A.C. ROY Vs. SANJAY KUMAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT A.C. Roy who was working as a craftsman in the Indian Army seeks enhancement of compensation of Rs. 2,99,320/ - awarded to him by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Claims Tribunal) who suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 23.09.1989. The Appellant suffered a compound fracture on his right foot. He proved a certificate Ex. PW1/A whereby he was placed in the lower medical category. Further, the Appellant was placed in low middle category 'BEE' permanently w.e.f. 11.01.1995 as per the certificate Ex. PW1/D. He was discharged after 16 years of service instead of 22 years. The Claims Tribunal thus awarded him compensation on account of the difference in the pension he received and the amount of salary which would have been admissible to him had he continued in service for another six years. The relevant para of the impugned judgment is extracted hereunder:

(2.) THE Appellant's grievance is that had he continued in service for 22 years, he would have been entitled to a higher pension @ Rs. 3,349/ - per month in the year 2007 whereas on the date of the discharge on 31.03.2001, he was getting a basic pay of Rs. 1520/ - per month. The Appellant also examined AW1 Naik Rajesh Kumar to prove the certificate Ex. AW1/1. The witness was not cross -examined as none appeared on behalf of the Respondents including the Respondent No. 2 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

(3.) IT is urged that the Appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 5% in relation to lower limb, as per Disability Certificate. He should have been awarded some compensation towards loss of earning capacity. As stated above, full compensation has already been awarded to the Appellant on account of loss of salary and reduction in pension. The Appellant has not brought on record as to how the fracture of both bones of right leg with 10% loss of knee and Ankle ROM (Restriction of Movement) would affect his earning capacity after his retirement. Moreover, the Appellant would have been free to work for six years and earn something although he has already been granted compensation for full loss of salary for six years by the Claims Tribunal.