SHAJI PADMALAYAM v. SURESH; JALEEL P.K; UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. (MACA Nos. 4079/2017, 70/18, 74/18)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY,THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 26TH POUSHA, 1940** ## **MACA.No. 4079 of 2017** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV)NO.286/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ALAPPUZHA DATED 15-07-2017** ## **APPELLANT:** **SHAJI, PADMALAYAM, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1. SURESH, PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, WEST OF MOBILE TOWER, KARUVATTA T.B.JUNCTION, KARUVATTA-690 517** **2. JALEEL.P.K, BEST TRADING CO., EDAMUTTAM P.O, THRISSUR -680 568.** **3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001** ## **SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC FOR R3** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.70/2018 & MACA.74/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 2 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** # **WEDNESDAY,THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 26TH POUSHA, 1940** # **MACA.No. 70 of 2018** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 285/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ALAPPUZHA DATED 15-07-2017** ## **APPELLANT:** **SHAJI PADMALAYAM, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 SURESH PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, WEST OF MOBILE TOWER, KARUVATTA T.B JUNCTION, KARUVATTA - 690 517. 2 JALEEL P.K BEST TRADING CO, EDAMUTTAM P.O, THRISSUR - 680 568. 3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC FOR R3** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.74/2018, MACA.4079/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY,THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 26TH POUSHA, 1940** ## **MACA.No. 74 of 2018** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 345/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ALAPPUZHA DATED 15-07-2017** ## **APPELLANT:** **SHAJI PADMALAYAM, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**SURESH**| |---|---| ||**PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, WEST OF MOBILE TOWER,**| ||**KARUVATTA T.B JUNCTION,**| ||**KARUVATTA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 517.**| |**2**|**JALEEL P.K**| ||**BEST TRADING CO, EDAMUTTAM P.O,**| ||**THRISSUR - 680 568.**| |**3**|**UNITED INDIA INSURANCE C.LTD**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,**| ||**BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.**| ||**BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC FOR R3**| **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2019, ALONG WITH MACA.70/2018, MACA.4079/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 4 ## **JUDGMENT** These appeals have been originated from a common award dated 15.7.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P(MV) Nos.286/2010, 285/2010 and 345/2010. All these appeals are preferred by the claimants before the Tribunal in the respective Original Petitions. The compensation granted by the Tribunal as per the common award is under challenge for the reason of it's inadequacy and sought for enhancement of the same in interference. 2. Sri.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, the learned counsel advanced arguments on behalf of the appellant in all the three appeals and Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel advanced arguments on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent, insurer in all the appeals. 3. Before adverting to the contentions putforth by the respective counsel, it is relevant to have a discussion in brief about the facts of the case. A motor accident was occurred at about 10.30 am on 3.12.2009, when a Car bearing registration No.KL-4/Y-2540 driven by the son of the appellant through Kollam-Alappuzha National Highway was hit by a lorry bearing registration No.KL-01/W-3927, near Thottappally Spilway bridge due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver. One Mr.Shaji, his wife, son and his friend Sri.Abdul Rahman were the passengers in the car at the relevant time. All of them sustained MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 5 serious injuries. On the way to the hospital for availing treatment, Smt.Sobhanakumari and her son master Balamuralee Krishna, succumbed to death. Sri.Shaji, who sustained injuries was treated primarily at Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. Thereafter he was referred to Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakualm and therefrom to IndoAmerican Hospital, Vaikom. He had undergone inpatient treatment in those hospitals for a total period of 11 days. He had also spent huge sum towards treatment. Alleging that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and claiming compensation, the claim petitions referred to above have been preferred by Sri.Shaji seeking compensation for the death of his wife and son and also for his personal injuries. 