Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 47 (KER)

Ulahannan S/o. Joseph v. Rajeesh S/o. Nanu

2020-01-15

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.426 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which occurred on 11.04.2013, while he was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.KL-12/E-5225. At the place of accident, the jeep was hit by a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-58/G-3773, driven 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 driving of tipper lorry by the 1st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-under various heads. 2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent driver and the 2nd respondent owner remained absent and they were set ex parte. 3. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the tipper lorry involved in the accident; however, denying the negligence alleged against its driver. The insurer contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. 4. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. The document marked as Ext.C1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, K.R. Hospital, Mysore assessing the permanent disability of the appellant/claimant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. 5. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of tipper lorry by its driver. Since insurance coverage of the said vehicle was not in dispute, the insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,14,933/-, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit, with proportionate cost, and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/insurer. 8. 6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/insurer. 8. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 9. In State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur [ (2003) 7 SCC 484 ] the Apex Court held that the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense 'damages' which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has be to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be 'just' and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance. 10. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the concept of 'just compensation' and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 11. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; Sl. The conception of 'just compensation' has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the principle of equitability. 11. In the instant case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads reads thus; Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed(in Rupees) Amount awarded (in Rupees) Basis-vital details in a nutshell 1 Income/notional Rs.15,000.00 Rs.5,000.00 Nil income 2 Loss of earning (Total) Rs.1,04,000.00 Nil Nil 3 Loss of earning (Partial) Nil Nil Nil 4 Medical expenses Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.7,17,483.00 Ext.A9(s) and A18(s) 5 Future treatment Rs.2,00,000/- Nil Nil 6 Bystander expenses Rs.50,000/- Rs.21,450/- 150 x 143 7 Transportation expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Nil 8 Extra nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.5,000/- 9 Damage to clothing Rs.1000.00 Rs.1,000.00 Nil 10 Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Nil 11 Loss of earning power Rs.1,00,000/- Nil Nil 12 Compensation for permanent disability Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.6,60,000/- 5000x12x11x100 /100 13 Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Nil 14 Mental shock and agony Rs.25,000/- Nil Nil TOTAL Rs.22,00,000/- Rs.16,14,933.00/- Rs.16,14,933/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of making the claim till the date of payment 12. The accident occurred on 11.04.2013. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 53 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-as coolie (manual labourer). The Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.5,000/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 13. In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a coolie (manual labourer), who met with a road accident in the year 2004, at the age of 35 years, notionally as Rs.4,500/-. The Apex Court held that, the claimant who was working as a coolie cannot be expected to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in the facts of the said case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant. The Apex Court made it clear that, in all cases and in all circumstances, the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant, in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. 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. 14. In Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ], taking note of the earlier decision in Ramachandrappa's case (supra), the Apex Court reckoned the monthly income of a vegetable vendor, who met with a road accident in the year 2008, at the age of 24 years, notionally as Rs.6,500/-. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that, a labourer in an unorganised sector doing his own business cannot be expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence to prove his monthly income. Going by the state of economy prevailing at that time and the rising prices in agricultural products, the Apex Court accepted his case that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning 6,500/-per month. 15. In the absence of any reliable evidence, considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident, i.e., during the year 2013, and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income of the appellant notionally as Rs.9,000/-, for the purpose of assessing compensation under various heads. 16. The document marked as Ext. A5 is the wound certificate and Ext.A8 series are discharge summaries. As evident from Medical records, the appellant sustained a lacerated wound at right fronto parietal region, fracture of temporal and parietal bone and severe head injury. He was admitted at Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery on 11.04.2013 and was discharged on 01.06.2013, after inpatient treatment for a period of 52 days. As per Ext.A8 discharge summary he was admitted at JSS Hospital, Mysore on 01.06.2013 and discharged on 31.08.2013, after inpatient treatment for a period of 91 days. Ext. He was admitted at Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery on 11.04.2013 and was discharged on 01.06.2013, after inpatient treatment for a period of 52 days. As per Ext.A8 discharge summary he was admitted at JSS Hospital, Mysore on 01.06.2013 and discharged on 31.08.2013, after inpatient treatment for a period of 91 days. Ext. A12 series trip sheets are for a sum of Rs.5,900/-and Exts. A9 and A18 series medical bills are for a total sum of Rs.7,17,483/-. 17. In Ext.C1 disability certificate, the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 100% by the Medical Board. The Tribunal accepted the percentage of permanent disability assessed in Ext.C1, for the purpose of awarding compensation under various heads. 