IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.67 OF 2008** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.1356/2001 DATED 25-04-2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **ANTONY, S/O.KOCHAPPU, EDASSERY HOUSE, NAYARANGADI DESOM, KODASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** |***1**|**P.V.VISWAMBARAN (DELETED)**| |---|---| ||**S/O VASU, PALLIYIL HOUSE,**| ||**KOLAZHI P.O., THRISSUR.**| |**2**|**BABU**| ||**S/O.GOVINDAN, CHAKKEDATH HOUSE,**| ||**KOLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR.**| |**3**|**THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.**| ||**THRIPRAYAR BRANCH, THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |***4**|**K.K.ABDUL MANAF (DELETED)**| ||**S/O.KADAR, KAKKATHARAYIL HOUSE,**| ||**THRITHALLUR WEST,, THRISSUR.**| **THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 4 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 14.12.2017 IN IA 4621/2017.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE, SC SMT S.L.SHYLAJA- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.67 of 2008 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.1356 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, 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 14.04.2000, while he was riding a scooter bearing registration No.KL-08/C 8369. At the place of accident, the scooter was hit by a car bearing registration No.KL-08/D-2098 owned by the 1[st] respondent, driven 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 the car by the 2[nd] respondent, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and they were set ex parte. 3. The 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the car involved in the accident; however, denying the negligence alleged against its driver. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition. The insurer contended that the compensation MACA No.67 of 2008 3 ## claimed is highly excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, the claim petition was tried along with connected matter. Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claimants and PWs.1 to 3 were examined. The claimant was examined as PW2. On the side of the respondents, the insurance policy schedule of the car was marked as Ext.B1. 5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 2[nd] respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the 3[rd] respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,89,102/-, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit, with proportionate cost, and the 3[rd] respondent insurer was directed to satisfy the award. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent MACA No.67 of 2008 4 insurer. 8. 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. 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 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 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 MACA No.67 of 2008 5 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 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; |1|Cost of extra nourishment and wages<br>to attendants|7,500| |---|---|---| |2|Transportation charges|1,000| |3|Medical bills|1,82,602| |4|Loss of earnings|9,000| |5|Pain and suffering|12,000| |6|Loss of amenities and happiness in life|5,000| |7|Permanent disability|72,000| ||Total|**2,89,102**| 12. The accident occurred on 14.04.2000. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 38 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- as a businessman. No materials were produced before the Tribunal to prove the monthly income of the appellant. The appellant has mounted the box as PW2. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.1,500/-, for the purpose of assessing MACA No.67 of 2008 6 compensation under various heads. 13. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236]** the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a coolie (manual labourer), who met with a road accident in the year 2004, at the age of 35 years, notionally as Rs.4,500/-. The Apex Court held that, the claimant who was working as a coolie cannot be expected to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in the facts of the said case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. The Apex Court made it clear that, in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant, in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. 14. In **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** , taking note of the MACA No.67 of 2008 7 earlier decision in **Ramachandrappa's case (supra)** , the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a vegetable vendor, who met with a road accident in the year 2008, at the age of 24 years, notionally as Rs.6,500/-. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that, a labourer in an unorganised sector doing his own business cannot be expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence to prove his monthly income. Going by the state of economy prevailing at that time and the rising prices in agricultural products, the Apex Court accepted his case that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs.6,500/- per month. 15. In the absence of any reliable evidence, considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2000, and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, and also the evidence of PW2, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income of the appellant notionally as Rs.2,750/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 16. The document marked as Ext.A4 is the wound certificate and Ext.A13 is the discharge summary. As per medical MACA No.67 of 2008 8 records, in the accident, the appellant sustained compound fracture supra condylar femur right with fracture pelvis and other bodily injuries. He had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 75 days. Ext.A14 series of medical bills are for a sum of Rs.1,82,602/-. 17. The document marked as Ext.A16 is the disability certificate issued by PW3, in which the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 65%, with respect to his right lower limb. The Tribunal took the whole body disability as 25%. 18. During the pendency of this appeal, by the order dated 09.12.2019, the appellant was referred to the Medical Board at Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. The disability certificate dated 08.01.2020 of the Disability Assessment Board at Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur is placed on record along with a covering letter dated 10.01.2020 of the Superintendent of that Hospital, who is the Chairman of the Board, in which the permanent whole body disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident, is assessed as 56%, using combination formula. Learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer has not MACA No.67 of 2008 9 raised any objection as to the assessment of disability by the Medical Board in the said certificate dated 08.01.2020. 19. In **Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343]** , the Apex Court laid down the principles governing assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability. The Apex Court held that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of the injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). 20. In **Raj Kumar** , the Apex Court held that, if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability as a result of the injuries, then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the MACA No.67 of 2008 10 Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability. The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood; or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on; or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. When compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear or MACA No.67 of 2008 11 a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under that head. 21. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the disabilities noted by the Disability Assessment Board in the disability certificate dated 08.01.2020, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Raj Kumar** , this Court finds that, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads, the permanent whole body disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, can be taken as 56%, as assessed by the Disability Assessment Board. 