AYYAPPADAS Vs. SAJEEV S/O. SUKUMARAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE injured/claimant is the appellant. He suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 22 -8 -1999. He was employed as a Superintendent of Central Excise. He suffered compound fracture of the neck and shaft of the right femur in addition to other injuries. The injury to spleen was suffered and splenectomy had to be done. He was an inpatient for a period of 49 days. He allegedly suffered permanent disability. Two Doctors of different specialities assessed the permanent disability suffered by him at 13% (Ext.A10) and 8% (Ext.A14). The Tribunal on a consideration of all the relevant inputs awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,67,000/ - as compensation as per the details shown below.

(2.) THE appellant/claimant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned Counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various grounds.

(3.) WE find merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that at present there is no loss of earnings and the loss of earnings, if any, would arise only after the appellant/claimant attains the age of superannuation and retirement from service. The Tribunal had to estimate the probable income which the appellant is likely to get after he retires on superannuation from his present employment. He is to retire at the age of 60 years and he is aged 50 years. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is eminently justified in contending that while adopting the multiplier realistically it must be taken note that the amounts which are likely to be earned after 10 years are being given to the claimant now. In this view of the matter the learned Counsel argues that an appropriate multiplicand has to be chosen taking into account all the realities involved.