Aboobacker P. v. G. Thirupathy and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(MV) NO.1249/2006 DATED 27-09-2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **ABOOBACKER P., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.UNNEEN, PAZHAMPADATH HOUSE, ERANTHODE, VALAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**G.THIRUPATHY,**| |---|---| ||**S/O.T.GOVINDAN,**| ||**JANSI NAGAR, VEERAPPAN CHATHIRAM,**| ||**P.O.ERODE, TAMIL NADU, PIN-638 001.**| |**2**|**NACHIMUTH,**| ||**S/O. MUTHU,**| ||**6/375, MARUTHI NAGAR P.O.,**| ||**TRICHY ROAD, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT,**| ||**TAMIL NADU, PIN-620 015.**| |**3**|**NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,**| ||**92, EAST COAST CHAMBERS, FIRST FLOOR,**| ||**G N CHETTY ROAD, T.NAGAR P.O.,**| ||**CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN-600 017.**| ## **R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.1249 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 15.06.2006, while he was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.KL-10/S-5665. At the place of accident, the bus was hit by a lorry bearing registration No.TN-28/M-1323 driven by the 1[st] respondent, owned by the 2[nd] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry by the 1[st] respondent, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,88,500/- under various heads, which was limited to Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of payment of Court Fee. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and they were set ex-parte. The 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -3- lorry involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 1[st] respondent driver. The insurer contended that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of the driver, owner and insurer of the bus. The age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition were denied and it was contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A6 series were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. The document marked as Ext.X1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board assessing the permanent disability of the appellant/claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the driver of both vehicles are negligent and fixed the liability in the ratio 50:50. Under various heads, the Tribunal fixed a total compensation of Rs.4,45,736/- and reduced the same to 50%, i.e., Rs.2,22,868/-, since the owner, driver and insurer of the bus **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -4- were not in the party array, and directed the 3[rd] respondent insurer to pay the said amount, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads and also the award of the Tribunal to the extent of limiting the amount of compensation to 50% of the total compensation fixed, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer. Since the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle is admitted by the insurer, service of notice on respondents 1 and 2 was dispensed with, by the order of this Court dated 27.11.2019. 7. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads and for payment of the entire amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. 8. The award of the Tribunal to the extent of reducing **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -5- the compensation 50%, since the owner, driver and insurer of the bus are not in the party array, cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others [(2015) 9** **SCC 273]** and followed by this Court in **Salam T.A. v. Shaji and others [2017 (3) KHC 324]** , wherein it was held that, where a person is injured as a result of the negligence of two or more wrongdoers, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of damages and the injured has the right to realise damages from all or any one of the wrongdoers. All wrongdoers need not even be made parties in such proceedings. It is not necessary also for the injured to establish the extent of the negligence of each wrongdoer separately nor it is obligatory for the Court to determine the extent of the negligence of each wrongdoer in such cases, for the purpose of awarding damages to the injured. Even if all the wrongdoers are made parties to the proceedings and the Court renders a finding as to the extent of the negligence of each of the wrongdoers, their liability to the injured would remain joint and several. The question of apportionment of **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -6- damages among the wrongdoers does not arise in such cases, for, the liability of the wrongdoers is joint and several and the injured has a corresponding right to realise the whole compensation from all or any one of them. The principle to be followed in such cases is that the insured shall be permitted to realise the compensation from the easiest/solvent wrongdoer. Determination of the extent of negligence between the wrongdoers even if made in such cases would be relevant only when one wrongdoer institutes proceedings against others for realisation of the damages paid by him over and above the damages which he is liable to pay. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the appellant is entitled for payment of the entire compensation by the 3[rd] respondent insurer and it would be open to the 3[rd] respondent insurer to institute proceedings against other wrongdoers for realisation of the amount paid by it over and above the compensation which it is liable to pay. 9. In **State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [(2003) 7 SCC 484]** the Apex Court held that the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to make an **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -7- award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. 10. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -8- the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 11. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by ## the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; |Sl.<br>No.