18. Towards loss of earning, the appellant claimed a sum of Rs.1,04,000/-. In Ext.C1 disability Certificate, the permanent disability of the appellant is assessed as 100%. The Tribunal awarded disability compensation taking 100% loss of earning capacity and applying the multiplier of 11 with reference to the age of the appellant as on the date of accident. Once dependency compensation is granted taking 100% loss of earning capacity and applying the multiplier with reference to the age of the appellant as on the date of accident, the appellant is not entitled for any compensation under the head loss of earnings. 19. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 143 days. The accident is of the year 2013. Towards transportation to hospital, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Ext.A2 trip sheets are only for an amount of Rs.5,900/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 20. Towards bystander expenses the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 21,450/-. Towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.5,000/-. The accident is of the year 2013 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 143 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under the head bystander expenses is re-fixed as Rs.35,750/-(250 x 143), resulting an additional compensation of Rs.14,300/-(35,750 -21,450). The accident is of the year 2013 and the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for 143 days. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation under the head bystander expenses is re-fixed as Rs.35,750/-(250 x 143), resulting an additional compensation of Rs.14,300/-(35,750 -21,450). The compensation under the head extra nourishment is re-fixed as Rs.28,600/-(200 x 143), resulting an additional compensation of Rs.23,600/-(28,600 - 5,000). 21. Towards damage to clothing and articles, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2013, the compensation under this head is re-fixed as Rs.1,250/-, resulting an additional compensation of Rs.250/-(1,250 - 1,000). 22. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,17,483/-, covered by Ext.A9 series and A18 series medical bills. In the absence of any further materials, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under this head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no enhancement in this appeal. 23. Towards future treatment expenses, the appellant claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded no compensation under this head. 24. In Afnees (Unconscious) represented through Mother V. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd [ 2017 (3) KHC 819 ], in the case of an injured aged 19 years, who sustained severe injuries in a motor accident, which had resulted in 100% permanent whole body disability, the Apex Court awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards future treatment. 25. In the instant case, the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 100% in Ext.C1. At the time of accident, he was aged 53 years. The photographs of the appellant showing his physical condition before and after the accident were placed on record before the Tribunal as Ext.A16 series. The learned counsel for the appellant has made available for the perusal of this Court the photographs showing the present physical condition of the appellant. He is lying in a vegetative stage with gastric feeding tube for long term internal nutrition using the gastrointenstinal tract and tracheostomy tube inserted into tracheostomy stoma in the windpipe (trachea) for tracheal suctioning via suction catheter. He is lying in a vegetative stage with gastric feeding tube for long term internal nutrition using the gastrointenstinal tract and tracheostomy tube inserted into tracheostomy stoma in the windpipe (trachea) for tracheal suctioning via suction catheter. Considering the expenses that have to be incurred by the appellant for periodical treatment, replacement of gastric feeding tube, tracheostomy tube, suction catheter, etc., and also the requirement of special diet and nutrition for the rest of his life in bed, this Court deem it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-towards future treatment expenses and expenses for special diet and nutrition, which will carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date of award, i.e., from 20.10.2014. 26. As compensation towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. 27. 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. 28. In the instant case, the appellant was a coolie (manual labourer), who sustained serious injuries at the age of 53 years. He is lying in a vegetative stage with gastric feeding tube for long term internal nutrition and tracheostomy tube for tracheal suctioning. For the rest of the life in bed, the appellant has to suffer from various kinds of handicaps and also pain and suffering for life-long. He is lying in a vegetative stage with gastric feeding tube for long term internal nutrition and tracheostomy tube for tracheal suctioning. For the rest of the life in bed, the appellant has to suffer from various kinds of handicaps and also pain and suffering for life-long. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the disabilities noted in Ext.C1 disability certificate and the physical condition of the appellant, as evidenced by Ext.A16 photographs and also the recent photographs made available for the perusal of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the compensation under the head pain and suffering as Rs.3,00,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(3,00,000 - 1,00,000). 29. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,60,000/-(5,000 x 12 x 11 x 100/100). The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that considering the nature of disability assessed in Ext.C1 disability certificate, the appellant is entitled for payment of compensation for permanent disability, adding future prospects. 30. 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 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 notional monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, in the absence of any document on record, as she was a student. The Apex Court held that, the fact that the appellant was a brilliant student at the time of the accident should also be taken into consideration while awarding compensation to her. Therefore, taking Rs.6,000/-as monthly notional income for the purpose of awarding compensation under the head loss of earning is too meager an amount. Considering the fact that the appellant is a brilliant student, as she has secured first rank in the 10th Standard, she would have had a better future in terms of educational career to acquire basic or master degrees in the professional courses and she could have got a suitable public or private employment. But, on account of the permanent disablement she suffered due to injuries sustained in the accident, that opportunity is lost to her and therefore, she is entitled to compensation as per law laid down by the Court in the cases 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. 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 ]. 