Smt. Anita Bhalla W/O Late Sandeep ... vs Rajesh Batra S/O Inderpal Batra ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 2148 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


 
Reserved Judgment
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1375 of 2010
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Anita Bhalla W/O Late Sandeep Bhalla & Ors.
 
Respondent :- Rajesh Batra S/O Inderpal Batra M/S Batra Carrier & Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sandeep Kumar Agarwal.
 
		Connected with 
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1380 of 2010
 

 
Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Manager,
 
Respondent :- Smt. Aneeta Bhalla W/O Late Sandeep Bhalla & Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- B.C. Pandey,Sandeep Kr. Agarwal,Vishal Tahlani
 

 

 
Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

(Per Hon. Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)

1. Both the aforesaid appeals are directed against the judgment dated 9.8.2010 passed in Motor Accident Claim No. 53 of 2001 , whereby, the Tribunal has allowed claim for compensation and awarded an amount of Rs. 11,88,380/- together with interest. F.A.F.O. No. 1375 of 2010 has been filed by the claimant/defendants seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas, F.A.F.O. No. 1380 of 2010 has been filed by the Insurance Company, questioning the determination, aforesaid, of the Tribunal. Since both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment and accident as such, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. On 23.3.2000, deceased Sandeep Bhalla, employed as Assistant Engineer in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. was returning to Sitapur by Maruti Car No. 32 V-8060. When the car reached Bhagwatipur, it dashed into Tanker No. U.T.U.-9904 parked on the road at about 8.30 p.m. The deceased, who was driving the car sustained serious injuries, which proved fatal. A claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was instituted by the wife and two minor children of the deceased, seeking compensation for them and also for defendants No. 4 & 5, who are the parents of the deceased. The case set up by the claimants was that while the deceased was returning from Sidhauli to Sitapur along with another official of Power Corporation Sri R.P. Saxena, JMT, the Maruti Vehicle of the deceased dashed into a tanker , which was diagonally parked on road in an irresponsible and dangerous manner, virtually blocking the entire metteled road, at Bhagwatipur on the main Lucknow Sitapur road. Neither any indicator nor any signs had been displayed so that the traffic moving on the road could know that road stood blocked due to parking of the tanker. No other safety precaution had been resorted by the owner and the driver of the tanker. It was on account of the negligence and irresponsible parking of the tanker on the road, that the deceased met with an accident, causing his death. The deceased was around 34 years of age and being an Assistant Engineer in the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. was drawing salary of Rs. 16,160/- per month. The deceased was an expert driver having a valid driving licence and the vehicle was being driven by him with utmost care and caution. An amount of Rs. 45,25,000/- under different heads was claimed as compensation.

3. Per contra, the owner filed a written statement, stating therein that the vehicle was insured and the driver of the tanker had a valid driving licence. According to the owner, the tanker had operational fault and thus was parked on the left road side land. The engine of the tanker was off. The tanker was parked on jack as one of its tier got deflated. It was further stated that the parking lights were on and the vehicle was surrounded with small bricks clearly indicating that vehicle was parked on the road side land. It, therefore, claimed that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased, who could not control his vehicle and it was due to the fault of the deceased driver that the accident took place and no compensation was payable by the tanker owner. The insurance company also took similar stand in its written statement, in addition to routine objections.

4. The Tribunal, on the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties,framed five issues. Issue Nos. 1 and 5 were to the effect whether accident on 23.3.2000 at about 8.30 p.m., occurred at village Bhagwatipur on Lucknow Sitapur G.T. Road, due to rash and negligent parking of the tanker, leading to the Maruti Car in question colliding with the tanker, causing death of the deceased or whether the accident was caused on account of negligence and rash driving of the deceased, which led to the car colliding with the stationary tanker, parked on the read side land having developed operational fault. Issue nos. 2 & 3 were framed on the question whether the driver of the tanker had a valid driving licence and whether the tanker was insured? Issue no. 4 was framed as to how much amount of compensation was liable to be paid to the claimants and from whom ?.

5. Claimants led oral evidence of Smt. Anita Bhalla P.W. 1, Sri Ramesh Chandra Verma P.W. 2, Sri Swam Prakash Shukla P.W. 3 and Mohd. Mustafa Khan, P.W. 4. Documentary evidence in the form of salary slip of the deceased, his driving licence, registration of the car, information of the incident in G.D. Entry, Panchayatnama, Post mortem report, school certificates of the minor children, insurance cover of the tanker, news paper report etc. The copy of the first information report, High School certificate of the deceased and the last pay certificate etc. were also produced. The defendant no.1 filed documents relating to registration, permit, fitness and the driving licence etc. However, no oral evidence was led on behalf of the Opp. Parties.

