Respondent is not present despite service. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. Respondent/complainant, who was working in M/s.Beehive Foundry Engg. Works, was a member of Employees’ Pension Scheme. He met with an accident. The Medical Board reported that he was unfit to do any work. His claim for pension was rejected by the petitioner on the ground that the percentage of disability sustained by him was only 75%; that a person is entitled to pension only if the disability is 100%. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.450/- towards pension for life. The arrears of pension at the rate of Rs.450/- per month were directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Rs.10,000/- were awarded towards damages for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed by observing thus : “We have gone through the materials on record and we are satisfied that no exception could be taken to the decision of the District Forum. It cannot be disputed that the complainant is entitled to pension under the scheme by virtue of his permanent disablement which had rendered him unfit for performing any work he was capable of doing at the time of such disablement. The complainant had been working as a Site Engineer in M/s.Beehive Foundry Engineering Works, Karur, at the time of the accident which left him totally and permanently disabled. As per the Medical Board’s report ExA-2, the complainant had suffered injury to the brain, incoherent speech, unsteady gait of 75% and the certificate had clearly stated that the complainant was permanently totally disabled and was unfit to do any work he was capable of doing. The provisions also do not say that the disablement must be 100% as contended by the opposite party. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit whatsoever in the appeal.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. The Medical Board gave the report to the effect that the respondent had become permanently disabled due to accident while on duty; that the respondent was permanently and totally disabled and unfit for any work. As per report of the Medical Board, the respondent had suffered injury to the brain. He had incoherent speech and unsteady gait of 75%. Remarks of the Medical Board against Columns 6, 7, 8 and 13 read as under : 6. Nature of disablement sustained in the course of employment or otherwise. | Permanent disablement due to accident while on duty | 7. date on which disablement so called | 12.1.97 | 8. whether the relevant nature of disablement has resulted in permanent and total disablement (If so, please certify so in clear terms and furnish the relevant details including the percentage of disablement) | Patient is suffering from post-traumatic …..involving brain – incoherent speech, spartic….. unsteady gait…. | 13.Report of the Medical Board and their recommendations Note: The Medical Board should clearly certify the permanent and total disablement of the member after examining on the above lines (Refer Para 2(XVII), 15(3) | Patient is permanently and totally disabled and unfit for any work. |
From the perusal of the Report of the Medical Board, it is evident that the respondent had been rendered permanently and totally disabled and unfit for any work. His disablement was 100%. Fora below have rightly found that the respondent had been rendered totally and permanently unfit to do any work. The respondent was entitled to the pension. We find no infirmity in the orders passed by the fora below. Dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs, as the respondent is not present. | 
