IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 589 of 2008(E) --------------------------------- OPMV.92/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA ............................................ APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT --------------------------------------- K.R.JAYAPRAKASH @ PRAKASHAN, KONATTU, CHERUVALLY P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. SAJI, S/O. AUGUSTHY, PUTHUPPARAMBIL, MUNDAKKAYAM P.O. 2. GIJO LAL K.G., KULATHUMKAL, MUKKADA P.O. 3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.589 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pala in OP(MV)No.92/2004. The claimant, a 38 year old man, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Claims Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.27,340/= and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant as well as the insurance company. A perusal of the award would reveal that the claimant had sustained a retinal injury in the accident. He was treated originally in the Medical College Hospital and later was treated in the Little Flower Hospital at Angamally which is a specialised centre for eye treatment. A perusal of the document would reveal that the claimant had sustained a retinal injury. The doctor had certified that his vision in the right eye is 6/6 and left eye 6/60 i.e., almost ten times lower than the right eye. The left : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.589 OF 2008 eye shows a macular degeneration. The Tribunal found that since the whole body disability is not shown, it should not grant any compensation for disability but has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/= towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. I am afraid that such an approach will result in injustice to the claimant. Almost settled proposition of law that at least 1/3rd can be taken while fixing disability compensation for injury. It is submitted that the claimant is a technician, but it is not established. Whatever may be the avocation, when a person sustains injury on the eye, that is too on the retina, there is visual disability which will affect any work that he has to do. 3. So, I feel that nothing wrong in fixing the disability at 7%. Considering the age of the person and as he is a technician by profession, his income is fixed at Rs.2,500/= and the appropriate multiplier for the age of 38 is 16. When it is calculated it would come to Rs.2,100/= annually which when multiplied by 16 would come to 33,600/=. Over and above, at least a nominal amount has to be granted for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life which I fix Rs.5,000/= : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.589 OF 2008 So, the total compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of amenities would come to Rs.38,600/= out of which Rs.10,000/= has been awarded by the Tribunal which means that the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.28,600/=. I feel that will be sufficient from the materials available before the court 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.28,600/= with 7.5% interest on the said sum from the date of the petition till realisation and the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.589 OF 2008