IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1055 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.2466/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MUVATTUPUZHA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G ROAD,KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SIJU M.C,S/O.CHELLAPPAN, MUNDAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,MUDAKUZHA P.O, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE,PERUMBAVOOR-683 546. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1055 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The insurance company is the appellant. It was a common award. Quantum is the only dispute. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of `4,34,478/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph-14 of the award. 2. In the nature of the disputes raised before us, it is unnecessary to refer the amounts awarded under various other heads. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company challenges the award made under the head of permanent disability i.e., reduction in earning capacity. An amount of `2,85,600/- was awarded under this head (`3,500/- x 12 x 40/100 x 17). 3. What is the ground of challenge? To a pointed query put by us, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not want to dispute the other inputs; but the M.A.C.A. No. 1055 of 2011 -: 2 :- Tribunal had by a process of assumption presumed that loss of vision in one eye which is the disability suffered had actually resulted in reduction in earning capacity. That is the only plank of challenge. 4. The fact that the claimant/victim had suffered loss of vision in one eye is not disputed. That as per the Workmen's Compensation Act, such disability can be assumed to result in 30% of the disability is also not disputed. There is orthopedic disability of 10% also. The claimant aged 26 years was working as Supervisor under a contractor who was doing the work for the Cochin Refineries Limited. The learned counsel argues that there is nothing to show that the claimant has lost his employment or that there has been actual reduction of income because of the disability. 5. We feel that it is absolutely reasonable to assume that for a person working as Supervisor under a contractor, the disability would impair his earning capacity. He was not in settled employment under any particular regular employer. He was allegedly working under a contractor. Even the fact that the contractor does not immediately throw him out of employment may not be conclusive as the physical disability must indisputably M.A.C.A. No. 1055 of 2011 -: 3 :- have resulted in reduction in earning capacity. No other contentions are raised. We are not persuaded agree that this appeal merits admission at the instance of the appellant/insurer. 6. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge M.A.C.A. No. 1055 of 2011 -: 4 :-