NAZEER@NAZEEM v. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 3RD ASWINA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.2765 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1339/2011 DATED 30-06-2014 OF PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE** ## **APPELLANT:** **NAZEER@NAZEEM,** **AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.SAIDUMUHAMMED, RESIDING AT THIYAKUNNEL HOUSE, MARAMCHATTY, P.O.KOOMBARA, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDEEN** ## **RESPONDENT:** **ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD. M SONS ARCADE, 4TH FLOOR, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1339 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, 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 27.04.2011, while he was travelling on a motorcycle as pillion rider. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a lorry bearing registration No.KL-57/A8759, owned by the 1[st] respondent and driven by the 2[nd] respondent before the Tribunal and insured with the respondent herein. In the accident, he sustained serious injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.12 lakhs, under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry remained absent and he was set ex-parte. The driver of the lorry filed written statement admitting the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against him. The insurer of the lorry filed 3 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 written statement admitting insurance coverage of the said vehicle; however denying negligence alleged against its driver. 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 A6 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. The document marked as Ext.C1 is the disability certificate dated 13.03.2014 issued by the Medical Board assessing permanent disability of the appellant/claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. 4. 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 lorry by its driver. 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.8,04,518/-, together with interest at the rate 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of 4 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 deposit, with proportionate cost and the 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. On 02.12.2014, when this appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The respondent entered appearance through counsel. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent/insurer. 8. 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. 9. In **State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [(2003) 7** **SCC 484]** the Apex Court held that the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it to be 5 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 '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. 10. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the 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. 11. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by 6 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 ## the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; |SI.<br>No|The<br>compensation<br>claimed<br>under<br>different heads|Amount<br>claimed|Amount<br>allowed|Basis/vital<br>details in a<br>nutshell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|2,00,000/-|36,000/-|4500x8months| |2|Transport to hospital|5,000/-|1,000/-|| |3|Damage to clothings<br>and articles|2,000/-|500/-|| |4|Extra nourishment|2,000/-|2,500/-|| |5|Bystander's<br>expenses|Nil|12,250/-|250x49 days<br>(Ext.A5)| |6|Treatment expenses|40,000/-|4,268/-|Ext.A6 series.| |7|Pain and sufferings|50,000/-|50,000/-|| |8|Loss<br>of<br>future<br>earning power|11,00,000/-|6,48,000/-|4500x12x15x<br>80/100| |9|Loss of amenities|75,000/-|50,000/-|| ||Total||8,04,518/-|| 12. The accident occurred on 27.04.2011. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 39 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- as a painter. No materials were produced before the Tribunal to prove the monthly income of the appellant. The appellant has also not chosen to mount the box. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.4,500/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 13. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal** ## **Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011)** **13 SCC 236]** the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a coolie (manual labourer), who met with a road accident in 7 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 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. 14. In **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735]** , taking note of the earlier decision in **Ramachandrappa's case (supra)** , the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a vegetable vendor, who met with a road accident in the year 2008, at the age of 24 years, notionally as Rs.6,500/-. In the said decision, 8 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 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. 15. In the absence of any reliable evidence, considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2011, 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.8,000/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 16. The document marked as Ext.A2 is the wound certificate issued from the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Ext.A3 discharge summary would show that the appellant was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode with serious injuries on his leg on 27.04.2011 and was discharged on 9 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 14.06.2011. As per the medical records, the appellant sustained above knee amputation of right leg, Type III XI/C fracture (Rt.) femur, fracture patella, fibular head, tibia and fracture fibula L 3[rd] and also deep injurieson right leg. Ext.A6 series of medical bills is for an amount of Rs.17,586/-. He had undergone inpatient treatment for 49 days. However, the Tribunal accepted medical bills only for a sum of Rs.4,268/-. 17. The document marked as Ext.C1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, in which the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 80%. The Tribunal noticed that, as per the schedule to Workmens' Compensation Act, the percentage of disability for amputation of leg above knee is only 70%. Since the appellant was a painter by profession at the time of accident, the Tribunal took his occupational disability as 80%, as assessed in Ext.C1, for the purpose of awarding disability compensation. 18. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.36,000/-, at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month for a 10 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 period of 8 months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the period of 8 months fixed by the Tribunal for granting loss of earning is just and reasonable. Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed notionally as Rs.8,000/-, the compensation under the head loss of earning is re-fixed as Rs.64,000/- (8,000 x 8), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.28,000/-** . (64,000 - 36,000). 19. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 49 days. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under this head is refixed as Rs.3,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.2,000/-** (3,000 - 1,000). 20. Towards bystander expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,250/- (250 x 49). Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.2,500/-. The 11 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 accident is of the year 2011 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 49 days. 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 bystander expenses represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. The compensation under the head extra nourishment is refixed as Rs.9,800/- (200 x 49), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.7,300/-** (9,800 - 2,500). 21. Towards damage to clothing and articles, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/-. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2011, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs.1,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.500/-** (1,000 - 500). 22. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,268/-, covered by Ext.A6 series of medical bills as against a total claim of Rs.17,586/-. Based on the objections raised by the learned counsel for the insurer, the Tribunal verified the entire medical bills and fixed the medical expenses 12 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 as Rs.4,268/-, after excluding bills at serial Nos.1 and 5. A perusal of Ext.A6 series of medical bills would show that a sum of Rs.10,743/- is covered by Cash Invoice No.A-893 dated 30.04.2011 issued by New J.P. Surgicals, which do not bear any seal regarding receipt of the amount covered by that bill. In the absence of any reliable materials, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 23. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, and the amputation of right leg of the appellant above knee, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is re-fixed as Rs.60,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.10,000/-** (60,000 - 50,000). 24. Towards compensation for loss of future earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- (4,500 x 12 x 15 x 80/100). The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that considering the nature of disability assessed in Ext.C1 13 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 disability certificate, the appellant is entitled for payment of loss of future earning (disability compensation), adding future prospects. 25. 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 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 14 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 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 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.** 15 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 **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 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 16 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 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]** . 26. 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 injured persons having higher percentage of functional disability. 27. 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.** 17 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 **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 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. 28. In **Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh [(2013) 9 SCC 54]** , a ThreeJudge Bench of the Apex Court held that, in case of 18 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 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 Larger Bench. 29. 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 19 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 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. 30. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged 39 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- as a painter. 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 on a fixed salary. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Pranay Sethi,** an addition of **40%** 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 20 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 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 appellant was aged **below 40 years** . 31. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of earning (disability compensation), **40%** of the monthly income of the appellant notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.8,000/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.3,200/- (8,000 x 40/100) 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.11,200/- (8,000 + 3,200). 32. 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 21 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 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** for 66 to 70 years. 33. 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. 34. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant was aged 39 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 **15** applied by the 22 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 Tribunal is correct and proper. 35. Towards compensation for loss of future earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- (4,500 x 12 x 15 x 80/100). In this appeal, the monthly income of the appellant has already been re-fixed as Rs.8,000/-. Adding 40% of the notional monthly income of the appellant towards future prospects (8,000 + 3,200 = 11,200); applying the multiplier of 15 applicable to the age group of the appellant; and adding the percentage of permanent disability assessed as 80%, the compensation under the head loss of future earning is re-fixed as Rs.16,12,800/- (11,200 x 12 x 15 x 80/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.9,64,800/-** (16,12,800 – 6,48,000). 36. Towards loss of amenities the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-. In Ext.C1 disability certificate the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 80%. In **Robin Babu v. Kunjappan and others [2015 (4) KHC 91]** , the Division Bench of this Court awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head inconvenience, difficulties and discomforts in life to an injured, in a motor accident, who 23 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 suffered a major crash injury, leading to amputation of his right leg, below knee. Therefore, considering the nature of disabilities assessed in Ext.C1, resulting the permanent disability of 80% and the amputation of lower limb above knee to 1/3[rd] of tigh, the compensation under the head loss of amenities is re-fixed as Rs.1,00,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.50,000/-** (1,00,000 - 50,000). 37. Towards future medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded no compensation. Considering the fact that the appellant has to change the artificial limb, this Court deem it appropriate to grant a sum of **Rs.50,000/-** under the head future medical expenses, which will carry no interest. 38. In the result, the appellant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.11,12,600/-** (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Twelve Thousand Six Hundred only) [28,000 + 2,000 + 7,300 + 500 + 10,000 + 9,64,800 + 50,000 + 50,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of **8%** per annum from the date of petition till realisation, excluding Rs.50,000/- granted towards future medical expenses. The respondent/insurer shall satisfy the 24 MACA No.2765 OF 2014 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 Tribunal shall consider the request made by the appellant/claimant for disbursement of the amount, 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. This appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** **yd**