Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1293 (KER)

AKHILESH CHANDRAN S/O CHANDRAN v. SABU VARGHESE

2024-10-10

EASWARAN S.

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. A riveting question of law has arisen for consideration in this appeal. Initially what seemed to be an ordinary appeal for enhancement of compensation has turned into a case where reconciliation of multiple decisions of this court as well as the Supreme Court is required which certainly makes the task before this Court rigid. 2. Succinctly, the facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The claimant in O.P. (M.V.) No. 522/2018 on the files of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha has come up with the present appeal. On 13.05.2018 at around 7.30 PM at Karippelippady along the Keezhilam-Kurichilakodu Road, the claimant was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-40/N-3246. When the claimant reached Karippelippady a car bearing registration No. KL-05/H-3456 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and hit against the motorcycle causing extensive damage to the motorcycle and grievous injury to the claimant. The Insurance company entered appearance and contested the claim. The age, occupation and monthly income of the claimant were denied. On behalf of the claimant Exts.A1 to A13 documents were marked and Ext.C1 was the disability certificate issued by the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Ext.A10 is the salary certificate of the claimant that showed the claimant was having a monthly income of Rs.27,954/-. The disability certificate namely Ext.C1 evidences 14% permanent disability due to the injuries caused by the accident. The Tribunal proceeded to assess the compensation towards continuing and permanent disability at Rs.90,720/- by taking into consideration the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- and finding that the disability would arise only after the age of 58. It is aggrieved by the said finding that the claimant has approached this Court with the present appeal. 3. Heard Sri. S. Sreedev, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Alice Thomas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri. S. Sreedev submitted that the Tribunal could not have fixed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- when the salary certificate evidenced that an amount of Rs.27,954/- is the monthly salary of the claimant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimant had sustained the following injuries: “(1) Acute sub-dural hemorrhage. (2) Acute sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. (3) Fracture of temporal bone. (4) Temporal contusion with mass effusion. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the claimant had sustained the following injuries: “(1) Acute sub-dural hemorrhage. (2) Acute sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. (3) Fracture of temporal bone. (4) Temporal contusion with mass effusion. (5) Cervical spine sprain. (6) Lacerated wound on the right knee. (7) Multiple abrasion on the right hand, right ankle and right foot.” 5. The learned counsel further pointed out that the tribunal formed an opinion that there was no loss of earning for the appellant and that he would retire only on attaining the age of superannuation, that is at 58 years, and therefore, the appellant would sustain loss due to disability only after the retirement. According to the learned counsel, there is no rationale on the part of the Tribunal to arrive at such a finding. The mistake committed by the Tribunal is compounded by the fact that the Tribunal had proceeded to assess the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- after the retirement for which also there is no basis. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. S. Sreedev, also pointed out that in Raju Sebastian v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2021 (5) KHC 662 though this Court had adopted the same method, it is to be noted that the claimant in the facts of that case had only two years to retire but still 50% of the income as on the date of the accident was taken into consideration. Therefore, the learned counsel pointed out that even if this principle is adopted the notional income of the claimant ought to have been fixed at half of Rs.27,954/- which comes to Rs.13,977/-. 6. The learned counsel further pointed out that the principle laid down in Raju Sebastian (Supra) cannot be strictly applied in all cases of injury. In appropriate cases, the Tribunals and the Courts can always grant compensation for the disability notwithstanding the fact that the claimant had not sustained any loss due to the accident. In other words, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation for disability is not being awarded on account of the loss of earning that was caused due to the accident but for the personal injury suffered by the claimant due to the accident. 7. In other words, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation for disability is not being awarded on account of the loss of earning that was caused due to the accident but for the personal injury suffered by the claimant due to the accident. 7. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are seriously countered by Smt. Alice Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. Smt. Alice Thomas pointed out that the evidence on record shows that the appellant had not suffered any loss of earning due to the accident. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the principle laid down by this Court in Raju Sebastian (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case. The claimant was admittedly employed in Muvattupuzha Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Therefore, there is certainly job security insofar as the appellant is concerned and the Tribunal had rightly proceeded to assess the compensation under the head permanent disability. