G. Peter vs Mico ''nu'' Employees Transport, Bangalore and Another

Hari Nath Tilhari, J.-This is claimant''s appeal, who has felt dissatisfied by the award of a sum of Rs. 1,50,600/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum.

The facts of the case, keeping in view the pleadings and findings, appear to be that on the fateful day i.e., 6th June, 1991 at about 5 a.m., the claimant was riding the cycle on Hosur Road, Bangalore. He was going on the left side of the road. At that time, a bus bearing No. KA 05-417 owned by the first respondent, came in a high speed being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the cyclist. The claimant fell down and was run over by the bus and suffered grievous injuries on both of his legs. Later on his both legs were amputated and so the claimant filed the claim petition claiming a total sum of Rs. 10 lakh as compensation. The owner remained absent and the insurance Company filed the written statement denying the allegations in the claim petition. The claimant has examined himself and has filed about 206 documents in support of his case. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. The Tribunal, as mentioned, found that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus in question, namely bus bearing No. KA-05-417 and as a result of the accident, the claimant sustained injuries.

Adverting to the question of compensation, the Tribunal assessed the compensation towards injury, pain and suffering to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-; a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for permanent disability, loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. Thus, in total, it awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- under the head general damages. Under the special damages, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 60,600/-, namely, Rs. 50,000/- towards medical treatment, conveyance and incidental matters. But it did not award any sum towards loss of earning capacity and future earnings caused due to the injuries, taking the view that no record has been produced. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,600/- for loss of earnings during the period from 6-6-1991 to 13-10-1991, rating the earning to be at Rs. 20/- per day. The claimant, as mentioned earlier dissatisfied with the above amount of compensation, has come up with the above appeal.

It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that because of the accident the both the legs of the claimant were crushed resulting in amputation of the legs, namely, left leg was amputated above the knee and right leg was amputated just below the knee and thereafter he had to go for follow up treatment. He further contended that by amputation of both legs as indicated, the appellant has become permanently disabled and helpless in all respects and has also lost his job. The doctor has adjudged permanent disability of left leg to be 80% and of the right leg as 70% and because of amputation of both the legs the appellant''s permanent disability and loss of earning capacity has been 100% as per the evidence of P.W. 2, and apart from that the appellant suffered two other injuries also which were grievous in nature, namely; (3) Laceration over both the feet and legs; and (4) Single linar lacerated wound on the scalp as per Ex. P. 7. The appellant claimant had been hospitalised for four months as such award of compensation by Tribunal for injuries, pain and suffering to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- and for permanent disability to loss of enjoyment of normal life to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- is unsatisfactory and unjust. He urged under these heads appellant should have awarded compensation to the extent of sums not less than Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs).

Learned Counsel for appellant further urged that the Tribunal acted illegally by not awarding any sum as compensation for future loss of earning and earning capacity of appellant though the loss is result of grievous injuries, namely, crush injury of both ankle joints and compound fracture of both tibia resulting in amputation of left leg from above the knee and of right leg below the knee.

The learned Counsel for appellant contended that for loss of income for four months during which appellant has been hospitalised, the Tribunal has erred in not allowing compensation on the basis of at least monthly salary of appellant as exhibited by Ex. P. 9 the salary certificate showing and establishing the monthly salary of the appellant with all allowances to the Rs. 1,050/- (Rs. 600 + 300 (subsidy) + 150 washing allowances) and awarding only on the basis of Rs. 600/- i.e., basic salary. Learned Counsel further urged that award of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical and other expenses has also been unjust and unsatisfactory.

The contentions of the appellant''s Counsel have been contested by Shri Poonacha, Counsel for the respondent and to Court''s quarry and suggestion (made by me) about rate of interest, namely, 6% per annum, being too low, Sri Poonacha as well as my brother expressed that it is sufficient as well, as appellant has not raised the plea in grounds of appeal; so it need not be considered even if it is attempted to be urged as it is not open to be urged or considered.

We have applied our mind to the above contentions made by learned Counsels for the parties and we deliver our separate judgments.

Before proceeding further with the question of compensation awarded and its justness and correctness, I think it is just and proper to quote the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court on the matter and principle relating to assessment of damages and compensation, in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v M/s. Pest Control (India) Private Limited, AIR 1995 SC 755. Their Lordships at page 759 observed and laid down as under:

"10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident, the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for pain and agony suffered by appellant and for having become a life long handicapped.

No amount of compensation can restore the physical framework of the appellant. That is why it has been held by Courts that whenever any amount is determined as compensation payable for an injury suffered during an accident the object is to compensate such injury so far as money can compensate because it is impossible to equate the money with human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical framework".

