JUDGMENT
Deepak Verma, J.
1. They are heard on M(C)P No. 2561 of 2002 made by the appellant for condonation of delay. The appeal as per office note, is barred by 28 years. For the reasons assigned in the said application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that the delay has properly been explained. The delay, therefore, hereby stands condoned. M(C)P stands disposed of.
2. With consent arguments heard on merits.
3. For the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor accident, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,20,000. The details how the amount of award has been bifurcated finds place in para 24 of the impugned award.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record we find that for the permanent injury sustained by the appellant in his left eye, the amount of compensation awarded is on lower side. Exh. P-17 is a certificate issued by Dr. Sudha Hans, Eye Surgeon. She has mentioned in the certificate and has also deposed in her evidence in court that appellant had lost vision in his left eye and there was no chance of restoring the same back to normal. She has assigned the reason as to why appellant’s left eye shall not have normal vision at all.
5. There are other certificates also to show that appellant had sustained severe injury in his left eye. This is amply proved from Exh. P-8 when the appellant was referred for medical examination by the doctor who had examined him first. This Exh. P-8 has also been proved by PW 3 Dr. Tatwade. He was also referred to Dr. Haldia, the famous eye surgeon of Indore. The nature of injury sustained by the appellant in his left eye has been elaborately deposed by this witness. He has further testified that the appellant had become completely blind from his left eye and there was no chance of restoring eyesight to this eye.
6. Similar is the evidence of appellant himself. Appellant at the relevant point of time was an autorickshaw driver and was aged 34 years. We, therefore, find that the amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. We accordingly enhance it to Rs. 2,40,000. This enhancement has become necessary as appellant would be required to carry on with his permanent disability for whole of his life. The photograph appended with the claim petition also shows the deformity in his left eye.
7. In this view of the matter the award is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 2,40,000 from the respondents jointly and severally. The difference in amount will carry interest at 8 per cent per annum from the date of application till it is paid. Appeal stands allowed partly to the extent mentioned above with costs throughout. Counsel’s fee Rs. 1,000, if certified.