Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/ Transport Corporation would submit that the very compensation awarded is on the higher side as the Tribunal under paragraph No.7 of its Judgment opined that the claimant in the witness box answered the question after hearing properly and that based on that alone, he reduced the percentage of disability to 20%.

8. The fact remains that P.W.3, the doctor, who issued the permanent disability certificate Ex.P7 would narrate that the claimant sustained 60% permanent disability relating to his right ear and 10% permanent disability relating to his left ear after conducting 'Pure Tone Audiometry' test. However, the Tribunal's assessment of permanent disability should be understood in the proper perspective. Simply because the doctor opined that altogether 70% permanent disability was sustained by the claimant, it cannot be taken as though to the extent of 70%, his earning capacity got dwindled or reduced. It should be understood that his hearing capacity alone got impaired to the extent of 70%. The Court has to see in an overall manner as to what extent his earning capacity got reduced. The Tribunal in its wisdom felt that because of the injured's hearing impairment, his earning capacity to an extent of 20% got reduced and I am having no reason to disagree with such a finding. However, the accident occurred in the year 1997. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- for each percentage of permanent disability. No doubt, this is not a case relating to any injury to any limb, nonetheless the compensation could be Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) under the caption permanent disability/loss of earning capacity.