Musthafa S/o Sidhique Kadavath House v. Shibu S/o Joy; Shihab S/o Kunhalankutty; Banaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **FRIDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943** ## **MACA NO. 1711 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 815/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,** ## **MANJERI** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** ## **MUSTHAFA** **S/O.SIDHIQUE,KADAVATH HOUSE, ERANCHIKODE P.O.,KUNDUTHODU, EDAVANNA - VIA, MALAPPURAM DIST** **BY ADV SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 SHIBU S/O.JOY,PAZHAMBALLI HOUSE, KARULAYI P.O.,NILAMBUR TAUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-679330** - **2 SHIHAB S/O.KUNHALANKUTTY, THEKKETHODIKA HOUSE, KARULAYI P.O.,NILAMBUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679330** - **3 BANAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 3RD FLOOR, FINANCE TOWER, NEAR NEW INDIAN EXPRESS, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682017** - **BY ADVS. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SMT K.S SANTHI-R3** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.1711/2012 2 ## **JUDGMENT** This appeal has been filed against the award passed in O.P.(M.V)No.815/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, ‘the Act’) for the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant out of a motor vehicle accident occurred on 27.01.2008 while he was walking with his friend along the edge of road margin of Kunduthodu Angadi in Nilambur – Manjeri road at about 6.00 a.m. It is alleged that accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1[st] respondent. Second respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. Third respondent is the insurer. A total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- has been claimed. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the matter. Third respondent filed written statement denying the negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent. The delay of 36 hours in lodging the FIR is suspicious. MACA No.1711/2012 3 3. It is contended that since the offending vehicle was driven away without stopping, there was no chance for identification of the driver of the vehicle. It is further contended that the offending vehicle was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector only after 18 days i.e. on 15.2.2008. It has been in police custody for ten days. It is also contended that the vehicle was inspected at the premises of Wandoor police station though the place of incident is within the limits of Edavanna police station. So according to the respondent there are materials to suspect that the appellant/claimant sustained injury in some other incident and not with respect to the use of this alleged vehicle. But the policy coverage with respect to the offending vehicle is admitted. 4. Exts.A1 to A5 series and Ext.X1 marked from the side of the claimant. Exts.B1 to B11 were marked from the side of the respondent. There was no oral evidence from either side. Tribunal on evaluation of the pleadings as well as the materials produced from either side found that the claimant failed to prove that he sustained injury by hit with vehicle MACA No.1711/2012 4 bearing Reg.KL 11R 8840. It is also found that there is no evidence to hold the first respondent was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and ultimately the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition for those reasons. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, appellant/claimant approaches this Court in appeal for the various ground stated in the memorandum of appeal. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through counsel Sri. U.K.Devidas. Third respondent, insurer, appeared through Smt.K.S. Santhi. Lower court records were called for and perused. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel is with respect to the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant/claimant (hereinafter be referred to as the claimant) failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle Reg.No.KL 11R 8840 as well as that the first respondent is the driver of the vehicle during the relevant time. He would also contend that MACA No.1711/2012 5 though the claimant was doing the business of plywood and claimed a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-, only Rs.3,500/- was taken by the Tribunal as the monthly income, which according to him, is very low. He would also contend that though disability certificate showing permanent disability of 1% was accepted by the Tribunal and Ext.X1 certificate was also produced, no compensation was granted by the Tribunal under the head permanent disability finding that there is no functional disability since the percentage of disability is only 1%. That according to the learned counsel is illegal and irrational and hence he seeks for enhancement of compensation on all heads. 8. The claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal for the reason that there is no evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the first respondent was the driver of vehicle bearing Reg.KL 11R 8840 at the time of accident and that the claimant sustained injury due to the hit by the above vehicle and the involvement of the said vehicle as such is not proved. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the MACA No.1711/2012 6 insurer that though the incident occurred on 27.01.2008 at 6 a.m the FIS was lodged only on 28.01.2008 at 6 p.m. Admittedly by the claimant the vehicle sped away after hitting the claimant and claimant or the first informant did not get enough time to notice the registration number of the offending vehicle. It is further contended that on 29.01.2008 the seizure mahazar on taking custody of the vehicle was prepared. But the vehicle was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector only on 15.02.2008 and as per Ext.B6 report of the Vehicle Inspector the vehicle was kept in Wandoor Police Station though the case was investigated by Edavanna police. 