Kerala High Court
Febin Raj.N vs Rajan.T.C (Deleted)* on 7 February, 2025
M.A.C.A. No. 2483/2019 :1:
2025:KER:9923
'CR'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 2483 OF 2019
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.10.2015 IN OP(MV) NO.1072 OF 2011 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
FEBIN RAJ.N., S/O. NIJAMUDHEEN, MANAKULANGARA PARAMBIL
HOUSE, KOMBIDINJAMAKKAL DESOM, THAZHEKKAD VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
T.K.KOSHY
SMT.V.V.RISANI
SRI.ANIL GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 RAJAN.T.C (DELETED)
S/O. CHERUKUTTY, THOLATH, PAZHANJI PATTITHADAM DESOM,
KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001
2 JOY, S/O. CHERUKUTTY, THOLATH HOUSE, KATTAPPANA P.O, IDUKKI,
PIN-685 508.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, STAR BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, CHENNATTUMATTOM
JUNCTION, KATTAPPANA, PIN-685 508.
(R1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE
APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 27.03.2024 IN IA 1/24 IN M.A.C.A
NO. 2483/2019)
BY ADVS.
R2 BY SRI. ALIAS M.CHERIAN
SRI.K.M.RAPHY
SMT.ANJALY ELIAS
SHRI.BRISTO S PARIYARAM
R3 BY SRI. LAL K.JOSEPH
SRI. SURESH SUKUMAR(K/634/1997)
SRI. ANZIL SALIM(K/000447/2018)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No. 2483/2019 :2:
2025:KER:9923
'CR'
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
I.A. Nos. 2 of 2024 & 1 & 2 of 2025 &
M.A.C.A No. 2483 of 2019
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 1072 of 2011 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda filed this appeal challenging
the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal under various heads.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 08.04.2011, at about
10.30 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle through Vellikulangara-
Aloor road, jeep driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent
manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, he fell down and
sustained serious injuries. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the
offending vehicle and 3rd respondent is the insurer.
3. Before the Tribunal, PW1 examined and Exhibits A1 to A19
were marked from the side of the petitioner and no evidence adduced
from the side of the respondents. The Tribunal recorded a finding that
the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 1 st
2025:KER:9923
respondent and that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.14,82,685/- to the petitioner.
4. Heard Sri.T.K. Koshy, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.
Alias M. Cherian, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent and Sri. Lal
K. Joseph, the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent insurance
company.
5. According to appellant, at the time of the accident, he was
aged 27 years and working as driver-cum-clerk in KSFE on daily wage
basis and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the
appellant argued that Exhibit A7 letter dated 22.07.2011 from Kerala
Public Service Commission would show that the appellant was advised
for recruitment as Forest Guard on the scale of pay of Rs.10,480/-
-18,300/- in the Forest Department and because of the injury sustained
in the accident, he could not join for duty as Forest Guard and
subsequently, he applied for change of category because of the disability
and later, he was appointed as LD clerk in the Forest Department. It is
argued that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the above
2025:KER:9923
circumstances, while fixing the notional income of the appellant as
Rs.9,000/- per month.
6. The appellant filed I.A. No. 2 of 2024 to receive Annexures A1
to A7 series and B1 to B5 series as additional evidence in appeal.
According to the appellant, as a result of the accident, he sustained
clavicle fracture, crush degloved (Rt) foot with multiple fractures and
type III A Open fracture BB (R) leg and he underwent below knee
amputation of right leg and he had to spend huge amounts towards
treatment and fixation of prosthetic leg. Annexures A1 to A7 series are
invoices issued from Saji's Rehabilitation Centre, Thrissur in connection
with the purchase of prosthetic leg and its parts for the period from
02.12.2015 to 08.12.2018. Invoices from Endolite India Limited,
Ernakulam for the purchase of prosthesis and its parts for the period
from 29.10.2018 to 11.5.2023 are produced as Annexure B1 to B5
series. Considering the circumstances stated in the affidavit, I am
satisfied that the said documents are relevant for deciding the just
compensation towards medical expenses and therefore, the same can be
admitted as additional evidence in appeal. Therefore, I.A. No. 2 of 2024
2025:KER:9923
is allowed and Annexures A1 to A7 series are marked as Exhibits A20 to
26 and Annexures B1 to B5 series are marked as A27 to 31.
