Mohanan and Others v. Rajeshkumar, Paul Varghese and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.3405 OF 2014(C)** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(MV) NO.56/2011 DATED 21-08-2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** - **1 MOHANAN, S/O.KUNJAN @ KUNJU, RESIDING AT CHIRACKAL HOUSE, AYAVANA KARA, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE.[DECEASED]** - **2 THANKAMANI, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. MOHANAN, RESIDING AT CHIRACKAL HOUSE, AYAVANA KARA, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.** - **3 SINOJ MOHANAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN, RESIDING AT CHIRACKEL HOUSE, AYAVANA KARA, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.** - **4 SILJA MOHANAN, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. MOHANAN, RESIDING AT CHIRACKAL HOUSE, AYAVANA KARA, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.** - **5 SOORAJ MOHANAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN, RESIDING AT CHIRACKAL HOUSE, AYAVANA KARA, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.** **6 KARTHYANI, AGED 82 YEARS, M/O. MOHANAN, RESIDING AT CHIRACKAL HOUSE, AYAVANA KARA, ENANALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.** **BY ADVS.SMT.ANEY PAUL SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU** MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -2- ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**RAJESHKUMAR,**| |---|---| ||**S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,**| ||**MKUKAUMPURATH HOUSE,**| ||**MEKKADAMPU P.O., VALAKOM, PIN-682 316.**| |**2**|**PAUL VARGHESE,**| ||**EDUMARIYIL HOSUE,**| ||**MEKKADAMPU P.O., VALAKOM,**| ||**MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-682 316.**| |**3**|**THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,**| ||**STADIUM ROAD, MARKET P.O.,**| ||**MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 661.**| |**R3**|**BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW**| |**R1**|**BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.**| **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -3- ## **JUDGMENT** The deceased original appellant was the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.56 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, 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 14.09.2010, while he was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-6/B-1202 ridden by his son. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a Maruti car bearing registration No.KL-7/P-8715 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 Maruti car by the 2[nd] respondent, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement admitting the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 2[nd] respondent driver of the Maruti car. They contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by its rider. MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -4- 3. The 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the Maruti car involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 2[nd] respondent driver. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition. The insurer contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claimant and Ext.A13 disability certificate was marked through PW1 doctor. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 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 Maruti 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.11,79,847/-, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 14.01.2011 till realisation, with proportionate cost. MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -5- 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the deceased original appellant/claimant has approached this Court in this appeal. 7. During the pendency of this appeal, the original appellant died and his legal representatives (wife, children and mother) are impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 6 by the order in I.A.No.1536 of 2016. 8. Heard the learned counsel for additional appellants 2 to 6 and also the learned Senior Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer. Since 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 dated 07.04.2015. 9. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether appellants 2 to 6 are entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 10. 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 MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -6- 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. 11. 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 the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -7- 12. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by ## the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; |Sl.<br>No.|Head|Amount<br>claimed|Amount allowed| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings/Loss of earning<br>capacity|`24,000/-|`75,000/-| |2|Pain and sufferings|`1,00,000/-|`65,000/-| |3|Loss of amenities|`1,00,000/-|`50,000/-| |4|Bystander expenses|`1,00,000/-|`17,700/-| |5|Extra nourishment charges|`1,50,000/-|`12,000/-| |6|Transportation charges|`50,000/-|`7,500/-| |7|Medical treatment charges|`9,50,000/-|`4,06,647/-| |8|Compensation for permanent<br>disability|`12,48,000/-|`5,46,000/-| ||**TOTAL**||`**11,79,847/-**| 13. The accident occurred on 14.09.2010. At the time of accident, the original appellant/claimant was aged 49 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- as Rubber Tapper and by conducting a pig farm. No materials were produced before the Tribunal to prove the monthly income of the claimant. He has also not chosen to mount the box. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.3,500/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. ## 14. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011)** MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -8- **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. 15. 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)** , MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -9- 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 6,500/- per month. 16. In the absence of any reliable evidence, considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2010, and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income of the claimant notionally as Rs.7,500/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 17. The document marked as Ext.A6 is the wound MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -10- certificate and Exts.A8 and A10 are the discharge summaries. Exts.A11 and A12 are the discharge cards. As evident from medical records, in the accident, the claimant sustained C6, C7 vertebral body fracture with locked facet joint, undisplaced oblique fracture body of sternum, compression fracture L1 vertebrae involving spinous process, fracture right transverse process of L2 vertebrae. He had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 118 days. Ext.A9 series of medical bills are for a sum of Rs.4,06,647/-. 18. The document marked as Ext.A13 is the disability certificate issued by PW1 doctor, in which the permanent disability of the claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 100%. The doctor who was examined as PW1 deposed that following cervical spine injury, all four limbs of the claimant were paralysed and he was unable to move freely. The Tribunal accepted 100% whole body disability assessed in Ext.A13, for the purpose of awarding compensation under various heads. 19. As already noticed, during the pendency of this appeal, the original appellant died and his legal representatives MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -11- are impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 6. They have filed I.A.No.4799 of 2017, under Order XL1 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to accept Annexure A3 discharge summary, Annexure A4 treatment certificate, Annexure A5 medical certificate and Annexure A6 medical bills for a sum of Rs.4,29,990/- (towards treatment expenses of the claimant till his death) as additional documents. The learned Senior Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer, on instructions, submitted that the insurer has no objection in accepting Annexure A6 medical bills. Therefore, the said interlocutory application has already been allowed by a separate order. 