10. The learned counsel would also contend that the principles laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Pazhaniammal & Ors. [2011 (3) KHC 595 : 2011 (3) KLT 648] would not apply to this case because a Division Bench of this Court in Mohankumar K.P. v. Kuniyel Ibrahim and Ors. [2019 (4) KHC 74] found that once the judgment of the criminal court has been produced it has to be taken as a rebuttal evidence and thereafter it cannot be taken that production of a MACA No.1711/2012 7 charge sheet will continue to be a sufficient prima facie evidence ignoring the judgment. In this case the judgment of the criminal court acquitting the accused has been produced as Ext.B11. The Tribunal took into account the fact that none of the witnesses mentioned the vehicle involved as KL 11R 8840 nor identified the first respondent, accused, as the driver of that vehicle and accordingly the Magistrate acquitted the accused. But there was no attempt from the side of the claimant to prove the statements of the charge witnesses. It is further found that the document of the first hospital where the injured was taken immediately after the accident was not brought in evidence and that creates suspicion. So the Tribunal was of the view that neither the claimant nor the person who gave the FIS has come forward and gave evidence in support of the claim petition. So it was concluded that it is a case of hit and run and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to hold that first respondent was the driver of the vehicle during the relevant time and accordingly it was concluded that the claimant failed to prove that he got injured MACA No.1711/2012 8 in an accident as alleged by hit by vehicle No.KL 11R 8840 and based on that finding even though assessment of compensation to the tune of Rs.53,793/- was arrived at, the claim petition was dismissed. 11. With regard to the argument of the learned counsel for the insurer that the decision in Pazhaniammal's case has no application in view of the Mohankumar's case, the learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the fact situation in Mohankumar's case is entirely different and has no application to the case in hand. On going through Mohankumar's case, it could be found that, that was a case in which the claimant as well as the owner of the vehicle filed appeal against the award passed and the owner of the vehicle challenged the award in ordering pay and recovery. In that decision the Tribunal found upholding the contention of the third respondent insurer that the vehicle was driven during the relevant time by the fourth respondent in that case relying on Ext.B3 charge sheet and Pazhaniammal's case was relied on to support the contention that charge sheet was against the MACA No.1711/2012 9 fourth respondent. But the Division Bench taking into account the fact that the criminal case ended in acquittal and the judgment of the criminal court has been produced as evidence from the side of the claimant in such contingencies Pazhaniammal's case has no application. While disposing that matter the Division Bench took into account the fact that though the criminal case was charged against the fourth respondent the Judicial First Class Magistrate after trial found the accused not guilty. It is also discussed that the said judgment would reveal that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution did not depose regarding the involvement of the fourth respondent and their testimonies are also to the effect that the fourth respondent was not the driver of the bus at the time of the accident. Moreover, in that case, before the Tribunal the claimant was examined as PW1 and written statement was also filed by the second respondent in that case contending that it was he who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. During cross examination by the respondents also claimant deposed that it was the second respondent who MACA No.1711/2012 10 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Despite that the third respondent insurer did not adduce any evidence but only relied on the charge sheet Ext.B3. So this Court appreciated the fact that before the Tribunal the oral evidence of the claimant as PW1 was in tune with the admission of the second respondent that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. But no evidence was let in by the third respondent insurer before the Tribunal apart from the charge sheet. It was in the said circumstance the Division Bench has held that on production of judgment of the criminal court acquitting the accused is to be taken as a rebuttal evidence and thereafter it cannot be taken that the production of charge sheet will continue to be a prima facie evidence ignoring the judgment. So as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimant the decision in Mohankumar's case has no application to the case in hand. In this case no other driver has been impleaded or filed written statement admitting that he was driving the vehicle during the relevant time. The police charge sheet is against the first respondent, driver. No MACA No.1711/2012 11 evidence was adduced from either side and the mere fact that the accused was acquitted by the criminal court will not be taken as a ground to dismiss the claim of the injured. In this context the learned counsel for the claimant would drew my attention to N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Karumai Ammal & Ors. [1980 KHC 334], in which, the Apex Court while dealing with Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, has held that Accident Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. A portion of paragraph No.3 of the said judgment is relevant in this context to be extracted, which reads thus: “3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly MACA No.1711/2012 12 reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes.” 12. The learned counsel also bring to my attention to Manju Rani v. Inderjeet Singh and Ors. [2008 KHC 7641 : AIR 2008 Del.206]. Portion of paragraph No.17 of the judgment reads as follows: “Similarly the acquittal of the driver of the offending vehicle of the appellant by the criminal Court cannot be taken to have any adverse effect on the findings reached by the Tribunal in an independent compensation case. The MACT cases have to be decided on their own footings and the same are not dependant upon the result or an outcome of a criminal case. In this regard the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment entitled N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd v. M. Kurumai Animal and Ors, in AIR 1980 SC 1354 gave following observations:- The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirement of culpable rashness under Section 304-A, I.P.C. is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of Torts to create liability. The quantum of compensation was moderately fixed and although there was perhaps, a case for enhancement, the High Court dismissed the cross-claims also. Being questions of fact, we are obviously unwilling to reopen the holding on culpability and compensation.” MACA No.1711/2012 13 13. The learned counsel also relies on Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sa-Ngor Chotshog Centre and Anr. [2020 KHC 3561 : 2020 ACJ 1154], wherein while dealing with an appeal under the Act a contention was raised that due to the acquittal of the accused in criminal case the question of rash and negligent driving did not arise. In that context it was held that in a criminal trial the matter is to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt and that is not the standard required while considering a matter before the Tribunal. In a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Jagdish v. Rahul Bus Service and Ors. [2016 KHC 7527 : 2016 ACJ 1671] it has been held that the findings recorded by the criminal court in acquittal cannot be a ground to defeat the rights of the claimants and even if the driver is acquitted in the criminal proceedings, that may not be a ground for dismissal of the claim petition. 