ORDER

Leave Granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th June, 2024 passed in MACA No.93/2019 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, which, in turn, was directed against Award dated 21st July, 2017 in O.P.(MV) No.1009/2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur.

3. On 15th February, 2005, the claimant-appellant, who was a diamond cutter by profession, was travelling Eastbound through Kunnamkullam-Wadakkanchery when his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-08-J-8556 collided with an auto rikshaw bearing No.KL-08-C-6658, due to the alleged rashness and negligence of the auto rikshaw driver. He suffered grievous injuries and a case, FIR No.51/2005 under Section 279, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Erumaetty, Thrissur. The claimant-appellant suffered a complete loss of vision in one eye.

4. The claimant-appellant filed a claim petition before the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.14,58,000/-. Vide Award dated 21st July 2017, taking the percentage of disability at 49%, total compensation awarded was Rs.8,70,000/- with 8% interest.

5. An appeal was preferred before the High Court, being dissatisfied with the amount so awarded. On the question of disability, the High Court observed that the computation of the same at 49% is unjustified since eyesight is directly relatable to being able to continue in his vocation of a diamond cutter. Hence, the same was recomputed at 65%. Compensation as on date of the impugned judgment can be summarised as follows :

6. Further aggrieved by the compensation granted by the High Court, the claimant-appellant is before us. A perusal of the record, as also consideration of the argument advanced, reveals the following points of grievance : (a) percentage of disability; and (b) compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’.

7. We are inclined to agree with these points. The ascertainment of permanent disability, more specifically its effect on actual earning capacity has been discussed in Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343. Reference has to be made to paras 13 and 19 of the said judgment. Keeping the same in view, let us proceed forward. Diamond cutting, as even the uninitiated can understand, is a task of immense skill which involves a great degree of precision and exactitude. The main process of cleaving and sawing clearly can be completed only when a person is able to see clearly, especially given the size of these precious stones. Seeing only with one eye, unquestionably makes it greatly difficult to effectively carry out these processes. 65% as functional disability, in our view, is yet again insufficient. Given the nature of the profession and the indispensability of the ability to see in carrying out the job required, we are of view that the facts and circumstances of the case warrant that disability of the claimant-appellant be taken as 100%.

8. On the aspect of pain and suffering, this Court recently in Civil Appeal No.12993 of 2024 titled K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi delineated the concept. Pain and suffering is not only on account of physical pain but also suffering on account of what has been lost as a result of the accident – desire of economic betterment, social betterment, etc. Once a person is unable to partake in his profession of choice, for no fault of his all these desires are unceremoniously ground to a halt. Rs.50,000/- for a 39-year-old is a case of gross undervaluing the suffering of such a person. Having regard to the above factors, the compensation under this head is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-.

9. In conclusion, the compensation payable to the claimant-appellant is as under :

10. The rate of interest, granted at 8% remains unchanged, payable from the claim petition. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

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

Appeal allowed.

********