3. The driver, owner and insurer of the lorry were arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in all the claim petitions. The driver and owner remained exparte in all the above claim petitions filed before the Tribunal. The 3[rd] respondent, the only contesting respondent had filed a written statement admitting insurance coverage of the lorry as on date of accident. The contentions that the accident was occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car involved in the accident by its driver and that the 2[nd] respondent, who was driving the lorry was not responsible for the accident were raised in the written statement. The claims regarding age, occupation and income of both the deceased and the injured were disputed. The compensation claimed is also disputed and exoneration from liability to indemnify the insured/1[st] respondent is also sought. MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 6 4. All the three claim petitions have been tried jointly by the Tribunal. On the side of the petitioner, documentary evidence have been adduced as Exts.A1 to A25 and Ext.X1. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal had arrived at a finding that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent and responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has also arrived at Rs.14,83,632/-, Rs.18,66,500/- and Rs.1,24,120/- respectively as the compensation payable to the claimants in O.P(MV) No.285/2010, O.P(MV) No.286/2010 and O.P(MV) No.345/2010. The Tribunal had directed the 3[rd] respondent insurer to deposit the aforesaid amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the respective claim petitions till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the award of compensation as above and contending that the amount arrived at by the Tribunal is highly inadequate and disproportionate to the loss sustained by the petitioner, these appeals have been preferred. 5. Sri.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil has contended in M.A.C.A.No.4079/2017 that the Tribunal failed to award just and reasonable compensation under the head loss of dependency, while considering the claim petitions relating to the death of Master Balamuralee Krishna. According to him, though the deceased was a 1[st] Semester Engineering Student at PSN College, Thirunelveli, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.16,000/- as the monthly income for the purpose of calculation of compensation for loss of dependency, inclusive of addition for future prospects. According to him, the Tribunal ought to MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 7 have fixed the monthly income as Rs.12,000/- and 50% must have been added to the monthly income in consideration of future prospects in view of the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in **National Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai v. Fathimath Zuhara @ Zuhra Razak & another [2016 KHC 691].** 6. Secondly, the contention raised by the learned counsel was that the petitioner in O.P(MV) No.286/2010, being the father of the deceased and the only surviving member in the family was entitled to get compensation under the head filial consortium, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd** ## **v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others [2018 (11) SCALE** **247].** Thirdly, it was contended by the learned counsel that in view of the decision supra, the petitioner is also entitled to get compensation for loss of love and affection, in addition to the compensation payable under the head filial consortium. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal failed to grant just and reasonable compensation under the head loss of dependency and any compensation under the head filial consortium. According to him, compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted by the Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection is liable to be maintained. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Sri.Manoj Kumar has contended that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation to the petitioner in the claim petition referred above, after a true and proper appreciation of the evidence MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 8 on record. According to him, the deceased was a first semester engineering student and in consideration of his likelihood to obtain an employment in future and prospects in income likely to accrue on passage of time, that the Tribunal had fixed Rs.16,000/- as the monthly income. According to him 50% addition is only applicable in case of salaried persons and the deceased not being employed at the relevant time, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in not considering addition of 50% to the monthly income fixed by it. The further contention advanced by the learned counsel was that the petitioner, the father of the deceased was not entitled to get compensation for filial consortium as well as loss of love and affection. According to the learned counsel, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is undoubtedly, just and reasonable and the award under challenge is only liable to be confirmed. 