In the case of Ward v James, (1965)1 All ER 563, it was said:

"Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his lost years. You can however compensate him for his loss during his shortened span that is during his years of survival. You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury be rendered unconscious for rest of his day or owing to back injury unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet Judge and Juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think fare. No wonder they find it well nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be the most part a conventional sum. The Judges have worked out a pattern and they keep it in line with changes in the money value".

In its very mature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in case of accidents, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration and some amount of sympathy linked with disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards".

Their Lordships further laid it down in para 17 of the report as under:

"When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the usual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have taken into consideration".

Keeping the above basic principles of law in view, I proceed to examine the matter and deal with the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel respectively.

That material on record and the finding recorded by Tribunal per se reveal that at the time of accident the claimant appellant was and has been aged about 34 years. The appellant injured had been an ex-Hawaldar and was working thereafter at the time accident as security man on being appointed as such by Sinnic Tree Forming and Welfare Co-operative Society Karnataka Limited as per P.W. 1 and was deputed to work in MICO factory at Naganathapuram and as per Ex. P. 9 he was getting in total a sum of Rs. 1,050/- from therefrom as salary (Rs. 600/- basic salary + 450/- allowances; total Rs. 1,050/-).

The evidence on record consisting of documentary and oral clearly proves that due to the accident in question, the claimant appellant suffered four injuries, vide Ex. P. 7, namely.-

Crushing injury of both ankle joints;

Compound fracture of both tibia;

Laceration over both feet and legs;

Single linar lacerated wound on the scalp;

All the injuries mentioned in the injury certificate Ex. P. 7 were grievous.

The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as well as documents on record and the finding of the Tribunal clearly establish that both the legs of the appellant had to be amputated. The left leg was amputated from portion above the knee while the right leg was amputated just immediately below the knee. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 clearly prove this fact of amputation of both legs as mentioned above. About permanent disability caused to the appellant, P.W. 2 deposed"the percentage of disability is 80% on left side and 70% on the right side and percentage of loss of earning capacity is 100%. There appears no reason to disbelieve the P.W. 2 i.e., doctor''s evidence. The evidence on record consisting of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Ex. P. 13, the record of St. John Medical College Hospital clearly establish that the appellant was operated twice and that the appellant claimant was hospitalised for four months or more.

The condition of the claimant appellant, after his both legs were crushed, fractured in the accident and had been amputated from and also from above the knees of both legs, we can conceive the effect that, apart from pain and suffering, the appellant position has been rendered to that a person, who has suffered, and from on account of such disability has become paraplegic and such a person is subjected to life long disablement and become completely handicapped for his whole life and is rendered unable to enjoy the life.

That P.W. 1 has stated in examination in chief that "I am not employed and now I cannot do any work and cannot walk also". During the course of the cross-examination, suggestions were made to him and the suggestions he has denied by stating as under:

"It is false to say, that I had no such amount with me to spend for my treatment as stated by me, and that I have deposed falsely about the money spent on my treatment, and that I have not been thrown out of my employment by my employer, and that even now I have been provided work, which I can attend sitting at a place and, that I have not produced any record to show that I have been terminated from my service and that I have been given artificial legs for my use and that purposely I have not come with such legs to the Court today".

The suggestion which was put that he was not out of employment and that her was provided with work has been clearly denied. No evidence has been produced by the other side to show that he continued to be in the employment.

I find that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount or compensation for loss of future earning and earning capacity. The Tribunal should have awarded the claimant some just and proper amount under the head of loss of earning capacity and loss of future earning.

The question posed in such circumstances is what would be the just compensation or damage to be awarded. The perusal of order of the Tribunal discloses that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the loss of earning capacity or say loss of future earning which loss i.e., loss of future earning capacity for rest of life has according to P.W. 2 (the doctor) has been assessed to be 100% on account of both the legs of the claimant having been amputated (left leg from above the knee and right leg from immediately below the knee), because of injuries caused to the legs due to motor accident referred to above in addition to other two injuries.

