MACA 514/2011 & Coc. (Consolidated with MACA 542/2011, MACA 1539/2011, MACA 1543/2011)

MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 1 : # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ``` MACA NO.514 OF 2011 ``` ``` OPMV 1335/2003 OF SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT ``` ``` / I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: ``` ``` 1 GEENA MARTIN, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. LATE MARTIN, 2 NEIL MARTIN AGED 19 YEARS,S/O. LATE MARTIN, 3 MINOR MARIA MOUREEN AGED 11 YEARS, D/O. LATE MARTIN,REP. BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND, MOTHER GEENA MARTIN. ALL ARE NOW RESIDING AT, KANDOTH PARAMBIL HOUSE, 21/570, PAI ROAD,, PERUMPADAPPU DESOM, EDACOCHIN VILLAGE, COCHIN-6. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SMT.NEETHU PREM SRI.K.R.RANJITH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1 MINI JOSEPH - DIED BAVAKKATT HOUSE, NARAKKAL.P.O,, ERNAKULAM-682505. 2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, MUNICIPAL, BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARAVOOR-683513. 3 ADL.R3.FIONA.B.J, D/O.LATE JOSEPH, MAPPLASSERY HOUSE, AZHEEKAL PO, THEKKAN MALIPPURAM, PIN 682 510 4 CASLIN.B.J, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.LATE JOSEPH, MAPPLASSERY HOUSE, AZHEEKAL PO, THEKKAN MALIPPURAM, PIN 682 510 ADDL.RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.2.2.22 IN IA 1/21 IN MACA 514/2011 ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.542/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 2 : ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ``` MACA NO.542 OF 2011 ``` ``` OPMV 1338/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: ``` **==> picture [78 x 140] intentionally omitted <==** ``` SOFIA NOBY,W/O.JOSEPH NOBY,KANDOTH PARAMBIL HOUSE, 21/570C,PAI ROAD,PERUMPADAPPU DESOM,EDACOCHIN, VILLAGE,COCHIN-6. ``` ``` BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SMT.NEETHU PREM SRI.K.R.RANJITH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` MINI JOSEPH (DIED) 1 BAVAKKATT HOUSE,NARAKKAL PO,ERNAKULAM 682 505. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 2 BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD,NORTH PARAVOOR 683 513. ADDL.R3.FIONA.B.J, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.LATE JOSEPH, MAPPLASSERY HOUSE, AZHEEKAL PO, THEKKAN 3 MALIPPURAM, PIN 682 510. (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED) ADDL.R4.CASLIN.B.J, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.LATE JOSEPH, MAPPLASSERY HOUSE, AZHEEKKAL PO, THEKKAN 4MALIPPURAM, PIN 682 519 (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 AS PER ORDER DT.2.2.22 IN IA 1/21 IN MACA 542/2011) BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2023 ALONG WITH MACA 514/11 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 3 : ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945 MACA NO. 1539OF 2011 ``` ``` OPMV 1333/2003 OF SPECIAL C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT / I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`APPELLANT/S:`** ``` MINOR MARIA MOUREEN,AGED 11 YEARS D/O.LATE K.X.MARTIN,REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND, AND MOTHER GEENA MARTIN,AGED 45 YEARS,, W/O.LATE K.X.MARTIN,KANDOTH PARAMBIL HOUSE,, 21/570,PAI ROAD,PERUMPADAPPU DESOM,, EDA COCHIN VILLAGE.COCH BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1 MINI JOSEPH W/O.JOSEPH,BAVAKKATT HOUSE,NARAKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM 682 505 2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD BY ITS MANAGER,BRANCH OFFICE,, MUNICIPAL BUILDING,MAIN ROAD,, NORTH PARAVOOR 682 501 3 ADL.R3.FIONA.B.J, D/O.LATE JOSEPH, MAPPLASSERY HOUSE, AZHEEKAL PO, THEKKAN MALIPPURAM, PIN 682 510 4 CASLIN.B.J, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.LATE JOSEPH, MAPPLASSERY HOUSE, AZHEEKAL PO, THEKKAN MALIPPURAM, PIN 682 510 ADDL.RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.2.2.22 IN IA 1/21 IN MACA 1539/2011 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` P.K MANOJ KUMAR - R2 ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.514/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 4 : ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945 MACA NO. 1543OF 2011 ``` ``` OPMV 1342/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`APPELLANT/S:`** ``` MINOR CASLIN B.J. D/O LATE B.M.JOSEPH, REPRESENTED BY HER NEXT, FRIEND AND GRAND FATHER M.X. IGNATIUS, AGED 74, YEARS, S/O XAVIER, KANDOTH PARAMBIL HOUSE,, 21/570 C, PAI ROAD, PERUMPADAPPU DESOM,, EDA COC BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1 MINI JOSEPH BAVAKKATT HOUSE, NARAKKAL, P.O,, ERNAKULAM-682 505. 2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD,, NORTH PARAVOOR-682 501. 