8. Bearing the rival contentions as above in mind, the evidence on record is evaluated to see whether the Tribunal went wrong in arriving at the quantum of compensation, in any manner. It is established from Exts.A8 to A11 that the deceased in the aforesaid claim petition was aged 18 years at the time when he met with the motor accident and was a student of first semester Engineering at PSN College, Thirunelveli. Ext.A9 is a certificate issued by the Secondary Board of Education and Ext.A10 is the transfer and conduct certificate issued from PSN College of Engineering and Technology. The aforesaid documents indicate the academic excellence of Master Balamuralee Krishna and the discontinuation by MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 9 him of the course in the year 2009. The accident was occurred on 30.12.2009 and he died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident on the day itself. It is established from the evidence on record that the deceased had good academic excellence and had left his studies as an engineering student from PSN College of Engineering and Technology solely due to the accident. The Tribunal had fixed Rs.16,000/- as the monthly income for the purpose of calculation of compensation, in consideration of his prospects to obtain an employment after completion of his studies and hike in salary from the employment probable to be obtained on efflux of time. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to **National Insurance Company Ltd** 's case supra wherein a Division Bench of this Court had fixed Rs.12,000/- in the case of an engineering student who died in the motor accident and added a sum to it in consideration of future prospects based on the educational qualification possessed by him and the status of his parents. The deceased in the case on hand being a first semester Engineering student with good academic record an excellence is likely to obtain a good job with a reasonable salary. It is also established from the evidence that the father and mother of the deceased were well settled. From the evidence on record, it can possibly be discerned that on getting a job and income there is every likelihood that, he would be a support and solace to his parents. The contention of the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent that 50% addition as per the dictum in **National Insurance Company's** case supra is possible in case of a salaried employee or a MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 10 person having fixed income. In the case on hand, the income was fixed only on the presumption that the deceased would get a job and would earn income therefrom. If he obtains a job, he would also earn income on a constant basis. Therefore, there is every justification in considering 50% addition to the monthly income fixed in the case on hand, in consideration of future prospects. In view of the dictum in **National Insurance Company Ltd** 's case supra, this Court is also inclined to fix Rs.12,000/- as the monthly income that would possibly be earned by the deceased on obtaining a job. When 50% is added to the monthly income in consideration of future prospects, Rs.18,000/(12,000+50% of 12000/-) is arrived at and that is considered for calculating compensation. The multiplier of 18 being correctly adopted by the Tribunal is maintained. In the re-fixation of compensation for loss of dependency with the factors adopted as above, the amount arrived at is Rs.38,88,000/-. The deceased being a bachelor, half of the amount need to be deducted therefrom in consideration of personal expenditure likely to be incurred, had he been alive. Therefore, the petitioner in the above claim petition is entitled to get a sum of Rs.19,44,000/- (18000x12x18)-½) under the head loss of dependency. The Tribunal had already awarded a sum of Rs.17,28,000/- as per the award under challenge. Therefore, the petitioner will get an additional sum of Rs.2,16,000/- under the said head. 9. A sum of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively have been awarded by the Tribunal under the head funeral expenses and MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 11 loss of estate. The Constitutional Bench in **National Insurance Company Ltd** 's case supra had held that the claimant in a case of death of a victim of a motor accident will get only a sum of Rs.15,000/each as compensation under the heads loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, this Court is constrained to deduct Rs.10,000/and Rs.35,000/- respectively from the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal under the aforesaid heads. Rs.50,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection. The Tribunal failed to award any compensation under the head filial consortium, though the petitioner was entitled to get that in view of ## **Magma General Insurance Company'** s case supra. Rs.40,000/- was awarded by the Apex Court in the above case as filial consortium to a parent, who lost his son in a motor accident. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.40,000/- as compensation under the head filial consortium. Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation under the head loss of love and affection, though sought to be deducted from the total compensation by the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent, in view of **Magma General Insurance Company'** s case supra, wherein compensation awarded by the High Court under the head loss of love and affection being maintained despite grant of compensation towards filial consortium, this Court is inclined to maintain the same. 10. In the modification as above, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.2,11,000/- as additional compensation. The said amount will MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 12 carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation. 11. In M.A.C.A No.70/2018 which is originated from O.P.