Ramachandran Nair, J.

The appellant, a Government servant, and is working in the Excise Department is seeking for enhancement of compensation. Before the Tribunal the total claim was for Rs.7 lakhs and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.4,17,000/-.

2. At the time of the accident, he was aged 36 years. The accident occurred on 3.2.2002 when the motor cycle which he was riding was hit by a lorry driven by the first respondent. The third respondent is the insurer of the vehicle and the finding is that the third respondent is liable to indemnify the owner. The appellant sustained a crush injury in the right ankle with multiple laceration. He was immediately given first aid from the Community Health Centre, Vaikom and he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. But on the same day, he was shifted to Specialist Hospital, Ernakulam.

3. Due to the ill fate of the appellant, he had to suffer amputation because of the crush injury. Initially in the specialist hospital, wound debridment was done on three occasions and external fixator was applied. Post tibial nerve and artery were served with segmental loss He was advised to have below knee amputation and prosthetic fittings. Thereafter he was admitted in the Christian Medical College, Velloor for further treatment and the treatment undertaken therein is supported by Ext.A6 case summary. Below knee amputation in the right leg was done and he was thereafter discharged from the hospital.

4. The total period of inpatient treatment is 37 days in three phases as found by the Tribunal. He continued as outpatient for a period of 7 days which is recorded in Ext.A17.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a Preventive Officer in the Excise Department at the time of the accident. Because of the amputation to his leg, he could not attend department examination for promotion and his promotion prospects were delayed. It is submitted that because of the special nature of the duties in the Excise department, lot of inconvenience will be there and this aspect also has to be considered by this Court while granting compensation.

6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the appellant has been properly compensated by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that since the job in which he was continuing was never affected and as he is continuing in the said department, there is no loss of earning power and this aspect may have to be considered by this Court.

7. One of the points highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant is the requirement to change the artificial limb intermittently. In support of the claim, the appellant has produced along with I.A. No. 2916/2014 the proforma invoice issued by the manufacturer of the said system showing a total amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in the year 2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that only a reasonable amount can be awarded and he also reminded us that the accident had occurred in the year 2002.

8. The Tribunal has considered various aspects and concluded that the percentage of disability will be 30 but without the aid of a disability certificate. Before this Court, the appellant filed an application to examine himself by the Medical Board which was allowed by a Division Bench as per order dated 6.1.2014 in I.A.No.314/2010, pursuant to which the Medical Board of the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam examined him and the percentage of disability is reported as 40% as per certificate dated 5.2.2014, which we mark as Ext.A19. Therefore we will have to reckon the permanent disability as 40%. In a case where there is no loss of job for the person concerned, this Court will have to consider the claim for awarding the amounts for the physical disability. The physical injury (disability) itself will have to be compensated. Herein even though ther