MOHD. KHALEEL Vs. ARC INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the Award dated 05.10.2009 in O.P.No.1053 of 2006 passed by the Chairman, MACT -cum -XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal), the claimant preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is thus:

(3.) a) Challenging the quantum of compensation, learned counsel for appellant firstly argued that the Tribunal committed grave error in accepting the disability of claimant at 10% only inspite of clear and cogent evidence of PW.2 to the effect that claimant suffered 50% partial and permanent disability. He argued that prior to accident, the claimant was a driver of goods vehicle and due to his disability, he was terminated from service as deposed by PW.3. Therefore, his functional disability ought to have been accepted as 100% and compensation must have been assessed accordingly. However, the Tribunal accepted his functional disability as 10% which was grossly low and thereby his compensation for loss of earning power was drastically reduced. He argued that a Tribunal shall fix the functional disability basing on the nature of the work a victim of the accident used to attend prior to the accident and the adverse impact the disability had on his work ability and then fix compensation. On this aspect, he relied upon the decision reported in Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others , and submitted that unfortunately the Tribunal failed to follow the above principle in fixing the percentage of functional disability. b) Secondly, he argued that in assessing the compensation for loss of future income due to disability, the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the income of the claimant notionally @ Rs.4,000/ - p.m. He argued that PW.3 the employer of claimant deposed that the claimant used to work under him and he was paying Rs.8,000/ - p.m and after accident, he terminated his services. Having regard to this evidence, the Tribunal must have accepted the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/ -. c) Thirdly, learned counsel argued that a person who suffered disability will be entitled to compensation not only for his physical disability but also for the loss of earning power due to functional disability. On this point, he relied upon the decision of Honble Apex Court reported in S. Manickam vs. Metropolitan Transport Corp. Ltd. In this case, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation for physical disability. Hence, compensation may be awarded in that regard. He thus prayed to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation suitably.