(MV) No.285/2010 also, the challenge of the appellant/petitioner was against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the reason that it is unjust and unreasonable. O.P(MV) No.285/2010 was originated from the death of one Mrs.Sobanakumari, the wife of the petitioner in the motor accident. The claim of the petitioner was that his wife was aged 50 years at the time of her death and was working as a Lady Health Inspector in Woman and Children Hospital, Alappuzha and earning a monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-. He has also produced Exts.A13 and A14, the copies of service details and fixation statement of the deceased to establish her occupation and monthly income at the relevant time of accident. It is discernible from Exts.A13 and A14 that the deceased was working as Lady Health Inspector in Woman and Children Hospital, Alappuzha at the relevant time of her death. It is also discernible from Exts.A13 and A14 that the deceased had completed 51 years and one month at the time of accident. The pay at the relevant time as per the aforesaid documents was Rs.12,900-20,000/-. Since she was a government employee, she is liable to be superannuated on reaching the age of 56 years. The deceased having covered 51 years has only five more years left for her retirement. For that reason, the Tribunal had adopted split multiplier method for calculation of compensation for loss of dependency. The multiplier appropriate to the age of the deceased was correctly MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 13 applied by the Tribunal as 11 but it failed to consider the future prospects of the deceased. Since the deceased was a salaried employee having fixed income and belongs to the age group of 50-60 years, 15% addition ought to have been taken by the Tribunal while fixing the monthly income for arriving at the compensation for loss of dependency. On the failure of the Tribunal to take 15% addition to the monthly income, just compensation was denied to the claimant. Therefore, this Court, in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, is inclined to rectify the error. When 15% is added to the monthly income of Rs.22,920/-, Rs.26358/- (Rs.22920+15% of 22920) is arrived at. When the compensation is calculated with multiplicand as Rs.3,16,296/- (Rs.26358x12) and the split multiplier as 5, the amount arrived at is Rs.15,81,480/-(26358x12x5). The deceased being an income tax payee, 10% will have to be deducted from the amount arrived at as above and accordingly Rs.14,23,332/- is arrived at. 1/3[rd] needs to be deducted from the said amount in consideration of personal expenditure likely to be incurred by the deceased, had she been alive. Thus, Rs.9,48,888/- (Rs.14,23,332-1/3[rd] ) is arrived at as compensation payable to the petitioner in the calculation with 5 as the split multiplier. 12. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.8,25,120/in it's calculation with the split multiplier of 5. When that amount is deducted from the amount now arrived at, a sum of Rs.1,23,768/- will be payable in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. After the retirement also, there is a likelihood for the MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 14 deceased to obtain a job and earn income. Considering the qualification of the deceased at the relevant time of her death and the likelihood of her to obtain a suitable employment after retirement, this Court is inclined to fix Rs.11,460/- (Rs.22920x1/2), which is half of the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal originally as the monthly income for the purpose of computation of compensation for loss of dependency after retirement. Eventhough an argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to consider an addition towards future prospects, this Court is declined to accept it for the reason of the uncertainty involved in the matter of getting an employment and the nature of the employment. The split multiplier to be adopted is 6. In the re-fixation of compensation with the modified multiplicand as Rs.1,37,520/- (11460x12) and the split multiplier of 6, a sum of Rs.8,25,120/-(11460x12x6) is arrived at. 1/3[rd] of the aforesaid amount is deducted therefrom in consideration of the personal expenditure likely to be incurred by the lady, had she been alive. Thus Rs.5,50,080/- is arrived at. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.4,95,072/-. Therefore, the petitioner will get Rs.55,008/- (550080-495072) as compensation in addition. Accordingly, the total sum payable as compensation in addition under the head loss of dependency will be Rs.1,78,776/-. 13. In the case on hand, Rs.25,000/- each was awarded under the head funeral expenses and loss of estate respectively, which in view of the Constitutional Bench in **National Insurance Company Ltd** 's case supra is excessive. Rs.15,000/- each was directed to be MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 15 considered under the respective heads and Rs.10,000/- each is required to be deducted from the sum already awarded by the Tribunal and this Court do so. Under the head loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal, which also in view of **National Insurance Company Ltd** 's case supra is on the higher side. Rs.40,000/- being the sum payable as compensation under the conventional head of loss of consortium, this Court is inclined to deduct Rs.60,000/- therefrom. Therefore, from the amount now arrived at as payable additionally a total sum of Rs.80,000/- (60,000 + 20,000) is liable to be deducted. Thus a total sum of Rs.98,776/(1,78,776-80,000) is payable as compensation in addition to the petitioner. