MACA No.3335 of 2014 (Karmachandran @ Karnnendran Pathissseri Thekkathil v. Akbar & The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.3335 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.1384/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER :** - **1 KARMACHANDRAN @ KARNNENDRAN PATHISSERI THEKKATHIL, KARUVATTA VADAKKUM MURI, KARUVATTA P.O. (DIED)** - ***ADDL. 2 MANIYAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS** - **W/O.KARMACHANDRAN @ KARNNENDRAN, PATHISERI THEKKATHIL, KARUVATTA VADAKKUM MURI, KARUVATTA P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690 517.** - ***ADDL. 3 KALESH K.P., S/O.KARMACHANDRAN, PATHISSERI THEKKATHIL, KARUVATTA VADAKKUM MURI, KARUVATTA P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690 517.** - ***ADDL. 4 MANJU, D/O.KARMACHANDRAN, MANTHARA MADOM, KOMANA, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 561.** - **THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 AS PER ORDER DTD. 27/10/17 IN IA NO.3742/17 IN MACA 3335/14.** **BY ADVS.** - **SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN SMT.PARVATHY NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 AKBAR (DRIVER), HOUSE NO.194-CHAPPAKKADUKARA, CHITTOOR VILLAGE, MUTHALAMADA PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD-678 001.** - ****2 MALATHI (OWNER), HOUSE NO.1/518, NANDIKOTU PANCHAYATH, PATTIKULAM VILLAGE, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD-678 001.(DELETED)** MACA No.3335 of 2014 2 - ****3 S.MUTHU (INSURED), 7/196, OTTASA, VADAVAKUR, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD-678 001.(DELETED)** - **** THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DT. 28/6/17 IN IA NO.2156/17 IN MACA 3335/14.** - **4 THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM-690 502.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.P.G.BABITHA R4 BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.3335 of 2014 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The original appellant is the claimant in O.P. (MV)No.1384 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, 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 28.09.2004, while he was walking along the side of National Highway 47. At the place of accident, he was knocked down by a lorry bearing registration No.KRN-5145, driven by the 1[st] respondent, owned by the 2[nd] respondent and insured with the 4[th] respondent. The 3[rd] respondent is the insured of the lorry. In the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1[st] respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, the 2[nd] respondent owner and the 3[rd] respondent insured of the lorry remained absent and they were set ex-parte. The 1[st] respondent driver filed written statement admitting the accident; however, denying MACA No.3335 of 2014 4 negligence alleged against him. The 1[st] respondent contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant and that, the lorry was validly insured with the 4[th] respondent insurer. 3. The 4[th] respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the lorry involved in the accident; however, denying the negligence alleged against the 1[st] respondent driver. They disputed the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. The insurer contended that there was violation of policy conditions, as the driver of the lorry was not holding a valid driving licence and badge, at the time of accident. The insurer contended further that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claimant and PWs.1 and 2 were examined. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ext.X1. 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 lorry MACA No.3335 of 2014 5 by the 1[st] respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute and the 4[th] respondent insurer failed in proving the contention as to violation of the conditions of policy, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,31,073/-, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition, till date of realisation, with a cost of Rs.4,000/- and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, the original appellant/claimant filed this appeal before this Court. During the pendency of this appeal, the original appellant died and his legal representatives are impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 4. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the additional appellants 2 to 4, the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 4[th] respondent insurer. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal MACA No.3335 of 2014 6 is as to whether additional appellants 2 to 4 are 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 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 MACA No.3335 of 2014 7 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 concept of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and nonviolation 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 Rs.)|Amount<br>awarded (in<br>Rs.)|Details in a nut<br>shell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|24,000/-|18,000/-|For six months| |2|Medical<br>and<br>Miscellaneous|7,000/-|2,753/-|As per Ext.A10<br>bills| |3|Bystander's<br>expense|10,000/-|6,000/-|For two months| |4|Transportation<br>charges<br>and<br>others|5,000/-|2,000/-|| |5|Extra<br>nourishment|5,000/-|2,500/-|| |6|Damage<br>to<br>clothing etc|1,000/-|500/-|| |7|Pain<br>and<br>sufferings|50,000/-|40,000/-|| MACA No.3335 of 2014 8 |8|Loss<br>of<br>amenities in life|50,000/-|30,000/-|| |---|---|---|---|---| |9|Compensation<br>for disability &<br>loss of earning<br>power|3,00,000/-|2,29,320/-|(3,900 x 12 x<br>14 x 35/100)| |10|Total|Rs.4,52,000/-<br>(limited to<br>Rs.4,50,000/-)|**Rs.3,31,073/-**|| 12. The accident occurred on 28.09.2004. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 45 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- as a coolie (manual labourer). The claimant was examined as PW1. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the claimant, notionally, as Rs.3,000/-, for the purpose of assessing 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 MACA No.3335 of 2014 9 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 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 MACA No.3335 of 2014 10 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. Considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2004, and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the monthly income of Rs.4,000/- claimed in the claim petition is not on the higher side, which is taken as the notional monthly income of the claimant, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 16. The document marked as Ext.A5 is the copy of wound certificate and Ext.A6 is the discharge card. As per medical records, in the accident, the claimant sustained crush injury on right lower limb below knee, fracture tibia, fibula and severe muscle damage. The crush injury had resulted in amputation of his right leg above the knee. He MACA No.3335 of 2014 11 had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 19 days. Ext.A10 series of medical bills are for a sum of Rs.2,752.55/-. 17. The document marked as Ext.A13 is the disability certificate issued by an individual doctor, in which the permanent disability of the claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 50%. Ext.A15 is a copy of another disability certificate issued from T.D.Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha assessing the disability of the claimant as 50%. As per the order of the Tribunal in I.A.No.1296 of 2012, the Superintendent of the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam was directed to constitute a Medical Board to assess the permanent disability of the claimant. The document marked as Ext.X1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board assessing the permanent disability of the claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, as 35%. The Tribunal accepted the percentage of disability assessed in Ext.X1 for the purpose of awarding compensation under various heads. MACA No.3335 of 2014 12 18. The crush injury sustained by the claimant had resulted in amputation of his right leg above the knee. Amputation of lower limb above knee is a scheduled personal injury in Part II, Schedule I of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 resulting permanent partial disablement, for which the percentage of loss of earning capacity can be taken as 70%. At the time of accident, the claimant was a coolie (manual labourer). Considering the nature of disabilities on account of amputation of lower limb above knee, the loss of earning capacity of the claimant is taken as 70%, for the purpose of awarding compensation under various heads. 