Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 193 (KER)

Ravi v. Ali, S/o. Marakkar, Chembrayur House

2020-02-14

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Appellants 2 to 4 are supplemental claimants 2 to 4 in O.P(MV)No.225 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, who are the wife and children of one Ravi, the deceased original claimant in that claim petition, who sustained injuries in a motor accident, which occurred on 26.05.2002, while he was walking along the side of a National Highway. At the place of accident, he was knocked down by a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8/L-8241, ridden by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 1st 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 07.05.2004. After his death, his wife and children got themselves impleaded as supplemental claimants 2 to 4. The claim petition was also amended, as per the order dated 15.10.2008 in I.A.No.3591/2007, and the total claim was amended as Rs.7,00,000/-, by contending that the death of the original claimant, on 07.05.2004, was due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident which occurred on 26.05.2002. In the order dated 15.10.2008, the question as to whether the death of the original claimant was due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident or not was left open for consideration at the time of evidence. 2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent rider of the motorcycle did not file any written statement. The 2nd respondent owner remained absent and he was set ex parte. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the motorcycle involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 1st respondent rider. The age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition were denied and it was contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. After the amendment of the claim petition, the insurer filed additional written statement, contending that, the death of the original claimant was not as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The insurer pointed out the absence of a postmortem certificate showing the cause of death. 3. After the amendment of the claim petition, the insurer filed additional written statement, contending that, the death of the original claimant was not as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The insurer pointed out the absence of a postmortem certificate showing the cause of death. 3. The 4th respondent, the mother of the deceased original claimant, filed written statement contending that she was fully dependent upon his income. After the death of the original claimant, the supplemental 2nd appellant left her matrimonial home, along with her children. Since her medical expenses were met by the deceased original claimant, she is entitled for a share in the compensation to be awarded in the claim petition. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of supplemental claimants and PWs.1 and 2 were examined. The 4th respondent was examined as RW1. 5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the 1st respondent rider. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the 3rd respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of any reliable materials, it cannot be concluded that the death of the original claimant was on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident, which occurred on 26.05.2002. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the claim as one claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the original claimant. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,47,600/-together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, with a cost of Rs.5,000/-, and the 3rd respondent insurer was directed to satisfy the award. Out of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the 4th respondent, mother of the deceased original claimant, was granted a sum of Rs.50,000/-and the balance compensation was ordered to be apportioned among supplemental claimants 2 to 4, equally. 6. Challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the death of the original claimant was not on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident, which occurred on 26.05.2002, and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, appellants 2 to 4/supplemental claimants 2 to 4 are before this Court in this appeal. 7. 6. Challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the death of the original claimant was not on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident, which occurred on 26.05.2002, and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, appellants 2 to 4/supplemental claimants 2 to 4 are before this Court in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for appellants 2 to 4/ supplemental claimants 2 to 4 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent insurer. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 4th respondent. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the finding of the Tribunal that the death of the original claimant was not on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident, which occurred on 26.05.2002, can be sustained in law; and whether appellants 2 to 4 and also the 4th respondent are entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 9. The document marked as Ext.A2 is a copy of the wound certificate, as per which, the original claimant was admitted in the hospital in an unconscious stage with lacerated wound on chin; lacerated wound on right forehead with abrasion; multiple abrasion on neck; abrasion on the back of ear; abrasion on right wrist; and bleeding nose. He was admitted at Arafa Hospital, Changaramkulam, on 26.05.2002, from where he was referred to Amala Hospital, Thrissur, on the very same day, and discharged on 07.08.2002. Ext.A3 is the CT scan of his brain, as per which he sustained hemorrhagic contusion in right temporal region and in occipital region both sides. Later, he was admitted at Anugraha Hospital, Changaramkulam on 17.09.2002 and discharged on 19.09.2002. He had undergone inpatient treatment for a total period of 77 days, under different spells. In Ext.A8 medical certificate, the Physician who treated the original claimant has certified his case as a 'known case of brain stem injury'. As per Ext.A8, the original claimant was bed ridden and he was unable to travel. The document marked as Ext.A9 is a copy of the death certificate, as per which the original claimant died on 07.05.2004. 