P.K. Sojan v. Hameed C.H. and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 314/2010 DATED 02-05-2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD** **APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P(MV)NO.314/2010:** **P.K.SOJAN, S/O. KOSHY, R/AT PUTHUPARMABIL HOUSE, AVULLAKOSE, PARAPPA VILLAGE, PLACHIKARA POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P(MV) NO.314/2010:** **1 HAMEED.C.H., S/O. MUHAMMED, CHRAMMAL HOUSE, KOLAMKULAM PARAPPA VILLAGE, P.O.BIRIKULAM, KASARAGOD-671533. 2 KHADEEJA, S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED, CHRAMMAL HOUSE, KOLAMKULAM, PARAPPA VILLAGE, P.O.BIRIKULAM, KASARAGOD-671533. 3 THE MANAGER, HDFC, ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 6TH FLOOR, LEELA BUSINESS PARK, ANDHERI KURIA ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400059. R1&R2 BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.RAMANAND** ## **SMT K.S.SANTHI,STANDING COUNSEL** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P (MV) No.314 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, 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 25.07.2009, while he was standing on the side of a public road. At the place of accident, he was knocked down by an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-60/A-7010, driven by the 1[st] respondent, owned 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 autorickshaw by the 1[st] respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 filed joint written statement admitting the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 1[st] respondent driver. They contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant. It was pointed out that the vehicle **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -3- involved in the accident was covered by a valid insurance policy issued by the 3[rd] respondent insurer. 3. The 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the autorickshaw involved in the accident; however, denying the negligence alleged against the 1[st] respondent 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. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claimant. The document marked as Ext.X1 is the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Kanhangad assessing the permanent disability of the claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the motor 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 the autorickshaw by the 1[st] respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the insurer **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -4- was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,00,050/-, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit, with proportionate cost. The insurer was directed 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 3[rd] 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 **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -5- '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 nonviolation of the principle of equitability. **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -6- 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|Amount<br>awarded|Basis-vital<br>details in a<br>nut shell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning (total)||45,000/-|| |2|Loss of earning (partial)|---|---|| |3|Medical expenses|1,15,000/-|1,40,550/-|| |4|Future treatment|---|---|| |5|Bystander expenses|---|---|| |6|Transportation expenses|7,500/-|5,000/-|| |7|Extra nourishment|2,000/-|2,000/-|| |8|Damage to clothing etc.|500/-|500/-|| |9|Pain and suffering|25,000/-|25,000/-|| |10|Loss of amenities and<br>enjoyment of life|---|50,000/-|| |11|Any other heads,<br>compensation for<br>continuing or permanent<br>disability|21,60,000/-|4,32,000/-|| ||**TOTAL**<br>Claim limited to|23,58,000/-|7,00,050/-<br>(Rupees<br>Seven Lakhs<br>and Fifty only)|| 12. The accident occurred on 25.07.2009. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 31 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- as Stone Worker. No materials were produced before the Tribunal to prove the monthly income of the appellant. No one was examined to prove his monthly income. In the absence of any reliable materials, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.4,500/-, **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -7- 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 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 **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -8- 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. 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. Considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2009, and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -9- 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 awarding compensation under various heads. 16. The document marked as Ext.A3 is the wound certificate issued from Thejasweni Hospital, Mangalore. Ext.A4 is the disability certificate issued from the said hospital. Ext.A5 is the discharge summary. As per medical records, in the accident, the appellant sustained fracture of T11 vertebra. He had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 15 days. Ext.A6 series of medical bills are for a sum of Rs.1,40,550/-. Ext.A7 series of bills are towards transportation charges. 17. The document marked as Ext.X1 is the medical certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Kanhangad. Ext.X1 disability certificate would show that, in the accident, he sustained fracture of T11 vertebra with complete paraplegia with tenderness dorsal spine. He is having 100% locomotor disability in relation to both lower limbs. The disability certificate would also show that the assessment of **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -10- disability was based on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, in the gazette notification dated 13.06.2001. The Tribunal took the percentage of disability as 50%. 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 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 **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -11- determine loss of dependency). 19. In **Raj Kumar's case** , the Apex Court held that, if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability as a result of the injuries, then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability. The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any 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 **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -12- 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. As already noticed, as evident from Ext.X1 disability certificate, in the accident, the appellant sustained fracture of T11 vertebra with complete paraplegia with tenderness dorsal spine. He is having 100% locomotor disability in relation to both lower limbs and the assessment of disability in Ext.X1 was based on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India in the gazette notification dated 13.06.2001. Considering the nature of disabilities noted in Ext.X1 and taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Rajkumar's case** , this Court deem it appropriate to take the **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -13- loss of earning capacity of the appellant, who was a Stone Worker, as 100%, as against 50% fixed by the Tribunal. 21. 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 **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -14- 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 compensation as per law laid down by the Court in the cases **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -15- 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.1560 OF 2012** -16- 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]** . 22. 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. 