Nandakumar v. K.C. Abdul Rasheed and K.C. Abdul Nazar and National Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 22ND ASWINA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.1170 OF 2009** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)No.1001/2004 DATED 24-09-2008 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA** ## **APPELLANT:** **NANDAKUMAR, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, NEDUMATTUMMAL HOUSE, KUNDALIYOOR DESOM, ENGADIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, C/O.CHANKARAMVEETTIL HOUSE, CHELOOR DESOM, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**K.C.ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.ALIKUTTY,**| |---|---| ||**ARAKKAL ANDIPATTIL HOUSE, MANNALAMKUNNU P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.(OWNER)**| |**2**|**K.C.ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.ALIKUTTY**| ||**ARAKKAL ANDIPATTIL HOUSE, VELIYAMKODU VILLAGE,**| ||**DESOM.(RIDER)**| |**3**|**NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.P.B.NO.42,**| ||**IST FLOOR, SREENARAYANA TOURIST BUILDING,**| ||**EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR.**| ## **SRI LAL GEORGE- STANDING COUNSEL FOR R3** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1001 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 24.03.2004, while he was standing on the side of NH-47 at Ambalanada. At the place of accident, he was knocked down by a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8/W-4086 owned by the 1[st] respondent, ridden by the 2[nd] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. In the accident, the appellant/claimant sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 2[nd] respondent rider, claim petition was filed by the claimant before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, the 1[st] respondent owner and 2[nd] respondent rider remained absent and they were set exparte. The 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the motorcycle; however, denying the negligence alleged against the 2[nd] respondent 3 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 rider. The age, occupation, monthly income, etc., stated in the claim petition were denied and it was contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant and a copy of the insurance policy was marked on the side of the respondents as Ext.B1. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. 4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 2[nd] respondent rider. Since insurance coverage of the offending vehicle was not in dispute, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,67,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, with proportionate cost. The 3[rd] respondent insurer was directed to satisfy the award. 5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ 4 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 claimant and also the learned Standing 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 of this Court dated 11.10.2019. 7. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 8. In **State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [(2003) 7 SCC 484]** the Apex Court held that the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has 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. 5 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 ## 9. 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. 10. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by ## the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; |SI.<br>No|Head of claim for<br>compensation|Amount<br>awarded|Basis-vital<br>details in a<br>nut shell| |---|---|---|---| |1|Permanent disability|96,000/-|Rs.24,000x<br>8x50/100| |2|Medical expenses|2,900/-|Ext.A8<br>medical<br>bills| |3|Bystander expenses|12,500/-|100x125<br>days| |4|Loss of income|20,000/-|2000x10<br>months| 6 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 |5|Pain and suffering|25,000/-|| |---|---|---|---| |6|Loss of amenities|10,000/-|| ||Total|Rs.1,67,000/-|| 11. The accident occurred on 24.03.2004. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 54 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- as a manual labourer (coolie). The appellant has also not chosen to mount the box to prove his monthly income. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.2,000/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 12. 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 7 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 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. 13. 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 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 8 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning 6,500/- per month. 14. In the absence of any reliable evidence, 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, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income of the appellant notionally as Rs.4,500/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 15. The document marked as Ext.A3 is the wound certificate issued from M.I.M. Hospital, Engandiyoor, as per which the appellant was initially admitted there for 3 days with a lacerated wound over the forehead 0.5x1 cm, abrasion over the left elbow 1x2 cm. Investigation revealed fracture of the lower 3[rd] of left tibia with fracture of left upper 3[rd] of fibula. There was also avulsion of the occipital region 2x2 cm. He was later referred to the Medical College Hospital for treatment. Ext.A4 discharge card would show that the appellant was admitted at the Medical College Hospital on 07.04.2004, where he had undergone in-patient treatment for a period of 21 days. Ext.A5 discharge card would show that the appellant was again 9 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 admitted on 20.10.2006 and had undergone in-patient treatment for a further period of 101 days. At the initial stage of treatment at the Medical College Hospital, it was diagnosed as a case of fracture of both bones of left leg with cellulitis and the appellant was reviewed after discharge upto 14.06.2004. On 20.10.2006, the appellant was admitted due to infected non-union of fracture and stiff ankle. On finding that curing by medicines is not possible, amputation of the leg below the knee was done at the Medical College Hospital. Ext.A7 photographs would show the condition of left leg of the appellant before amputation. The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record, found that the amputation was in fact justified at the third phase of treatment, and at that time, he had undergone treatment for a period of 101 days. The appellant had undergone in-patient treatment for a total period of 125 days. 16. In Ext.A6 disability certificate, the Medical Board assessed the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, at 30%. Taking into consideration the amputation below the knee and the schedule under the Workmen Compensation Act, the Tribunal took the 10 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 ## percentage of disability as 50%. 17. Towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-, at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for a period of 10 months. Considering the nature of injury sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the period of 10 months fixed by the Tribunal warrants no enhancement in this appeal. Since the monthly income of the appellant is notionally fixed as Rs.4,500/-, the compensation under the above head is re-fixed as Rs.45,000/(4,500 x 10), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.25,000/-** (45,000 - 20,000). 