3 ADL.R3.FIONA.B.J, D/O.LATE JOSEPH, MAPPLASSERY HOUSE, AZHEEKAL PO, THEKKAN MALIPPURAM, PIN 682 510 ADDL.RESPONDENT 3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.2.2.22 IN IA 1/21 IN MACA 1543/2011 ``` ``` THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2023, ALONG WITH MACA.514/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 5 : ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated: 5[th] July, 2023) The appellants in MACA 514/2011 were petitioners Nos.1 to 3 petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1335/2003, the appellant in MACA 542/2011 was the petitioner in OPMV 1338/2003, the appellant in MACA 1539/2011 was the petitioner in OPMV 1333 of 2003, and the appellant in MACA 1543/2011 was the petitioner in OP(MV) No.1342/2003 on the files of the MACT, Ernakulam. 2. The first appellant in MACA 514/2011 is the wife, and appellants Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased Martin, who died in the accident. The 4[th] petitioner, the father of the deceased died during the pendency of the claim petition. The 5[th] petitioner, the mother of the deceased, also died after the pronouncement of the award. 3. The appellant in MACA 1543/2011 was a minor at the time of the accident and was represented by her next friend and grandfather. The appellant in MACA 542/2011 is one Sofia Noby. Similarly, the appellant in MACA 1539 of 2011 is a minor aged 3 years and represented by her next friend and mother. 4. On 5.4.2003 at about 2 am, the deceased Martin and the appellants in other appeals were travelling in a Maruti van bearing Reg.No.KL-03/7072 from Kozhikode to Perumbally, and Mr. Joseph drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed. When the vehicle reached Machingal, it ramped into the nearby compound wall, causing serious injuries to the deceased and other appellants. They were taken to KPM Hospital and were admitted there for one day. Shri Martin succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The appellants were shifted to Medical Trust Hospital, admitted, and treated there. 5. The first respondent remained ex-parte, and the 2[nd] respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy of the Maruti van bearing registration MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 6 : No.KL-03/7072. After the accident, the vehicle’s owner did not inform the 2[nd] respondent regarding the accident and did not submit vehicular documents, including the driving license, for verification which amounts to a violation of policy conditions. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. The vehicle was overloaded with passengers, which caused the accident. There were 11 passengers in the car, which is a violation of the permit condition and policy condition. The claimants’ age, occupation, and income were denied, and they prayed for the dismissal of the petitions. 6. The Tribunal jointly tried all these cases along with 7 other claim petitions, which were filed by the other passengers in the van who also sustained injuries in the accident. Different compensation amounts were granted in the Petitions and it held that the highest 4 amounts in different OP MVs are to be deposited by the insurance company, and the balance due to be deposited by the owner of the vehicle. MACA. No.514 / 2011 7. The Tribunal, relying on the oral evidence of PW1, Ext.Nos.A1 to A10, and B1 awarded a compensation of Rs.6,61,342/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 8. Heard Adv.Sudhish R for the appellants and Adv.P K Manojkumar for the 2[nd] respondent. 9. The counsel for the appellants argues that the deceased was aged 39 years at the time of the accident and was working as a telephone operator earning a sum of Rs.7173/- per month. To prove the salary Ext.A7 salary certificate was produced, and the person who issued Ext.A7 was examined as PW1. The Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs.6,000/- for calculating loss of MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 7 : dependency. Thereafter one-third was deducted towards personal expenses and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,24,000/- under loss of dependency. The counsel further argues that when Ext.A7 salary certificate is produced, and the person who issued Ext.A7 was examined before the Tribunal, Ext.A7 stands proved, and the Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly salary as Rs.7,173/- per month. When PW1 was cross-examined, he deposed that he had not issued the certificate and what is shown in the certificate is the gross salary, and he cannot say what was the basic pay without checking the file. Moreover, the future prospects of the employees of Taj Malabar are based on performance. From the deposition, it cannot be confirmed that the deceased was earning Rs.7,173/- per month, and therefore, the monthly income notionally taken as Rs.6,000/- is proper. Since the deceased has completed 39 years and 9 months, the age has to be taken as 39 years in view of the decision reported in **Shashikala & others v. Gangalakshmamma & another (2015 KHC 4195).