Vilasini and others v. Don Ferosh and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2020 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1942** ## **MACA.No.2806 OF 2008** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(MV)NO.732/2001 DATED 15-12-2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA APPELLANTS:** - **1 VILASINI, W/O.LATE SHANMUGHAM, AGED 47 YEARS, MELPURAM, PAVOTTUVENGANAMKODU VEEDU, ADOTTU VILALGE, VILAVANKODU TALUK, KANNYAKUMARI DISTRICT.** - **2 JAYAN, S/O.LATE SHANMUGHAM, AGED 21 YEARS, MELPURAM, PAVOTTUVENGANAMKODU VEEDU, ADOTTU VILALGE, VILAVANKODU TALUK, KANNYAKUMARI DISTRICT.** - **3 JAYASREE, D/O.LATE SHANMUGHAM, AGED 20 YEARS, MELPURAM, PAVOTTUVENGANAMKODU VEEDU, ADOTTU VILALGE, VILAVANKODU TALUK, KANNYAKUMARI DISTRICT.** - **4 JAYARAM, S/O.LATE SHANMUGHAM, AGED 14 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT, MELPURAM, PAVOTTUVENGANAMKODU VEEDU, ADOTTU VILALGE, VILAVANKODU TALUK, KANNYAKUMARI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 DON FEROSH, S/O.DAVIDSON, THOTTAM VEEDU, NO.28/55A, ARAMANAM, THERIPARAPU PANCHAYAT, KALKULAM TALUK, KANNAYAKUMARI DIST.** - **2 RAJAN, S/O.THANKAYYAN, PONMANAKULACHAVILAKATHU VEEDU, PONMANA VILLAGE, KALKULAM TALUK, KANNYAKUMARI DIST.** - **3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. C.W.C. BUILDING, L.M.S. COMPOUND,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** MACA No.2806 of 2008 2 **4 SATHESEELAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PANICKER, C.S.BHAVAN, DOOR NO.14/108A NEAR MELPURAM JUNCTION, PAKODE DESOM, VILAVANCODE TALUK, KANNYAKUMARI DIST. 5 ANIL KUMAR, S/O.SOMAN, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, NEAR MARIYAPURAM MARKET, CHENKAL VILLAGE.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-06-2020, THE COURT ON 01.07.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA No.2806 of 2008 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellants are additional claimants 2 to 5 in O.P. (MV)No.732 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by one Shanmughan @ Sathyaseelan, the husband of the 1[st] appellant and father of appellants 2 to 4, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident which occurred on 18.02.2001, while he was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-74/Z-7014, owned by the 4[th] respondent and ridden by the 5[th] respondent. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a trucker bearing registration No.TN-74/B-7095, 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 rash and negligent driving of the trucker by the 2[nd] respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under various heads. During the pendency of the claim petition, the original claimant died on 13.07.2001. His legal heirs filed an application to get themselves impleaded as additional claimants 2 to 5 and also MACA No.2806 of 2008 4 to enhance the total compensation claimed as Rs.5,00,000/-, for death of the original claimant. That application was allowed by the Tribunal. 2. Before the Tribunal, 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the trucker involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 2[nd] respondent driver. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the 5[th] respondent rider. The motorcycle hit on the front side of the trekker, which was coming from the opposite direction. The rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid driving license and the motorcycle was not covered by a valid insurance policy. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, income, etc. stated in the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant. 3. After the amendment of the claim petition, the 3[rd] respondent insurer filed additional written statement contending that the original claimant died not due to the injuries sustained in the accident. After the accident, he was admitted in the hospital and discharged after completion of treatment. He was a chronic MACA No.2806 of 2008 5 epilepsy patient. No post mortem was conducted because his death was a natural death. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the appellants/additional claimants 2 to 5 and PWs.1 and 2 were examined. On the side of the respondents, Ext.B1 insurance policy of the offending vehicle was marked. 5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the trucker by the 2[nd] respondent driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, 3[rd] respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the 1[st] respondent insured. Since no materials were placed before the Tribunal to prove that the death of the original claimant was as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the Tribunal treated the claim as one claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the original claimant. Under various heads, Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,33,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 15.06.2001 till realisation and the 3[rd] respondent insurer was directed to satisfy the award. The amount of compensation was ordered to be apportioned among appellants MACA No.2806 of 2008 6 in the ratio mentioned in the last paragraph of the award. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads and challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the death of the original claimant was not as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellants/ additional claimants 2 to 5 are before this Court in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads; and whether the finding of the Tribunal that the death of the original claimant was not as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident can be sustained in law. 9. The document marked as Ext.A2 is the wound certificate; Ext.A3 and A9 are treatment certificates. Ext.A8 is the discharge card. As evident from Ext.A2 wound certificate, in the accident, the original claimant sustained incised wound forehead, 3x1cm, head injury and avulsion teeth incisor. He was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. As per Ext.A3 MACA No.2806 of 2008 7 treatment certificate, he had undergone inpatient treatment from 18.02.2001 to 01.03.2001 and thereafter, from 06.03.2001 to 21.03.2001 at the Medical College Hospital for Post Traumatic Epilepsy Type II DM. The impression in Ext.A5 Brain CT scan report dated 18.02.2001 is “right fronto parietal subdural haematoma; mild sub arachanoid haemorrhage; heamatoma of maxilliary; sphenoid and ethnoid sinuses; and fracture right orbito fontal and lateral wall of left orbit”. The impression in Head CT scan report dated 08.03.2001, which forms part of Ext.A5, is “no evidence of intracranial heamorrhage; and undisplaced fracture right frontal bone”. As per the said report, a thin linear fracture line is seen in the right frontal bone, suggestive of an undisplaced fracture. As per Ext.A8 discharge card, the original claimant had undergone inpatient treatment from 18.02.2001 to 01.03.2001. The diagnosis in Ext.A8 is head injury, right fronto parietal sub dural heamatoma; and mild sub arachanoid heamorrhage. He was fully conscious, well oriented. No complaint of brain stem dyster, periorbital oedema, oedema of lips. Head CT scan showed right fronto parietal subdural heamatoma, mild subarachanoid heamorrhage, heamatoma maxillary, sphenoid and ethmoid sinus, fracture right orbito frontal MACA No.2806 of 2008 8 and lateral wall of orbit. X-ray showed fracture right 4[th] rib, mild pneumothorax and no clinical evidence of pneumothorax. Neurological status was not improving and hence repeat CT scan was taken. Opthalmology consultation done for complaint of vision. Repeated CT scan showed contusion of right frontal region, thin subarachanoid haematoma in the right fronto tempero parietal region and mild sub arachanoid haemorrhage and fracture right frontal bones and lateral wall of orbit. As per Ext.A8 discharge card, at the time of discharge, the original claimant was conscious and fully oriented. The document marked as Ext.A9 is the treatment certificate for the period from 18.02.2001, in which the following injuries are noted; infra orbital fracture, left upper incisor missing, Grade II mobility of 5 teeth, left fronto parietal subdural haematoma, mild subarachanoid haemorrhage, haematoma of maxillary, ethmoid, sphenoid sinus, fracture right orbito frontal and lateral wall of left orbit. Ext.A10 repeated Brain CT scan showed contusion right frontal region; thin subdural haematoma in right fronto tempero parietal region; mild subarachnoid haemorrhage; fracture frontal bone right and lateral wall of left orbit. As per Ext.A11 referral OP card, the original claimant had undergone MACA No.2806 of 2008 9 inpatient treatment from 26.04.2001 to 21.05.2001 at the Medical College Hospital for Post Traumatic Epilepsy, old subarachnoid haemorrhage. 10. The original claimant died on 13.07.2001, as evident from Ext.A13 death certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Edaikode in Kannyakumari District in State of Tamil Nadu. The cause of death of the original claimant is not borne out from the documents on record and it is an admitted fact that no postmortem was conducted. The 1[st] appellant, the wife of the original claimant, was examined as PW1, who has deposed that his death was on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. During cross examination, PW1 denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer that the original claimant was suffering from epilepsy before accident and he was undergoing treatment. According to PW1, no postmortem was conducted since the original claimant died in his house. 11. PW2, who was working as Assistant Professor of Surgery at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram deposed that repeat CT scan was taken since the patient was not improving neurologically, which showed contusion of right frontal region. He MACA No.2806 of 2008 10 was readmitted on 26.04.2001 and discharged on 25.05.2001 with Post Traumatic Epilepsy. Repeated CT scan showed thin subdural haematoma in right fronto tempero parietal region; mild subarachnoid haemorrhage; fracture frontal bone right and lateral wall of left orbit. PW2 has deposed that the injuries sustained by the original claimant are serious and can be fatal. PW2, while answering a suggestion made by the learned counsel for the claimants, deposed that it is possible that the death of the original claimant on 13.07.2001 was due to the above injuries. During cross examination, PW2 has deposed that as evident from Ext.A8 discharge card, at the time of discharge, the original claimant was conscious and was fully oriented. He was stable at the time of discharge. He was treated by Dr.Abdul Kalam and PW2 was in the team of doctors working with him. PW2 has admitted that he has not written anything on Ext.A8 discharge card. On 26.04.2001, the patient was admitted due to Post Traumatic Epilepsy. The condition of the patient at the time of discharge on 21.05.2001 is not seen mentioned in Ext.A11. As per medical records, it was a case of Post Traumatic Epilepsy. According to PW2, the injuries could have been the cause for the death. MACA No.2806 of 2008 11 12. The cause of death of the original claimant is not borne out by the documentary evidence on record. The oral testimony of PW2 and the medical records are not at all sufficient to conclude that the original claimant died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, which occurred on 18.02.2001, or due to Post Traumatic Epilepsy. PW1 has also no case that the original claimant died on account of Post Traumatic Epilepsy. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants would place reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in **Venugopal and others v. T.L.Paulson and others [2009 (1) KHC 58]** and also the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in **United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sumitra and others [2015 ACJ 115]** . 14. In **Venugopal** , the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which the original claimant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident and he committed suicide due to mental depression, during the pendency of claim petition. The contention raised by the legal heirs of the original claimant was that his death was due to the after effect of the accidental injuries, which was not accepted by the Tribunal. Based on the evidence on MACA No.2806 of 2008 12 record, the Division Bench found that, before the accident, the deceased had no depression. There was no evidence to the effect that the deceased suffered depression leading to suicide or any other psychological disorder before the accident. He was a happy family man before the dreadful accident. The doctor has also deposed that, before the accident, no such depression was reported. From the evidence, the Division Bench found that his severe depression and worthlessness and helplessness came after the accident in view of the accidental injuries. In his severe depressed state, he felt that he was a greater burden to his relative's life. Suicide was his decision and worthlessness and helplessness which were the result of his depression which, in turn, resulted in the suicide. 15. In **Sumitra** , a learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was dealing with a case in which the deceased sustained injuries in a motor accident which took place on 08.05.2011. The medico-legal report categorically established that though the deceased had sustained abrasions over right foot and right knee, he had been under trauma on account of the chest injuries that he sustained on account of the accident. A chest x-ray was taken but MACA No.2806 of 2008 13 of course the evidence of PW6 doctor would go to show that the deceased was discharged in a satisfactory condition. In other words, it cannot conclusively conclude that the injured was discharged after recovering fully from the injuries that he received and the trauma he underwent. The accident had taken place on 08.05.2011. He was admitted to the hospital on 09.05.2011. He was discharged on 21.05.2011. But unfortunately, he died on the way to the hospital on 01.06.2011, when he developed some complications on account of the accident. Therefore, it was held that in the face of aforesaid evidence on record, one can easily come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased has direct nexus with the chest injuries he had received in the accident. 16. In the instant case, as already noticed, there is absolutely no materials to show that the death of the original claimant on 13.07.2001 was on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident, which occurred on 18.02.2001, or on account of Post Traumatic Epilepsy. Therefore, the claim petition can only be treated as one claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the original claimant. The finding of the Tribunal that the death of the original claimant was not as a result of the injuries MACA No.2806 of 2008 14 sustained in the accident cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal, warranting an interference in this appeal. 17. Now the issue that remains to be considered is as to whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 18. In **State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [(2003) 7 SCC 484]** the Apex Court held that the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. 19. 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 MACA No.2806 of 2008 15 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. 20. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads reads thus: |Sl.<br>No.|Heads of claim|Amount awarded<br>(in Rs.)| |---|---|---| |1|Permanent disability|Rs.78,000/-| |2|Pain and sufferings|Rs.15,000/-| |3|Discomfort, inconvenience and<br>loss of amenities|Rs.20,000/-| |4|Loss of earning|Rs.10,000/-| |5|Damage to clothing|Rs.500/-| |6|Transport to hospital|Rs.1,000| |7|Bystander expenses|Rs.2,000/-| |8|Treatment and other incidental<br>expenses including extra<br>nourishment|Rs.6,500/-| ||Total|Rs.1,33,000/-| 21. The accident occurred on 18.02.2001. At the time of MACA No.2806 of 2008 16 accident, the original claimant was aged 47 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.3,000/- as Mason. The 1[st] appellant was examined as PW1. The Tribunal took the monthly income notionally as Rs.2,000/-. ## 22. 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 MACA No.2806 of 2008 17 guess work, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time. 23. 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 Rs.6,500/- per month. 24. Considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2001, 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.3,000/- MACA No.2806 of 2008 18 claimed in the claim petition is not on the higher side, which is taken as the notional monthly income of the original claimant, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 25. The claim petition was filed on 15.06.2001. The original claimant died on 13.07.2001, before assessment of his permanent disability, if any, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, by the Medical Board. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the original claimant the Tribunal took the percentage of disability as 25%, for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head permanent disability, thereby taking his loss of future earning capacity as 25%. In the absence of any reliable materials materials to prove the permanent disability of the original claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, 25% permanent disability taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the lower side, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 26. 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 original claimant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the period of 5 months fixed by the Tribunal for granting MACA No.2806 of 2008 19 loss of earning is just and reasonable. Since the monthly income of the original claimant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.3,000/-, the compensation under the head loss of earning is re-fixed as Rs.15,000/- (3,000 x 5), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.5,000/-** (15,000 - 10,000). 27. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the original claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for 53 days, in three different spells. The accident is of the year 2001. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the original claimant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs.3,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.2,000/-** (3,000 - 1,000). 28. Towards bystander expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Towards treatment and other incidental expenses including extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.6,500/-. The accident is of the year 2001 and the original claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for 53 days. Ext.A12 series of medical bills are for a total sum of Rs.6,290/-. MACA No.2806 of 2008 20 Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the original claimant had undergone, the compensation under the head bystander expenses is re-fixed as Rs.7,950/- (150 x 53), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.5,950/-** (7,950 – 2,000). The compensation under the head extra nourishment is re-fixed as Rs.5,300/- (100 x 53) and that under the head medical expenses is re-fixed as Rs.6,290/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.5,090/-** [(5,300 + 6,290) - 6,500]. 29. Towards damage to clothing, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/-. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2001, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs.750/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.250/-** (750 - 500). 30. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the original claimant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is refixed as Rs.25,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.10,000/-** (25,000 - 15,000). MACA No.2806 of 2008 21 31. 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. 32. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680]** a Constitution Bench of the Apex MACA No.2806 of 2008 22 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. 33. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant was aged 47 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. 34. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.78,000/- (2,000 x 12 x 13 x 25/100). Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.3,000/-, applying the multiplier of 13 applicable to the age group of the original claimant and the percentage of permanent disability as 25%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is re-fixed as Rs.1,17,000/- (3,000 x 12 x 13 x 25/100), resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.39,000/-** (1,17,000 - 78,000). 35. Towards discomfort, inconvenience and loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. As already MACA No.2806 of 2008 23 held, in the absence of any reliable materials materials to prove the permanent disability of the original claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, 25% permanent disability taken by the Tribunal requires no enhancement in this appeal. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and 25% permanent disability on account of those injuries, as taken by the Tribunal, the compensation awarded under this head is re-fixed as Rs.25,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.5,000/-** (25,000 - 20,000). 29. In the result, the 1[st] appellant/additional 2[nd] claimant, the wife of the deceased original claimant, will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of **Rs.72,290/-** (Rupees seventy two thousand two hundred and ninety only) [5,000 + 2,000 + 5,950 + 5,090 + 250 + 10,000 + 39,000 + 5,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the 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 claimants towards Balance Court Fee and MACA No.2806 of 2008 24 Legal Benefit Fund. The disbursement of additional compensation to the 1[st] appellant 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 1[st] appellant shall provide her 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** lgk