ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 12th November, 2018, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, modifying the order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(MACT), Pathanamthitta (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) by enhancing the claim from Rs. 1,42,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Two Thousand) by Rs. 64,500/- (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred) totaling Rs. 2,06,500/- (Rupees Two Lakh Six Thousand and Five Hundred). The notice issued on 24th July, 2019, was confined to the issue of percentage of disability. However, after having heard the parties, the Court would not restrict itself to such aspect.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on disability, the medical certificate issued by the competent Board on 20th January, 2009 showed the permanent disability at 45% and the Tribunal while dealing it at paragraphs no. 11 and 12, though has noted but has held it to be unreasonable and fixed it at 14%, taking it to be reasonable. It was submitted that the same has no rationale or basis and is arbitrary. Further, it was submitted that at the stage of the High Court also, the interference has not been made and simply the same has been upheld.

5. Having considered the matter, we find that the date of occurrence was 19th January, 2006 and the Certificate was issued on 20th January, 2009 i.e., after three years which beyond the period of healing of any injury which could be expected in a human body. Thus, there is no reason for the Court or Authority to disbelieve such disability. We would clarify here that the discretion of the Court is always there if it is not fully satisfied with regard to the disability, like calling for a fresh report or even calling for the person to appear to assess; but in the present case, unfortunately, no such exercise has been adopted and simply a statement has been made that 45% disability, as shown by the Medical Board, is unreasonable and the Court further records 14% disability to be reasonable. For which we find no justification. Thus, on this account above, the plea of the appellant has to succeed. A chart prepared by the High Court for 14% disability is replaced by 45% disability.

6. The High Court has simply upheld 14% disability even after noting the fact that the Medical Board had given a certificate with regard to A-9 showing 45% disability.

7. Additionally, the appellant raises a point that the loss of future prospects had not been awarded at all and according to the judgment in ‘National Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Pranay Sethi’, 2017 (16) SCC 680 = 2018(1) L.A.R. 1 = (2017) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10002, it should be 10%.

8. We find substance in the said submission. Accordingly, on top of what has been awarded by the High Court, after making the correction in the disability percentage, further 10% is added towards loss of future prospects.

9. The Tribunal shall accordingly re-work the actual figure and the same shall be paid to the appellant within one month of the date of production of this order.

10. For the amount which had already been amended at the High Court level, the interest shall be 8% and for any enhanced amount, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.

11. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal within three weeks from today along with a copy of this Order for compliance.

12. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Appeal allowed.

********