18. Towards bystander expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,500/-. The accident is of the year 2004 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 125 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under the head bystander expenses is re-fixed as Rs.18,750/- (150 x 125), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.6,250/-** (18,750 - 12,500). 19. The Tribunal awarded no amount towards extra nourishment. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and 11 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, this Court deem it appropriate to grant a sum of **Rs.12,500/-** (100 x 125) as compensation under this head. 20. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is re-fixed as Rs.35,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.10,000/-** (35,000 - 25,000). 21. In **Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343]** , the Apex Court laid down the principles governing assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability. The Apex Court held that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of the injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the 12 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 effect of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependancy). 22. In **Raj Kumar's case** , the Apex Court held that, if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability as a result of the injuries, then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability. The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any 13 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 kind of livelihood; or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on; or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. When compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear or a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under that head. 23. 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 14 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 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 notional monthly 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. 15 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 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 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 16 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 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]** . 24. In **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** , the Apex Court granted disability compensation to the injured, adding 50% future prospects to the notional monthly income, based on the principle laid down in **Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited [(2012) 6 SCC 421]** , to 17 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 injured persons having higher percentage of functional disability. 25. In the instant case, due to infected non union of fracture, the left leg of the appellant was amputated below knee. In Ext.A6 disability certificate, the Medical Board assessed the permanent disability as 30%. The Tribunal fixed the percentage of disability as 50%, for the purpose of awarding disability compensation. Considering the fact that the appellant was a manual labourer (coolie) at the time of accident, his functional disability on account of amputation of left leg below knee is on a higher side. Therefore, he can be granted disability compensation, by adding future prospects. 26. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** , a Constitution Bench of the Apex 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 18 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 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 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. 27. 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 19 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 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 Larger Bench. 28. 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 20 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 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. 29. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged 54 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- as a manual labourer (coolie). As already noticed, no reliable materials were placed before the Tribunal to show that, at the time of accident, the appellant had a permanent job. Therefore, he can only be treated as a self employed. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi,** an addition of **10%** of the notional monthly income of the appellant, as re-fixed in this appeal considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in 21 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 **Ramachandrappa** and in **Syed Sadiq** referred to supra, can be made towards future prospects, since the appellant was aged **below 60 years** . 30. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of earning (disability compensation), **10%** of the monthly income of the appellant notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.4,500/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.450/- (4,500 x 10/100) has to be added towards future prospects. In the result, the monthly income of the appellant, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of dependency, is reckoned as Rs.4,950/- (4,500 + 450). 31. 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 22 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 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** for 66 to 70 years. 32. 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. 33. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant has crossed the age of 55 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 8 applied by the Tribunal is not correct and the proper multiplier to be applied is **11** . 23 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 34. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.96,000/- (2000 x 12 x 8 x 50/100). In this appeal, the monthly income of the appellant has already been re-fixed as Rs.4,500/-. No deduction towards personal and living expenses is permissible while awarding disability compensation. Adding 10% of the notional monthly income of the appellant towards future prospects (4,500 + 450 = 4,950); applying the multiplier of 11 applicable to the age group of the appellant; and adding the percentage of permanent disability assessed as 50%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is re-fixed as Rs.3,26,700/- (4,950 x 12 x 11 x 50/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.2,30,700/-** (3,26,700 - 96,000). 35. Towards loss of amenities the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the permanent disability that had arisen out of those injuries, accepted by the Tribunal as 50%, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head is refixed as Rs.50,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.40,000/-** (50,000 - 10,000) under this head. 24 MACA No.1170 OF 2009 36. In the result, the appellant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.3,24,450/-** (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty only) [25,000 + 6,250 + 12,500 + 10,000 + 2,30,700 + 40,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of **8%** per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The 3[rd] respondent/insurer shall satisfy the additional compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting the liability, if any, of the appellant/claimant towards Balance Court Fee and Legal Benefit Fund. The disbursement of the amount to the appellant shall be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019. This appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** **yd**