Compensation for permanent disability must reflect its impact on the claimant's earning capacity and quality of life, not just loss of earnings.

JUDGMENT :

1. A riveting question of law has arisen for consideration in this appeal. Initially what seemed to be an ordinary appeal for enhancement of compensation has turned into a case where reconciliation of multiple decisions of this court as well as the Supreme Court is required which certainly makes the task before this Court rigid.

2. Succinctly, the facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The claimant in O.P. (M.V.) No. 522/2018 on the files of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha has come up with the present appeal. On 13.05.2018 at around 7.30 PM at Karippelippady along the Keezhilam-Kurichilakodu Road, the claimant was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-40/N-3246. When the claimant reached Karippelippady a car bearing registration No. KL-05/H-3456 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and hit against the motorcycle causing extensive damage to the motorcycle and grievous injury to the claimant. The Insurance company entered appearance and contested the claim. The age, occupation and monthly income of the claimant were denied. On behalf of the claimant Exts.A1 to A13 documents were marked and Ext.C1 was the disability certificate issued by the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Ext.A10 is the salary certificate of the claimant that showed the claimant was having a monthly income of Rs.27,954/-. The disability certificate namely Ext.C1 evidences 14% permanent disability due to the injuries caused by the accident. The Tribunal proceeded to assess the compensation towards continuing and permanent disability at Rs.90,720/- by taking into consideration the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- and finding that the disability would arise only after the age of 58. It is aggrieved by the said finding that the claimant has approached this Court with the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri. S. Sreedev, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Alice Thomas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri. S. Sreedev submitted that the Tribunal could not have fixed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- when the salary certificate evidenced that an amount of Rs.27,954/- is the monthly salary of the claimant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimant had sustained the following injuries:

“(1) Acute sub-dural hemorrhage.

(2) Acute sub-arachnoid hemorrhage.

(3) Fracture of temporal bone.

(4) Temporal contusion with mass effusion.

(5) Cervical spine sprain.

(6) Lacerated wound on the right knee.

(7) Multiple abrasion on the right hand, right ankle and right foot.”

5. The learned counsel further pointed out that the tribunal formed an opinion that there was no loss of earning for the appellant and that he would retire only on attaining the age of superannuation, that is at 58 years, and therefore, the appellant would sustain loss due to disability only after the retirement. According to the learned counsel, there is no rationale on the part of the Tribunal to arrive at such a finding. The mistake committed by the Tribunal is compounded by the fact that the Tribunal had proceeded to assess the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- after the retirement for which also there is no basis. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. S. Sreedev, also pointed out that in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2021 (5) KHC 662 though this Court had adopted the same method, it is to be noted that the claimant in the facts of that case had only two years to retire but still 50% of the income as on the date of the accident was taken into consideration. Therefore, the learned counsel pointed out that even if this principle is adopted the notional income of the claimant ought to have been fixed at half of Rs.27,954/- which comes to Rs.13,977/-.

6. The learned counsel further pointed out that the principle laid down in Raju