AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.—The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 883/2010 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. He filed the O.P. claiming compensation for the injuries and consequent disability suffered by him in a motor accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned and driven by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation under various heads as follows:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation.
The contention raised by the appellant is that the appellant was an Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board and therefore fixation of notional income of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. is not correct. It is further submitted that the appellant was hospitalized for 10 days and no amount has been awarded for loss of earnings. It is also submitted that the compensation for loss of earning power is not commensurate with his income.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that on account of the accident and the alleged disability, the appellant did not lose any income whatsoever either by way of loss of earning power or by way of loss of earnings. It is further pointed out that for the period after retirement, on a notional income of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. for a multiplier of 9, the Tribunal has awarded compensation for loss of earning power, taking the entire 3% disability certified by the medical board. As such, the appellant is not entitled to any enhancement in the compensation, is the contention raised.
We have considered the rival contentions in detail. The appellant''s injuries were as follows:
Fracture involving femoral neck with anterior inferior displacement, dislocation of femoral head, head was totally cut off from the neck, fracture of inferior pubic ramus and other injuries causing severe bodily pain.
He was hospitalized only for 10 days. He ultimately suffered only 3% disability. In paragraph 11 of the award of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has discussed the matter as follows:
The Medical Board had issued Ext. C1 showing that the petitioner had sustained 3% disability. When examined as PW 1, the petitioner is not having a case that he was unable to attend his office to do the present job. It is admitted that he is still continuing the present employment. So till his retirement, there is no chance for any loss of earnings. It is true that due to the injuries sustained to him after retirement he may not be in a position to do any job for which physical fitness is necessary and so there might have been some loss of earning power in future. For computing that, I am fixing a notional income of Rs. 4,000/- as his monthly income and the proper multiplier would be 9.
We are also of opinion that insofar as the disability has not in any way affected his employment with the K.S.E.B. for the period up to his retirement, the appellant was not entitled to get compensation for loss of earning power. Taking the entire 3% disability for the purpose of calculating loss of earning power for the period after retirement fixing a notional income of Rs. 4,000/-, appropriate compensation was also awarded. We do not find any infirmity in fixing compensation for loss of earning power as above. The appellant was hospitalized only for 10 days. The appellant has not adduced any evidence to prove that he has lost any earnings during the period on hospitalization. He has also not produced any evidence to show that he had suffered loss on account of taking leave also.
On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded to the appellant by the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.