7. I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is filed by the appellant for receiving the
documents produced as Annexures D to I. It is stated that subsequent to
Exhibit A7 advice memo, he received Annexure D appointment order for
the post of Forest Guard in the scale of pay of Rs.10,480/- - 18,300/-;
but, he could not join the post because of the permanent disability
sustained in the accident.
8. According to the appellant, he filed an application before the
Forest Department for change of category and after considering his
application, the Government issued Annexure E order approving the
change of category from the post of Forest Guard to Lower Division Clerk
in the Forest Department. Subsequently, he received Annexure F
appointment order dated 23.08.2012 as LD Clerk in Chalakudy Division
Office and he joined for duty in the afternoon of 24.08.2012. His
appointment to the post of LD clerk was regularized as per Annexure G
order dated 30.04.2013.
9. It is stated that because of his permanent physical disability,
the Department withheld his promotions and a communication dated
2025:KER:9923
19.08.2024 of the Divisional Forest Officer in this regard is produced as
Annexure H. Annexures I , I(a) and I(b) are documents to show that his
colleagues who had joined in the same post, got timely promotions and
hike in salary. There is no reason to suspect the genuineness of
documents produced as Annexures D to I and since the said documents
reveals the occupation and income of the petitioner subsequent to the
occurrence, I am satisfied that the said documents can be received as
additional evidence in appeal and therefore, Annexures D to I are
marked as Exhibits A32 to A37 series.
10. I.A. No. 2 of 2025 is also a petition for receiving additional
documents. According to the appellant, due to the infection on the
amputated stump, he had to take leave for medical treatment at Taluk
Headquarters Hospital, Kodungallur and Metro Hospital, Irinjalakuda for
the period from 06.10.2019 to 20.12.2020 and he has produced the
original documents in that connection before the Government Authorities
for sanctioning his leave. Annexure J is the copy of a certificate issued
by the Chairman, Medical Board of the District Medical Office of Health,
Thrissur in this connection.
2025:KER:9923
11. According to the appellant, he would be eligible to get the
next regular promotion as Head Accountant only if the Government
sanctions his leave and Annexure K is the salary slip of his colleague
Ravish N. for the month of December, 2024 and Annexure L is the pay
slip of another colleague Lineesh C.A for the month of September,
2012. The salary slip of Lineesh C.A. for the month of December, 2024 is
produced as Annexure M. According to the appellant, Annexures J to M
will show the disparity in the income earned by the appellant and his
colleagues who joined the Government service either as clerk or Forest
Guard in 2004.
12. According to the appellant, he last changed his prosthetic limb
in 2019 and prosthetic limb requires replacement after 3 or 4 years and
the annual maintenance including the cost of parts will come to
Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that recently, the appellant changed his combi
socks after consulting Endolite India Limited and Annexure N is a receipt
voucher for payment of Rs.500/- in this regard. Another invoice dated
01.02.2025 for Rs.210/- for the purchase of combi socks is produced as
Annexure O. Annexure P is an estimate issued by Endolite India Ltd. to
2025:KER:9923
show that the cost of a new prosthetic limb is Rs.3,89,445/-. In the
absence of any serious dispute regarding the genuineness of Annexures
J to P, I am satisfied that the said documents can be accepted as
additional evidence in appeal and hence, the said documents are marked
as Exhibits A38 to A44.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company
argued that before the Tribunal, the appellant has suppressed his
employment as a Government servant earning a fixed salary and it was
in that circumstance, the Tribunal calculated the compensation for
permanent disability by adopting the multiplier-multiplicand method and
that in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hariprasad [2005 (4) KLT 977
(FB)], a Full Bench of this Court had considered the question whether
compensation could be awarded separately on account of permanent
disability as also on account of loss of earning capacity and it was held
that an injured in a motor vehicle accident who suffered permanent
disability could be compensated either for permanent disability or for
loss of earning capacity and not for both. It is pointed out that the
additional documents produced would clearly show that there was no
2025:KER:9923
loss of earning for the appellant and that he would retire only on
attaining the age of superannuation and therefore, there is no
justification for calculating the compensation towards loss of earning
capacity by applying the multiplicand-multiplier method.
14. In Kumily Panchayat v. Maniammal [2017 (4) KLT 909] a
Division Bench of this Court considered the question of applicability of
split multiplier in the case of a Government servant who died in an
accident and for computing the compensation for loss of dependency,
pertaining to the post retirement period, this Court took the monthly
income as 50% of the income of the deceased as on the date of
accident.