19. 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 MACA No.3335 of 2014 13 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 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 MACA No.3335 of 2014 14 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 High Court while awarding compensation to the appellant as per MACA No.3335 of 2014 15 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]** . 20. In **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United** MACA No.3335 of 2014 16 **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. 21. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and 70% loss of earning capacity arising therefrom, the claimant 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 claimant is entitled for grant of compensation under the head permanent disability, adding future prospects to his notional monthly income. MACA No.3335 of 2014 17 22. 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 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. 23. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the MACA No.3335 of 2014 18 claimant was aged 45 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- as a coolie (manual labourer). The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the claimant, notionally, as Rs.3,000/-. No reliable materials were placed before the Tribunal to show that, at the time of accident, the claimant had a permanent job. Therefore, the he 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 **25%** of the notional monthly income of the claimant, 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 claimant was **between the age of 40 to 50 years** . The addition of 30% of the notional monthly income made by the Tribunal cannot be sustained, in view of the law laid down in **Pranay Sethi** . 24. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head permanent disability, 25% of MACA No.3335 of 2014 19 the monthly income of the claimant notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.4,000/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.1,000/- (4,000 x 40/100) has to be added towards future prospects. In the result, the monthly income of the claimant, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head permanent disability, is reckoned as Rs.5,000/- (4,000 + 1,000). 25. 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 MACA No.3335 of 2014 20 **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. 26. 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. 27. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the claimant was aged 45 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 **14** applied by the Tribunal is correct and proper. 28. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,29,320/- (3,900 x 12 14 x 35/100). In this appeal, the monthly income of the claimant has already been re-fixed as Rs.4,000/-. Adding MACA No.3335 of 2014 21 25% of the notional monthly income of the claimant towards future prospects (4,000 + 1,000 = 5,000); applying the multiplier of 14 applicable to the age group of the claimant and the percentage of loss of earning capacity as 70%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is refixed as Rs.5,88,000/- (5,000 x 12 x 14 x 70/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.3,58,680/-** (5,88,000 – 2,29,320). 29. Towards compensation for loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/-, at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of 6 months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the claimant 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 claimant is re-fixed, notionally, as Rs.4,000/-, the compensation under the head loss of earning is re-fixed as Rs.24,000/- (4,000 x 6), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.6,000/-** (24,000 – 18,000) 30. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal MACA No.3335 of 2014 22 awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. The accident is of the year 2004. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for 19 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the claimant had undergone, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 31. Towards bystander expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/-. Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.2,500/-. The accident is of the year 2004 and the claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for 19 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the claimant had undergone, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under these heads cannot be said to be on the lower side, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 32. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,753/-, covered by Ext.A10 series of medical bills. In the absence of any further materials, the MACA No.3335 of 2014 **==> picture [13 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 33. Towards damage to clothing and articles, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/-. The accident is of the year 2004. The compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs.750/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.250/-** (750 - 500). 34. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-. In the accident, the claimant sustained crush injury on right lower limb below knee, fracture tibia, fibula and severe muscle damage. The crush injury had resulted in amputation of his right leg above the knee. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, which had resulted in amputation of his right leg above the knee, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs.75,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.35,000/-** (75,000 – 40,000). 35. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-. MACA No.3335 of 2014 24 ## 36. The Apex Court in **Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 10 SCC 683]** granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. In the said decision, the Apex Court was dealing with the case of an unmarried person aged 24 years, who was working as helper. On account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident, his left leg was amputated above knee. The loss of earning on account of the permanent disability was taken as 70%. Considering his age and also the fact that his marriage prospects have considerably reduced on account of amputation of left lower limb above knee, the Apex Court granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. 37. In the instant case, at the time of the accident, the claimant was aged 45 years. He was a married person. The injuries sustained in the accident had resulted in amputation of his right leg above knee. His loss of earning capacity is taken as 70%. Considering the nature of disabilities on account of the injuries sustained in the MACA No.3335 of 2014 25 accident, the compensation awarded under the head loss of amenities is re-fixed as Rs.70,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.40,000/-** (70,000 - 30,000). 38. In the result, the additional appellants 2 to 4 will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.4,39,930/-** (Rupees four lakhs thirty nine thousand nine hundred and thirty only) [3,58,680 + 6,000 + 250 + 35,000 + 40,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of **8%** per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The additional compensation shall be apportioned among additional appellants 2 to 4 in the ratio 50:25:25. The 4[th] 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 claimant towards Balance Court Fee and Legal Benefit Fund. The disbursement of additional compensation to additional appellants 2 to 4 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 MACA No.3335 of 2014 26 clarified further in Official Memorandum No.D1-62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. Additional appellants 2 to 4 shall provide their 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** AV