P. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

====================================

M.A.C.A.No.887 OF 2020

====================================

Dated this the 27th day of July, 2026

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No.1511/2015 against the award passed on 29.01.2020 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, on the ground that the amount awarded under various heads is insufficient.

The appellant suffered injuries in an accident that occurred on 08.03.2015. While the appellant was travelling in a pick-up van along the Venjaramoodu–Thiruvananthapuram public road, the van was hit by a lorry driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner near Venjaramoodu Junction.

As there is no challenge against the findings of the Tribunal regarding the cause of the motor accident, the nature of the injuries suffered, the liability of the third respondent, etc., the discussion hereunder is confined to the essential disputed aspects.

Heard both sides and perused the records.

From the medical certificate produced before the Tribunal, the injuries suffered by the appellant are as follows:

1.Lacerated wound on the left temporal region.

2.Lacerated wound measuring 3 × 1 cm on the left temporal area above the first wound.

3.Fracture of the neck of the right femur and the left femur.

4.Comminuted fracture of the shaft of the right femur.

5.Comminuted fracture of the shaft of the left femur.

6.Type III compound fractures of both bones of the right leg.

7.Type I compound fracture of the proximal left tibia with compartment syndrome.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, while the appellant was working as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force, he was initially demoted due to the severity of the injuries sustained in the accident and later availed himself of voluntary retirement on 31.10.2018. Therefore, the compensation awarded without considering the above fact is wholly inadequate, it is contended.

Refuting the above contention, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer submitted that there was neither any pleading nor any evidence regarding the reason for the appellant's voluntary retirement. It was further contended that, though the appellant claimed to have been demoted, the records indicate that he was placed in the C.I. category without any adverse impact on his salary.

In paragraph 17 of the judgment, the Tribunal has considered the above question in detail. The Tribunal concluded that, though the appellant had taken voluntary retirement after 25 years of service, he failed to establish that such retirement was necessitated by the health issues arising from the injuries sustained in the accident. On a perusal of the records, it is evident that the appellant did not amend the claim petition to seek any additional compensation on the ground that he was compelled to avail himself of voluntary retirement due to the consequences of the injuries sustained in the accident. Further, no evidence was adduced to establish that it was his ill health, resulting from the accident, that compelled him to take voluntary retirement. In the absence of any such pleadings and evidence, no interference with the impugned award is warranted solely on that ground.

Relying on the decisions in James Joseph v. George Kurian (2025 (2) KLT 85) and United India Insurance Company v. Sasidharan (2025 KHC OnLine 11966), the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded towards permanent disability is wholly insufficient. It is pointed out that, though the percentage of disability shown in Ext.A8 disability certificate is 22%, the Tribunal took only 18% as the percentage of disability and accordingly awarded inadequate compensation.

The appellant produced Ext.A13 salary certificate for the year 2015. He also produced Ext.A14 pay slip for October 2018, which shows his gross salary as Rs.55,495/- and his net salary as Rs.47,675/-. The Tribunal fixed his notional