Parameswaran @ Paramu v. M.P. Tomy and Shaji and The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 2ND MAGHA, 1941** **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(MV) NO.537/2006 DATED 23-10-2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(MV):** **PARAMESWARAN @ PARAMU, S/O.PARAPPURATHU KUNJAN, MURIYAD DESOM, VILLAGE & P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P(MV):** **1 M.P.TOMY, MANAGING PARTNER, EMCEEPEE AGENCIES, IRINJALAKUDA. 2 SHAJI, S/O.VADAPARAMBIL RAMAN, CHELOOR P.O., IRINJALAKUDA. 3 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., IRINJALAKUDA.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.AJITH R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANTHI R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.537 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents 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 05.05.2005, while he was standing on the side of a public road. At the place of accident, he was knocked down by a tempo van bearing registration No.KL-8/C-8116, owned by the 1[st] respondent, driven by the 2[nd] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo van by the 2[nd] respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and they were set ex parte. 3. The 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the tempo van involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 2[nd] respondent driver. Though the insurer raised a contention **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -3- that the tempo van was not having a valid fitness certificate, the Tribunal found no materials to substantiate the said contention. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. The document marked as Ext.A12 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board assessing the permanent disability of the appellant/claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. 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 tempo van by the 2[nd] respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said 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.1,49,300/-, together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, with proportionate cost. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -4- Court in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ 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 the 2[nd] respondent driver was dispensed with, by the order of this Court dated 12.11.2019. 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 **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -5- 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 nonviolation 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>awarded<br>(in Rs.)|Basis-vital details in a<br>nutshell| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning|10,000/-|2,000 x 5 months| |2|Bystander expenses|3,500/-|(100 x 35)| **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -6- |3|Transportation expenses|2,000/-|| |---|---|---|---| |4|Medical expenses|44,500/-|| |5|Pain and suffering|20,000/-|| |6|Loss of amenities|10,000/-|| |7|Disability|59,300/-|(2,000 x 12 x 13 x 19/100)| |8|Extra nourishment|Nil|| |9|Damage to clothing|Nil|| ||**Total**|**1,49,300/-**|| 12. The accident occurred on 05.05.2005. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 48 years. The appellant claimed a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- as coconut plucker. The appellant has also not chosen to mount the box to prove his monthly income. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal took the monthly income notionally as Rs.2,000/-, 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 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 **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -7- 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, 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. **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -8- 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 2005, 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.4,000/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.A3 is the wound certificate and Ext.A4 is the discharge summary. As per medical records, in the accident, the appellant sustained fracture of right elbow with lateral condyle; fracture of neck of left scapula; and crush injury with total avulsion of the left ear. He had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 34 days. Ext.A6 opthalmic certificate does not show definitely as **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -9- to what is the disability, or to what extent there is visual disability, or what is the exact percentage of the visual disability, if at all there is any such disability. Ext.A15 series of medical bills are for a sum of Rs.44,500/-. 17. The document marked as Ext.A12 is the disability certificate, in which the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 35%. The disabilities noted in Ext.A12 are that, right hand of the appellant is thoroughly deformed with stiff elbow. Non-union of fracture is quite apparent, and the appellant is not able to fold or stretch his right hand. He is not able to have his normal functions effectively with his right hand. The physical condition of the right hand of the appellant is evident from Ext.A14 photographs. 18. During the pendency of this appeal, by the order dated 27.11.2019, the appellant was referred to the Medical Board at Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur for the purpose of assessing the permanent disability, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The report of the Medical Board dated 04.12.2019 is placed on record along with a covering letter dated 09.12.2019 of the Superintendent **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -10- of that Medical College, who is the Chairman of that Board. In the said disability certificate, the permanent whole body disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 57% using the Combination Formula. 19. 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 **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -11- 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 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 **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -12- 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 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 **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -13- 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]** . 20. 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. 21. 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. **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -14- 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 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. **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -15- 22. 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 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. 23. 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** , **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -16- 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. 24. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged 48 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- as coconut plucker. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.2,000/-. In this appeal, his notional monthly income is re-fixed as Rs.4,000/-. As already noticed, no reliable materials were placed before the Tribunal to show that, at the time of accident, the appellant had a permanent **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -17- job. Therefore, he can only be treated as a self employed. In the disability certificate dated 04.12.2019, the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 57%. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Mekala** , **Syed Sadiq** and **Pranay Sethi,** an addition of **25%** 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 40 and 50 years** , at the time of accident. 25. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of earning (disability compensation), **25%** of the monthly income of the appellant notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.4,000/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.1,000/- (4,000 x 25/100) 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.5,000/- (4,000 + **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -18- 1,000). 26. 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 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. ## 27. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay** **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -19- **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. 28. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant was aged 46 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 **13** applied by the Tribunal is correct and proper. 29. Towards compensation for disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.59,300/- (2,000 x 12 x 13 x 19/100). In this appeal, the monthly income of the appellant has already been re-fixed as Rs.4,000/-. Adding 25% of the notional monthly income of the appellant towards future prospects (4,000 + 1,000 = 5,000); applying the multiplier of 13 applicable to the age group of the appellant; and the percentage of permanent disability as 57%, the compensation under the head loss of future earning is re-fixed as Rs.4,44,600/- (5,000 x 12 x 13 x 57/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.3,85,300/-** (4,44,600 – **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -20- 59,300). 30. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-, at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for a period of 5 months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, the period of 5 months fixed by the Tribunal for granting loss of earning is refixed as 6 months. Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.4,000/-, the compensation under the head loss of earning is re-fixed as Rs.24,000/- (4,000 x 6), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.14,000/-** (24,000- 10,000). 31. Towards bystander expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,500/-. The Tribunal awarded no compensation towards extra nourishment. The accident is of the year 2005 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 35 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.5,250/- (150 x 35), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.1,750/-** (5,250 - 3,500). Under the head extra nourishment, the appellant is granted a **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -21- sum of **Rs.3,500/-** (100 x 35). 32. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.44,500/-, 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. 33. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 35 days. The accident is of the year 2005. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. 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.1,000/-** (3,000 - 2,000). 34. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. 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 **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -22- and suffering is re-fixed as Rs.25,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.5,000/-** (25,000 - 20,000) under this head. 35. Towards loss of amenities the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. In the disability certificate dated 04.12.2019, the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 57%. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and 57% permanent disability on account of those injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head is refixed as Rs.60,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.50,000/-** (60,000 - 10,000). 36. The Tribunal awarded no compensation towards damage to clothing. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2005, this Court deem it appropriate to grant a sum of **Rs.750/-** as compensation under this head. 37. In the result, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.4,61,300/-** (Rupees four lakh sixty one thousand three hundred only) [3,85,300 + 14,000 + 1,750 + 3,500 + 1,000 + 5,000 + 50,000 + 750] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the **MACA.No.492 OF 2010** -23- 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 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.D162475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. The appellant shall submit 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** bpr