15. In Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
[ 2021 (5) KHC 662 =2021 (6) KLT 136], this Court calculated the
compensation for loss of earning power of the appellant for the post
retiral period by taking 50% of his income as on the date of the
accident.
16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343], a
Division Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court summarised the
2025:KER:9923
principles for ascertainment of loss of earning capacity due to permanent
disability as follows:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not
result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole
body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of
earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning
capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability
(except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence,
concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as
the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him
subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give
evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss
of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the
Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages
of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the
nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other
factors.
17. In George v. E.T. Thomas [2013 (1) KLT 575], a Division
Bench of this Court held that the compensation for disability arising out
2025:KER:9923
of an accident has to be assessed only under two heads:- (i) physical
disability; or loss of amenities of life; and (ii) loss of earning power
arising out of the functional disability.
18. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anoopkumar [2014 (1)
KLT 266] a Division Bench of this Court held that when a person is
employed in a salaried job, notwithstanding the disabilities suffered by
him on account of the injuries in the accident, he will not be entitled to
any compensation for loss of earning capacity and that he will only be
entitled to compensation for the loss of amenities in life.
19. The learned counsel for the appellant cited a three-Judge
Bench decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh v.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd. [2014 KHC 4294] and
argued that the claimant in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to
compensation for permanent disability even in the absence of any
evidence to show that he suffered any financial loss because of the
permanent disability. In paragraph 10 of the said decision, the
Honourable Supreme Court held thus:
"10. We have considered the material placed before us,
particularly the evidence of the Doctor, who stated that the
appellant suffered 60% disability of the total body, and in his
2025:KER:9923
cross - examination denied the suggestion that the appellant
does not require any further treatment. The fact that the
appellant has resigned as Quality Engineer from Hospet
Steels Ltd and took up desk job in Industrial Development
Bank of India because of his permanent disability, suffered
by him in the accident is not in dispute. Obviously, because
of the permanent disability suffered by the appellant, who is
an Engineer by profession, cannot take up such profession,
which requires moving from one place to other place.
Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court that the appellant
has not suffered any financial loss because of permanent
disability having regard to the fact that subsequently he took
up employment in Industrial Development Bank of India as
Grade - B Officer, cannot be sustained. Once the permanent
disability is fixed, taking into consideration, its impact on the
employment / profession of the claimant, the compensation
has to be awarded. Since the disability suffered by the
appellant, which is fixed at 60% and which is permanent in
nature, impacted his employment and future prospects, we are
of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly
determined the compensation Rs.12,840/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.
26,19,360/- towards loss of future earnings, and taking into
consideration the 60% permanent disability suffered by the
appellant, awarded him the actual compensation under the
head 'loss of future earnings' at Rs. 15,71,616/- by rounding
off the same to Rs. 15,72,000/-."
20. The learned counsel for the appellant also cited the decision of
this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. P. Narayani
and others [judgment dated 20.10.2017 in M.A.C.A. No. 2170 of 2005
2025:KER:9923
=2017: KER: 41862], wherein this Court held in paragraph 10 as
follows:
"... The long and short of the discussion is that in the case of a
Government employee who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle
accident resulted in permanent disability, sans the impact of reduction
of earning power, for the purpose of fixing the multiplicand for
calculating compensation for permanent disability, his net salary, in
the manner aforesaid shall be taken to fix his monthly income for
calculation purpose."
In paragraph 12 of the above decision, this Court held as follows:
"... Therefore, in a case where the left over service of a person in
permanent employment is less than the multiplier applicable to him
with reference to his age, we are of the view that the principle of
splitting the multiplier should be applied."
21. The Tribunal accepted 40% functional disability after
considering the percentage of permanent disability in Exhibit A9 and the
below knee amputation of the right leg. It cannot be disputed that
disability limits one's capacity to engage in activities in any domain of
life, from work to recreation. The principle consistently followed by the
court in assessing motor accident compensation claims is to place the
victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the accident, as
2025:KER:9923
held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh
Kumar and Others [2020 KHC 6547].
22. It is in evidence that the appellant herein sustained physical
disability and functional disability because of the injury sustained in the
accident and it is well settled that just compensation should include all
elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she
or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident.