14. The Tribunal found that the claimant failed to prove that he was injured in an accident and was hit by the vehicle KL 11R 8840 is not seems to be legally sustainable. In Ext.B11 MACA No.1711/2012 14 judgment of the criminal court the finding is that there is nothing in evidence brought by the prosecution to prove that the accused had driven the mini lorry in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life through the public road and caused the accident and accordingly it was concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused. So there is no finding by the criminal court that the vehicle is not involved in the accident and the finding is only with regard to the identity of the accused. So also as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant the delay caused in examining the vehicle by the Vehicle Inspector is not a reason to disbelieve the case of the claimant. So also the fact that it was examined in the premises of Wandoor police station is also is of no consequence because the specific case of the claimant is that the vehicle after hitting him run without stopping and only on subsequent information the vehicle was seized and it was within the Wandoor police station limits though the accident was within the limits of Edavanna police station. So the delay caused in examining the vehicle by the vehicle MACA No.1711/2012 15 Inspector also cannot be taken as a reason to disbelieve the case of the claimant. 15. Ext.B6 MVI report also specially states about the minor damages on the front bumper and scratches on left side and further that rear right brake light found missing. So though the vehicle was inspected on 15.02.2008 the damage is still present on the front left bumper and minor damages are noted on the vehicle. So that also corroborates with the case of the claimant regarding the accident. Copies of Ext.A1 FIR and Ext.A3 Final Report were also produced from the side of the claimant and that also probabilise the case of the claimant. 16. Another factor noted by the Tribunal is nonproduction of the wound certificate from the first hospital wherein he was taken immediately after the accident. But it is to be noted that Ext.A2, copy of the wound certificate produced from the side of the claimant is of the same date i.e. 27.01.2008 and it would further go to show that at 8 a.m he has been examined by the doctor of MIMS Hospital with alleged history of hit by tipper lorry while walking along the MACA No.1711/2012 16 side of the road on 27.01.2008 at 6 a.m near Edavanna. It is also stated that, first seen in Malabar hospital, Manjeri. It would go to show that immediately within two hours of the accident he had been examined by the doctor at MIMS Hospital and the endorsement in Ext.A2 would also show that patient is in serious condition and altered sensorium and bleeding from right ear and multiple small abrasion over face, lacerated injury over great toe right side 3x1x1 cm and CT head showed right occipital bone fracture extending to temporal parietal bone. So the injuries sustained were also noted as 'serious' by the doctor on examination at the time of admission at MIMS Hospital. So probably due to the seriousness of the injuries immediately he might have been referred to MIMS Hospital from Malabar hospital since within two hours of the alleged accident he had been examined by the doctor at MIMS Hospital with alleged history of hit by tipper lorry. The fact that the wound certificate from the first hospital has not been produced cannot be taken as suspicious circumstance as found by the Tribunal. As has been held in MACA No.1711/2012 17 N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Karumai Ammal & Ors. [1980 KHC 334] the Tribunal should take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and owners and drivers do not escape liability merely because of some doubt or some obscurity. Here, the medical records produced from the side of the claimant would prove that immediately within two hours of the alleged incident he had been examined at MIMS hospital, Calicut and there he had been admitted with the alleged history of hit by a tipper lorry and serious injuries are also noted. FIR was lodged on the immediate next day and police after investigation had also filed Final Report against the first respondent, driver of the offending vehicle. So none of the circumstances relied on by the Tribunal would weigh much in order to disentitle a victim of motor accident in claiming compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. So the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant could not prove the involvement of the vehicle with Reg.No.KL 11R 8840 in the accident and that the first respondent was the driver of the vehicle etc. are not sustainable either in law or on MACA No.1711/2012 18 facts and hence is hereby set aside. 17. The claimant is alleged to be a businessman and he claims monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. As rightly found by the tribunal, no evidence as such has been adduced by the claimant to prove his actual income. 18. 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 MACA No.1711/2012 19 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. 19. In Syed Sadiq Etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735], taking note of the earlier decision in Ramachandrappa's case, 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. MACA No.1711/2012 20 20. In this case the accident occurred on 27.01.2008. The claimant was 25 years old at the time of incident. As per the principles laid down in the above said decisions, an amount of Rs.6,500/- can reasonably be fixed notionally as the monthly income of the claimant. 21. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. [(2011) 1 SCC 343 : 2011 ACJ 1 : 2010 KHC 5021] the Apex Court has dealt with the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. Damages have been classified under the heads pecuniary damages (special damages) and non-pecuniary damages (general damages) in cases of personal injury matters. In case of routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded towards expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure and loss of earning during the period of treatment as well as for damages for pain and suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injury. Only in serious cases of injury where there is medical evidence proving disability certificate corroborating the MACA No.1711/2012 21 evidence of claimant compensation will be granted for loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expense, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life etc. The general principles relating to compensation in injury cases has been dealt with in detail and it has been held therein that the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. It is also held that a person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which injured has suffered as a result of such injury. 22. In personal injury cases, heads under which the MACA No.1711/2012 22 compensation is awarded has been classified into two as pecuniary damages (Special damages) and non pecuniary damages (general damages). 23. In paragraph No.5 of the above judgment, the heads coming under pecuniary damages and non pecuniary damages have been discussed. In personal injury cases, compensation would be awarded only under the heads ie, expenses relating treatment, hospitalization, medicine, transportation nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure and loss of earning during the period of treatment as well as damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating evidence of the claimants, the compensation would be granted under the heads loss of earning (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : - Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, Future medical expenses, Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). The MACA No.1711/2012 23 assessment of non pecuniary damages under the damages for pain, suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. 24. In the present case, the claimant sustained following injuries: Ext.A2-wound certificate would show that the claimant was semiconscious and had altered sensorium. There was bleeding from his right ear and he sustained multiple small abrasions over the face and lacerated injury over the great toe on the right foot. It was also diagnosed that he had sustained fracture of right occipital bone extending to temporal bone and he has undergone inpatient treatment for ten days. Ext.A5 series are the medical bills showing the expenses of Rs.31,793/-. So taking into account the period of treatment as well as the nature of the injuries sustained and further the disability of 1% as certified by the Medical Board loss of MACA No.1711/2012 24 earnings for three months taken by the Tribunal is seems to be reasonable and re-fixing the said amount at the rate of Rs.6,500/-, the amount would come to Rs.19,500/-. Deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant will get an amount of Rs.9,000/- [19,500-10,500]. Towards bystander expenses, only Rs.1,000/- was awarded, according to the learned counsel, it is very low. It has come out that the claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for 10 days. The accident was in the year 2008. So Rs.250/- per day can be taken towards the bystander expenses. So on that head the claimant is entitled to get Rs.1,500/- [250x10 – 1,000]. Damage to clothing Rs.250/was awarded. Since the accident was in the year 2008 and taking into account that the claimant was only 25 years old, Rs.250/ - is further awarded towards damage to clothing. Towards transportation charges Rs.250/- was awarded. It has come out that immediately after the incident he was taken to a nearby hospital and thereafter to MIMS Hospital, Calicut and taking into those factors into account, an amount of Rs.1,000/is further awarded towards transportation expenses. To prove MACA No.1711/2012 25 the disability, the claimant produced Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. But the Tribunal was of the view that the permanent disability noticed by the Medical Board will not adversely affect his earning power and hence it is not necessary to award any compensation on the basis of Ext.X1. The finding so entered into by the Tribunal is not seems to be reasonable. When a Medical Board issued disability certificate that too in view of the injuries including fracture of right occipital bone extending to temporal bone the disability assessed would definitely affect his functional disability to 1%. So towards permanent disability claimant will be entitled to get Rs.14,040/ - [6,500x12x18x1/100]. Towards pain and suffering, Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-. Further Rs.5,000/ - is awarded towards pain and suffering. Towards loss of amenities, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal. Taking into account the nature of injuries and all other factors, an amount of Rs.7,500/ - is awarded towards loss of amenities. Though the Tribunal arrived at a total compensation of Rs.53,793/-, based on the finding on issue MACA No.1711/2012 26 No.1 ultimately the claim petition was dismissed and no compensation was given to the claimant. 25. In point No.1 this Court has already found that the claimant has succeeded to prove the involvement of the vehicle as well as that the first respondent was in control of the vehicle during the relevant time. Hence Rs.53,793/assessed by the Tribunal is to be added. So the total compensation would be Rs.92,083/- [9,000+1,500+250+ 1,000+14,040+5,000+7,500+53,793], which is rounded off to Rs.92,100/ -. 26. In the result, the appellant/claimant is allowed to realise enhanced compensation of Rs.92,100/- (Rupees ninety two thousand one hundred only), which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till realisation (excluding the period 17 days delay caused in filing the appeal). The third 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 certified copy of this judgment. MACA No.1711/2012 27 Appellant/claimant 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 insurer, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Parties shall bear their respective costs. Sd/- **M.R.ANITHA** **JUDGE** **shg/**