P. S. Sarojan Nair v. Jayakumar alias Ambily and National Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.2283 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1152/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOTTAYAM** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **P.S.SAROJAN NAIR,S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, THAZHATHETHIL(H), VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, VADAVATHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 JAYAKUMAR @ AMBILY, KOCHUNADAKAVIL (ATTUPURATHU)(H), VADAVATHOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM - 686010.** - **2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, 686 001.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SMT K.S.SANTHI- STANDING COUNSEL** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.2283 of 2012 2 ## **“CR”** ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.1152 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, 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 10.04.2007, while he was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-5/G-8748. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a car bearing registration No.KL-05/T-5703 owned and driven by the 1[st] respondent, and insured with the 2[nd] respondent insurer. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1[st] respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.12,94,700/- under various heads, which was limited to Rs.10,00,000/- for the purpose of payment of Court Fee. 2. Before the Tribunal, the 1[st] respondent owner cum driver of the car remained absent and he was set ex parte. 3. The 2[nd] respondent insurer filed written statement MACA No.2283 of 2012 3 admitting policy coverage of the car involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 1[st] respondent driver. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition and it was contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, the claim petition was tried along with the connected matter. Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claimants and the appellant herein was examined as PW1. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondents. 5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1[st] respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the 2[nd] respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,66,026/- together with interest at the rate 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, i.e., from 06.08.2007, till date of payment, with proportionate MACA No.2283 of 2012 4 cost of Rs.4,300/-, and directed the insurer to satisfy the award. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 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 '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 MACA No.2283 of 2012 5 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 the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; |Sl.<br>No.|Head of Claim|Amount<br>claimed (in<br>Rs.)|Amount<br>awarded (in<br>Rs.)|Basis/vital<br>details in a<br>nutshell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Transport to<br>hospital|2,000|1,800|| |2|Extra nourishment|2,000|1,500|| |3|Damage to<br>clothings|700|500|| MACA No.2283 of 2012 6 |4|Bystander expenses|10,000|4,500|(100 x 45)| |---|---|---|---|---| |5|Medical expenses|40,000|28,726|As per the<br>medical<br>bills| |6|Loss of income|30,000|21,000|(3,500 x 6)| |7|Pain and sufferings|60,000|20,000|| |8|Loss of amenities|5,00,000|20,000|amputation<br>of right leg| |9|Permanent disability|5,00,000|1,68,000/-|(3,500 x 12<br>x 8 x 50/<br>100)| |10|Future domestic<br>care required to the<br>petitioner|1,50,000|Not allowed|| ||TOTAL|12,94,700|2,66,026|| 12. The accident occurred on 10.04.2007. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 59 years. It was claimed that, at the time of accident, he was earning a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- as distributor of ice creams. The document marked as Ext.A9 is the delivery note issued by High Range Foods Private Limited and Ext.A10 is a certificate issued by that company, certifying that the appellant was a distributor of its ice creams. The appellant was examined as PW1. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the appellant, notionally, as Rs.3,500/-. 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 the MACA No.2283 of 2012 7 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 MACA No.2283 of 2012 8 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 Rs.6,500/- per month. 15. Considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2007, and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the monthly income of Rs.6,000/claimed in the claim petition is not on the higher side, which is taken as the notional monthly income of the appellant, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 16. The document marked as Ext.A5 is the wound certificate. As per medical records, in the accident, the appellant sustained crush injury on right leg with severe fracture, which had resulted in amputation of his right leg above knee. He had MACA No.2283 of 2012 9 undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 10 days. Ext.A15 series of medical bills are for a total sum of Rs.28,726/-. 17. The document marked as Ext.A11 is the disability certificate issued by Medical Board at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, in which the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 50%. The Tribunal took the percentage of disability assessed in Ext.A11, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that, on account of amputation of right leg above knee, the loss earning capacity of the appellant has to be taken as 100%. The Tribunal rejected the said contention, considering the fact that, as the appellant is a distributor of ice creams, the amputation of his right leg above knee would not result in 100% loss of earning capacity. ## 18. 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 MACA No.2283 of 2012 10 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 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 dependency). 19. In **Raj Kumar** , 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 MACA No.2283 of 2012 11 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 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. 20. In the instant case, in the accident, the appellant sustained crush injury on right leg with severe fracture, which had resulted in amputation of his right leg above knee. In MACA No.2283 of 2012 12 Ext.A11 disability certificate, the Medical Board assessed the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, as 50%. The Tribunal accepted the same for the purpose of awarding compensation under various heads. At the time of accident, the appellant was earning income as distributor of ice creams. The amputation of his right leg above knee will not result in reduction of earning capacity by 100%, as contended by the appellant. He can continue business, in spite of amputation of his right leg. However, he will have to suffer from various kinds of handicaps throughout his life. He may not be in a position to stand up for long intervals. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Raj Kumar** , this Court finds that loss of earning capacity of the appellant, on account of amputation of his right leg above knee can be taken as 50%, as taken by the Tribunal. 21. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.21,000/- under the head loss of earning, at the rate of Rs.3,500/- for a period of 6 months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the treatment the appellant had undergone, the period of 6 months MACA No.2283 of 2012 13 fixed by the Tribunal for granting loss of earning is just and reasonable, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.6,000/-, the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.36,000/(6,000 x 6) towards loss of earning, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.15,000/-** (36,000 – 21,000). 22. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,800/-. The accident is of the year 2007. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 10 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head is re-fixed as Rs.3,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.1,200/-** (3,000 – 1,800). 23. Towards bystander expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,500/-. Towards extra nourishment the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.1,500/-. The accident is of the year 2007 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 10 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the claimant had undergone, the compensation MACA No.2283 of 2012 14 awarded by the Tribunal under the above heads cannot be said to be on the lower side, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 24. Towards damage to clothing, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/-. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2007, this Court deem it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.1,000/- under this head, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.500/-** (1,000 – 500). 25. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.28,726/-, covered by Ext.A15 series of medical bills. In the absence of any further materials, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 26. 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 MACA No.2283 of 2012 15 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 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 MACA No.2283 of 2012 16 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. 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.** MACA No.2283 of 2012 17 **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 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]** . 27. 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 MACA No.2283 of 2012 18 the principle laid down in **Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited [(2012) 6 SCC 421]** . A reading of the said decision would show that the injured before the Apex Court were having higher percentage of functional disability, on account of permanent disability, which had resulted in higher extent of loss of future earning capacity, and it was in such circumstances that the Apex Court granted them disability compensation by adding future prospects. 28. In the impugned award, though the loss of future earning capacity was taken as 50%, the Tribunal did not add anything to the notional monthly income of the appellant towards future prospects. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the permanent disability arising therefrom, the appellant can be treated as an injured having higher percentage of functional disability, on account of permanent disability, which had resulted in higher extent of loss of future earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for grant of compensation under the head permanent disability, adding future prospects to his notional monthly income. 29. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** the MACA No.2283 of 2012 19 Constitution Bench held that, while determining the income, an addition of **50%** of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a **permanent job** and was **below the age of 40 years** , should be made. The addition should be **30%** , if the age of the deceased was **between 40 to 50 years** . In case the deceased was between the age of **50 to 60 years** , the addition should be **15%** . Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. The Apex Court held further that, in case the deceased was **self-employed** or on a **fixed salary** , an addition of **40%** of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was **below the age of 40 years** . An addition of **25%** where the deceased was **between the age of 40 to 50 years** and **10%** where the deceased was **between the age of 50 to 60 years** should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 30. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged 59 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- as distributor in ice creams. The appellant can only be treated as self-employed. In view of the law laid down by the MACA No.2283 of 2012 20 Apex Court in **Mekala** , **Syed Sadiq** and **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 **Ramachandrappa** and in **Syed Sadiq** referred to supra, can be made towards future prospects, since the appellant was **between the age of 50 to 60 years** . 31. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head permanent disability, **10%** of the monthly income of the appellant notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.6,000/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.600/- (6,000 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 permanent disability, is reckoned as Rs.6,600/- (6,000 + 600). 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** MACA No.2283 of 2012 21 **Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362]** and **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie [(2005) 10 SCC 720]** held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table in paragraph 40 of the said decision [prepared by applying **Susamma Thomas** , **Trilok Chandra** and **Charlie** ], which starts with an operative multiplier of **18** [for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years], reduced by one unit for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **17** for 26 to 30 years, multiplier of **16** for 31 to 35 years, multiplier of **15** for 36 to 40 years, multiplier of **14** for 41 to 45 years, and multiplier of **13** for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, i.e., multiplier of **11** for 51 to 55 years, multiplier of **9** for 56 to 60 years, multiplier of **7** for 61 to 65 years and multiplier of **5** 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. MACA No.2283 of 2012 22 34. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant was aged 59 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 **9** . 35. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- (3,500 x 12 x 8 x 50/100). In this appeal, the monthly income of the appellant has already been re-fixed as Rs.6,000/-. Adding 10% of the notional monthly income of the appellant towards future prospects (6,000 + 600 = 6,600); applying the multiplier of 9 applicable to the age group of the appellant and the percentage of loss of earning capacity as 50%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is re-fixed as Rs.3,56,400/- (6,600 x 12 x 9 x 50/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.1,88,400/-** (3,56,400 – 1,68,000). 36. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. 37. In **Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 10 SCC 683]** , the Apex Court was MACA No.2283 of 2012 23 dealing with the case of an unmarried person aged 24 years, who was working as helper. On account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident, his left leg was amputated above knee. Considering his age and also the fact that for the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work as helper, the Apex Court in order to meet the ends of justice, granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to amputation of leg. 38. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged 59 years, who was a distributor of ice creams. Even after amputation of right leg above knee, the appellant can continue his work. However, he will have to suffer from pain and suffering through out his life, even if he gets an artificial limb. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the resultant amputation of the right leg above knee, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the compensation under the head pain and suffering as Rs.70,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.50,000/-** (70,000 - 20,000). 39. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. MACA No.2283 of 2012 24 40. In **Govind Yadav** , the Apex Court was dealing with the case of an unmarried person aged 24 years, who was working as helper. On account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident, his left leg was amputated above knee. The loss of earning on account of the permanent disability was taken as 70%. Considering his age and also the fact that his marriage prospects have considerably reduced on account of amputation of left lower limb above knee, the Apex Court granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. 41. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the appellant was a married person aged 59 years, who was a distributor of ice creams. The amputation of the right leg of the appellant above knee had resulted in reduction of his earning capacity by 50%. Though he can continue business, he will have to suffer from various kinds of handicaps throughout his life. Considering the above aspects, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the compensation under the head loss of amenities as Rs.70,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.50,000/-** (70,000 – 20,000). MACA No.2283 of 2012 25 42. In the result, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.3,05,100/-** (Rupees three lakhs five thousand and six hundred only) [15,000 + 1,200 + 500 + 1,88,400 + 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 the period of delay of 410 days in filing this appeal, which was condoned by the order dated 25.02.2020 subject to the condition that, in case enhanced compensation is granted, the appellant will not be entitled to get interest for the said amount, the period of delay. The 2[nd] 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 additional compensation to the appellant/claimant shall be made taking note of the law on the point and in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No.D1-62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. The MACA No.2283 of 2012 26 appellant 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 a certified copy of this judgment. This appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** MIN