Renjan P. Raju v. Jijy Mathew, Manoj Gopalakrishnan and The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **MACA.No.1934 OF 2015(B)** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.1606/2004 DATED 04-08-2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV):** **RENJAN P.RAJU, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. RAJU P.K, PANTHRANTTAL HOUSE,PODIYADI P.O,MANIPUZHA,NEDUMPURAM THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT** **BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SMT.M.B.DHANYA BABU SRI.JAYKAR.K.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):** **1 JIJY MATHEW S/O.VARGHESE MATHEW,MAZHAVANCHERIL HOUSE,MANIPUZHA,NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK 689 101 2 MANOJ GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN,ARAYATHUPARAMPIL HOUSE,KADAPRA P.O,THIRUVALLA 689 101** **3 THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645** ## **R3 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.1606 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, 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 24.05.2004, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-4/P-4537. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-3/A-9261 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 autorickshaw by the 1[st] respondent, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, the 1[st] respondent driver and the 2[nd] respondent owner remained absent and they were set ex parte. 3. The 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 3 statement admitting insurance coverage of the autorickshaw involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against its driver. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant in riding the motorcycle. They further contended that, at the time of accident, the 1[st] respondent driver was not holding a valid driving licence and badge and that, the compensation claimed is highly exorbitant. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the claimant. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 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 was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,96,630/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 07.12.2004 till realisation, with proportionate cost, and the insurer was MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 4 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. Since insurance coverage of the offending vehicle is admitted by the insurer, service of notice on the 2[nd] respondent is dispensed with. 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 MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 5 has 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 the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 6 |Sl.<br>No.|Head of Claim|Amount<br>claimed (in<br>Rs.)|Amount<br>awarded<br>(in Rs.)|Basis/vital<br>details<br>in<br>a<br>nutshell| |---|---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earning for 6<br>months|24,000/-|24,000/-|8 months| |2|Transport to hospital|5,000/-|3,000/-|| |3|Extra nourishment|5,000/-|3,000/-|| |4|Damage to clothing|2,500/-|500/-|| |5|Medical expenses|25,000/-|25,230/-|Ext.A18 series| |6|Bystanders expenses|12,000/-|1,500/-|Exts.A10 & A12| |7|Pain and sufferings|60,000/-|30,000/-|| |8|Disability caused|2,00,000/-|1,94,400/-|30% Ext.A11| |9|Loss of earning|90,000/-|--|| |10|Loss of amenities|--|15,000/-|| |11|Compensation<br>for<br>shorting<br>life<br>expectancy|50,000/-|--|| |12|Compensation<br>for<br>future medical care|50,000/-|--|| ||Total|5,23,500/-<br>limited to<br>4,00,000/-|2,96,630/-|| 12. The accident occurred on 24.05.2004. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 20 years. The appellant claimed a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- as Aluminium Fabrication Technician. 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.3,000/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 7 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 work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 8 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 2004, 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 MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 9 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.A4 is the accident register-cum-wound certificate. Exts.A10 and A12 are discharge cards. As per the medical records, in the accident, the appellant sustained injury on his right eyelid; penetrating injury on the right eye; and his right pupil was dilated. Ext.A13 is the ophthalmic report and Ext.A16 is the medical report. In Ext.A16, the appellant was diagnosed to have severe post traumatic ptosis. He underwent levator trucking surgery. In the examination conducted on 04.09.2004, his visual acuity in right eye was 6/2 and left eye was 6/6. Anterior segment examination revealed scars of surgery over the eyelid of right eye with superior sector iridectomy. He was prescribed glasses and advised to review after a month. The appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 28 days. Ext.A18 series of medical bills are for a sum of Rs.25,230/-. 17. The document marked as Ext.A11 is the disability certificate issued from the District Hospital, MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 10 Kozhencherry in which the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident is assessed as 30%. The Tribunal accepted the permanent disability assessed in Ext.A11 certificate, for the purpose of awarding compensation under various heads. 18. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.24,000/-, at the rate of Rs.3,000/- for a 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 cannot be said to be on the lower side. 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.32,000/- (4,000 x 8), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.8,000/-** (32,000 – 24,000). 19. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 28 days. The accident is of the year 2004. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 11 the treatment the appellant had undergone during three different spells, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 20. Towards bystander expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/-. Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.3,000/-. The accident is of the year 2004 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 28 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, the compensation under the head bystander expenses is re-fixed as Rs.4,200/- (150 x 28), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.2,700/-** (4,200 – 1,500). The compensation awarded under the head extra nourishment cannot be said to be on the lower side, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 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 2004, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs.750/-, resulting an MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 12 additional compensation of **Rs.250/-** (750 - 500). 22. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,230/-, covered by Ext.A18 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. 23. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-. 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 this head cannot be said to be on the lower side. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any enhancement under this head. 24. 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 MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 13 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 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 MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 14 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. 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 MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 15 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 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]** . 25. In **Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United** MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 16 **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]** . 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. 26. As per Ext.A11 disability certificate, the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 30%. In Ext.A16, the appellant was diagnosed to have severe post traumatic ptosis. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the permanent disability arising therefrom, the appellant cannot 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 MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 17 future earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for grant of compensation under the head permanent disability, adding future prospectus to his notional monthly income. 27. 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., MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 18 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. 28. 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. 29. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant was aged 20 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 **18** applied by the Tribunal is correct and proper. 30. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,94,400/- (3,000 x 12 x 18 x 30/100). Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.4,000/-, applying the multiplier of 18 applicable to the age group of the appellant and the percentage of permanent disability as 30%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is re- MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 19 fixed as Rs.2,59,200/- (4,000 x 12 x 18 x 30/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.64,800/-** ( 2,59,200 – 1,94,400). 31. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and 30% permanent disability on account of those injuries, as assessed in Ext.A11 disability certificate, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head is re-fixed as Rs. 30,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.15,000/-** (30,000 – 15,000). 32. The Tribunal awarded no compensation under the head future medical care. The accident is of the year 2004 and the award of the Tribunal is one dated 04.08.2012. The appellant has not chosen to place on record any materials to substantiate the claim made under the head future medical care. In the absence of any such materials, the appellant is not entitled for grant of any compensation under this head. 33. The Tribunal awarded no compensation under the head shortening of life expectancy (loss of expectation of life). The compensation under the head loss of MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 20 expectation of life is granted in cases in which, the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened, on account of the injuries sustained in an accident, as held by the Apex Court in **R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited [(1995) 1 SCC 551]** . Paragraph 9 of the said decision reads thus; “9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include: (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 21 normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.” (underline supplied) 34. In **Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [(2011) 1 SCC 343]** the Apex Court held that, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 22 earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) - (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. - (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: - (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; - (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. - Non pecuniary damages (General damages) - (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. - (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). - (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 23 (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 35. In the instant case, in Ext.A16, the appellant was diagnosed to have severe post traumatic ptosis. In the examination conducted on 04.09.2004, his visual acuity in right eye was 6/2 and left eye was 6/6. There is scars of surgery over the eyelid of right eye with superior sector iridectomy. As already noticed, the compensation under the head loss of expectation of life is granted only in cases in which, on account of the injury, the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the disabilities noted in Ext.A11, it cannot be said that, on account of the injury, the normal longevity of the appellant is shortened. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for payment of any compensation under the head loss of expectation of life. 36. The Tribunal awarded no compensation under the head disfiguration and loss of marriage prospects. At the time of accident the appellant was aged 20 years. On MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 24 account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant is having severe post traumatic ptosis. There is scars of surgery over the eyelid of right eye with superior sector iridectomy. Considering the said facts, the appellant is granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for disfiguration and a further sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for loss of marriage prospects. 37. In the result, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.1,20,750/-** (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand seven hundred and fifty only) [8,000 + 2,700 + 250 + 64,800 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 15,000] 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 855 days in filing this appeal, which was condoned by the order dated 06.03.2020 in C.M.Appln.No.2154 of 2015, subject to the condition that in case enhanced compensation is granted in this appeal, the appellant shall not be entitled for interest on the said amount for the period of delay. The 3[rd] respondent insurer shall satisfy the additional compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest, MACA No.1934 OF 2015(B) 25 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 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** AV/11/3