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to get Rs.98,776/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation. 14. M.A.C.A No.74/2018 was originated from the award in O.P(MV) No.345/2010. The appellant is the claimant, who had sustained personal injuries in the motor accident. The grievance of the appellant was that he was not awarded just and reasonable compensation by the Tribunal. According to him, he was aged 52 years at the relevant time of accident and was working as a Fireman in Fire and Rescue Station, Alappuzha. Ext.A24 salary certificate, certifying his salary as Rs.17,443/- is available in evidence on record. The contention of the learned counsel was that the Tribunal discarded Ext.A24 and has fixed the notional income of Rs.8,000/- as the monthly income for the purpose of calculation of compensation for loss of MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 16 earning. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal is unjustified in doing so and interference is required. 15. It is true that Ext.P24 was produced to prove the occupation of the claimant and his monthly income. Ext.A24 is dated 5.4.2010 whereas the accident was occurred on 3.12.2009. The salary shown in Ext.A24 is not related to the year of accident and therefore, it was rightly discarded by the Tribunal. No document is forthcoming indicative of the leave taken by the petitioner while undergoing treatment. It is discernible from the medical document available in evidence as Ext.A21 that the petitioner was initially taken to Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha and after first aid was shifted to Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakulam. There he had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of five days from 4.12.2009 till 9.12.2009 and therefrom, he was shifted to a hospital at Vaikom and had availed treatment for a period of nine days therefrom. It is evidenced that he had sustained trauma to the left side of face and thereby a tooth of that side got fractured. There was an avulsed wound of full thickness over cheek about 16 cm, extending upto the ankle of the mouth. The movements of his neck was also restricted. Lateron, he had developed right fronto parietal chronic subdural heamatoma. As part of treatment he had undergone fronto parietal craniotomy and evacuation of subdural heamatoma under general anesthesia. It is also disclosed from Ext.A21 that his condition at the time of discharge was uneventful and smooth. 16. There is total want of evidence to establish that he had MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 17 availed leave on loss of pay basis and therefore the Tribunal cannot be found fault with, for discarding Ext.A24 while computing compensation for loss of earning. The compensation has been arrived at by the Tribunal for the reason that leave of any other nature could have been taken by the claimant for any other purpose, had the accident not been occurred and he was not constrained to undergo treatment. Accordingly, the Tribunal has fixed notional income of Rs.8,000/- as the monthly income and calculated compensation for loss of earning for four months. The Tribunal is perfectly justified in doing so and this Court is declined to interfere with. The further challenge raised by the learned counsel was regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyments in life. It is pertinent to note from the award that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyments in life. As discussed earlier, the petitioner had sustained an extensive injury on his cheek and developed subdural heamatoma. He had undergone craniotomy and evacuation of subdural heamatoma. At the time of discharge, his condition was reported stable. He had availed inpatient treatment only for nine days. In view of the above, grant of a sum of Rs.40,000/as compensation under the head pain and suffering appears to this Court just and reasonable and therefore is declined to interfere with the same. Rs.25,000/- was awarded under the head loss of amenities and enjoyments in life. It is evidenced that the petitioner had MACA.Nos.4079/2017, 70/18 & 74/18 18 undergone craniotomy and evacuation of subdural heamatoma and therefore, he must have faced difficulties on account of that. In consideration of that, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.5,000/- more under that head. Under the head transportation expenses, the sum awarded by the Tribunal is only Rs.2,000/-. In consideration of the factum evidenced that the appellant had availed treatment from three different hospitals, this Court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.3,000/in addition to the sum already awarded as compensation for transportation expenses. In the calculation and re-fixation as above, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.8,000/-. The said sum will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation. The three appeals are allowed on the above terms. The 3[rd] respondent insurer shall deposit the sum modified by this Court along with the interest at the rate as directed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties to these appeals shall bear their respective costs. **Sd/-** **MARY JOSEPH** **JUDGE** ab