IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 470 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.245/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- G.BAHULEYAN, S/O.GOPALAN, SALINI (PANAYIL HOUSE, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.VASUDEVAN SMT.V.SUJATHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. XAVIER EDWARD, S/O.EDWARD, PADINJATTE KURISSADIYIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., L.I.C BUILDING, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON 12/08/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.470 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation awarded for the injuries sustained by the appellant in a road accident caused by the first respondent. The MACT accepted appellant's claim that the accident was due to the negligence of the first respondent and consequently held that the insurer namely, second respondent herein is liable to compensate the appellant for the loss sustained by him. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. The appellant has filed an additional affidavit before us contending that 6% disability certified by the Doctor pertains to only physical disability and appellant has suffered more extensive damage to his mental faculties. Learned counsel highlighted the requirement of good physical and mental strength to work as a lawyer. However, counsel for the second respondent contended that disability certified by Doctor is accepted by the MACT and appellant can only dispute the estimation of income made by the MACT. According to him, appellant has not produced any evidence to establish his 2 income. It was further pointed out that the appellant is a retired Defence personnel and is therefore, a pensioner who took up practice as an Advocate after retirement from the Defence service. 3. Even though disability certified is only 6%, we find that the appellant has suffered head injury, though not of a serious nature, and he has lost two teeth besides injury to his lips. The accident happened 12 years back and even in the latest affidavit filed, the appellant has no case that he had to discontinue practice. Therefore, obviously he was able to continue his profession even after the accident. Nothing is stated about loss of earning power on account of reduction in the faculty for thinking and remembering things. In any case having regard to the head injury which caused Oedema and clotting atleast for short time, appellant's thinking process would have been affected. He was also in the hospital for an appreciable period. Therefore, we feel enhancement of compensation is called for, to make up for loss of earning power. We, therefore, increase the compensation awarded for loss of earning power consequent to partial permanent disability from Rs.23,760/- to rupees fifty thousand. The appeal will stand allowed to the above extent. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the additional compensation with interest at 7.5% from date of application till date of payment. 3 4. Since the appellant is already 62 years of age and is a professional, we direct the MACT to release full payment to the appellant directly immediately on deposit by the Insurance Company. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms