High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-01-30Claimant-appellant’s appeal allowed; insurer ap...

Narayanan Puthiya Veettil v. V. Nisha, Padinhare Veettil Rajesh, The National Insurance Co. Ltd., C. Ranjith, Nallavan Veettil Byju, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and T. Haridasan (MACA 1836 of 2011)

Case / Petition Number:MACA.1836 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2019-01-30
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals of the claimant are allowed; the insurer appeals are partly allowed. The High Court enhanced the compensation and held that liability should be shared equally by the involved Insurance Companies. The amounts awarded across various heads were recalculated, with payment to be made within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, plus interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant must provide bank details and identification for NEFT/RTGS transfer. The final order directs equitable distribution of liability and sets out the procedural steps for payment.
Final Disposition: Claimant-appellant’s appeal allowed; insurer appeals partly allowed; liability shall be shared equally between insurers; enhanced compensation across various heads; payment within two months with NEFT/RTGS; costs as awarded by the Tribunal; statutory identification and banking details required for transfer.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Narayanan Puthiya Veettil

Respondents

V. Nisha
Padinhare Veettil Rajesh
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
C. Ranjith
Nallavan Veettil Byju
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
T. Haridasan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. Sasindran
• Johnny Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• M. Sasindran
• E. M. Joseph

Case Synopsis & Summary

Narayanan Puthiya Veettil, the claimant, sustained a severe injury in a bus collision on 25-09-2003, resulting in amputation of his right forearm. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) held both bus drivers negligent, awarding duty of liability equally between two insurers and a quantum of compensation, which the claimant challenged in MACA 1836/2011. The insurer’s appeals (MACA 987/2011 and 2044/2011) questioned the quantum; the claimant/petitioner challenged the quantum and sought enhancement. The High Court scrutinized issues of foreign employment income, the method for calculating future prospects, disability assessment, and appropriate multipliers. Relying on established precedents, the Court acknowledged the uncertainties of foreign employment income but ultimately relied on documentary evidence of continuous overseas employment (Exhibit A15) and a framework consistent with Satheesan v. Musthafa to adopt the foreign income with a 25% uplift for future prospects, while applying Indian standards for validation. The Court found compelling evidence supporting higher earnings and reiterated that the Tribunal’s disability assessment should be treated with care, citing Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar. The Court enhanced the awards across heads (loss of earnings, medical, transport, nourishment, pain and suffering, disability income, etc.), and directed equal liability sharing among insurers, with payment within two months and compliance requirements. The appeals of the insurers were partly allowed; the claimant’s appeal was allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 — Schedule I, Part II, item-3Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The claimant contended that the MACT’s quantum awarded for various heads was inadequate and that documentary evidence of foreign employment (Exhibit A15) should be treated as reliable proof of ongoing earnings. He urged adoption of the foreign income with appropriate adjustments for future prospects, citing Satheesan v. Musthafa to justify a higher standard of proof in foreign-employment cases. He argued that the disability evaluation should reflect substantial earning capacity loss due to amputation, and that the Court should apply Indian standards for calculating future earnings. He pressed for an enhanced multiplier and an appropriate compensation for loss of earning capacity and other heads.

Contentions of Respondents

The insurers argued that foreign-employment income is uncertain and requires cautious assessment; they urged reliance on Indian standards and the Medical Board’s disability finding. They contended the Tribunal’s figures should be preserved or only modestly enhanced, and that the evidence of salary certificates must be weighed with caution due to possible fluctuations. They urged proportional liability remains with insurers, cautioning against excessive enhancement and emphasizing that the impairment must be determined by the Tribunal after proper assessment.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Abraham Jacob v Mubarak	2014 (3) KLT 883	Distinguished	Satheesan v. Musthafa distinguished the earlier DB decisions including Abraham Jacob, clarifying the approach to forecasting earnings for foreign employment cases.
Valsamma v. Binu Jose	2014 (1) KLT 10	Distinguished	Satheesan v. Musthafa distinguished Valsamma; the court moves away from the older foreign-income benchmarks and follows the 1/4th approach per Satheesan.
Sherfuddin v Saveesh	2014 (1) KLT OnLine 1109	Distinguished	Satheesan distinguished the division bench decisions including Sherfuddin; the current judgment aligns with Satheesan’s methodology.
Satheesan v Musthafa	2018 (4) KLT 337	Positive	Serves as the controlling precedent; the court adopts the approach of using foreign income with 1/4th baseline and 25% future prospects as guided by Satheesan.
Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar	(2011) 1 SCC 343	Positive	The court cites Raj Kumar to support that functional disability must be assessed by the Tribunal, rather than rigidly applying schedule-based percentages.
Rajesh v Rajbir Singh	2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)	Positive	Used to justify that just compensation need not strictly confine to the claim; the court may enhance compensation beyond the insured’s claim.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Narayanan Puthiya Veettil v. V. Nisha, Padinhare Veettil Rajesh, The National Insurance Co. Ltd., C. Ranjith, Nallavan Veettil Byju, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and T. Haridasan (MACA 1836 of 2011) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 10TH MAGHA, 1940** **MACA.No.1836 of 2011** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.223/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY DATED 24-03-2011.** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **NARAYANAN PUTHIYA VEETTIL, AGED 41 YEARS S/O. LATE KANNAN, PUTHIYA VEEDU, ARIMBRA.P.O,, MULLAKODY, VIA MAYYIL.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.JOHNY THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 V. NISHA, W/O. HEMARAJ, HEMALAYAM, AROLI, P.O: PAPPINISSERY - 670 561, KANNUR.** - **2 PADINHARE VEETIL RAJESH, S/O. RAGHAVAN, PADINHARE VEETIL, NIDUVALLOOR, CHUZHALI.P.O, KANNUR-673517.** - **3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BANK ROAD, KANNUR - 670 001.** - **4 C. RANJITH, S/O. RAGHAVAN, MAHHAVI VILAS, P.O. CHIRAKKAL - 670 011, KANNUR.** - **5 NALLAVAN VEETTIL BYJU, S/O. P.K. BALAN, PAPPINISSERI AMSOM, P.O. KEECHERI-670561.** - **6 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR - 670 001.** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & - 2 - connected cases.** **7 T. HARIDASAN, S/O. LATE KANNAN, CHITTIYIL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGAD, CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.** **BY ADVS. R3 BY SRI.E.M.JOSEPH R6 BY SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.01.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.987/2011, MACA.2044/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & - 3 - connected cases.** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 10TH MAGHA, 1940** **MACA.No.987 of 2011** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.223/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY, DATED 24-03-2011** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** **NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35.** **BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH** ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 6TH RESPONDENT:** - **1 NARAYANAN PUTHIYA VEETTIL, S/O.LATE KANNAN, 41 YEARS, PUTHIYA VEEDU, ARIMBRA, P.O.MULLAKKODY, VIA MAYYIL-670602.** **2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR-670001.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.01.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.2044/2011, MACA.1836/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & - 4 - connected cases.** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 10TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **MACA.No.2044 of 2011** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.223/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY DATED 24-03-2011** ## **APPELLANT/6TH RESPONDENT:** **THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY THE DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, (M.G.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR), REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 682 011.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 & 7:** |**1**|**NARAYANAN PUTHIYA VEETIL, S/O.LATE KANNAN,**| |---|---| ||**PUTHIYA VEEDU, ARIMBRA,**| ||**P.O.MULLAKKODY, VIA MAYYIL, PIN - 670602.**| |**2**|**V.NISHA, W/O.HEMARAJ,**| ||**HEMANILAYAM, AROLI,**| ||**P.O.PAPPINISSERY,KANNUR, PIN - 670 561.**| |**3**|**PADINHARE VEETTIL RAJESH, S/O.RAGHAVAN,**| |---|---| ||**PADINHARE VEETTIL, NIDUVALLOOR, CHUZHALI P.O.,**| ||**KANNUR, PIN - 670630.**| |**4**|**NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,**| ||**DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BANK ROAD, KANNUR,**| ||**KEECHERY P.O., PIN - 670001.**| |**5**|**C.RANJITH, S/O.RAGHAVAN,**| ||**MADHAVI VILAS, P.O.CHIRAKKAL,KANNUR - 670011.**| **MACA.1836 of 2011 & - 5 - connected cases.** **6 NALLAVAN VEETTIL BYJU, S/O.P.K.BALAN, PAPPINISSERY AMSOM, KEECHERY P.O., KANNUR - 670001.** **7 T.HARIDASAN, S/O.LATE KANNAN, CHITTIYIL HOUSE, KUNNUMANGAD, CHERUKUNNU P.O., KANNUR - 670301.** **BY ADVS. R1 BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN R4 BY SRI.E.M.JOSEPH** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.01.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.987/2011, MACA.1836/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & - 6 - connected cases.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[ MACA 1836/2011, MACA.987/2011, MACA.2044/2011 ]** **These appeals arise from a common award passed by the Tribunal in two claim petitions. The present appeals are from O.P.(MV) No.223 of 2004.** **2. The claimant, appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1836 of 2011, was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.KL-13/A 7495 when it collided with another bus and the appellant suffered serious injuries. The accident occurred on 25.09.2003. The appellant had to amputate his right hand from above elbow. The appellant claimed a compensation for the injuries suffered as also the disability occasioned. The Tribunal found both the bus drivers to be negligent and mulcted liability at 50% on each of them. Though the Insurance Companies have also approached this Court [M.A.C.A.Nos.987 and 2044 of 2011], there is no challenge to the negligence so found by the Tribunal. The appeal of the assessee is confined to the enhancement claimed and those of the insurers assail the quantum granted by the Tribunal.** **3. The appellant-claimant was admitted to Unity Health Complex, Mangalore, where amputation of right** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & - 7 - connected cases.** **forearm above elbow was conducted. The appellant had also suffered some laceration scalp with cerebral concussion as noticed in Exhibit A10 wound certificate. Exhibit A11 discharge summary evidences the amputation having been carried out and hospitalization for a period of 14 days.** **4. The expenses claimed were given in toto as per the bills produced by the claimant-appellant. For transportation also, an amount of Rs.4,900/- was granted, most of which were supported by vouchers.** **5. To prove his employment, the claimant has produced Exhibit A16 series, which are attested copies of two Passports in relation to himself. In fact, the copies of the Passports show that the claimant was continuously employed abroad and that too in the Sultanate of Oman. For proving the income, the appellant produced Exhibit A15. The learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that though the document is shown as tourist taxi bills in the award, actually Exhibit A15 is an income certificate. This Court has examined Exhibits A14 and A15. It is seen that Exhibit A14 is a series of taxi bills and Exhibit A15 is a certificate issued by the Omani employer of the injured, wherein his salary was shown as Omani Rial 142 per month.** **- 8 -** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & connected cases.** **6. This Court has also gone through the deposition of the injured-appellant, by name Narayanan. As pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, the award only shows the examination of one Noushad, who was the claimant in the other application. However, the deposition of P.W.2 is seen from the records. It is also indicated that the 3[rd] respondent and the 6[th] respondent, both the Insurance Companies, have cross-examined the appellant-claimant. From the deposition it is seen that there is no serious dispute raised against Exhibit A15, though questions were generally asked on the same. Despite the fact that Exhibit A15 was shown as taxi bills, the records show the contrary. It is also seen from the document Exhibit A15 that it has been duly attested. The Oman Chamber of Commerce & Industry has attested the signature of the authorised signatory of Khalfan Khamis Rashid Al-Mujrafi, the employer of the injured. The document is also attested by the Embassy of India at Muscat, which attestation is of the signature and seal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sultanate of Oman. Hence, there is no reason why reliance should not be placed on the said document. The claim was that the appellant was entitled to a monthly income in Indian rupees of 15620/-** **- 9 -** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & connected cases.** **and the Tribunal adopted only Rs.10,000/-. The exchange rate on adopting the said computation would be Rs.110/- per Omani Rial. There is no dispute on the exchange rate at that point of time, raised by the Insurance Companies in their cross-examination. In fact the learned Counsel for the claimant has argued that the exchange rate was higher and has also produced, across the Bar, the rates for the relevant period obtained from Google. But there is no authentication for the same and the income as claimed by the appellant has to be adopted.** **7. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company relies on** _**Abraham Jacob v**_ **.** _**Mubarak**_ **[** _**2014 (3) KLT 883**_ **],** _**Valsamma v**_ **.** _**Binu Jose**_ **[** _**2014 (1) KLT 10**_ **] and** _**Sherfuddin v**_ **.