10. In Ext.A8 medical certificate, the Physician who treated the original claimant has certified his case as a 'known case of brain stem injury'. As per Ext.A8, the original claimant was bed ridden and he was unable to travel. The document marked as Ext.A9 is a copy of the death certificate, as per which the original claimant died on 07.05.2004. 10. Before the Tribunal, the supplemental claimants contended that, the original claimant was treated in the hospitals for head injury, under different spells, and the treatment continued even after discharge from the hospital, as he was bed ridden. He never recovered from the illness and was not in a position to do his daily activities. Finally, on 07.05.2004, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the motor accident, which occurred on 26.05.2002. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent insurer contended that, the death of the original claimant was not on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident and that, no reliable materials are placed on record to prove the said fact. The insurer pointed out that no postmortem was conducted. 11. Before the Tribunal, the entire medical records from Amala Hospital, Thrissur were called for and marked as Ext.X1 series, through PW2 who was a Neurosurgeon at that hospital, as on the date of his examination before the Tribunal. Ext.A6 discharge summary was also marked through PW2, who has deposed that, as per medical records, the original claimant sustained brain stem injury, affecting the area of the brain which controls consciousness level, heart rate and respiration. PW2 has also deposed that brain stem injury is a serious injury, which may cause death. PW2 has admitted that, he never treated the original claimant and that, his oral testimony is based on Ext.X1 series medical records available before the Tribunal. He has also admitted that, he cannot understand the contents of the record (Ext.A6), since the handwriting of the doctor who treated the original claimant is not legible. He has also deposed that, the doctor who had treated the original claimant is not available at Amala Hospital. The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record, arrived at a conclusion that the evidence of PW2 is not convincing enough to lead to a conclusion that the original claimant died consequent to brain stem injury sustained in the motor accident. He has also deposed that, the doctor who had treated the original claimant is not available at Amala Hospital. The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record, arrived at a conclusion that the evidence of PW2 is not convincing enough to lead to a conclusion that the original claimant died consequent to brain stem injury sustained in the motor accident. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the claim petition as one claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the original claimant in the motor accident. 12. 'Brain stem' is the stem-like part of the brain that connects the cerebral hemispheres with the spinal cord. It comprises medulla oblongata, pons and midbrain [Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary -21st Edition]. When injury occurs to any or all of these three areas, the heartbeat and breathing can cease, causing death. Due to swelling, brain stem can become compressed, leading to hemorrhaging and stroke, which may result in breathing difficulties, including sleep apnea (a potentially serious sleep disorder in which breathing repeatedly stops and starts), speech impairment, and difficulty in swallowing. In acute cases, there may be personality changes and memory loss, loss of consciousness, coma and paralysis. The injured may remain in a vegetative state of life, or death can suddenly occur from heart and lung failure. 13. In the instant case, the accident occurred on 26.05.2002. The original claimant had undergone inpatient treatment from 26.05.2002 till 07.08.2002 at Amala Hospital and thereafter, from 17.09.2002 till 19.09.2002 at Anugraha Hospital. The claim petition was filed on 10.04.2003 and he died on 07.05.2004. As evident from Ext.A8 medical certificate, on account of brain stem injury, the original claimant was bed ridden and he was unable to travel. Ext.X1 series of medical records from Amala Hospital, Thrissur, were marked through PW2, who has deposed that the original claimant sustained brain stem injury, affecting the area of the brain which controls consciousness level, heart rate and respiration. PW2 has also deposed that brain stem injury is a serious injury, which may cause death. 14. The 1st appellant, who was examined as PW1, has deposed that after the accident her husband was unable to look after his affairs. He was not able to sit or walk without the assistance of others. He lost vision of right eye. PW2 has also deposed that brain stem injury is a serious injury, which may cause death. 14. The 1st appellant, who was examined as PW1, has deposed that after the accident her husband was unable to look after his affairs. He was not able to sit or walk without the assistance of others. He lost vision of right eye. The oral testimony of PW1 as to the physical condition of original claimant after the accident stands uncontroverted, since no attempt was made during cross examination to discredit her version. The cross examination was confined to the cause of death. The Tribunal found that, after the accident, the original claimant was unable to do his daily routine and he has not even regained sitting balance. 15. No materials were placed before the Tribunal to show that the death of the original claimant, on 07.05.2004, was on account of the injuries sustained in the motor accident, which occurred on 26.05.2002. As evident from Ext.A8 medical certificate, on account of brain stem injury, the original claimant was bed ridden and he was unable to travel. However, the materials on record or the oral testimony of PW2 is not at all sufficient to lead to a conclusion that the original claimant died consequent to brain stem injury. Therefore, the claim petition can only be treated as one claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the original claimant in the motor accident in question. 16. 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. 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 determine loss of dependency). 17. In Raj Kumar, 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 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 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. 