ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. V HARIPARASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the above Miscellaneous First Appeal came up for hearing, a Division Bench, consisting of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.A. Abdul Gafoor and the Hon'ble 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. Hariprasad, 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 of from the shoulder. Evidently the trauma and loss suffered was substantial. A claim under Sections. 140 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. 1 5,32,284/- 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. 7500/- towards extra nourishment, Rs. 500/- as compensation for damage to clothing, and he had been directed to be paid Rs. 62,000/- towards medical experience 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 KerLJ 269, and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. K.R. Vijayarajan and Anr., 1992 ACJ 663.