1 F.A. NO. 1742 OF 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAUTRE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1742 OF 2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Shri. Vithal Nana Dhaygude and Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Karina Kripalani holding for Mr. R. Bhargavan & Associates for the appellant. Mr. Surel S. Shah for respondent. CORAM : SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : APRIL 18, 2011 P.C. 1. This appeal filed by the insurance company is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded to respondent no. 1 on account of the injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident. Respondent no. 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. Respondent no. 1 on account of the accident sustained injuries of Branchial Plexus Injury (R) with c total block of (Rt) subulavian Vs#Scapula+#traction injury to Upper Limb. Because of these injuries, he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50%. The disability suffered is of incapacitation of his right hand. On account of this disability, respondent no. 1 took voluntary retirement from service with Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited where he was working as Machine 2 F.A. NO. 1742 OF 2010 Operator on the salary of Rs.7876/- per month. The tribunal considered the evidence produced by respondent no. 1 and granted compensation of Rs.5,96,096/-. 3. It was contended on behalf of respondent no. 1 before the Tribunal that though the certificate of permanent disability issued to respondent no. 1 states the extent of permanent disability suffered as of 50%, taking into consideration the occupation of respondent no. 1, the disability must be treated as 100%. This contention was rejected by the tribunal observing that since the expert's opinion given by Sassoon Hospital, Pune observes the permanent disability of 50%, the court has to accept it. In the facts of the case the Tribunal ought to have actually accepted the contention of the respondent no. 1. The disability suffered though of 50% to the right hand, it has completely incapacitated him from working as machine operater. Therefore, there can be no substance in the appeal of insurer that the compensation awarded to respondent no. 1 is excessive. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)