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Ors. 2011 (1) KLT 620 (SC), Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar and Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 267 , George v. E.T. Thomas and Ors. 2013 (1) KLT 575 , National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Anoopkumar T.K. and Ors. 2014 (1) KLT 266 , The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Satish Chandra Sharma and Ors. 2022 ACJ 1211 , Resmy Sally Koshy v. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. MACA No. 3850/2019 and connected cases Neutral Citation No. 2023/KER/20649, S. Geevarghese and Ors. v. Omanakuttan Vazhavelil Raj Bhavan and Ors. MACA No. 321/2012 Neutral Citation No. 2024/KER/29422 and Frankle Jose V. v. Mayanadi and Ors. MACA No. 1591/2019 Neutral Citation No. 2024/KER/28219 in support of her contentions. 8. Before this Court enters into the findings as to whether the appellant is entitled to succeed in the appeal, this Court has to necessarily deal with the precedents cited across the bar by Smt. Alice Thomas, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. 9. MACA No. 1591/2019 Neutral Citation No. 2024/KER/28219 in support of her contentions. 8. Before this Court enters into the findings as to whether the appellant is entitled to succeed in the appeal, this Court has to necessarily deal with the precedents cited across the bar by Smt. Alice Thomas, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. 9. In Raj Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court had occasion to consider the question as to whether compensation under the head of loss of future earnings could be awarded when a claimant suffers permanent disability as a result of the injuries. The Apex Court held that the same would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Apex Court cautioned the Tribunal not to mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss and that the percentage of loss of earning capacity arising from the permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Therefore, the Apex Court in principle held that the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so to what extent permanent disability would have an effect on the work of the claimant. For the said purpose three steps were enumerated by the Apex Court, (1) whether the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood. (2) Whether in spite of permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry out activities and functions which he had earlier carried on. (3). Whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions but could carry on some other lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 10. In Mohan Soni (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principles laid down in Raj Kumar (supra) and held that the assessment of permanent disability has to be in relation to the nature of occupation of the claimant. 11. In George v E.T. Thomas (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had held that the disability caused by the accident has to be assessed only under two heads: (i) physical disability or loss of amenities of life and (ii) loss of earning power, and that the compensation for the physical disability has to be assessed based on the adverse impact the disability has on the ability to do routine work. 12. In Anoopkumar T.K. (supra), another Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the said issue again. Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra), the Division Bench proceeded to hold that where a person is employed in a salaried job, notwithstanding the disability suffered by him on account of the injuries in the accident, the person would not be entitled to any compensation for the loss of earning capacity. But such a claimant would be certainly entitled to compensation for the loss of amenities in life. 13. In Satish Chandra Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court also held in the similar lines as that of the Division Bench of this Court. 14. The principles discussed above were reiterated by this Court in Resmy Sally Koshy (supra), S. Geevarghese (supra) and Frankle Jose (supra). 15. The point of law which emerges from the aforesaid decisions is that in a case of permanent disability, if the claimant is employed in a government sector it cannot be said that there is loss of earning and hence the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation for physical disability but for loss of amenities alone. But can it be said that the position of law as expounded in the aforesaid decisions lays the correct proposition of law. At first blush, it would appear that a Single Bench is bound by these decisions and hence the same has to be followed. That be so, then the findings of the tribunal have to be upheld. 16. However, as observed in the beginning, what appeared to be a usual appeal for enhancement has turned into a litigation where the applicability of various precedents is seriously questioned. 17. Before answering the ultimate question that has emerged from the discussions as above, let this Court examine whether there are any other precedents which have not been considered or noted by the Apex Court while rendering the decision in Satish Chandra Sharma (supra). 