RAMADOSS Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appeal is filed from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which refused to consider the appeal filed from an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal[For brevity 'the Tribunal'] at Chengalpattu and rejected the same for the reason of delay occasioned of 1538 days. A Coordinate Bench issued notice in the SLP specifically indicating that even if the petitioner succeeds in the present proceedings, he would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who vehemently argued that the income adopted was very less and the disability ought to have been computed at 100% since the appellant, a watchman, had lost his vision in one eye. Functional disability insofar as a watchman is concerned, hence would be 100% is the argument. It is also urged that the compensation awarded under the various heads ought to be enhanced reasonably.