Shri Balappa Piraji Sooji vs Shri Vijay Basavanni Hanji

Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J.—Mr. Balappa Piraji Sooji, the appellant, has challenged the legality of the Award dated 01.10.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hukkeri, whereby, for the injuries suffered by the appellant, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 1,74,200/- along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation, while excluding the period from 27.02.2009 to 19.04.2013 for payment of interest.

Briefly the facts of the case are that on 31.08.2005, around 6.30 p.m., the appellant was going on his motor cycle as a pillion rider from Yamakanmardi to Belgaum. The motor cycle was being driven by one Mr. Santosh Dattatray Chikkorde. The rider of the motor cycle drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner on Pune-Bangalore N.H.4. Near Mangutti Cross, the rider lost control over the motor cycle. The motor cycle slipped and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the appellant suffered various injuries.

Subsequently, he filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined two witnesses, and submitted seven documents. The Insurance Company merely submitted a document, but did not examine any witness. After assessing the evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions:-

Firstly, although the appellant had claimed that he was employed as a construction worker, although he had claimed that he was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month, the learned Tribunal has taken his income, notionally, as merely Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, according to the learned counsel, according to the chart prepared by this Court, for an accident of 2005, the notional income should be taken as Rs. 3,500/- per month. Hence, the income deserves to be enhanced by Rs. 500/-.

Secondly, due to the enhancement of the income, the compensation payable to the appellant for the "loss of income during treatment period" equally deserves to be enhanced.

Thirdly and most importantly, the learned counsel has argued that despite the fact that Dr. A.L. Tenagi (P.W.2) had stated that the appellant has suffered 40% of permanent disability due to the fact that he had lost the eve-ball of the left eye, due to the accident, still the learned Tribunal has taken his disability of eye as merely 20%. According to her, in Schedule I attached to the Employees'' Compensation Act, 1923 (''the Act'', for short), for the loss of one eye without complications, the other being normal, the disability should be taken as 40%. Therefore, the disability assessed by the learned Tribunal is misplaced. Hence, the loss of future income needs to be recalculated by this Court.

On the other hand, Mr. G.N. Raichur, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has pleaded that, according to the Act, for the loss of vision of one eye, without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the other being normal, the disability should be taken as merely 30%. Therefore, even according to him, the assessment of the disability by the learned Tribunal is unjustified.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.

For the purpose of deciding the notional income of a person, this Court has framed a chart. According to the chart, for an accident of 2005, the income should be taken as Rs. 3,500/- per month. However, without assigning any cogent reason, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant as merely Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, the income is enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month.

Admittedly, due to the accident suffered by the appellant, his left eye was operated upon and the eye-ball was removed. Once the eye-ball is removed, naturally, there is a total loss of vision, as the left eye cannot see anything due to the loss of eyeball.

A distinction has to be made between the loss of eye'' and loss of vision of one eye''. ''Loss of vision'' would mean that there continues to be some vision in the eye. But, loss of eye'' would mean total loss of vision. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should have taken the disability as 40% rather than as 20%.

Therefore, loss of future income is re-calculated as Rs. 3,500 x 12 x 17 x 40/100 = Rs. 2,85,600/-. Therefore, the compensation in the category of "loss of future income" is enhanced from Rs. 1,22,400/- to Rs. 2,85,600/-.

Since the income has been enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 3,500/- per month, the loss of income during treatment, necessarily, has to be enhanced. The appellant was hospitalised from 31.08.2005 till his discharge on 07.09.2005. Thus, he was hospitalised for a period of eight days. Taking his income as Rs. 3,500/-, the loss of income during the period of treatment is Rs. 933/-. Therefore, the "loss of income during treatment period" is enhanced from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 933/-.

For the reasons stated above, this Court partly allows the appeal and modifies the impugned Award dated 01.10.2014. The appellant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,63,333/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit.

However, it is clarified that since the claim petition was dismissed on 27.02.2009 and was not restored till 19.04.2013, the appellant would not be entitled to receive any interest for the said period. A point also noted in the impugned award itself.

The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit, excluding the period between 27.02.2009 to 19.04.2013. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Tribunal shall disburse the said amount to the appellant within a period of two weeks from the date the amount is so deposited.