The assessment of compensation for permanent disability must consider its impact on earning capacity, not just the percentage of disability.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. SUDHA, J.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.164/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 25/09/2019. The sole respondent herein is the third respondent in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claim petitioner, on 02/01/2015 at 09:30 am, while he was walking along the Balaramapuram-Kattakada public road, motorcycle bearing registration no. KL-20-G-8734, ridden by the second respondent, rashly and negligently knocked him down causing grievous injuries to him.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/rider remained ex parte.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle, but contended that the amount claimed was exorbitant.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/rider of the motorcycle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs. 1,31,000/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9. It was quite vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the Tribunal committed a gross illegality/mistake in relying on the dictum in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., 2013 KHC 4670 ; (2014) 14 SCC 396 in granting compensation. Ext.A9 disability certificate shows that due to the injuries, 13% permanent disability was caused to the claim petitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal based on the dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 ought to have taken the functional disability as 26%. However, the Tribunal without any reason or justification fixed the disability at 7%, which is liable to be interfered with. It was also submitted that if the Tribunal had any doubts about Ext.A9 certificate, it ought to have referred the claim petitioner to a Medical Board or summoned the doctor concerned to get necessary clarifications, and fix the percentage of disability accordingly. In support of the arguments, reference was made to the dictums in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 ; Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General insurance Company Limited, (2022) 7 SCC 738 and Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited v. Mujeeb Rahman A.P., 2025 (1) KHC 606.

10. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the Tribunal has not committed any infirmity in relying on the dictum in Master Mallikarjun (Supra) and granting compensation and therefore the Award calls for no interference.

11. The claim petitioner was a 13 year old boy when the incident occurred on 02/01/2015. Ext.A2 wound certificate; Ext.A3 discharge summary and Ext.A9 disability certificate show the injuries sustained in the incident. Ext.A3 discharge summary dated 14/01/2015 issued by the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram reads thus -

“FINAL DIAGNOSIS

BIMALLEOLAR # (TYPE 2 EPIPHYSEAL INJURY LATERAL MALLEOLUS, TYPE 1 EPIPHYSEAL INJURY MEDIAL MALLEOLUS)

CLINICAL FEATURES

Admitted as a case of pain and deformity (R) ankle, patient was clinically and radiologically diagnosed as bimalleolar #(TYPE 2 EPIPHYSEAL INJURY LATERAL