23. According to the appellant, he was working on daily wages as
driver cum clerk in KSFE at the time of the accident. The specific
contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have considered
his selection as a Forest Guard as per Exhibit A7 while fixing the notional
income. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company
pointed out that the appellant claimed Rs.9,000/- as his monthly income
in the claim petition and the same was accepted by the Tribunal while
fixing the notional income. But, I find force in the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has a duty to fix the
just compensation, irrespective of the amount claimed in the petition.
2025:KER:9923
24. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others [(2003) 2 SCC
274] the Honourable Supreme Court held that in the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only
upto the amount claimed by the claimant and that in appropriate case,
where from the evidence brought on record, if the Tribunal/court
considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than
claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award and the only embargo is that
it should be just compensation. Exhibit A32 appointment order shows
that the scale of pay of Forest Guard is Rs.10,480/- - 18,300/-. It is not
in dispute that the Kerala Public Service Commission has selected the
appellant to the post of Forest Guard and he could not join for duty
because of the injuries and disabilities and therefore, considering the
facts and circumstances, I find that his notional income at the time of
occurrence can be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month.
25. It is in evidence that the appellant applied for change of
category and subsequently got compassionate appointment as LD Clerk
and joined for duty on 24.08.2012. Therefore, I find merit in the
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that he is entitled for
2025:KER:9923
loss of earnings from 08.04.2011 to 24.8.2012. In that circumstance,
the appellant is granted Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of earnings [10000 x
16].
26. The documents admitted as additional evidence in appeal
would clearly show that the disability has adversely affected the career
prospects of the appellant and the disparity in the income earned by the
appellant and his colleagues who joined the Government service either
as clerk or Forest Guard in 2004 as is revealed from Exhibits A38 to A41
would clearly show that the appellant also suffered loss of earning. The
decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh (supra)
would show that even in the absence of any loss of earning, a person
who lost his bodily integrity due to the tortious action of another is
entitled to get compensation for that.
27. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the left
over service of the appellant is more than the multiplier applicable to
him. The appellant was aged 27 years at the time of the accident and
the multiplier applicable as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT
802 (SC)] is 17. It is brought to my notice that for State Government
2025:KER:9923
employees, the age of superannuation is 56 and in that circumstance,
his left over service is more than the multiplier applicable to him.
Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the multiplier-multiplicand
method adopted by the Tribunal for calculating the compensation for
permanent disability. When the compensation for permanent disability of
the appellant is calculated as per the revised criteria, he will be entitled
for Rs.8,16,000/- [10,000 x 12 x 17 x 40/100]. The Tribunal has already
granted Rs.7,34,400/- under this head and therefore, the appellant is
granted Rs.81,600/- as additional compensation under this head.
28. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal
granted only Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the
nature of injuries, period of treatment and disability, I find that the
amount awarded by the Tribunal under this head is on the lower side
and therefore, the appellant is granted an additional compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering'. Towards future
medical expenses, the Tribunal allowed only Rs.2,00,000/-. The learned
counsel for the appellant argued that it is required to replace the
prosthetic limb after 3-4 years and considering the annual maintenance
2025:KER:9923
and the cost of parts, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is on
the lower side. It is also pointed out that the appellant had to take leave
for the period from 06.10.2019 to 20.12.2020 for availing treatment in
connection with the infection on the amputated stump. Therefore,
considering the circumstances, I find that it is just and reasonable to
allow an additional compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellant
under the head ' future medical expenses'. The compensation granted by
the Tribunal under the other heads are reasonable and requires no
interference.
29. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced
compensation as given below:
Additional
amount granted
Compensation awarded
Particulars by this Court
by the Tribunal (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Loss of earnings
NIL- 1,60,000/-
Compensation for
7,34,400/- 81,600/-
permanent disability
Pain and sufferings 50,000/- 1,00,000/-
Future medical
2,00,000/- 5,00,000/-
expenses
Total enhanced compensation
8,41,600/-
2025:KER:9923
17. Thus, a total amount of Rs.8,41,600/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs
Forty One Thousand Six Hundred only) is awarded as enhanced
compensation. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of the application till realization (excluding the
period of delay of 1204 days in filing the appeal) . The appellant would
also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case. The claimant shall
furnish the details of the bank account to the insurance company for
transfer of the amount.
