IMPORTANT POINTS
Leave is a legal entitlement of an employee, but not a prerogative. It is a conditional right and an inseparable piece of employment package. Exercise of the conditional right is always subject to sanction by employer. Earned leave is granted to an employee for planned long leaves for the purpose of travel, vacation, etc. Leaves under other heads are also granted for specific purposes. When an employee is forced to avail those leaves consequent to a road traffic accident, he is losing his prerogative to the extent the leave availed for treatment and recuperation-There is no reason why the employee should not be compensated for loss of such leaves.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant, who is the petitioner in OP(MV) No.1251/2011 of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, is in appeal aggrieved by Award dated 30.11.2012.

2. The appellant met with a road traffic accident while travelling in a car on 02.07.2011. A tipper lorry hit the car causing serious injuries to the appellant. The appellant was treated in a hospital as an inpatient for five days.

3. The appellant filed OP(MV) and claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the 1st respondent-owner, 2nd respondent-driver and the 3rd respondent-insurer. The driver and owner remained ex parte and only the 3rd respondent insurer contested the claim. The 3rd respondent stated that there was no negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent-driver and the amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant.

4. The appellant produced Exts.A1 to A15 documents. The respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, held that the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.37,153/-as compensation under the following heads:-

The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum and directed the 3rd respondent to pay the amount within thirty days. Aggrieved by the award of low amount of compensation, the appellant has preferred this MACA.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the amount of Rs.15,000/-granted by the Tribunal as against a claim of Rs.40,000/-towards pain and suffering, is unjust. Similarly, towards a claim of Rs.75,000/-for loss of earnings, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.11,521/-. The further grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal awarded interest only at the rate of 7%. The Tribunal ought to have granted interest at least at the rate of 9% per annum.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

7. The appellant was aged 55 years and was working as a Headmaster in an aided school at the time of the accident. Though consequent to the accident, he was treated as inpatient for five days in hospital, it has come out in evidence that he had to take leave on medical grounds for 93 days. The appellant being a Headmaster of an Aided School, his monthly salary of Rs.34,565/-, is not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant has to retire at the age of 56.

8. After going through the Award of the Tribunal, I find that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal towards transport to hospital, damage to clothing, treatment expenses, pain and suffering and loss of amenities are appropriate and can be termed as “just compensation”.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant claimed Rs.75,000/-as compensation for loss of earning, the Tribunal allowed only Rs.11,521/-. This has substantially affected award of a low compensation, it is contended.

10. It is an admitted position that the appellant was drawing a net salary of 34,565/-as evidenced by Ext.A14. It is also an admitted position that though the period of hospitalisation is only five days, the appellant had to take leave for 93 days after the accident, for treatment. The Tribunal, however, granted loss of earnings only for a period of ten days.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal took the time period of ten days for the reason that as per Ext.A14 cert