31. In Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 ], the Apex Court granted disability compensation to the injured, adding 50% future prospects to the notional monthly income, based on the principle laid down in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited [ (2012) 6 SCC 421 ], to injured persons having higher percentage of functional disability. 32. 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 1 21 ] 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged 53 years. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-as a coolie worker. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income notionally as Rs.5,000/-. In this appeal, his notional monthly income is re-fixed as Rs.9,000/-. As already noticed, no reliable materials were placed before the Tribunal to show that, at the time of accident, the appellant had a permanent job. Therefore, he can only be treated as a self employed. In Ext.C1 disability certificate, the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 100%. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mekala, Syed Sadiq and Pranay Sethi, an addition of 10% of the notional monthly income of the appellant, as re-fixed in this appeal considering the economic conditions prevailing at the time of accident and taking note of the fixation of notional monthly income by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa and in Syed Sadiq referred to supra, can be made towards future prospects, since the appellant was between the age of 50 and 60 years, at the time of accident. 36. Therefore, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head permanent disability, 10% of the monthly income of the appellant notionally re-fixed in this appeal as Rs.9,000/-, i.e., a sum of Rs.900/-(9,000 x 10/100) has to be added towards future prospects. In the result, the monthly income of the appellant, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of dependency, is reckoned as Rs.9,900/-(9,000 + 900). 37. In the result, the monthly income of the appellant, for the purpose of re-fixing the compensation under the head loss of dependency, is reckoned as Rs.9,900/-(9,000 + 900). 37. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ (2009) 6 SCC 1 21 ], 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. 38. 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. 39. In the instant case, as on the date of accident, the appellant was aged 53 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 11 applied by the Tribunal is correct and proper. 40. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,60,000/-(5,000 x 12 x 11 x 100/100). 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 11 applied by the Tribunal is correct and proper. 40. Towards compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,60,000/-(5,000 x 12 x 11 x 100/100). Since the monthly income of the appellant is re-fixed notionally as Rs.9,900/-, applying the multiplier of 11 applicable to the age group of the appellant and the percentage of permanent disability as 100%, the compensation under the head permanent disability is re-fixed as Rs.13,06,800/-(9,900 x 12 x 11 x 100/100), resulting an additional compensation of Rs.6,46,800/-( 13,06,800 – 6,60,000). 41. Towards loss of amenities the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In Ext.C1 disability certificate the permanent disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 100%. 42. 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 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. 43. In the instant case, the permanent whole body disability of the appellant, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, is assessed as 100% in Ext.C1 disability certificate. He is lying in a vegetative stage with gastric feeding tube for long term internal nutrition, tracheostomy tube for tracheal suctioning, etc. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, the disabilities noted in Ext.C1 disability certificate and also the physical condition of the appellant, as evidenced by the photographs, this Court deem it appropriate to re-fix the compensation under the head loss of amenities as Rs.2,00,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(2,00,000 - 1,00,000). 44. In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka [ (2009) 6 SCC 1 ], the Apex Court emphasised that, a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. 44. In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka [ (2009) 6 SCC 1 ], the Apex Court emphasised that, a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution endures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity. 45. As already noticed, the appellant is lying in a vegetative stage and he is taking liquid food with external aids. For the rest of the life in bed, he requires the assistance of a bystander. The wife of the appellant, who was aged 44 years at the time of accident, is taking care of her husband. She is living for the last seven years in the misery of watching her spouse living in a vegetative stage with gastric feeding tube for long term internal nutrition, tracheostomy tube for tracheal suctioning, etc., worse than death, has to be compensated appropriately for her mental agony and trauma. Considering the physical condition of the appellant and the age of the appellant and also his wife, as on the date of accident, this Court deem it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-under this head. 46. The delay of 1273 days in filing this appeal was condoned by the order dated 16.11.2019 in C.M.Appl.No.2393 of 2018, on condition that the question as to whether the appellant will be entitled for interest for the additional compensation, if any, granted in this appeal, for the period of delay, shall be decided at the time of final disposal. Considering the physical condition of the appellant, who is suffering from 100% whole body permanent disability, and also the mental agony and trauma faced by his wife and next friend, this Court deem it appropriate to grant interest to the appellant, for the additional compensation granted in this appeal, for the period of delay of 1273 days in filing this appeal. 47. 47. In the result, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for payment of an additional compensation of Rs.15,84,950/-(Rupees fifteen lakhs eighty four thousand nine hundred and fifty only) [14,300 + 23,600 + 250 + 3,00,000 + 2,00,000 + 6,46,800 + 1,00,000 + 3,00,000] in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation (excluding Rs.3,00,000/-granted under the head future treatment expenses, which will carry interest only from the date of award, i.e., 20.10.2014). The 3rd respondent insurer shall satisfy the additional compensation granted in this appeal, together with interest, with proportionate cost, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting the liability, if any, of the appellant/claimant towards Balance Court Fee and Legal Benefit Fund. The disbursement of additional compensation to the appellant/claimant shall be made taking note of the law on the point and in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and clarified further in Official Memorandum No.D1-62475/2016 dated 07.11.2019. The appellant/claimant shall provide the 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.