18. As evident from Ext.A8 medical certificate, on account of brain stem injury, the original claimant was bed ridden and he was unable to travel. 18. As evident from Ext.A8 medical certificate, on account of brain stem injury, the original claimant was bed ridden and he was unable to travel. PW1 has deposed that, after the accident, her husband was unable to look after his affairs. He was not able to sit or walk without the assistance of others. The oral testimony of PW1 as to the physical condition of original claimant after the accident stands uncontroverted, since no attempt was made during cross examination to discredit her version. In the impugned award, the Tribunal found that, after the accident, the original claimant was unable to do his daily routine and he has not even regained sitting balance. The assessment of the permanent disability of the original claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, could not be made during the pendency of the claim petition, since he died on 07.05.2004. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the original claimant and his physical condition after the accident, on account of brain stem injury, as borne out from medical records and also the oral testimony of PW1, his loss of future earning capacity is taken as 80% for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 19. Now the issue that remains to be considered is as to whether appellants 2 to 4 and the 4th respondent are entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 20. 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. 21. 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. 21. 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. 22. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads reads thus: 23. The accident occurred on 26.05.2002. At the time of accident, the original claimant was aged 35 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.7,500/-as coconut plucker. The 2nd appellant, the wife of the original claimant, mounted the box as PW1, to prove his monthly income. The Tribunal took the monthly income, notionally, as Rs.3,500/-, for the purpose of awarding compensation under various heads. Sl. No. Heads of claim Amount awarded (in Rs.) 1 Transport to hospital 3,000 2 Extra nourishment 11,500 3 Damage to clothing 500 4 Bystander's expenses for 77 days 11,550 5 Medical bills 30,036 6 Pain and suffering 75,000 7 Loss of amenities in life 50,000 8 Loss of earning 80,500 9 Attendants expenses till death of the first petitioner 85,500 Total 3,47,586 Rounded off to 3,47,600 24. 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. 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 point of time. 25. 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. 26. In the absence of any reliable materials, considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2002, and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, and also the oral testimony of PW1, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income of the original claimant, notionally, as Rs.3,750/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 27. 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. 27. 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 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. 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 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 ]. 28. In Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. 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 ]. 28. 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 ].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. 29. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the permanent disability arising therefrom, the original claimant can 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 future earning capacity. Therefore, appellants 2 to 4 and the 4th respondent are entitled to grant of compensation under the head permanent disability, adding future prospects to the notional monthly income of the original claimant. 30. 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. The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the Tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. In Pranay Sethi the Apex Court approved the principle of 'standardisation' so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age. 31. In Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh [ (2013) 9 SCC 54 ], a Three-Judge 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 Three-Judge Bench followed the principle stated in Rajesh. In Pranay Sethi, after expressing the opinion that the dicta laid down in Reshma Kumari being earlier in point of time would be a binding precedent and not the decision in Rajesh, the Constitution Bench observed that, in Munna Lal Jain, the Three-Judge Bench should have been guided by the principle stated in Reshma Kumari which has concurred with the view expressed in Sarla Devi or in case of disagreement, it should have been well advised to refer the case to a Larger Bench. 32. 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. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. The Apex Court held further that, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 33. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the original claimant was aged 35 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.7,500/-as coconut plucker. As already noticed, no materials were placed before the Tribunal to show that, at the time of accident, the original claimant had a permanent job. Therefore, he can only be treated as self-employed. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mekala, Syed Sadiq and Pranay Sethi, an addition of 40% of the notional monthly income of the original claimant, 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 original claimant was below the age of 40 years. 34. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of earning (disability compensation), 40% of the monthly income of the original claimant notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.3,570/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.1,500/-(3,750 x 40/100) has to be added towards future prospects. In the result, the monthly income of the original claimant, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of dependency, is reckoned as Rs.5,250/-(3,750 + 1,500). 