fixed as per the second schedule is 16. We are of the opinion that compensation cannot be calculated in this case on a multiplier basis as the appellant continued to be in employment upto 60 years of age, but, at the same time, he lost all incentives and chances of promotion were also lost. Further, he also lost the opportunity of getting another job after retirement. In addition to that, he had to purchase artificial limb cost of which was not reimbursable by the company. Taking all these aspects, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to get another Rs.1,50,000/- as additional compensation. The said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. Appeal is allowed in part as above. J.B.Koshy Judge Thomas P. Joseph Judge vaa M.A.C.A.No.783/2005 4 J.B. KOSHY AND THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ. ------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 783/2005 ------------------------------------- Judgment Date:21st November,2008