The injured claimant was aged about 34 years on the date of accident. The claimant appellant is a man originally belonging to armed forces i.e., ex-Hawaldar and thereafter he was working as Security Guard in Sinnic Tree Forming and Welfare Society and was deputed to work in MICO factory at Naganathapuram and as Ex. P. 7 he was getting Rs. 1050/- p.m. as salary including allowance. Had he not been injured and if on account of injuries caused his both the legs as mentioned had not been amputated he would worked with chances of increments and enhancements in salary as well better chances to earn more. That keeping in view principle of laid by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994(3) Kar. L.J. 39 (SC) and in the case of Smt. Sarla Dixit and Another v Balwant Yadav and Others, AIR 1996 SC 1274, future prospects of advancement in life and carrier including chances of increment and enhancement should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand and taking that into consideration. I find that his present gross income bring Rs. 1050/- p.m. in round figure i.e., take it to Rs. 1,000/- and his average monthly income by way increment and enhancement of salary his average of salary would Rs. 1,000/- Plus 1500=Rs. 2,500/-. On average. Dividing this figure of Rs. 2,500/- divided by 2, the monthly average loss comes to Rs. 1,250/- p.m. Thus considered it appears that on account of accident the claimant injured appellant can be taken to have suffered loss of earning capacity as assessed by the doctor any monthly loss of earning can be taken not less than Rs. 1,000/- p.m. on an average Rs. 1,500/- as deposed be take bit exaggerate. The yearly loss thus will amount to Rs. 12,000/-. Taking into consideration the age of the claimant appellant to be 34 years and ordinary life span "of man being" of 70 years, this young man will have to suffer with this loss of earning with loss of "earning capacity" for 36 years, keeping in view the age of injuries claimant about 34 years or 36 years and taking guidance from the schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the proper multiplier to be applied would be less than 16, at the least loss of future earning will come to Rs. 12,000 x 16=1,92,000/- i.e., Rupees one lakh ninety-two thousand in round figure it taken as Rs. 1,90,000/-.

The appellant claimant suffered loss of both legs (one from above the knee and other from lower the knee) and on account of disability caused to both the legs loss was stated to be to the extent of 80% and 70% respectively, rendering completely helpless in leading the life and depriving him of enjoyment of life, in my opinion, the award of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for permanent disability and loss of enjoyment of life appears to be unsatisfactory and I am of the view under this head he should be awarded an additional sum of Rs. 60,000/-, i.e., in other words the sum of Rs. 76,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of enjoyment of life as a natural person in future.

That the Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs. 2,600/- only for loss of salary for four months when appellant claimant was hospitalised. When Ex. P. 7 disclosed his monthly salary including allowances was Rs. 1,050/- why allowances should have been excluded, I find no justification as it was not shown that allowance were deductible from his salary if he would be on leave. Thus taking loss of monthly income for four months at Rs. 1050/-, the claimant injured suffer loss of Rs. 4,200/- in all. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,600/- only and I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,200/- under this head; in other words to an additional sum of Rs. 1,600/- over and above the sum assessed and awarded by the Tribunal. There is no dispute the cycle of appellant has been damaged, as such a nominal sum of Rs. 500/- is to be awarded under this head. The award of sums under heads of medical expenses does not require interference and appear to be just and reasonable; but award of Rs. 8,000/- for purchase of Artificial limbs need be enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- Thus considered, the claimant appellant entitled to a total sum as per details given hereinafter.

Rs.

Loss of future earnings 1,90,000/-

Loss of enjoyment of life and permanent disability 76,000/-

Medical treatment and dietetics 50,000/-

Pain and suffering 75,000/-

Loss of earning when hospitalised for four months 4,200/-

Artificial limb purchase 10,000/-

Damage to cycle and its repairs 500/-

Total ---------------Rs. 4,05,700/----------------

The claimant appellant as such in total is entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,05,700/-. In round figure to the sum of Rs. 4,06,000/- as the sum of compensation.

Thus considered it appears and comes about that the claimant appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rupees Two Lakhs and fifty thousand (Rs. 2,50,000/-) in round figure over and above the sum and amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.

A question arises if awarding this additional sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- over and above the sums of compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be said to be excessive and not justified one. In the light of the unde mentioned decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the following cases, I find that it cannot be deemed or considered to be excessive.

In the case of Shashendra Lahri v UNICEF and Others, (1997)11 SCC 446, the injured was a 17 years boy who on account of the motor accident which occurred on 6-1-1977 suffered multiple injuries. He suffered permanent disability of shortening of his one (right) leg by three inches (3 inches). It was noticed that the boy had good academic career. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 33,000/- only as damages while his claim was for Rs. 6,00,000/-. The High Court on appeal being filed against the award, enhanced the compensation and awarded in total Rs. 58,000/-. That further appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court was filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court having regard to the age of the appellant before it and his prospects, and the adverse effect of permanent disability caused, namely, shortening of one leg (right leg) by three inches, as result of motor accident, on his future prospects awarded a further sum of Rupees Four Lacs (Rs. 4 lakhs) in addition to the sum awarded by the High Court interest at 12% per annum.