18. In Dinesh Singh vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 KHC 4294, a Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether the claimant in a Motor Accidents Claim is entitled to compensation for loss of earnings once the permanent disability is fixed. Paragraph No. 10 of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under: “10. Ltd. 2014 KHC 4294, a Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether the claimant in a Motor Accidents Claim is entitled to compensation for loss of earnings once the permanent disability is fixed. Paragraph No. 10 of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under: “10. We have considered the material placed before us, particularly the evidence of the Doctor, who stated that the appellant suffered 60% disability of the total body, and in his cross-examination denied the suggestion that the appellant does not require any further treatment. The fact that the appellant has resigned as Quality Engineer from Hospet Steels Ltd and took up desk job in Industrial Development Bank of India because of his permanent disability, suffered by him in the accident is not in dispute. Obviously, because of the permanent disability suffered by the appellant, who is an Engineer by profession, cannot take up such profession, which requires moving from one place to other place. Therefore, the reasoning of the High Court that the appellant has not suffered any financial loss because of permanent disability having regard to the fact that subsequently he took up employment in Industrial Development Bank of India as Grade-B Officer, cannot be sustained. Once the permanent disability is fixed, taking into consideration, its impact on the employment/profession of the claimant, the compensation has to be awarded. Since the disability suffered by the appellant, which is fixed at 60% and which is permanent in nature, impacted his employment and future prospects, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly determined the compensation Rs. 12,840/- x 12 x 17 = Rs. 26,19,360/ -towards loss of future earnings, and taking into consideration the 60%permanent disability suffered by the appellant, awarded him the actual compensation under the head ‘loss of future earnings’ at Rs. 15,71,616/- by rounding off the same to Rs. 15,72,000/-.” 19. In Rajesh and Others Vs. Rajbir and Others, 2013 (3) KHC 212 , another Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the salutary principles behind the grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. In paragraph 7 of the Judgment the Supreme Court explained the scope of “just compensation.” Paragraph No. 7 reads as follows: “7. Rajbir and Others, 2013 (3) KHC 212 , another Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the salutary principles behind the grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. In paragraph 7 of the Judgment the Supreme Court explained the scope of “just compensation.” Paragraph No. 7 reads as follows: “7. The expression ‘just compensation’ has been explained in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), holding that the compensation awarded by a Tribunal does not become just compensation merely because the Tribunal considered it to be just. ‘Just Compensation’ is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. After surveying almost all the previous decisions, the Court almost standardized the norms for the assessment of damages in Motor Accident Claims.” 20. In Robin Babu v. Kunjappan, 2015 (4) KHC 91 , a Division Bench of this Court was called upon to decide the issue as to whether the claimant, who is working as a Government Servant, could claim compensation for disability on the basis of the assessment by the Medical Board. Following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Dinesh Singh (supra), the Division Bench held as follows: “9. But in the light of the loss of amenities in life and continued pain and suffering he may have to face due to the amputation and the recurring problems to which he will have to seek medical help from time to time, the same has to be considered by this Court. We are fortified in our view in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court Dinesh Singh v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 KHC 4294 : 2014 ACJ 1412 : 2014 (9) SCC 241 , wherein in the case of amputation of leg of a qualified Engineer where 60%permanent disability was reported the Apex Court granted compensation under various heads including for future treatment and the cost of the artificial limb. 10. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.1 lakh towards future treatment and for purchase of BK Systems based on Ext. A12. One of the aspects pointed out is the award of Rs.9,000/- only for loss of earnings. 10. The Tribunal has already granted Rs.1 lakh towards future treatment and for purchase of BK Systems based on Ext. A12. One of the aspects pointed out is the award of Rs.9,000/- only for loss of earnings. It is submitted that he was on leave exactly for 91 days and Ext. A15, copy of relevant page of the service book was marked in evidence. It is clear that he would have been incapacitated for such period due to the accident and the treatment done. Going by Ext. A14, he was getting a salary of Rs.5,841/- and calculating at the same rate, loss of earnings will be Rs.17,400/- (5800 x 3). As far as hospitalisation, extra nourishment and damage to clothing, transportation and attendant expenses, the Tribunal has granted Rs.4,500/- in total. The appellant will be entitled for award of amounts separately under these heads. As far as pain and suffering is concerned, what is awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.30,000/-. In the light of the fact that he had suffered a major crush injury leading to amputation of his leg and that he had been in hospital on three occasions and that the pain and suffering will be a continuing one, we award an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. As far as bystander’s expenses are concerned, we award @ Rs.200/- per day for 37 days which will be Rs.7,400/-. Due to the continuing permanent disability, namely 40%, he will have to suffer a lot of inconvenience in life. The pleasures of life will be affected as his movements will be restricted as he will not be able to travel freely and undertake free movement. For all these inconvenience, difficulties and discomforts in life, we award a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant was aged 36 at the time of the accident and the multiplier going by the judgment in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 KHC 4634. By taking a monthly income of Rs.5,840/- the compensation towards permanent disability will be Rs.4,20,480/- (5840 x 12 x 15 x 40%).” 