23. Since the loss of earning capacity of the appellant on account of the injuries sustained in the accident is taken as 100%, the appellant, who is having 100% locomotor disability in relation to both lower limbs, is entitled for grant of disability compensation adding future prospects to his notional **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -17- monthly income, based on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Mekala** and **Syed Sadiq** referred to supra. 24. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** ,a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, the determination of 'just compensation' has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in **Sarla Verma [(2009) 6 SCC 121]** and it has been approved in **Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65]** . The age and income, as 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 **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -18- 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. 25. 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** **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -19- **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. 26. In **Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** the Constitution Bench held that, while determining the income, an addition of **50%** of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a **permanent job** and was **below the age of 40 years** , should be made. The addition should be **30%** , if the age of the deceased was **between 40 to 50 years** . In case the deceased was between the age of **50 to 60 years** , the addition should 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 **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -20- 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. 27. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged 31 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- as Stone Worker. 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 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** . 28. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of earning (disability **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -21- compensation), **40%** of the monthly income of the appellant notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.6,000/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.2,400/- (6,000 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.8,400/- (6,000 + 2,400). 29. 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 **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -22- 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. ## 30. 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. 31. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant was aged 31 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 **16** applied by the Tribunal is correct and proper. 32. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- (4,500 x 12 x 16 x 50/100). In this appeal, the monthly income of the appellant **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -23- has already been re-fixed as Rs.6,000/-. Adding 40% of the notional monthly income of the appellant towards future prospects (6,000 + 2,400 = 8,400), applying the multiplier of 16 applicable to the age group of the appellant and the percentage of functional disability as 100%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is re-fixed as Rs.16,12,800/- (8,400 x 12 x 16 x 100/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.11,80,800/-** (16,12,800 - 4,32,000). 33. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/-. Since the appellant is granted compensation for permanent disability, taking the loss of earning capacity as 100%, applying the multiplier of 16 applicable to his age group as on the date of accident, he is not entitled for award of compensation towards loss of earning. Therefore, **Rs.45,000/-** awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of earning has to be **deducted** from the additional compensation granted in this appeal. 34. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -24- 15 days. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant is the resident of Parappa Village of Hosgurg Taluk and he was treated at Thejasweni Hospital, Mangalore. 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 re-fixed as Rs.7,500/-, as claimed in the claim petition, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.2,500/-** (7,500 - 5,000). 35. Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.2,000/-. The accident is of the year 2009 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 15 days. 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 re-fixed as Rs.2,250/- (150 x 15), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.250/-** (2,250 - 2,000). The appellant is also granted a sum of **Rs.3,000/** - (200 x 15) towards bystander expenses during the period of in-patient treatment. 36. Towards damage to clothing and articles, the **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -25- Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/-. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2009, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs.1,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.500/-** (1,000 - 500). 37. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,550/-, covered by Ext.A6 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. 38. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-. In the impugned award, the Tribunal noticed that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone sever pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone and also the disabilities noted in Ext.X1, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is re-fixed as Rs.75,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.50,000/-** (75,000 - 25,000). **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -26- 39. Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant is having various disabilities, including 100% locomotor disabilities in relation to both lower limbs. In the impugned award, the Tribunal noticed that, ever since the accident, the appellant could not move his lower limbs. 40. The Apex Court in **Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 10 SCC 683]** granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. In the said decision, 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. **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -27- 41. Considering the nature of disabilities noted in Ext.X1 disability certificate, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment of life can be re-fixed as Rs.2,00,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.1,50,000/-** (2,00,000 - 50,000). 42. The nature of disabilities noted in Ext.X1 disability certificate would show that the appellant requires the assistance of an attendant for a considerably long period. Therefore, the appellant is granted a sum of **Rs.5,00,000/-** towards attendant expenses. 43. In the result, the appellant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.18,42,050/-** (Rupees eighteen lakhs forty two thousand and fifty only) [(11,80,800 + 2,500 + 250 + 3,000 + 500 + 50,000 + 1,50,000 + 5,00,000) - 45,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of **8%** per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The 4[th] 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 **MACA.No.1560 OF 2012** -28- the liability, if any, of the appellant/claimant towards Balance Court Fee and Legal Benefit Fund. The disbursement of the amount to the appellant/claimant shall be made by the Tribunal, 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 appellant/claimant shall furnish 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