In the present case before this Court, the injured has lost both legs which had to be amputated from one above the knee and the other below the knee, resulting invalidating for all his life.

Further in the case of Muthaiah Sekhar v Nesamony Transport Corporation Limited and Another, AIR 1998 SC 3064, the claimant/appellant who was aged about 25 years had suffered several injuries including the dislocation of right hip, head injury, injury to left eye and ear and disability was found to 60% of vision of left eye and 50% hearing in left ear and dislocation of right hip as permanent disability. The claimant had made claim for a sum of Rs. 5,06,091/-. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,76,000/- and on appeal being filed, the award had been confirmed by the High Court of Kerala. On appeal being filed by the claimant, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal. That claimant appellant preferred the appeal by Special Leave to the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court following the decision in Shashendra Lahari''s case, supra, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs) over and above i.e., in addition to that as awarded by the Tribunal, and affirmed by the High Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court awarded interest at 12% per annum on the enhanced sum from the date of application till the date of its payment.

In the case of Swatantra Kumar v Qamar Ali and Others, AIR 1999 SC 1500, the injuries appellant had been found to have suffered the permanent disability of shortening of his one leg by 1.75 inches only, on appeal to the Hon''ble Supreme Court by Special Leave, after condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, awarded a further sum of Rs. 1 lac (Rs. 1,00,000) as additional amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, over and above the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and as confirmed by High Court. In this case as a perusal of the report reveals that reliance was placed on their earlier decision in Shashendra Lahri''s case, supra.

That in the case of Aswani Kumar Misra v P. Muniam Babu, AIR 1995 SC 2260 (sic), the appellant had met with road motor accident in which he was seriously injured, underwent operation of his spinal cord/kidney and as per their Lordship''s view had become invalid for practical purposes for rest of life. The claimant had claimed Rs. 63,00,919.15 compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in this case awarded a sum of Rs. 1,64,037/- in total with interest at 10%, while on appeal the High Court was pleased to enhance the said amount and held the appellant to be entitled to the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- as total compensation with interest at the rate of 12% instead of 10% as awarded by the Tribunal. On further appeal by special leave, the Hon''ble Supreme Court enhanced the same to the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lac) with 12% per annum interest. Thus, the Hon''ble Supreme Court awarded additional sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- over and above the sum of compensation granted by the High Court, with 12% per annum.

That from above mentioned decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and specially in the cases of Shashendra Lahri and Swatantra Kumar which are of permanent disability to the injured, and where in the case i.e., of Shashendra Lahri, there was shortening of only one leg by three inches, the Hon''ble Supreme Court awarded Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lacs) as additional amount of compensation over and above the one awarded by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court and in the other case i.e., of Swatantra Kumar, where injured suffered permanent disability i.e., shortening of one leg by 1.75 inches, their Lordships of Supreme Court awarded an additional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) over and above the total sum of compensation awarded and affirmed by the High Court; I find I will be justified if I award an additional sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand) to claimant appellant i.e., injured whose both legs have been amputated. Thus considered I hereby award a further sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand) as additional sum of compensation over and above the sum of Rs. 1,50,600/- (One lac fifty thousand six hundred) awarded by the Tribunal and at least on this additional sum of Rupees two lacs fifty thousand in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Sections 3(2) and 4(2) of the Interest Act, I award interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application to the date of deposit or payment.

Now doubt in the memo of appeal no ground has been raised to challenge to award of six per cent interest per annum on the amount of compensation, has been raised and at hearing a half hearted attempt was made by appellant Counsel. It has been laid down in Ramesh Chandra v Randhir Singh and Others, (1990)3 SCC 723, by the Hon''ble Supreme Court the grant of interest is not dependent to any pleadings and it has been pleased to lay down as under:

"The caption of the provision is"Award of interest where any claim is allowed". The question of award of interest is dependent on the claim being allowed. Should the claim be not allowed, the question of grant of interest would not arise, and if awardable, it is in addition to the amount of compensation. The Court or Tribunal, in these circumstances, should determine, in the first instance, claim for compensation and in the event of its being allowed can further exercise the discretion to grant simple interest in terms thereof, but as an additive to the amount of compensation. So the addition of interest to the compensation, by judicial discretion is sequential in the eye of law and no claim in that regard, in our view, specifically need be laid in so many words in the claim petition. The grant of interest, in our view, is not dependent on any pleading in that regard and can even be orally asked if the contingency arises".

