The multiplier for compensation must reflect the victim's age at the time of the accident, not retirement age, and future prospects should be included in the calculation.

JUDGMENT :

(C. Pratheep Kumar, J.)

The petitioner in OP(MV).1215/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant. He filed the OP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.8.2005. According to the petitioner, on 28.8.2005, at about 11.00 a.m., while he was driving his Maruti car through the Kottayam-Ernakulam road, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-07-R-5155 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the car and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries.

2. In this case the petitioner sustained T-shape fracture of acetabulam with posterior wall fracture in addition to pain and tenderness over right knee. The petitioner was treated as inpatient for a total period of 63 days on two occasions in the Medical Trust hospital, as revealed from Exts.A15 and 16 discharge summaries. From Ext.A14 discharge summary, it is revealed that he was admitted in Chazhikkadu hospital, Thodupuzha on 9.4.2007 for Ostero arthritis right hip treatment and surgery was conducted and the hip was replaced totally and then he was discharged on 23.4.2007. From Exts.A15 and A16 it is also revealed that “closed reduction and upper tibial skeletal traction done under GA, Gastrosurgery consultation given for abdominal pain CT abdomen – Normal study, ORIF done with extended illeofemoral approach post column fixed with 9 holed Recomplate and 6 screws, Anterior column 5 holed Recomplate and 4 screws roof fixed with 2 K wires. Patient had collection haematoma at wound site, wound wash given for the same.

3. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,15,087/-, major portion of which, namely Rs.3,17,487/- was medical expense supported by bills. Out of the remaining amount, Rs.40,000/- was for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.5000/- each towards extra nourishment, together for transportation and damage to clothing and compensation for leave. Another Rs.12,600/- was awarded on the head bystander's expenses. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this Appeal.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was referred to a medical Board in the Government Medical College, Ernakulam. After examining the petitioner, the Medical Board sent a disability certificate assessing his permanent physical disability at 15%. Since the said disability certificate was issued by the medical board, I find no grounds to disbelieve the same. Accordingly, the disability of the petitioner is fixed as 15%.

5. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged 45, getting monthly salary of Rs.12,958/-. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 30% of the income is to be added towards future prospects and multiplier to be applied is 14. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, since the petitioner retired at the age of 60, there will be reduction in his income only after the age of 60 and hence, the multiplier to be applied should be that of the year of his retirement. He has also relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., 2021 (6) KLT 136, in support of his argument.

6. In the above decision, in paragraph 8, the learned judge held that:

“.....From the materials available on record, it can be seen that, despite the injuries sustained by the appellant, he continued in his employment and the finding of the Tribunal that he has not sustained any loss of earning capacity during the period of his service with the Kerala Water Authority is a probable view. In my view it is a sustainable finding as he could continue in the service upto his retirement age at 56. Consequently, the question of loss of earning power would arise only for the period after his retirement.”

7. Thereafter the learned Judge proceeded to assess the l