22. 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 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 MACA No.67 of 2008 12 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 monthly notional 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 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 MACA No.67 of 2008 13 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 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 MACA No.67 of 2008 14 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]** . 23. 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]** . A reading of the said decision would show that the injured before the Apex Court were having higher percentage of functional disability, on account of permanent disability, which had resulted in higher extent of loss of future earning capacity, and it was in such circumstances that the Apex Court granted them disability compensation by adding future prospects. 24. In the impugned award, the Tribunal did not add MACA No.67 of 2008 15 anything to the notional monthly income of the appellant towards future prospects. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and 56% permanent disability arising therefrom, as assessed by the Disability Assessment Board in the disability certificate dated 08.01.2020, the appellant can be treated as an injured having higher percentage of functional disability, on account of permanent disability, which had resulted in higher extent of loss of future earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for grant of compensation under the head permanent disability, adding future prospectus to his notional monthly income. 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 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 MACA No.67 of 2008 16 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 38 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- as a businessman. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.1,500/-. No reliable materials were placed before the Tribunal to show that, at the time of accident, the appellant had a permanent job. Therefore, the appellant can only be treated as self-employed. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Mekala** , **Syed Sadiq** and **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 **Ramachandrappa** and in **Syed Sadiq** referred to supra, can be made towards future prospects, since the appellant was **below the age of 40 years** . 27. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the MACA No.67 of 2008 17 compensation under the head permanent disability, **40%** of the monthly income of the appellant notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.2,750/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.1,100/- (2,750 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 permanent disability, is reckoned as Rs.3,850/- (2,750 + 1,100). 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 **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 MACA No.67 of 2008 18 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 38 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 16 applied by the Tribunal is not correct and the proper multiplier to be applied is **15** . 31. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.72,000/- (1,500 x 12 x 16 x 25/100). In this appeal, the monthly income of the appellant has already been re-fixed as Rs.2,750/-. Adding 40% of the notional monthly income of the appellant towards future prospects ( 2,750 + 1,100 = 3,850); applying the multiplier of 15 applicable to the MACA No.67 of 2008 19 age group of the appellant and the percentage of permanent disability as 56%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is re-fixed as Rs.3,88,080/- (3,850 x 12 x 15 x 56/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.3,16,080/-** (3,88,080 – 72,000). 32. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/-, at the rate of Rs.1,500/- for a period of 6 months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the period of 6 months fixed by the Tribunal for granting loss of earning is just and reasonable. Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.2,750/-, the compensation under the head loss of earning is re-fixed as Rs.16,500/- (2,750 x 6), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.7,500/-** (16,500 – 9,000). 33. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 75 days. The accident is of the year 2000. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation MACA No.67 of 2008 20 under this head is re-fixed as Rs.3,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.2,000/-** (3,000 – 1,000). 34. Towards extra nourishment and wages to attendant (bystander expenses), the Tribunal awarded a consolidated amount of Rs.7,500/-. The accident is of the year 2000 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 75 days. 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.11,250/- (150 x 75) and the compensation under the head extra nourishment is re-fixed as Rs.7,500/- (100 x 75), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.11,250/-** [(11,250 + 7,500) – 7,500] under these heads. 35. Towards damage to clothing and articles, the Tribunal awarded no compensation. The accident is of the year 2000. Therefore, the appellant is granted **Rs.750/-** towards damage to clothing and articles. 36. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,82,602/-, covered by Ext.A14 series of medical bills. In the absence of any further materials, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable MACA No.67 of 2008 21 compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 37. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/-. 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.20,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.8,000/-** (20,000 – 12,000). 38. Towards loss of amenities the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-. In the disability certificate issued by the Disability Assessment Board at the Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 56%. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and 56% permanent disability on account of those injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head is re-fixed as Rs.60,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.55,000/-** (60,000 – 5,000). 39. In the result, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.4,00,580/-** (Rupees four lakhs five hundred and eighty only) [3,16,080 + MACA No.67 of 2008 22 7,500 + 2,000 + 11,250 + 750 + 8,000 + + 55,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of **8%** per annum from the date of petition till realisation, excluding the period of delay of 442 days in filing this appeal, which was condoned by the order dated 18.03.2019, subject to the condition that the appellant will not be entitled to claim interest for the enhanced compensation, if any, granted in the appeal, for the period of delay. The 3[rd] respondent insurer shall satisfy the additional compensation granted in this appeal, 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 additional compensation to the appellant/claimant shall be made taking note of the law on the point and 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 shall provide 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 MACA No.67 of 2008 23 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** jv **JUDGE** MACA No.67 of 2008 24 ## **APPENDIX** **ANNEXURE 1 : ORIGINAL DOCUMENT OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 25-05-2011 ISSUED BY MEDICAL BOARD, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE 2 : ORIGINAL DOCUMENT OF THE IDENTITY CARD FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES DATED 29-11-2011 ISSUED BY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. ANNEXURE 3 : ORIGINAL TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 29-062016 ISSUED BY DR.JOSE KURIYAN KATTUKARAN. ANNEXURE 4 : ORIGINAL TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 30-062016 ISSUED BY DR.SOJAN K J. ANNEXURE 5 : ORIGINAL TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 30-06-2016 ISSUED BY DR.N.VIDYASAGAR.**