In a Full Bench decision delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Prakramchand v Chuttan and Others, AIR 1991 MP 280, it has been observed as under:

"What is clear, however, is that High Court is vested with the jurisdiction to adjudge the legality of the award and to give necessary relief to the parties before it because it is duty-bound, acting as an Appellate Court, to examine the legality, propriety of the award as also due exercise of jurisdiction vested in it by these Tribunal. For doing so, the High Court must possess all powers in that behalf to make effective exercise of its jurisdiction, see, in this connection Income-Tax Officer, Cannanore v M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, AIR 1969 SC 430: (1969)71 ITR 815 (SC)." Their Lordships further observed in para 11 as under:

"Obviously, the view which is consistently prevailed the Summit Court on the interpretation of Section 110-CC is that Claims Tribunal, and in appeal, the High Court also, in determining the compensation payable to the claimant preferred application under Section 110-A of the Act, ought to award, in addition to the compensation, simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application. By holding so, their Lordships have expressed the view, non-exercise or improper exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal or High Court under Section 110-CC taints the award made in regard to the compensation. Reason for that is not far to see as Section 110-CC vests jurisdiction in Tribunal to make direction in regard to interest payable to the claimant"in addition to the amount of compensation"determined. They also purport to hold that the duty of the Claims Tribunal and the High Court to"specify"the rate of interest and the date from which that becomes payable is discharged by specifying the interest at the rate of 12% per annum and the date of payment as the date of application. That mandate, in our view, in regard to interpretation of Section 110-CC has become the law of the land, as contemplated under Article 141 of the Constitution and that is binding on all Courts in India. We are buttressed in this conclusion noticing the emerging trend as well at the summit level. In a recent decision rendered on 3-5-1990 in the case of Ramesh Chandra v Randhir Singh, 1990(3) SCC 723: 1990 SCC (Cri.) 512: (1990)69 Comp. Cas. 29 (SC). The view taken is that for award of interest, no pleading is necessary, while in the decision rendered on 15-11-1989, in the case of R.L. Gupta v Jupitor General Insurance Company, 1990(1) MPWN 177, in categorical terms, the Apex Court observed that"there have been several orders of this Court in recent cases in compensation disputes where the Court has awarded 12% interest"and on that ground, their Lordships raised interest also from 6% to 12% while enhancing the compensation."

Their Lordship in para 14 has further laid down as follows.-

"We hold further that in appeal under Section 110-D of the Act, the High Court can act without cross-objection and enhance interest to 12% per annum, payable from the date of application till realisation, on the compensation awarded".

In view of the above legal position, even if the memo of appeal no ground was raised challenging the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal and half hearted attempt to urge has been made in that regard by the appellant''s Counsel, it is open to be considered.

That award of interest made by the Tribunal at 6% per annum on the total amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,600/- appears to be on the lower side, but as appeal was not properly drafted and ground in that regard was not raised in memo of appeal and only less than half hearted attempt was made by the learned Counsel for appellant, I do not think it just and proper to enhance the rate of interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

But so far as additional amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand) which has been assessed and is being awarded as per paras 22 and 23 of this order additionally to the claimant appellant, under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the duty and obligation of the High Court, which exercises powers as Appellate Court with same powers as vested in the original Court or Tribunal, and subject to same obligation as of original Court or Tribunal, to award interest and specify the rate of interest on additional amount of compensation as determined by it, to be payable to the claimant appellant over and above the sum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

In view of the above as mentioned earlier, allowing the injured claimant appellant''s appeal with costs, I order as hereinafter:

The claimant appellant''s appeal is to be hereby allowed with cost and claimant/appellant is held to be entitled to and is awarded a further sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two lacs fifty thousand) as additional compensation as above with interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the additional sum of compensation which is hereby granted and awarded in addition to and over and above the sums of Rs. 1,50,600/- awarded with 6% interest by the Tribunal.

It is clarified this sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- is in addition to over and above the amount of compensation and interest awarded by the Tribunal. The interest at the rate of 10% will be payable on the additional sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as awarded by this Court from the date of application to the date of payment. Thus, taken together the claimant is held entitled to total amount of Rs. 4,06,700/- i.e., rounded upto Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation by adding Rs. 2,50,000/- to the sum of Rs. 1,50,600/- as against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/- as total compensation claimed.

The 85% of the sum awarded by the Tribunal as well as this Court along with interest earned thereon shall be remitted to the Tribunal and be invested in interest earning long-term, deposit for a period of five years in the appellant''s name in some nationalised bank and interest earned from thereon during the period of investment shall be payable and can be withdrawn every monthly or quarterly by the appellant and thereafter also the amount be reinvested or deposit may be renewed as the appellant may desire.