** Therefore, the appellants are entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40%. and the multiplier to be taken as 15. The total dependents of the petitioner are 5 in number. Therefore, one-fourth has to be deducted towards personal expenses. But the Tribunal has deducted 1/3[rd] of the income taking income as Rs.6,000/. Thus, when added 40% towards future prospects, the revised income will be Rs.8,400/- (6,000+40%). Loss of dependency can be calculated as Rs.8,400x 15x12x3/4= Rs.11,34,000/- MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 8 : 10. Regarding the loss of consortium, the appellants are the wife and two children, and they are entitled to Rs.40,000/- + 10% escalation in view of the decision reported in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017)** **16 SCC 680** ], less what is awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Accepting the principles in the decision reported in **Pranay sethi (Supra)** the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/-, plus 10% escalation in every three years which comes to Rs. 16,500/- as funeral expenses. For transportation expenses a sum of Rs. 1000 more is awarded. 12. Towards loss of estate, the Tribunal did not grant any amount. Therefore they are entitled to Rs.15,000/- + 10% increase under the heads, as per the dictum laid down in **Pranay Sethi (supra).** 13. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/-for loss of love and affection. When loss of consortium is awarded, another amount under the head loss of love and affection cannot be awarded. So the award under the head loss of love and affection by the Tribunal is set aside. Accordingly, the following enhancements/deductions are made to the Award: MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 9 : |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amt. Awarded by<br>Tribunal (Rs.)|Amt. revised in appeal<br>(Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of dependency|6,24,000|11,34,000| |2.|Funeral expenses|8,000|16,500| ||Transportation expenses||2,000| |3.|Loss of estate|-|16,500| |4.|Loss of love and affection|10,000|--| |5.|Loss of consortium|10,000|1,32,000| ||Total|6,52,000|13,01,000| ||Amount enhanced -Rs.13,01,000-6,52,000 =**Rs.6,49,000/-**||| The appellants are entitled to Rs.6,49,000/- (Rupees six lakh and forty nine thousand only). It is also made clear that the appellant would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 220 days in filing the Appeal, as per the order of this Court dated 05.07.2023, on the enhanced compensation. ## MACA 542/2011 14. The Tribunal relying on the documentary evidence of Ext.Nos.A21 to A23, awarded a compensation of Rs.83,594/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 15. Heard the counsel Shri R Sudhish for the appellant and Shri.Harishankar M for the 2[nd] respondent. 16. The counsel for the appellant argues that though the appellant claimed Rs.3,000/- as income, the Tribunal took only Rs.2,500/- as notional income. When there is no evidence as to the income, going by the dictum laid down in **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance** MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 10 : **Co. Ltd [(2011) 13 SCC 236],** the monthly income for a coolie who met with an accident in the year 2003 is to be taken Rs.4,000/-. But since the appellant’s claim is only Rs.3,000/-, I fix the monthly income as Rs.3,000/-. 17. As per Ext.A23 treatment certificate, it can be seen that the injuries sustained by the appellant would show that she was admitted to the Medical Trust Hospital on 8.4.2003 and transferred to Maxilo facial department. CT scan brain showed normal parenchyma. X-ray cervical spine showed kyphotic deformity (+). For loss of earnings, the Tribunal calculated only 2 months. Considering the above mentioned injuries, I am inclined to grant loss of earnings for 3 months. Therefore, the amount awarded under loss of earnings will be 3 x 3000 = Rs.9,000/- less awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,000/-for transport to the hospital. The accident happened at Malappuram, from where she was taken to KPM Hospital, Malappuram, and from there to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. Therefore, a further sum of Rs.1,000/- is awarded under the head. 19. The appellant was aged 22 years. Towards the head of disfiguration, she was awarded Rs.8,000/-. Due to typic deformity, there is disfigurement. As a lady aged 22 years, the amount awarded under disfigurement as Rs.8,000/- is on the lower side; hence, a further sum of Rs.7,000/- is awarded. 20. Towards loss of amenities, though the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/-, considering the above deformities, another sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head loss of amenities. MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 11 : ## Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the Award: |Sl.No.|Head of claim|Amt. Awarded by<br>Tribunal (Rs.)|Amt. revised in appeal<br>(Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1.