Kerala High Court
S. Saji vs The Regional Executive on 4 October, 2010
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11196 of 2010(Y)
1. S. SAJI, AMMAMMA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
3. DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INSURANCE
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN
For Respondent :SRI.ASOK M.CHARIYAN, SC, KFWFB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :04/10/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 11196 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner herein is a fisherman who is seeking for the benefit under the Group Insurance Scheme (Ext.P4). The disability sustained by him is loss of total vision of his right eye.
2. The petitioner while engaged in fishing on high sea on 13.9.2007 sustained injuries to his right eye when the rope attached to the fishing boat was broken and forcefully hit against his right eye. He was taken to the Government Opthalmic Hospital, Trivandrum. After surgery, he was discharged on 17.9.2007. Ext.P2 medical certificate shows the details of the treatment. Ext.P3 is the copy of the discharge certificate which shows that there is a permanent partial disability of 40%.
3. Going by the scheme, the petitioner contends that he is entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/-.
W.P.(C) No.11196/2010 2
4. Pending the Writ Petition, his claim was accepted and by Ext.P8 an amount of Rs.40,000/- was granted in full and final settlement of the claim.
5. The petitioner's claim was recommended by the competent authority as per Ext.P6 for sanctioning an amount of Rs.50,000/-. That was modified evidently while granting sanction.
6. The petitioner relies upon Exts.P4 Insurance Scheme and P9 Government Order to contend that he is entitled for grant of Rs.50,000/- towards the permanent partial disability.
7. As per Ext.P4, for permanent disability the amount envisaged is Rs.One lakh and for permanent partial disability, it is Rs. 50,000/-. Permanent partial disability is also explained in Ext.P4 that if there is loss of eye sight to one eye or loss of one limb then it will amount to permanent partial disability. In Ext.P9 Government Order also for permanent partial disability the compensation payable is fixed as Rs.50,000/-. W.P.(C) No.11196/2010 3
8. Here the fact that the petitioner has lost one eye is not disputed. How the amount was reduced to Rs.40,000/- is not explained in Ext.P8 also. If there is a permanent partial disability, the amount is fixed as Rs. 50,000/- and no mechanism is provided to reduce the amount below that either in Ext.P4 or in Ext.P9 Government Order. It is a fixed amount. The only point to be considered is whether there is a permanent partial disability. Once that is established, the fisherman is entitled for the grant of benefit as per Ext.P4. Further the scheme is a Group Insurance Scheme, which is a beneficial piece in favour of the persons who are covered by it.
9. Evidently herein, going by Ext.P2 there was a closed globe injury for the right eye. Merely because in Ext.P3, the disability assessed was 40%, it cannot be said that he has not sustained the permanent partial disability of loss of vision for one eye.
10. Therefore, in this case, as the petitioner has established that there is a permanent partial disability for right eye, which is also clear from Ext.P8, wherein it is mentioned that W.P.(C) No.11196/2010 4 he met with an accident on 13.9.2007 (40% permanent disability of right eye), the entire benefit cannot be denied.
11. In that view of the matter, the petitioner will be entitled for the grant of Rs.50,000/- for the permanent partial disability.
12. By Ext.P8 an amount of Rs.40,000/- has already been granted, which has been disbursed. As he is entitled for a total amount of Rs.50,000/-, there will be a further direction to the 3rd respondent to sanction the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- and disburse the amount within a further period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps/05/10