** _**Saveesh**_ **[** _**2014 (1) KLT OnLine 1109**_ **] wherein it was specifically found that for awarding future prospects, the probable earning as per the Indian standards has to be adopted in respect of persons who are employed abroad. The said decisions have been considered by this Court in** _**Satheesan v**_ **.** _**Musthafa**_ **[** _**2018 (4) KLT 337**_ **]. This court need only extract paragraph 11 of the said decision, which clearly distinguishes the aforesaid Division Bench decisions:** **- 10 -** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & connected cases.** **“11. Even then the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the income as revealed by the documents produced in evidence cannot be taken in toto, since employment in a foreign country is beset with uncertainties. It is also argued that if such an income is taken for computation of future earnings, it would lead to undue benefit being conferred on the claimant.** _**Valsamma**_ **is a case in which the claimant, who was the legal heir of the deceased, asserted an income of Rs.20,000/- and relied on an agreement with the foreign employer, the labour card and the Passport. There was no clear indication of the amounts received by the deceased as income. In that context, finding that the documents are not sufficient to prove the income of the deceased, the Court assessed the income of the person in the context of Indian standards and for a Spray Painter the income was fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month.** _**Sherfuddin**_ **was a claim filed by the injured itself, asserting an income of Rs.28,000/- in his foreign employment at Qatar. Again, the Court found that there was no document showing the exact amount received by the claimant in his foreign employment. It was also found that the pleadings indicated an assertion of an amount of Rs.28,000/- per mensem, while in deposition he stated it to be Rs.60,000/-. Finding discrepancy in the versions of the claimant itself as also the finding the exact amounts not being proved, the income of a driver-cum-salesman was fixed at Rs.5,000/-.** _**Abraham Jacob**_ **produced a salary certificate authenticated by the Consular Officer of the Embassy of India at Doha (Qatar) in accordance with the provisions under the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948. The Court found that such authentication would not give a go by to the requirement** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & connected cases.** ## **- 11 -** **of proof insofar as the contents of the documents. Therein also when the claim of income from the foreign employer was of Rs.1,15,000/- per month, the monthly income accepted, following** _**Valsamma**_ **, was Rs.40,000/-. It is fairly discernible that in all these decisions the different Division Benches adopted 1/4[th] of the amounts asserted by the claimants as the monthly income of the injured/deceased from the foreign employment. The uncertainties insofar as the foreign employment, as has been found in the various decisions, loom large and stand against the claimant in the present case also. But, that would not deter this Court from making a reasonable computation of the monthly income, again going by the binding precedents, at least 1/4[th] of the income in the foreign employment which, in the present case, stands proved unequivocally by reason of no objection having been raised on the proof of its contents at the time when it was marked in trial”.** **8. In this case, in fact the evidence is more compelling. The certificate issued by the employer of the appellant-claimant produced as Exhibit A15 clearly certifies that the appellant was working as a Plumber with the said employer from 23.03.1992 onwards. The two Passports of the appellant produced for two different periods and the endorsement of foreign travel made therein also clearly indicates that the appellant was employed in the Middle-East, that too under a single employer continuously for a long period. In** _**Satheesan**_ **the injured** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & - 12 - connected cases.** **was 32 years and here the claimant is 41 and when the accident occurred was working in the middle-east for 11 years. The loss of limb definitely would have resulted in his loss of employment as a Plumber. Hence, the income as seen from the certificate at Exhibit A15 has to be adopted and considering the age of the appellant at 41, for future prospects 25% has to be added.** **9. The learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant has a contention based on** _**Raj Kumar v**_ **.** _**Ajay Kumar**_ **[** _**(2011) 1 SCC 343**_ **] that functional disability has to be assessed at 100% for reason of the amputation. It is also submitted that going by the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [for brevity “Act of 1923”], the Schedule indicates 70% for loss of earning capacity for amputation of the right hand. As against this, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company relies on the medical certificate produced, which is marked as Exhibit X2, indicating permanent disability of 50%. The contention of the Insurance Company is that when 50% was certified by the Medical Board, there could not have been an enhancement made by the Tribunal.** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & connected cases.** ## **- 13 -** **10. The Act of 1923 by Schedule I Part II item-3 injury indicates the percentage of loss of earning capacity as 70%. However, it is to be noticed that there is no measurement of the limb remaining and there cannot be a blanket adoption of the percentage as found in Part II of Schedule I of the Act of 1923. Further, considering the contention of the Insurance Company, it has to be noticed that Exhibit X2 certificate issued by the Medical Board of the District Hospital, Kannur shows 50% whole body disability. In** _**Raj Kumar**_ **, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically found that the functional disability has to be assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal who saw the appellant in person, assessed the disability at 65%. It is also pertinent that the appellant, who was a Plumber, could not have carried on his avocation after amputation of one of his hands. However, it cannot be said that he is totally disabled from carrying on any employment. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the claimant-appellant for enhancement; nor that of the Insurance Company for reduction of the percentage to that assessed by the Medical Board. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the percentage of disability as adopted by the Tribunal. The** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & connected cases.** ## **- 14 -** **multiplier applied is 15. In fact, it should be 14, considering the age of the applicant. Considering the fact that full compensation was granted for loss of earning of 1½ years, the multiplier has to be reduced a further one year period. The challenge against the compensation granted for loss of amenities by the insurers also cannot be upheld.** ## **11. In such circumstances, the following enhancement is granted:** |**Sl.** **No.**|**Head of Claim**|**Amount awarded** **by the** **Tribunal** `|**Total amount** **after** **enhancement in** **appeal** `| |---|---|---|---| |**1**|**Loss of earning (Total)**|**180000** **[10000x18]**|**281160** **15620x18]**| |**2**|**Medical and** **miscellaneous expenses**|**46000**|**46000**| |**3**|**Bystander expenses**|**1400** **[100x14]**|**2800** **[200x14]**| |**4**|**Transportation expenses**|**4900**|**4900**| |**5**|**Extra nourishment**|**25000**|**25000**| |**6**|**Pain and suffering**|**50000**|**50000**| |**7**|**Disability income**|**1170000** **[10000x12x15x65%]**|**1979835** **[15620+25%(3905)** **x12x13x65%]**| |**8**|**Loss of amenities and** **convenience etc.**|**100000**|**100000**| |**9**|**Any other heads** **(review treatment)**|**10000**|**10000**| ||**Total**|**1587300**|**2499695**| **MACA.1836 of 2011 & connected cases.** ## **- 15 -** **12. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Companies have a contention that the claim made by the claimant-appellant is far below the enhanced compensation granted by this Court. The principle as enunciated in** _**Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh**_ **[** _**2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC)**_ **] is that when just compensation is awarded by the Court, it need not necessarily confine itself to the claim raised by the injured. It is also to be noticed that over the years there have been modifications and enhancements made, by reason of the judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The amounts claimed under the various heads often is based on judgments as available at the time when the claim is filed. The present enhancement has been granted on the basis of the judgment in** _**Raj Kumar**_ **, wherein there was considerable increase of amounts awarded from that earlier considered as just compensation. The plea of the insurers to limit the award to that claimed, is hence rejected.** **13. The appeal of the claimant-appellant** **[M.A.C.A.No.1836 of 2011] is allowed as above. The appeals of the Insurance Companies [M.A.C.A.Nos.987 and 2044 of 2011] are partly allowed. It is made clear that the liability shall be shared by the Insurance Companies in** **MACA.1836 of 2011 & - 16 - connected cases.** ## **equal proportion.** **14. The amounts awarded as indicated above, after deducting what has already been paid, shall be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment with interest from the date of application and costs, if any, as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant-appellant shall produce a copy of a cancelled cheque of the bank account in his name with copy of AADHAAR or acceptable identification, before the Tribunal within one month, with copy to the respective Insurance Companies. The Insurance Companies shall credit the amounts through NEFT/RTGS to the said account, failing which the claimant can approach the Tribunal.** **Ordered accordingly. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs in these appeals.** **Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** **Vku/-** **[ true copy ]**