IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 1047 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1981/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------- MUKUNDAN KUTTIPURATH, S/O. LATE CHATHUKUTTY, AUNDAYIL HOUSE, VENDUTTAYI, PINARAYI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: -------------------------------- 1. T.T.GOPI, S/O. RAMAN, T.P. GAS, MATTANNUR, IRITTY ROAD. 2. RATHNAKARAN CHANDROTH, S/O. GOVINDAN, CHANDROTH HOME, P.O. NELLONNI. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANNUR. ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No. 1047 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: Appellant was involved in a road traffic accident that occurred on January 12, 1998. In that accident he sustained fracture on his left patella apart from some lacerated wounds on his forehead and in the region of his right eye, as could be seen from Ext.A2 wound certificate. But later the injury on his eye was diagnosed as a case of “penetrating corneal scleral wound with iris prolapse”. 2. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant awarded him a sum of Rs.50,800/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The insurer of the vehicle was directed to pay the compensation to the appellant. 3. The above award is impugned in this appeal contending, inter alia, that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meagre and inadequate and totally disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the injury sustained by the appellant on his eye. MACA.1047/2004. : 2 : 4. It may at once be noticed that the appellant had examined the Ophthalmologist, who issued Ext.A5 certificate, as Pw.2. In this certificate the Doctor had recorded that the appellant had sustained a “penetrating corneo scleral wound with uveal tissue and utreous prolapse and traumatic cataract“ in his right eye. The certificate further indicated prolapsed that uveal tissue and utreous were abscissed and corneo scleral wound sutured. More importantly, it was certified by the Doctor that the appellant had only perception of light in the affected eye. Pw.2 while referring to Ext.A5 deposed before the Tribunal that appellant has lost his vision in his right eye and he was not able to “see things”. The case sheet relating to the appellant maintained in the hospital where Pw.2 was working, is marked as Ext.X1. But curiously the Tribunal does not seem to have been impressed with the evidence of Pw.2 or Ext.A5 certificate issued by the said Doctor. After acknowledging that the appellant had sustained penetrating corneo scleral injury with iris prolapsed, the Tribunal left the issue there without awarding any compensation to the appellant for loss of vision in one of his eyes. MACA.1047/2004. : 3 : 5. Schedule I Part II of the Workmens' Compensation Act 1923 enlists injuries which result in permanent partial disability. Entry No.26 in the said list which relates to loss of vision of “one eye, without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the other being normal”, fixes the percentage of loss of earning capacity as 30 for such an injury. 6. We have carefully perused the medical records produced by the appellant before the Tribunal. We have also gone through the deposition of Pw.2 the Ophthalmologist and heard learned counsel for the appellant and the Insurance Company. 7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we find no reason why the percentage fixed in Part II of Schedule I under the Workmens' Compensation Act should not be accepted in the case on hand. According to the appellant he was the owner cum driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and that he had been earning Rs.3500/- per month. But the Tribunal reckoned his monthly income as Rs.1500/-. 8. For the purpose of calculating the compensation payable to the appellant for his visual disability, we are MACA.1047/2004. : 4 : satisfied that his monthly income can be reckoned as Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal had adopted the multiplier of 13. In our view, no interference is warranted with the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. The compensation payable to the appellant for his visual disability can be calculated as hereunder: 24000 X 13 X 30 --------------------- = 93,600/- 100 We are not interfering with the award in other respects. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.