20. 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 MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -12- 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 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 MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -13- 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 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 MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -14- 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]** . 21. 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** MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -15- **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. 22. In the impugned award, though the Tribunal took the loss of future earning capacity as 100%, the Tribunal did not add anything to the notional monthly income of the claimant towards future prospects. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the permanent disability 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 prospectus to his notional monthly income. 23. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , a Constitution Bench of the Apex MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -16- 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 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 MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -17- 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 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 MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -18- 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 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 MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -19- claimant was aged 49 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- as rubber tapper and by conducting a pig farm. As already noticed, no reliable materials were placed before the Tribunal to show that, at the time of accident, the claimant had a permanent job. Therefore, he can only be treated as selfemployed. 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 aged **between the age of 40 to 50 years** . 27. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of earning (disability compensation), **25%** of the monthly income of the claimant notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.7,500/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.1,875/- (7,500 x 25/100) has to be added towards future prospects. In the result, the monthly income of the claimant, MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -20- for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of dependency, is reckoned as Rs.9,375/- (7,500 + 1,875). 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 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** MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -21- 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 claimant was aged 49 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 **13** applied by the Tribunal is correct and proper. 31. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,46,000/- (3,500 x 12 x 13 x 100/100). In this appeal, the monthly income of the claimant has already been re-fixed as Rs.7,500/-. Adding 25% of the notional monthly income of the claimant towards future prospects (7,500 + 1,875 = 9,375); applying the multiplier of 13 applicable to the age group of the claimant; and adding the percentage of permanent disability assessed as 100%, the MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -22- compensation under the head loss of future earning is re-fixed as Rs.14,62,500/- (9,375 x 12 x 13 x 100/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.9,16,500/-** (14,62,500 – 5,46,000). 32. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-. When the claimant is granted disability compensation taking the loss of earning capacity as 100% and applying the multiplier applicable to his age as on the date of accident, he is not entitled for any compensation under the head loss of earning. Therefore, **Rs.75,000/-** awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of earning is an **excess payment** , which has to be deducted from the additional compensation granted in this appeal. 33. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for 118 days. Towards transportation charges, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the claimant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs.10,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -23- ## **Rs.2,500/-** (10,000 - 7,500). 34. Towards bystander expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.17,700/-. Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.12,000/-. The accident is of the year 2010 and the claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for 118 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the claimant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under the head bystander expenses is re-fixed as Rs.23,600/- (200 x 118), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.6,600/-** (23,600 - 17,700). The compensation under the head extra nourishment is re-fixed as Rs.17,700/- (150 x 118), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.5,700/-** (17,700 - 12,000). 35. The Tribunal awarded no compensation towards damage to clothing and articles. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2010, this Court deem it appropriate to grant a sum of **Rs.1,000/-** as compensation under this head. 36. Towards medical treatment charges, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,06,647/-, covered by Ext.A9 series of medical bills. Along with I.A.No.4799 of 2017, additional MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -24- appellants 2 to 6 have produced Annexure A6 medical bills for a sum of Rs.4,29,990/- (towards treatment expenses of the claimant till his death). The learned Senior Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer, on instructions, submitted that the insurer has no objection in accepting Annexure A6 medical bills. In such circumstances, appellants 2 to 6 are granted an additional compensation of **Rs.4,29,990/-** towards medical treatment charges. 37. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/-. In the impugned award, the Tribunal noticed that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, all four limbs of the claimant were paralysed and he was unable to move without the help of others. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the treatment the claimant had undergone and also the nature of distillates noted in Ext.A13, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is re-fixed as Rs.1,00,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.35,000/-** (1,00,000 - 65,000). 38. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -25- sum of Rs.50,000/-. The injuries sustained in the accident had resulted in 100% permanent disability. All four limbs of the claimant were paralysed and he was unable to move without the help of others. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the disabilities noted in Ext.A13, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of amenities is refixed as Rs.1,00,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.50,000/-** (1,00,000 - 50,000). 39. In the result, additional appellants 2 to 6/legal representatives of the deceased claimant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.13,72,290/-** (Rupees thirteen lakh seventy two thousand two hundred and ninety only) [(9,16,500 + 2,500 + 6,600 + 5,700 + 1,000 + 4,29,990 + 35,000 + 50,000) - 75,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of **8%** per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The additional compensation granted in this appeal shall be apportioned among additional appellants 2 to 6 in the ratio 60:10:10:10:10. 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 MACA No.3405 of 2014(C) -26- 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 the amount to additional appellants 2 to 6 shall be made by the Tribunal, 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.D162475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. Additional appellants 2 to 6 shall furnish 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** bpr