IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 345 of 2006(A) ----------------------- OPMV.3538/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- PINTO, S/O.PAUL, AGED 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHALISSERY HOUSE, VELLARAKKAD, MANAPPADI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------- 1. GRACY PAUL, W/O.PAUL, RESIDING AT CHALISSERY HOUSE, P.O.VELLARAKKAD, THRISSUR DIST. 2. C.J.JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT CHIRAN HOUSE, VELLARAKKADU, P.O.MANAPPADI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ANUGRAHA BUILDINGS, WADAKKANCHERRY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. AHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.KASSIM KUNJU, RESIDING AT PUTHANPURAKKAL, PUNNATHALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R4 ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R6 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. NO: 345 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd Day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph J. This appeal is filed by the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was aged 17 years of age. 2. On account of the injuries suffered, he was awarded a total sum of Rs.2,49,150/- by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs.86,400/- as compensation for permanent disability. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this is a case where the appellant lost vision of one of his eyes. The Medical Board has certified the disability at 40% and the Tribunal has erred in fixing the disability at 30%, it is contended. He further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,100/- towards expenses for M.A.C.A . NO: 345 OF 2006 :2: transportation as against the claim of Rs.5,000/- He further submitted that bills were produced for Rs.2,000/- He further submitted that there is a claim for future treatment and no amount has been awarded. 3. The first question to be considered is whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for permanent disability. Rs.86,000/- was granted. This is calculated by taking the income as Rs.18,000/- per year and applying multiplier at 16 and also fixing percentage of disability at 30%. The Tribunal has given reasons and they are as follows: “Rs.5 lakh is claimed as continuing permanent disability. The petitioner has produced a disability certificate Ext.A19 which was marked subject to further proof. This certificate is issued by Medical College hospital, Thrissur. In this document it is stated that the petitioner has sustained 40% disability due to optic atrophy right eye. According to Workmens Compensation Act loss of vision oof one eye without other complications or disfiguration of eye ball there would be disability of 30%. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned there is no disfiguration. He lost his vision due to optic nerve injury. However the evidence available on records would show that the petitioner has improved much. So it has to be held that the petitioner has sustained M.A.C.A . NO: 345 OF 2006 :3: 30% disability. At the time of accident the petitioner was aged 17 years so the multiplier to be taken is 16. He was a student. So the income of petitioner is fixed as Rs.1,500/- per month. On that basis the petitioner is entitled to (18000 x 16 x 30%) get Rs.86,400/- as compensation for permanent disability.” 4. The Medical Board certified the disability at 40%. The Tribunal in fact awarded a further sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head loss of earning capacity of the petitioner. Going by the Full Bench decision of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hariprasad (2005(4) KLT 977) the Tribunal cannot grant further amount. Of course, if 40% disability is taken, the appellant would be entitled to further sum of nearly Rs.4,000/- more. 5. The reasoning of the Tribunal in refusing future medical treatment is that no medical bills subsequent to Ext.A21 series, which relates to prior to 2.3.02 have been produced. We notice that the award was passed on 6.8.2005. 6. As far as the amenities is concerned, as against the claim for Rs.50,000/-, the appellant is awarded only Rs.20,000/- With regard to the heading we feel that the appellant can be awarded a consolidated M.A.C.A . NO: 345 OF 2006 :4: sum of Rs.10,000/- more, having regard to the fact that the appellant lost his vision of one eye. 7. Accordingly this appeal is allowed partly and the appellant is allowed to realised a sum of Rs.10,000/- more at 7.5% interest from the 3rd respondent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/