1. The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.479/2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.11.2005. According to the petitioner, on 22.11.2005 at about 7 p.m., while the petitioner was riding pillion on a motor cycle, a lorry bearing registration No. TDL/5697 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the back side of the motor cycle and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.

3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.7,00,000/-.

4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A17 and X1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,54,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.

7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner_preferred this appeal.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

9. Heard Sri. V. A. John, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner / appellant, and Sri. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil., the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. The petitioner was working as Helper Grade II in Southern Railway, getting Rs.6752/- per month. The Tribunal has fixed his net pay at Rs.5,762/- for the purpose of assessing the loss of disability. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that because of the injuries sustained in the accident the petitioner was decategorized and was fitted against a supernumerary post created to accommodate him. According to him, if the petitioner continued in the same post, he would have become a Section Engineer. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would argue that the petitioner will lose income only after retirement and therefore, the multiplier 16 applied by the Tribunal is on the higher side.

11. From the evidence it is revealed that, because of the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner was decategorised and was posted in a supernumerary post. PW1, the Chief Staff Welfare Inspector, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram as PW1 would depose that if the petitioner continued in the same post, he could have obtained promotion up to Junior Engineer. However, it appears that the petitioner has only passed SSLC. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merits in the claim of PW1 that if he had continued in the same category, he would have become a Junior Engineer. However, the fact remains that because of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he was decategorised and posted in a supernumerary post. It is true that, in the new post he had not suffered any salary loss. However, considering the fact that because of the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner was found not suitable in the post he held, I hold that the Tribunal was justified in assessing the loss of disability applying the multiplier 16.

12. In the accident the petitioner sustained th