The appeal is allowed as above.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
2025:KER:9923
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure A1: ANNEXURE A1: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 02-12-
2015 FOR RS: 1,18,000/- ISSUED FROM SAJI'S
REHABILITATION CENTRE
Annexure A2: ANNEXURE A2: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 07-08-
2016 FOR RS. 21,240/-ISSUED FROM SAJI'S
REHABILITATION CENTRE
Annexure A3: ANNEXURE A3: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 17-12-
2016 FOR RS. 31,860/-ISSUED FROM SAJI'S
REHABILITATION CENTRE
Annexure A4: ANNEXURE A4: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 06-04-
2017 FOR RS. 94,400/-ISSUED FROM SAJI'S
REHABILITATION CENTRE
Annexure A5: ANNEXURE A5: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 02-10-
2017 FOR RS. 35,400/-ISSUED FROM SAJI'S
REHABILITATION CENTRE
Annexure A6: ANNEXURE A6: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 5-3-2018
FOR RS.24,190/-ISSUED FROM SAJI'S REHABILITATION
CENTRE
Annexure A7 ANNEXURE A7: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 08-12-
2018 FOR RS. 1,41,600/-ISSUED FROM SAJI'S
REHABILITATION CENTRE
Annexure B1: ANNEXURE B1: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 29-10-
2018 FOR RS. 16,000/-ISSUED FROM ENDOLITE INDIA
LTD. ERNAKULAM
Annexure B2: ANNEXURE B2: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 13-04-
2019 FOR RS. 1,04,280/- ISSUED FROM ENDOLITE INDIA
LTD. ERNAKULAM
Annexure B3: ANNEXURE B3: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 09-07-
2019 FOR RS. 27,000/-ISSUED FROM ENDOLITE INDIA
LTD. ERNAKULAM
Annexure B4: ANNEXURE B4: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 15-12-
2022 FOR RS. 18,091/-ISSUED FROM ENDOLITE INDIA
LTD. ERNAKULAM
2025:KER:9923
Annexure B5: ANNEXURE B5: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 11-05-
2023 FOR RS. 200/- ISSUED FROM ENDOLITE INDIA LTD.
ERNAKULAM
Annexure D: ANNEXURE D: TRUE ATTESTED COPY OF THE
APPOINTMENT ORDER.NO. TE-5175/11 DATED. 19-08-
2011 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
THRISSUR
Annexure E: ANNEXURE E: TRUE ATTESTED COPY OF THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED. 23-03-2012 ISSUED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST &
WILDLIFE
Annexure F: ANNEXURE F: TRUE ATTESTED COPY OF THE
GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. E2-3304/2012 DATED.23-08-
2012 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR, NO. E2-3304/12
Annexure G: ANNEXURE G: : TRUE ATTESTED COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED.30-04-2013 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR
Annexure H: ANNEXURE H: TRUE ATTESTED COPY OF THE LETTER
DATED.19-8-2024 OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
VAZHACHAL ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF FOREST
CONSERVATOR, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR.
Annexures I series -I, I (a) ANNEXURES I SERIES -I, I (a) & I(b): THE TRUE
& I(b): ATTESTED COPIES OF THE SALARY SLIPS FOR THE
MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER 2012, AUGUST 2019 AND
DECEMBER 2024 RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY THE DFO,
VAZHACHAL
Annexure J: ANNEXURE J: ATTESTED TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
DATED 28-01-2020 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN, MEDICAL
BOARD, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE OF
HEALTH, THRISSUR.
Annexure K: ANNEXURE K: ATTESTED TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY SLIP
FOR DECEMBER, 2024 OF RAVISH .
Annexure L: ANNEXURE L: ATTESTED TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF
LINEESH C.A FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
Annexure M: ANNEXURE M: ATTESTED TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY SLIP
OF LINEESH C.A FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2024
Annexure N: ANNEXURE N: THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT VOUCHER FOR
2025:KER:9923
CONSULTATION FEE OF RS. 500/- DATED 01-02-2025
FROM ENDOLITE INDIA PVT.LTD
Annexure O: ANNEXURE O: ORIGINAL TAX INVOICE DATED. 01-02-
2025 FOR RS.210/- FOR THE PURCHASE OF COMBI SOCKS
FROM ENDOLITE INDIA LTD.
Annexure P: ANNEXURE P: ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE DATED 01-02-2015
ISSUED BY ENDOLITE INDIA LTD. FOR THE ESTIMATED
COST OF A NEW PROSTHETIC LIMB.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL
True Copy
P.S to Judge.
rv
