The court emphasized that failure to account for permanent disability in compensation calculations constitutes an oversight, warranting enhancement of the total award.

JUDGMENT

Appellant who is the claimant in O.P(MV) No.126/2016 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal] has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod.

2. Appellant's/claimant's case is that on 14.02.2014 at 7 p.m while was he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-14-C 5028 and when it reached at Nalam Mile a car bearing registration No.KL-14-F-6018 hit on his motorcycle. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 in the O.P, who was the driver of the offending car. R2 in the O.P is the owner of the said car and R3 in the O.P is the insurer of the said vehicle.

3. By the impugned award, a sum of ₹1,05,550/- with 9%

interest from the date of petition was awarded by the Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal contending that appellant who suffered grievous injuries was awarded only a meager sum as compensation by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded is not a just compensation. It was contended that though there is a definite finding that the appellant sustained 28% disability no compensation was awarded on that head. It was also contended the compensation awarded under all heads are very meager.

4. Now let us see whether the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation.

5. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant met with a motor vehicle accident on 14.02.2014. Likewise, the case of the appellant that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 in the O.P who was the driver of the offending car bearing registration No.KL-14-F-6018 is also not in dispute.

6. Admittedly the offending vehicle was insured with R3 in the O.P.

7. Appellant was a permanent employee of Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). Ext.A6 is the salary certificate.

8. Ext.A3 wound certificate and Ext.A4 discharge summary would show that appellant sustained fracture of shaft of right humerus middle third, abrasion over the right second toe with avulsion of nail. Ext.X1 report of the Medical Board would show that appellant sustained 28% permanent locomotor disability in relation to the right upper limb due to limitation of range movements of the right shoulder and right elbow.

9. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum under the head compensation for permanent disability. The salary certificate produced by the claimant would show that he was a permanent employee of KSEB and his gross salary was ₹53,398/-. As he was a permanent employee of KSEB, the question of loss of earning power would arise only for the period after his retirement. The percentage of disability certified by the medical board was with respect to a particular limb. Therefore, taking into account the fact that he sustained 28% permanent locomotor disability in relation to the right upper limb due to limitation of range movements of the right shoulder and right elbow, the functional disability is taken as 5% for the purpose of assessing the compensation on account of permanent disability.

10. As per Ext.A6 salary certificate, out of the gross salary of ₹53,398/-, an amount of ₹5,379/- is seen deducted towards income tax. Therefore, the salary after deducting income tax is ₹48,019/- (53,398 – 5,379). The victim was 46 years old at the time of accident. Therefore, 30% of the income is to be added towards future prospects ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] . If 30% is thus added to this amount, the amount would come to ₹62,425/- (48,019+14406). His notional income after retirement is taken as 50% of the said amount. Therefore, the income can be taken as ₹31,213/- (62,42