|Head of claim|Amount<br>claimed<br>(in Rupees)|Amount<br>awarded<br>(in Rupees)|Basis-vital details<br>in a nutshell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning (total)|36,000/-|54,000/-|Exts.A5 and 5(a)| |2|Loss<br>of<br>earning<br>(Partial)|---|---|---| |3|Medical and<br>miscellaneous expenses|---|82,176/-|Ext.A6 series| |4|Future treatment|---|---|---| |5|Bystander expenses|1,50,000/-|1,900/-|19 days| |6|Transportation<br>expenses|5,000/-|500/-|Nominal amount| |7|Extra nourishment|5,000/-|500/-|Nominal amount| |8|Damage to clothing<br>etc.|500/-|500/-|Nominal amount| |9|Pain and suffering<br>compensation for the<br>loss of teeth|30,000/-<br>12,000/-|25,000/-|Fractures<br>and<br>traumatic<br>amputation<br>of<br>upper limb| |10|Loss of dependency|---|---|---| |11|Loss of consortium|---|---|---| |12|Loss of love and<br>affection|---|---|---| |13|Loss of estate|---|---|---| |14|Loss/reduction<br>in<br>earning capacity|---|---|Not proved| |15|Loss of amenities and<br>inconveniences etc.<br>Loss of four teeth|---|10,000/-<br>8,000/-|Loss of right<br>upper limb| |16|Any other heads<br>(disability)|3,50,000/-|2,63,160/-|Functional<br>disability not| ## **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -9- |||||affecting earning<br>power| |---|---|---|---|---| ||Total|5,88,500/-<br>(Claim<br>limited to<br>5,00,000)|4,45,736/-<br>(reduced by<br>50% to<br>2,22,868/-)|9% p.a. interest<br>on award amount<br>from date of<br>petition.| 12. The accident occurred on 15.06.2006. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 26 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.3,000/- as an employee in a madrassa. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/-, as claimed in the claim petition. 13. The document marked as Ext.A2 is the wound certificate. Ext.A3 and A3(a) are discharge cards. As per medical records, in the accident, the appellant sustained fracture of the mandible left, para symphysis with tissue loss, fracture of maxilla with loss of teeth, complete split of lower lip exposing the mandible and extending from left side to the right side, fracture of multiple ribs and traumatic amputation of right upper limb (upper third humerus level). He was hospitalised for 19 days. Ext.A6 series of medical bills are for a sum of Rs.82,176.20/-. 14. Ext.X1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board at the District Hospital, Manjeri assessing **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -10- permanent partial disability of the appellant as 86%. As per Ext.X1 disability certificate, his locomotor disability is 85% and the injuries on his facial bones and lower lip were causing difficulty in mastication. His right upper limb is amputated from upper third of humerus. He lost four teeth. The Tribunal took the percentage of functional disability as 86% as assessed by the Medical Board in Ext.X1. The said finding of the Tribunal is not under challenge in any appeal filed by the 3[rd] respondent insurer. 15. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.54,000/-, at the rate of Rs.3,000/- for a period of 18 months, covered by Exts.A5 and A5(a) certificates. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 16. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 19 days. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -11- sum of Rs.500/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under this head is refixed as Rs.1,500/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.1,000/-** (1,500 - 500). 17. Towards bystander expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,900/- (100 x 19). Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.500/-. The accident is of the year 2006. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under the head bystander expenses is re-fixed as Rs.2,850/- (150 x 19), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.950/-** (2,850 - 1,900). The compensation under the head extra nourishment is re-fixed as Rs.1,900/- (100 x 19), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.1,400/-** (1,900 - 500). 18. Towards damage to clothing, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/-. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2006, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs.1,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -12- **Rs.500/-** (1,000 - 500). 19. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.82,176/-, covered by Ext.A6 series of medical bills. In the absence of any further materials, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 20. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is re-fixed as Rs.30,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.5,000/-** (30,000 - 25,000) under this head. 21. In **Mekala v. Malathi M. [(2014) 11 SCC 178]** the appellant/claimant before the Apex Court was a student of 11th Standard, when the accident took place on 11.04.2005. She was holding first rank in her school. She had an excellent career ahead of her, but for the accident in which she **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -13- sustained grievous injuries, and became a permanently disabled. In Ext.P12 disability certificate, the doctor - PW2 certified a permanent disability of 70% on account of the fractures sustained to both the legs. Upon examination PW2 opined that the appellant is not able to squat. She is not able to sit with cross legged comfortably on the floor and the right range of movement (goniometer) - Fixed Flexion Deformity (FFD) of 850 - ligament instability on account of grievous injuries. PW2 deposed that the appellant has sustained fracture of both bones in both the legs. The knee folding is restricted between 25 degree to 85 degree and the legs could not be stretched fully and the knee bones are mal-united and she cannot walk without crutches. PW2 deposed further that the appellant is suffering from severe pain while walking and the thickness of her both legs are reduced. The High Court of Judicature at Madras awarded compensation under the head loss of earning, taking a notional monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, in the