35. In the result, the monthly income of the original claimant, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of dependency, is reckoned as Rs.5,250/-(3,750 + 1,500). 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the original claimant was aged 35 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 proper multiplier to be applied is 16. 38. The Tribunal awarded no compensation under the head permanent disability. In this appeal, the monthly income of the original claimant has already been re-fixed as Rs.3,750/-. In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case and Pranay Sethi's case referred to supra, the proper multiplier to be applied is 16. 38. The Tribunal awarded no compensation under the head permanent disability. In this appeal, the monthly income of the original claimant has already been re-fixed as Rs.3,750/-. Adding 40% of the notional monthly income of the original claimant towards future prospects (3,750 + 1,500 = 5,250); applying the multiplier of 16 applicable to his age group; and loss of future earning capacity as 80%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is fixed as Rs.8,06,400/-(5,250 x 12 x 16 x 80/100). 39. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.80,500/-towards loss of earning for a period of 23 months (3,500 x 23), till the date of death of the original claimant. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the original claimant and his physical condition after the accident, on account of brain stem injury, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 40. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/-towards transportation expenses; Rs.11,500/-towards bystander expenses; Rs.11,500/-towards extra nourishment; and Rs.500/-towards damage to clothing and articles. The accident is of the year 2002. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the original claimant had undergone inpatient treatment for 77 days. 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 heads bystander expenses and extra nourishment cannot be said to be on the lower side, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. The compensation under the head transportation expenses is re-fixed as Rs.5,000/-, resulting in an additional compensation of Rs.2,000/-(5,000 – 3,000). The compensation under the head damage to clothing and articles is re-fixed as Rs.750/-, resulting in an additional compensation of Rs.250/-(750 - 500). 41. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,036/-, covered by Ext.A5 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. 42. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-. 43. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,036/-, covered by Ext.A5 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. 42. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-. 43. In Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2011) 10 SCC 683 ], the Apex Court granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to amputation of leg. In the said case, 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. Considering his age and also the fact that for the remaining life, he will suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work as helper, the Apex Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, have also granted a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-in lieu of pain, suffering and trauma caused due to amputation of leg. 44. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the original claimant was aged 35 years, who was earning his livelihood as coconut plucker. As evident from Ext.A8 medical certificate, on account of brain stem injury, the original claimant was bed ridden and he was unable to travel. Ext.X1 series of medical records from Amala Hospital, Thrissur, which was marked through PW2, would show that the original claimant sustained brain stem injury, affecting the area of the brain which controls consciousness level, heart rate and respiration. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the physical condition of the original claimant after the accident, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is re-fixed as Rs.1,00,000/-, resulting in an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/-(1,00,000 -75,000). 45. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 46. In Govind Yadav, 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%. 46. In Govind Yadav, 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 been 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. 47. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the original claimant was aged 35 years. He was a married person, who was earning his livelihood as coconut plucker. On account of brain stem injury, the original claimant was bed ridden and he was unable to travel. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the original claimant and his physical condition after the accident, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of amenities is re-fixed as Rs.75,000/-, resulting in an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/-(75,000 - 50,000). 48. Towards attendant expenses till death of the original claimant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs,80,500/-, at the rate of Rs.4,500/-for a period of 19 months. As evident from medical records, in the accident, the original claimant sustained brain stem injury. He was bed ridden and was unable to travel. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the physical condition of the original claimant after the accident, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 49. In the result, appellants 2 to 4 and the 4th respondent are entitled for payment of an additional compensation of Rs.8,58,650/-(Rupees eight lakhs fifty eight thousand six hundred and fifty only) [8,06,400 + 2,000 + 250 + 25,000 + 25,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The additional compensation granted in this appeal shall be apportioned among the appellants 2 to 4 and the 4th respondent in the ratio 40:20:20:20. The additional compensation granted in this appeal shall be apportioned among the appellants 2 to 4 and the 4th respondent in the ratio 40:20:20:20. The 3rd 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 Legal Benefit Fund. The disbursement of additional compensation to appellants 2 to 4 and the 4th respondent 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. Appellants 2 to 4 and the 4th respondent shall provide their 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.