IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 345 of 2006(A)
1. PINTO, S/O.PAUL, AGED 23 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GRACY PAUL, W/O.PAUL, RESIDING AT
... Respondent
2. C.J.JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH,
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C.,
5. AHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.KASSIM KUNJU,
6. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :03/08/2009
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A. NO: 345 OF 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd Day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
K. M. Joseph J.
This appeal is filed by the claimant in a petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was aged 17 years of
age.
2. On account of the injuries suffered, he was awarded a total
sum of Rs.2,49,150/- by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded
Rs.86,400/- as compensation for permanent disability. Learned
counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a case where the
appellant lost vision of one of his eyes. The Medical Board has
certified the disability at 40% and the Tribunal has erred in fixing
the disability at 30%, it is contended. He further submitted that the
Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,100/- towards expenses for
M.A.C.A . NO: 345 OF 2006
:2:
transportation as against the claim of Rs.5,000/- He further
submitted that bills were produced for Rs.2,000/- He further
submitted that there is a claim for future treatment and no amount
has been awarded.
3. The first question to be considered is whether the appellant
is entitled to compensation for permanent disability. Rs.86,000/-
was granted. This is calculated by taking the income as Rs.18,000/-
per year and applying multiplier at 16 and also fixing percentage of
disability at 30%. The Tribunal has given reasons and they are as
follows:
“Rs.5 lakh is claimed as continuing permanent
disability. The petitioner has produced a disability
certificate Ext.A19 which was marked subject to
further proof. This certificate is issued by Medical
College hospital, Thrissur. In this document it is
stated that the petitioner has sustained 40% disability
due to optic atrophy right eye. According to
Workmens Compensation Act loss of vision oof one
eye without other complications or disfiguration of
eye ball there would be disability of 30%. So far as
the case of the petitioner is concerned there is no
disfiguration. He lost his vision due to optic nerve
injury. However the evidence available on records
would show that the petitioner has improved much.
So it has to be held that the petitioner has sustained
M.A.C.A . NO: 345 OF 2006
:3:
30% disability. At the time of accident the petitioner
was aged 17 years so the multiplier to be taken is 16.
He was a student. So the income of petitioner is fixed
as Rs.1,500/- per month. On that basis the petitioner
is entitled to (18000 x 16 x 30%) get Rs.86,400/- as
compensation for permanent disability.”
4. The Medical Board certified the disability at 40%. The
Tribunal in fact awarded a further sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head
loss of earning capacity of the petitioner. Going by the Full Bench
decision of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hariprasad
(2005(4) KLT 977) the Tribunal cannot grant further amount. Of
course, if 40% disability is taken, the appellant would be entitled to
further sum of nearly Rs.4,000/- more.
5. The reasoning of the Tribunal in refusing future medical
treatment is that no medical bills subsequent to Ext.A21 series, which
relates to prior to 2.3.02 have been produced. We notice that the award
was passed on 6.8.2005.
6. As far as the amenities is concerned, as against the claim for
Rs.50,000/-, the appellant is awarded only Rs.20,000/- With regard to
the heading we feel that the appellant can be awarded a consolidated
M.A.C.A . NO: 345 OF 2006
:4:
sum of Rs.10,000/- more, having regard to the fact that the appellant
lost his vision of one eye.
7. Accordingly this appeal is allowed partly and the appellant is
allowed to realised a sum of Rs.10,000/- more at 7.5% interest from
the 3rd respondent from the date of the petition till the date of
realisation.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE
dl/