absence of any document on record, as she was a student. The Apex Court held that, the fact that the appellant was a brilliant student at the time of the accident **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -14- should also be taken into consideration while awarding compensation to her. Therefore, taking Rs.6,000/- as monthly notional income for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of earning is too meager an amount. Considering the fact that the appellant is a brilliant student, as she has secured first rank in the 10th Standard, she would have had a better future in terms of educational career to acquire basic or master degrees in the professional courses and she could have got a suitable public or private employment. But, on account of the permanent disablement she suffered due to injuries sustained in the accident, that opportunity is lost to her and therefore, she is entitled to compensation as per law laid down by the Court in the cases of **Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343], R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551]** and **Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 10 SCC 683]** . Further, having regard to the undisputed fact that there has been inflation of money in the country since the occurrence of the accident, the same has to be taken into account by the Tribunal and the **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -15- High Court while awarding compensation to the appellant as per the principle laid down in the case of **Govind Yadav** , which has reiterated the position of **Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2009) 13 SCC 422]** . The Apex Court noticed that the appellant has undergone and undergoing substantial pain and suffering due to the accident, which has rendered both her legs dysfunctional. This has reduced the scope of her future prospects including her marriage substantially. It has been held in the case of **Reshma Kumari** that certain relevant factors should be taken into consideration while awarding compensation under the head of future prospect of income. In the light of the principles laid down in the said case and keeping in mind the past results of the appellant, the Apex Court took her monthly income as Rs.10,000/-, for the purpose of computation of just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of earning. The Apex Court held that the appellant is entitled for 50% increase, taking into consideration the future prospects, as per the principle laid down in **Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. [(2012) 6 SCC 421]** . **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -16- 22. In **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** , the Apex Court granted disability compensation to the injured, adding 50% future prospects to the notional monthly income, based on the principle laid down in **Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited [(2012) 6 SCC 421]** , to injured persons having higher percentage of functional disability. 23. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, the determination of 'just compensation' has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in **Sarla Verma [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** and it has been approved in **Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65]** . The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -17- proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the Tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. In **Pranay Sethi** the Apex Court approved the principle of 'standardisation' so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age. 24. In **Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh [(2013) 9 SCC 54]** , a ThreeJudge Bench of the Apex Court held that, in case of self-employed persons also, if the deceased victim is below 40 years, there must be addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. In **Munna Lal** **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -18- **Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma [(2015) 6 SCC 347]** another ThreeJudge Bench followed the principle stated in **Rajesh** . In **Pranay Sethi** , after expressing the opinion that the dicta laid down in **Reshma Kumari** being earlier in point of time would be a binding precedent and not the decision in **Rajesh** , the Constitution Bench observed that, in **Munna Lal Jain** , the Three-Judge Bench should have been guided by the principle stated in **Reshma Kumari** which has concurred with the view expressed in **Sarla Devi** or in case of disagreement, it should have been well advised to refer the case to a Larger Bench. 25. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** the Constitution Bench held that, while determining the income, an addition of **50%** of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a **permanent job** and was **below the age of 40 years** , should be made. The addition should be **30%** , if the age of the deceased was **between 40 to 50 years** . In case the deceased was between the age of **50 to 60 years** , the addition should be **15%** . Actual salary should be read as **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -19- actual salary less tax. The Apex Court held further that, in case the deceased was **self-employed** or on a **fixed salary** , an addition of **40%** of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was **below the age of 40 years** . An addition of **25%** where the deceased was **between the age of 40 to 50 years** and **10%** where the deceased was between the age of **50 to 60 years** should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 26. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged 26 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.3,000/- as an employee in a madrassa. As already noticed, no reliable materials were placed before the Tribunal to show that, at the time of accident, the appellant had a permanent job. Therefore, he can only be treated as a self employed. