Ramachandran, J.

When the above Miscellaneous First Appeal came up for hearing, a Division Bench, consisting of the Honourable Mr. Justice K.A. Abdul Gafoor and the Honourable Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, noticed that there is apparently conflicting views expressed by two Division Benches on the question canvassed by the appellant – the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, namely, whether compensation could be awarded separately on account of permanent disability and also on account of loss of earning capacity. The learned Judges were of the view that since the question is raised most often, an authoritative pronouncement on the issue is required to be made. The question has been referred for consideration of a Full Bench, in the above context.

2. Sri. V. Hariparasad, first respondent herein, aged about 18 years, sustained an amputation injury in a motor accident, which had occurred on 13-11-1993, whereby his right hand had been chopped off from the shoulder. Evidently the trauma and loss suffered was substantial. A claim under sections 14 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 371 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was got preferred. He had claimed a total compensation of Rs.15,32,284/- for the injuries that he had sustained. During the period concerned, he was a student and was not an earning member and he had not claimed any amount for loss of earning. The motor Accident Claims Tribunal had granted Rs.1500/for transportation expenditure, Rs.7,500/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.500/- as compensation for damage to clothing, and he had been directed to be paid Rs.62,000/towards medical expenditure incurred. Rs.50,000/- had been awarded as compensation for pain and suffering. In respect of the claim for compensation for continuing permanent disability and for loss of earning power, respectively Rs.1,92,000/- and Rs.1,28,000/- had been awarded. A sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded for loss of marriage prospects. On the heads of disfigurement and loss of amenities in life, a sum of Rs.25,000/- had been awarded.

3. The above award of the Tribunal had been subjected to challenge by the Insurance Company. The contention of the appellant was that when permanent disablement is adequately compensated, there arises no question of granting a further compensation on loss of earning capacity. Reliance had been placed by them on decisions of this Court reported in Shajan v. N Raman Pillai [1994 (2) KLJ 269) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another v. K.R. Vijayarajan and another [1992 (2) ACJ 663].

4. The first respondent, on the other hand, justified the grant as above made by the Tribunal, as according to the counsel, the compensation on account of permanent disability and compensation arising out of loss of earning capacity come under two distinct and different heads, and these always were, of course, subject to the discretion of the Tribunal. It was submitted that taking notice of the peculiar facts that the fist respondent was a student, who was yet to enter the employment market, above yardstick alone would have rendered justice. Reliance had been placed on a Bench decision of this Court in k.S.R.T.C. v. Peethambaran [1994 (2) KLT 717]. The Madras High Court in Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Thangavelu [1996 (1) KLT SC 6 – Case No.9], according to the counsel, had examined the issue and had held that necessarily the Tribunal was obliged to come to the conclusion that these two heads are different and distinct for awarding compensation.

5. In addition to the decisions referred to as above, the counsel had adverted to some other judgments as well. General principles too had been cited. The cleavage in view is apparent, as had been noticed by the Division Bench, as could be seen from the reference order. We will examine the question in the above said background.

6. Chapter X, XI and XII of the Motor Vehicles Act deal with the issue of compensation, Insurance and adjudication of claims in respect of accident