RAMACHANDRAN Vs. P.R. MANI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1470/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the application for compensation for the injuries and consequential disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driven and owned by respondents 1 and 2 and insured with the 3rd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ - on various heads as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_86_LAWS(KER)9_2013.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of accident the appellant was working as Havildar in army getting a monthly income of Rs. 10,726/ - and army medical board assessed 30% disability and he was put in a lower grade as clerk in the army and after four years of the accident, due to surplus in the Department, he was discharged prematurely. Thereby he had lost two years service in the army. This has not been considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation for loss of earning. Further, the Tribunal has taken only a notional income of Rs. 2,500/ - and taken 15% disability and multiplier as 12, awarded only Rs. 54,000/ - under the head, permanent disability, which is also on the lower side. Considering the nature of disability sustained by him the amount awarded under the heads, pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life etc. are also on the lower side. According to the counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to enhancement on all heads.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions in detail. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was working as Havildar in Army getting Rs. 10726/ - as gross salary at the time when he met with the accident. It is also seen from the documents produced that he was prematurely discharged from service. It is true that though the accident occurred in August, 2004, he continued in the army till June 2008 and only thereafter, he was discharged. At the time of accident, he was 39 years old. It is not clear from the documents produced that he was discharged on account of the disability. But the documents produced show that from the post of Havildar, he was put in a lower category as clerical staff in the army and allowed to continue in service for four more years. But later, he was discharged from that post also prematurely because of surplus of the employees in that office. So he had lost two years' income in the normal course. By that time, he completed only 18 years. If this has not happened, he would have been in service for another two years more. So as far as the appellant is concerned, that is an economic loss caused him on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. So he is entitled to get compensation for that taking the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 7250/ - after deducting the allowances and taking remaining period of two years, viz., 24 months, as loss of income caused on account of premature discharge and he will be entitled to get Rs. 1,74,000/ - as salary if he continued in that post till his normal discharge from the duty. So we award that amount under the head, loss of income due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. For the age group of 39 years, the multiplier to be applicable as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, : 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) is 15. He continued work for four years and we have allowed allowances for two years more for his loss of income for the usual course of discharge. Deducting this 6 years from the multiplier to be taken, the balance left is 9. The Tribunal has taken Rs. 2500/ - as the notional income, which we feel considering the age of the appellant is on the lower side. We re -fix the same to Rs. 3000/ - per month. The army medical board had assessed 30% disability. Though the disability may not effect his earning capacity to that extent, since the disability caused is on his hands, that may have some impact on his future earning capacity as well. We re -fix the same as 20% instead of 15% fixed by the Tribunal. If recalculation is made on that basis, he will be entitled to get an amount of Rs. 64,800/ - (3000 x 12 x 9 x 20%) instead of Rs. 54,000/ - awarded by the Tribunal. We do not find any reason to interfere with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads as the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads are just and proper. In all, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs. 1,84,800/ - over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which the 3rd respondent insurance company is liable to pay with 9% interest from the date of petition till date of payment. Two months' time is granted to the insurance company to pay this amount as well.