21. Having noticed the above binding precedents, this Court will have to consider the precedential value of the decisions cited across the bar by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, Smt. Alice Thomas. While doing so, this Court has to tread the path with great caution. Having noticed the above binding precedents, this Court will have to consider the precedential value of the decisions cited across the bar by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, Smt. Alice Thomas. While doing so, this Court has to tread the path with great caution. It should be remembered that the appellant can succeed in this appeal only when the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Sharma (supra) and Resmy Sally Koshy (supra) and by this Court in Anoopkumar T.K. (supra) run in conflict with the decisions rendered by the Larger Bench. 22. It must be remembered that Satish Chandra Sharma (supra) was decided by a Two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while Resmy Sally Koshy (supra) was decided by a Single Bench of this Court. A reading of the decision in Satish Chandra Sharma (supra) shows that the Three Judge Bench decision in Dinesh Singh (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Still further, the decision in Raju Sebastian (supra) and Resmy Sally Koshy (supra) were rendered by the respective Single Bench without noticing the binding principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh (supra) and that of the Division Bench of this Court in Robin (supra). If that be so, this Court need not be tied down by the decisions of the Single Bench in Resmy Sally Koshy (supra) and Raju Sebastian (supra). However, having said so, this Court has to necessarily consider the impact of Satish Chandra Sharma (supra) while arriving at the final outcome of the decision in this case. When one reads the above referred decisions, it becomes clear that there certainly exists conflict. The ultimate result in the appeal will depend on how this Court can resolve the conflict presented before this Court in these decisions. 23. Fortunately, this Court is guided by certain principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with conflict in the precedents cited across the bar. In Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 623 , the Apex Court held that if a subsequent decision does not take note of the binding precedent then the subsequent decision qualifies to be included in the category of “per incuriam” decision. 24. In Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 623 , the Apex Court held that if a subsequent decision does not take note of the binding precedent then the subsequent decision qualifies to be included in the category of “per incuriam” decision. 24. The decision in Sundeep Kumar Bafna (supra) was quoted with approval by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (5) KHC 350 (SC). Paragraph No. 30 of the said judgment reads as under: “30. In this context, we may also refer to Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2014 SC 1745 which correctly lays down the principle that discipline demanded by a precedent or the disqualification or diminution of a decision on the application of the per incuriam rule is of great importance, since without it, certainty of law, consistency of rulings and comity of Courts would become a costly casualty. A decision or judgment can be per incuriam any provision in a Statute, rule or regulation, which was not brought to the notice of the Court. A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a coequal or Larger Bench. There can be no scintilla of doubt that an earlier decision of co - equal Bench binds the Bench of same strength. Though the judgment in Rajesh’s case was delivered on a later date, it had not apprised itself of the law stated in Reshma Kumari (supra) but had been guided by Santosh Devi (supra). We have no hesitation that it is not a binding precedent on the co-equal Bench.” 25. Applying the principles reiterated by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sundeep Kumar Bafna (supra), this Court notices that while deciding Satish Chandra Sharma (supra) the binding precedent in Dinesh Singh (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. Hence this Court is of the considered view that while deciding the appeal, this Court should be guided by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Dinesh Singh (supra) and not Satish Chandra Sharma (supra). 26. Hence this Court is of the considered view that while deciding the appeal, this Court should be guided by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Dinesh Singh (supra) and not Satish Chandra Sharma (supra). 26. Coming back to the precedential value of the decision of this Court in Raju Sebastian (supra) and Resmy Sally Koshy (supra), it is evident that both these decisions were rendered without noticing the binding precedent in Dinesh Singh (supra) and that of the Division Bench of this Court in Robin (supra). Hence, this Court is of the view that the above decisions cannot govern the field while deciding this appeal. 