|Loss of earning|5,000|9,000| |2.|Transport to hospital|1,000|2,000| |3,|Towards disfiguration|8,000|15,000| |4.|Loss of amenities|12,000|17,000| ||Total|26,000|43,000| ||Amount enhanced : 43,000-26,000 = Rs.17,000/-||| The appellant is entitled to Rs.17,000/- (Rupees seventeen thousand only). The Insurance Company shall pay interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum for the enhanced amounts from the date of petition till realisation. It is also made clear that the appellant would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 232 days in filing the Appeal, as per the order of this Court dated 19.12.2019, on the enhanced compensation. ## MACA 1539/2011 21. The Tribunal, relying on Ext.Nos.A13 and A14, and Ext.B1 awarded a compensation of Rs.36,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 22. Ext. A13 would certificate shows that she was taken to KPM hospital, Malappuram, with severe head injury with a fractured skull 4 cm long, an occipital area with a lacerated wound over the fracture scalp, cerebral odema. Ext.A5 Medical Certificate from Medical Trust Hospital shows that she was treated there as an inpatient from 6.4.2003 to 8.4.2003. MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 12 : 23. The counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant, a minor child aged 3 years, cannot be treated as a passenger in a vehicle in view of Rule 221 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The said Rule relates to children and Infants – Carriage in Public Service Vehicles and prescribes the fares chargeable for a child between the age group of 3 and 12 The counsel contends that since the child is more than 3 years, the age of the child shall not be reckoned and the appellant cannot be treated as a passenger. Therefore, the compensation amount in respect of the appellant has to be deposited by the responsible Insurance Company, and the liability cannot be fixed on the owner of the vehicle. 24. Counsel for the respondent argues that according to the policy, the maximum number of passengers that can be carried in the subject vehicle is 4 passengers plus driver. Rule 221 of the Motor Vehicles Rules does not declare in any way that a child aged 3 years cannot be treated as a passenger. But the Rule deals with the fares chargeable in respect of children below the age of 12. Admittedly, the number of persons that can be carried in the vehicle is 4. Therefore, relying on the said Rule, it cannot be said that it is a universal Rule which declares that a minor aged 3 years or below shall not be treated as a passenger in the vehicle. Therefore, the liability to pay compensation is on the registered owner. 25. As per the dictum laid down in **United India Insurance Co. Ltd** **v. K.M. Poonam and others (2011 KHC 4218)** after analysing the decision in **National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Anjana Shyam and others (2007 KHC 5637)** the apex court has held that any person travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted number of 4 passengers will have to be compensated by the owner of the car. But the appellant will be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer and recover the same from the insured. Hence, the finding entered by the Tribunal in respect of the payment of the amount by the owner of MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 13 : the vehicle is confirmed. But liberty is given to the Insurance company to recover the amount from the registered owner. 26. The counsel for the appellant submitted that, taking note of the serious head injuries, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 20,000/- towards shock, pain, and suffering, which is on the lower side. Taking note of the tender age of the minor, the injury sustained, and the treatment as an inpatient, I grant Rs.10,000/more under the head of shock, pain, and suffering. 27. Towards loss of amenities, a sum of Rs.5,000/- more is awarded, taking note of the injuries, especially on the skull. 28. For transportation to the hospital from Malappuram to Medical Trust Hospital, Rs.1,000/- more is awarded. Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the Award: |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amt. Awarded by<br>Tribunal<br>(Rs.)|Amt. revised in<br>appeal (Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to Hospital|1,000|2,000| |2.|Loss of amenities|12,000|17,000| |3.