Akhilesh Chandran vs Sabu Varghese
2024 Latest Caselaw 29025 Ker

Kerala High Court

Akhilesh Chandran vs Sabu Varghese on 10 October, 2024

                                                               C.R.

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

    THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 18TH ASWINA, 1946

                       MACA NO. 3599 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2021 IN OPMV NO.522 OF
      2018 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTs CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER

             AKHILESH CHANDRAN
             AGED 29 YEARS
             S/O. CHANDRAN, MANATTIL (H), RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
             KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 545

             BY ADVS.
             ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
             S.SREEDEV
             RONY JOSE
             SUZANNE KURIAN
             CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1            SABU VARGHESE
             PULIKKAL HOUSE, KEEZHILLAM (P.O), RAYAMANGALAM,
             PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 541

2            UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.,
             MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-
             683 542, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER ,
             UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
             MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 661

           BY SRI.P.K.MAJOHKUMAR FOR R2,
           SMT ALICE THOMAS FOR R2
      THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 09.09.2024, THE COURT ON 10.10.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                        2024:KER:75304
MACA 3599/2021
                                 2

                                                              "C.R"

                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of October, 2024

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 2024:KER:75304

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.

2024:KER:75304

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.

(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 2024:KER:75304

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/-.

2024:KER:75304

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. 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 2024:KER:75304

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 2024:KER:75304

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. 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 2024:KER:75304

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.

2024:KER:75304

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.

2024:KER:75304

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 2024:KER:75304

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-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 2024:KER:75304

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. 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 2024:KER:75304

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 2024:KER:75304

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. It should be remembered that 2024:KER:75304

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 2024:KER:75304

(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. The decision in Sundeep Kumar Bafna (supra) was

quoted with approval by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme 2024:KER:75304

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 2024:KER:75304

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 2024:KER:75304

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.

2024:KER:75304

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       Amount           Amount             Notes
compensation      claimed (in        awarded
    for               Rs.)           ( in Rs.)
Loss of                 60,000            24,000 Reasonable
earnining
Partial loss of           5,000                  0 Not entitled
earnings
Transport to              6,000            3,000 Reasonable
hospital
Extra                     8,000            8,000 Reasonable
nourishment
Damage to                 1,000            1,000 Reasonable
clothings
Damage to             1,35,000                   0 Not entitled
Motorcycle KL-
40/N 3246
Medical               1,45,000            62,802 actual
expenses
Attendant               10,000             5,500 Reasonable
expenses
Pain and              1,00,000            40,000 Reasonable
suffering
                                                      2024:KER:75304



Continuing and         2,00,000          90,720 6000x12x9x14
permanent                                       %
disability
Loss of                1,00,000          20,000 Reasonable
amenities and
enjoyment in
life
Total claim is        10,20,000       2,55,022 Just
limited to                                     compensation.
Rs.9,00,000/-

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.

2024:KER:75304

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. 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 2024:KER:75304

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:

15000x12x17x14/100 = 4,28,400-90720 = 3,37,680/-

The appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.3,37,680/-

towards compensation under the said head. The appellant is

entitled to enhanced compensation as given below:

Particulars Compensation Additional amount awarded by the granted by this Court Tribunal (Rs.) (Rs.)

Continuing and permanent 90,720/- 3,37,680/-

disability
Loss of amenities and                   20,000/-            30,000/-
enjoyment in life
Pain and suffering                      40,000/-            35,000/-

Loss of earning                         24,000/-            16,000/-
Total enhanced compensation                              4,18,680/-

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 2024:KER:75304

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.

Sd/-

SCB                                         EASWARAN S.
                                               JUDGE