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi,** an addition of **40%** of the notional monthly income of the appellant, as re-fixed in this appeal considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -20- **Ramachandrappa** and in **Syed Sadiq** referred to supra, can be made towards future prospects, since the appellant was aged **below 40 years** . 27. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head disability compensation, **40%** of the monthly income of the appellant notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.3,000/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.1,200/- (3,000 x 40/100) has to be added towards future prospects. In the result, the monthly income of the appellant, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of dependency, is reckoned as Rs.4,200/- (3,000 + 1,200). 28. In **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** , the Apex Court, after referring to its earlier decisions in **Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas [(1994) 2 SCC 176]** , **U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]** and **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720]** held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table in paragraph 40 of the said decision [prepared by applying **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -21- **Susamma Thomas** , **Trilok Chandra** and **Charlie** ], which starts with an operative multiplier of **18** [for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years], reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **17** for 26 to 30 years, multiplier of **16** for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of **15** for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of **14** for 41 to 45 years, and multiplier of **13** for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **11** for 51 to 55 years, multiplier of **9** for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of **7** for 61 to 65 years and multiplier of **5** for 66 to 70 years. 29. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, as far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in paragraph 19 of **Sarla Verma** , read with paragraph 42 of the said judgment. 30. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant was aged 26 years. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in **Sarla Verma's case** and **Pranay Sethi's case** referred to supra, the multiplier of **17** applied by the **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -22- Tribunal is correct and proper. 31. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,63,160/-, i.e., 50% of Rs.5,26,320/- (3,000 x 12 x 17 x 86/100). In this appeal, it is already held that the appellant is entitled for payment of entire compensation by the 3[rd] respondent insurer, without prejudice to its right to proceed against other wrongdoers. Taking the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/-, adding 40% towards future prospects (3,000 + 1,200 = 4,200) applying the multiplier of 17 applicable to the age group of the appellant and the percentage of permanent disability as 86%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is re-fixed as Rs.7,36,848/- (4,200 x 12 x 17 x 86/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.4,73,688/-** (7,36,848 - 2,63,160). 32. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. In Ext.X1 disability certificate the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 86%. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -23- permanent disability that has been assessed in Ext.X1 disability certificate, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head is re-fixed as Rs.90,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.80,000/-** (90,000 - 10,000). 33. Towards loss of 4 teeth, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- as compensation. The said amount represents just and reasonable compensation under this head, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 34. In the result, the appellant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.4,82,538/-** (Rupees four lakh eighty two thousand five hundred and thirty eight only) [1,000 + 950 + 1,400 + 500 + 5,000 + 4,73,688 + 8,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of **8%** per annum from the date of petition till realisation. In addition to this, the appellant shall be entitled for payment of a further sum of **Rs.2,22,868/-** (Rupees two lakh twenty two thousand eight hundred and sixty eight only) towards 50% of the original compensation awarded by the Tribunal, together with interest at the rate of **9%** from the date of petition till **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -24- realisation. The 3[rd] respondent insurer shall satisfy the additional compensation granted in this appeal and also 50% of the original compensation awarded by the Tribunal, together with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting the liability, if any, of the appellant/claimant towards Balance Court Fee and Legal Benefit Fund. The disbursement of the amount to the appellant/claimant shall be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No.D1-62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. The appellant/claimant shall submit his Bank account details (attested copy of the relevant page of the Bank Passbook having details of the Bank Account Number and IFSC Code of the branch) before the Tribunal, with copy to the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. This appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bpr Continued at Page No.25 **MACA.No.447 OF 2011** -25- The 1[st] sentence in Paragraph 34 of the Judgment dated 03.12.2019 in MACA No.447/2011 is corrected as per order dated 12.03.2020 in the MACA as follows:- “In the result, the appellant will be entitled for payment of additional compensation of Rs.5,62,538/- (Rupees Five lakh sixty two thousand five hundred and thirty eight only) (1,000 + 950 + 1,400 + 500 + 5,000 + 4,73,688 + 80,000) in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.” Sd/- **Deputy Registrar**