The assessment of permanent disability and compensation for accident claims must consider the claimant's earning capacity and any tax obligations.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 3rd respondent insurer in O.P.

(MV) No.10 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. The respondent herein is the claimant before the tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 27.07.2010, at about 08.30 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-11-AC-2751 from Kacherippadi to Manjeri bus stand, a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-53-1872 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle and as a result, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹26,55,900/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. They contended that the first respondent was not having a valid driving licence or badge to drive the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10, Ext.B1 & Ext.X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of ₹16,54,005/- which is rounded to ₹16,54,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the third respondent - insurance company has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant.

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant – insurer challenges the enhancement mainly under the following heads: I. Notional income The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the income taken by the tribunal was on the higher side. It was contended that the claimant was working as a Junior Executive in the Marketing Wing of Sundaram Finance Ltd., Manjeri Branch, and that despite the injuries sustained, there was no loss of employment or earning. It was further contended that the fixation of ₹15,291/- as monthly income by the tribunal is excessive and the tax component had not been deducted from the monthly salary.

The learned counsel appearing for the claimant, however, submitted that he was 42% disabled and due to the injuries sustained, he could not work as before and he also had difficulty in running, walking or climbing the steps. Though he was working in the Marketing Wing, due to the injuries sustained he was subsequently transferred to office category, where the chances of promotion are comparatively less. It was further submitted that the income was duly proved through PW1, the Deputy Branch Manager of Sundaram Finance Limited, Manjeri Branch. Therefore, the income taken by the tribunal is reasonable and warrants no interference.

I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides.

Admittedly, the claimant was working at Sundaram Finance Ltd., Manjeri Branch. As per Ext.A8 pay slip, the monthly salary of the claimant was ₹15,291/-. It cannot be said that he was a permanent employee. Though PW1, the Deputy Branch Manager of Sundaram Finance Ltd., deposed that at the time of the accident the claimant was working as an Assistant Manager, the company being a private company, th