|Shock, Pain, and suffering|20,000|30,000| ||Total|33,000|49,000| ||Amount enhanced -Rs.49,000 – Rs.33,000 =**Rs.16,000/-**||| The appellant is entitled to Rs.16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand only). It is also made clear that the appellant would not be entitled to interest MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 14 : for the period of delay of 557 days in filing the Appeal, as per the order of this Court dated 13.6.2019, on the enhanced compensation. ## MACA NO.1543/2011 29. The Tribunal jointly tried this case along with 7 other claim petitions which were filed by the other passengers in the van who also sustained injuries in the accident. The Tribunal relying on Ext.Nos.A27 to A29, awarded a compensation of Rs.40,496/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum 30. Counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant was treated as an inpatient for 14 days, and Ext.A27 is the wound certificate. It shows that she had a fracture shaft of (L) femur. Ext.A29 treatment certificate shows that she had complaints of pain (R) leg and (L) forearm, fracture shaft of left femur middle third lower third junction, and greenstick fracture in both bones distal end (L) forearm. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities Rs.10,000/-. 31. The counsel for the appellant submits that a minor girl aged 4 years had to be hospitalized for 14 days as an inpatient. She had to undergo so much pain and suffering due to fractures and injuries, and the amount awarded is lower side under the head pain and suffering and loss of amenities. 32. Considering the injuries sustained and the tender age of the appellant at the time of the accident, I am inclined to grant a further sum of Rs.10,000/under pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- under loss of amenities. 33. As against transportation to the hospital from Malappuram to Medical Trust Hospital, Rs.1,000/- more is awarded. Accordingly, the following enhancements are made to the Award: MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 15 : |Sl. No.|Head of Claim|Amt. Awarded by<br>Tribunal<br>(Rs.)|Amt. revised in appeal<br>(Rs.)| |---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to Hospital|1,000|2,000| |2.|Loss of amenities|10,000|15,000| |3.|Pain and sufferings|15,000|25,000| ||Total|26,000|42,000| ||Amount enhanced - Rs.42,000-Rs.26,000**= Rs.16,000/-**||| The appellant is entitled to Rs.16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand only). It is also made clear that the appellant would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 559 days in filing the Appeal, as per the order of this Court dated 13.6.2019, on the enhanced compensation. In the result the appeals are allowed as follows 1. The appellants in MACA 514/2011 are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. Rs. 6,49,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It is also made clear that the appellant would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 220 days in filing the Appeal, as per the order of this Court dated 05.07.2023, on the enhanced compensation. 2. The appellant in MACA 542/2011 is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. Rs. 17,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It is also made clear that the appellant would not be entitled MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 16 : to interest for the period of delay of 232 days in filing the Appeal, as per the order of this Court dated 19.12.2019, on the enhanced compensation. 3. The appellant in MACA 1539/2011 2011 is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. Rs. 16,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The 2[nd] respondent is directed to pay the amount to the appellant and liberty is given to the insurer to recover the same from the registered owner/ insured. It is also made clear that the appellant would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 557 days in filing the Appeal, as per the order of this Court dated 13.6.2019, on the enhanced compensation. 4. The appellant in MACA 1543/2011 2011 is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. Rs. 16,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. It is also made clear that the appellant would not be entitled to interest for the period of delay of 559 days in filing the Appeal, as per the order of this Court dated 13.6.2019, on the enhanced compensation. The Insurance Company shall pay interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum for the enhanced amounts from the date of petition till realisation in all the appeals. All other findings entered by the Tribunal stand confirmed. If any amounts have already been paid, the same shall be granted set off. The claimants shall produce the details of the Bank account before the Insurance Company/Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and the amount shall be transferred to the Bank account directly through NEFT/RTGS mode, within a period of one month thereafter. If the Bank account is not furnished within the time stipulated, it is made clear that no interest shall run on the enhanced amount after the period specified by this Court. MACA 514/2011 & Coc. : 17 : If the enhanced amounts in the appeals by this court are higher than the amounts claimed in the Original Petition, the appellant/appellants will have to pay the balance court fee. Sd/- **BASANT BALAJI** **JUDGE** dl/