IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1715 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.157/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MANJERI, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CELL, AJAI VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- SOMASEKHARAN, S/O.SHANKARAN, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, P.O.PADINHAREKKARA, TIRUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1715 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Standing Counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent. The main ground raised in the appeal is that the MACT was not justified in holding that the partial blindness caused to the appellant is on account of the accident. According to the appellant, respondent was not entitled to any compensation for permanent disability in the form of loss of vision. On going through the award, we find that the Insurance Company has highlighted claimant's disease namely, diabetes as possible cause of partial blindness. Even though we find force in this contention that diabetes can lead to partial or even full blindness on account of retinopathy, there is nothing on record to show that the claimant's diabetes was of such acute nature. Therefore, the question to be considered by the MACT was whether the partial blindness is on account of the accident and injury. It is seen that the claimant's case is not accepted by the MACT as such, but compensation 2 is granted on a reduced percentage of 20%. Even though counsel for the appellant contended that there is no justification to accept even 20% disability as MACT found that no damage to optic nerve was caused on account of the accident, we do not find any ground to interfere because admittedly claimant suffered head injury requiring even grafting on the scull. Only doctors are experts to talk about disability caused on account of injury sustained in the accident and the court would be slow to interfere with medical evidence. However, generally there is exaggeration of injury and damage and therefore, MACT reduced the disability from 40% to 20%. Consequently we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the MACT and the appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms