The court established that loss of vision constitutes significant permanent disability, warranting enhanced compensation as determined by statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV) No.457/2013 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. On 28.12.2012, while the appellant was travelling by a car bearing registration No.KL-45-E-6704 through Gundelpet-Mysore road and when the car reached near Thaggalur gate in BN Main Road at Gundelpet at about 7.45 pm, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-10T-7014 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner collided with the car and in the accident appellant sustained grievous injuries.

3. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent who was the driver of the offending tractor. 1^st respondent is the registered owner of the said tractor and the 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle.

4. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹7,56,000/- with interest at 9% per annum.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and inadequate; that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that the appellant lost his vision of the left eye completely and thus he sustained permanent whole body disability.

6. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and gone through the materials placed on record.

7. There is no dispute over the fact that on 28.12.2012 appellant met with a motor vehicle accident while he was travelling by a car bearing registration No.KL-45-E-6704 at Gundelpet. It is also not in dispute that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent who was the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.KA- 10T-7014. Admittedly, the 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the said offending vehicle.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that though Ext.A8 certificate would show that the appellant lost his vision of his left eye completely, the percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal for assessing the compensation was only 10%. The learned counsel pointed out that as per the Schedule I Part II of Employee's Compensation Act , the percentage of disability ought to have taken by the Tribunal was 40% and therefore, the Tribunal erred in fixing the percentage of disability as 10%.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company contended that there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned award.

10. It is in evidence that appellant was working as a Manager of a firm. Ext.A8 would show that the claimant has profound loss of vision in the left eye and the vision is limited only to the perception of hand movements.

11. It is in evidence that as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant lost his vision of left eye. As per the Schedule I Part II of Employee's Compensation Act , the percentage of disability is 40%. Therefore, his functional disability is taken as 30%. As the appellant was aged 64, the multiplier applicable is 7. Accordingly, the compensation under the head permanent disability is calculated as follows:

18620x12x7x30/100=₹4,69,224/-.

12. Thus appellant is entitled to ₹4,69,224/- under the said head as against ₹1,56,408/- awarded by the Tribunal.

13. The evidence on record would show that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he lost vision of his left eye, which also resulted in the disfigurement of his face. The disfigurement of his face will affect him mentally and physically. Therefore, u