O R D E R

This review petition has been filed by the appellant in MACA No.4104 of 2019 under order 47 rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code for reviewing the impugned judgment alleging error apparent on the face of the record.

2. According to the review petitioner, she was only 32 at the time of accident and she suffered permanent disability, which was assessed as 50% by the Medical Board. Though this Court fixed her notional income @ Rs.10,000/- per month, no addition was granted towards future prospects. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and it has to be corrected. Hence this review petition.

3. The review petitioner suffered injuries in the motor accident occurred on 25.02.2015 at about 2.15 pm. She was a 32 year old coolie at the time of accident. Due to the head injury, she suffered permanent disability of 50% as borne out from Ext.C1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of Medical College Hospital, Calicut.

4. Smt.A.D.Divya, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, relied on a series of judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court, in which addition towards future prospects was given in injury cases also. In Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others [2020 KHC 6547], the Apex Court awarded 40% addition towards future prospects. In that case, the victim was a 20 year old data entry operator, who suffered permanent disability, which was assessed as 89%. In that case, the right hand of the victim was amputated. In Nithin Maheswari v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another [2021 KHC 4912], this Court awarded 50% addition towards future prospects, where the victim suffered 66% of permanent disablement. In Jagdish v. Mohand and Others [2018 KHC 6166] the Apex Court awarded 40% enhancement towards future prospects to a victim, who was a carpenter by profession, a skilled labourer, who lost both his hands in the accident and suffered permanent disability of

90%.

5. In Zakeer Hussain v. Jayakumar reported in [2021 (6) KLT

1235] a Single Bench of this Court awarded 25% addition towards future prospects to a victim, who suffered 75% of permanent disability due to amputation of leg below knee.

6. It is true that in some cases, the functional disability may be higher than the percentage of disability mentioned in the Disability Certificate. The review petitioner is a 32 year old coolie and for the injuries suffered, she approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- and she was awarded Rs.9,09,400/- by the Tribunal.

In the appeal, this Court awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.3,41,000/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. It is true that in the impugned judgment no addition was awarded towards future prospects. The Tribunal also had considered her claim for compensation for loss of earning capacity; but it was turned down; firstly because she did not adduce any evidence to prove her avocation, and secondly that she did not adduce any evidence to show what all activities she was doing before the accident, and what all activities she was not able to do after the accident, to verify whether her earning capacity was lost or not. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KLT 620 (SC)], it was held as follows: “Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the ev