27. Having resolved the conflict of law presented before this Court by the aforesaid decisions, an incidental question regarding the impact of the Division Bench decision in Anoopkumar T.K. (supra) followed by the Single Bench in Frankle Jose (supra) and S. Geevarghese (supra) will have to be addressed. It is pertinent to note that when Anoopkumar (supra) was rendered by the Division Bench, the decision of the Apex Court in Dinesh Singh (supra) had not come. But after the decision of the Apex Court in Dinesh Singh (supra), the decision of the Division Bench in Anoopkumar T.K. (supra) cannot continue to hold good and hence cannot be said to be a good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. As far as the decision of the Single Bench is concerned, this Court can take solace from the fact that none of these decisions takes note of the binding precedent laid down in Dinesh Singh (supra) and Robin (supra). Hence this Court cannot be tied down by these precedents. 28. Having resolved the intricacies of law presented before this Court due to divergence of opinion in the precedents cited across the bar, this Court has to resolve the claim of the appellant. The Tribunal proceeded to decline the claim for compensation of the appellant solely on the ground that he had not lost the job due to the accident and he continued to do his work in the Bank. Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh (supra) has rejected the aforesaid view, the findings of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 29. The Tribunal proceeded to decline the claim for compensation of the appellant solely on the ground that he had not lost the job due to the accident and he continued to do his work in the Bank. Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh (supra) has rejected the aforesaid view, the findings of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 29. Having concluded that the findings of the tribunal in the award impugned cannot be sustained, the question that remains to be answered by this Court is what relief the appellant is entitled to. On a perusal of the award shows that Tribunal had awarded compensation under the following heads: Head of claim compensation for Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount awarded (in Rs.) Notes Loss of earnining 60,000 24,000 Reasonable Partial loss of earnings 5,000 0 Not entitled Transport to hospital 6,000 3,000 Reasonable Extra nourishment 8,000 8,000 Reasonable Damage to clothings 1,000 1,000 Reasonable Damage to Motorcycle KL-40/N 3246 1,35,000 0 Not entitled Medical expenses 1,45,000 62,802 Actual Attendant expenses 10,000 5,500 Reasonable Pain and suffering 1,00,000 40,000 Reasonable Continuing and permanent disability 2,00,000 90,720 6000 x 12 x 9 x 14% Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life 1,00,000 20,000 Reasonable Total claim is limited to Rs. 9,00,000/- 10,20,000 2,55,022 Just compensation 30. The claimant was hospitalized for a period of 48 days, and the Tribunal proceeded to assess the loss of earnings of the claimant at Rs. 24,000/-, which this Court finds can be certainly enhanced. This Court is of the considered view that the claim under the said head can be enhanced up to Rs.40,000/- granting an increase by Rs.16,000/-. Similarly, under the head pain and suffering, the claimant had claimed Rs.1,00,000/- which was not granted and only Rs.40,000/- was granted. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by him and also on account of the disability suffered by him, an amount of Rs.35,000/- is granted under the said head over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 31. As far as the claim of compensation for disability is concerned, the Tribunal took Rs.6,000/- as notional income even though the claimant was earning a monthly salary of Rs.27,954/-. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is that the claimant has not lost his job due to the accident. However, the said reasoning cannot be sustained in view of the finding rendered by this Court as above. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is that the claimant has not lost his job due to the accident. However, the said reasoning cannot be sustained in view of the finding rendered by this Court as above. However, having said so, should this Court take Rs.27,954/- as the income or should this Court fix a notional income for the purpose of calculating the compensation for disability? It is true that the Division Bench in Robin (supra) took the entire salary which was drawn by the appellant in that case. But it is to be noted that facts were entirely different in that case, both legs of the claimant got amputated due to the accident. However, in the facts of this case, the claimant had suffered only 14% disability. It must be remembered that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Singh (supra) did not take the entire salary the claimant was earning at the time of the accident and fixed the compensation based on a notional income. Thus, going by the principles in Dinesh Singh (supra), this Court finds that the appellant is entitled to have the notional income fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the compensation under the head continuing and permanent disability is calculated as follows: Particulars Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Additional amount granted by this Court (Rs.) Continuing and permanent disability 90,720/- 3,37,680/- Loss of amenities and enjoyment in life 20,000/- 30,000/- Pain and suffering 40,000/- 35,000/- Loss of earning 24,000/- 16,000/- Total enhanced compensation 4,18,680/- 32. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 4,18,680/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Only) is awarded as enhanced compensation. The said amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of the application till the realization. The appellant would also be entitled to proportionate costs in the case. The claimants shall furnish the details of the bank account to the insurance company for transfer of the amount. The appeal is ordered accordingly.