6. The Tribunal considered Issue Nos. 1 and 5 together. It took note of the oral statement of the witnesses, particularly of P.W. 4, who was the only eye witness and was stated to be coming by truck from other side, and stopped on seeing the incident. The Tribunal also considered the G.D. report of P.S. Khairagarh at 4.30 a.m. lodged by Sri K.B. Saxena, executive engineer of the power corporation, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that the tanker was parked on the left road side and as one of its tyre got defaulted, it was place on jack. The statement of P.W. 4 and the G.D. Entry together with other evidence was scrutinized by the Tribunal to return a finding that the tanker was , infact, parked on the left road side and on account of the tanker having developed operational fault and deflated tyre was put on a jack, and, therefore, the claim that the tanker was parked diagonally blocking the road, was not accepted. However, the Tribunal found that the due precaution to ensure safety of traffic, was not resorted to by the Tanker and, therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the tanker and the car driver both contributed to the accident and portioned negligence on both sides in equal proportion.

7. On issue nos. 2 & 3, the Tribunal concluded that the driver of the tanker had a valid licence and that the tanker was also insured. The Tribunal then proceeded to decide issue No. 4 and and it concluded that the salary of the deceased together with perks beneficial for the family amounted to Rs. 16,160/-, and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal needs, the dependency was worked out at Rs. 1,29,280/- per annum . The age of the deceased was held to be 33 years 9 months and accordingly the multiplier of 17 was applied to determine the total loss of dependency at Rs. 21,97,760/-. 50% contributory negligence was adjusted, determining the compensation amounting to Rs. 10,98,880/-. A sum of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 2500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5000/- under the head of consortium was also added , totaling the entire compensation to Rs. 11,88,380/-.

8. Insurance company, in its appeal, has essentially challenged the aforesaid determination on the ground that evidence available on record clearly depicts that accident was an outcome of 100% negligence on the part of the car driver and, therefore, the entire fault lay on the car driver. The finding of 50% contributory negligence of the tanker driver has been thus assailed. It has also been stated that compensation awarded in excessive.

9. The claimants, on the other hand, have sought enhancement essentially on the ground that the future prospects of the deceased were although bright but have not been added. The claimants further asserted that the negligence of tanker in the incident, was 100% and sharing of negligence to the extent of 50% for the car driver was erroneous.

10. We have heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Agrawal and Vishal Tahlani, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Sri B.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company and have also perused the record.

11. Following two questions arise for consideration of this Court in the present appeals:

(i) Whether, the findings of contributory negligence of equal extent for tanker and car owner, was correct or not and who was responsible for the accident and to what extent?

(ii) Whether the determination of compensation by the Tribunal was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the amount required to be enhanced in view of the future prospects of the deceased?

12. Parties are at issue on the question of contributory negligence of the tanker and the car driver. The Tribunal has apportioned it equally between them. We have considered the judgment of the Tribunal, examined the records and considered the respective submissions of the parties on the issue. P.W.4 is an eye witness supporting the claim, but whose presence has been doubted by the Insurance Company. No site plan or charge-sheet has been brought on record. It is not disputed that the Executive Engineer of the power Corporation gave the information regarding incident, which formed the basis for G.D. Entry at 4.30 a.m. in the concerned police station of Khairabad. In this information, the official of the power corporation himself mentioned that the Tanker had defect and was parked on the left road side land on jack, as one of its tier had deflated. P.W. 4, in his statement, has admitted that there was no tea shop or other house etc. which could be the possible reason for parking of tanker, and that the tanker was stationary and its engine was off. The conclusion, on the basis of the aforesaid and other relevant circumstances, drawn by the Tribunal that the Tanker had been parked on the road side, due to operational defect etc. and disbelieving the case of claimants that tanker had blocked the road is a conclusion based on consideration of relevant materials and does not suffer from any infirmity.

13. The further conclusion of the Tribunal that the Tanker driver had not taken due precaution and safety measures to warn of the other traffic movers about the tanker being in non-working order due to defect, is also borne out from the materials on record. It also appears that as the tanker was lying in defect, it ought to have been parked, away at the road side land and ought not to have any portion of the vehicle on the main metal portion of the road is also based on valid consideration which requires no interference.

14. In Raj Rani and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others: 2009 ACJ 2003, the issue of contributory negligence, in similar circumstances, was discussed by the Apex Court. Para Nos. 16 to 18 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter:-

"16. So for as the issue of "contributory negligence" is concerned, we may notice that the tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the total compensation on the ground that deceased had contributed to the accident. The same, we find, has been upheld by the High Court. This court in Usha Rajkhowa and Ors. v. Paramount Industries and Ors. [Civil Appeal No.1088 of 2009 (arising out of SLP (C) No.16647 of 2008)] discussed the issue of contributory negligence noticing, inter alia, earlier decisions on the same topic. It was held that :

"10. The question of contributory negligence on the part of the driver in case of collision was considered by this Court in Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Ors. reported in (2002) 6 SCC 455. That was also a case of collusion in between a Car and a truck. It was observed in Para 8:

''The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as `negligence'. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression "contributory negligence", it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an author of his own wrong."

17. The principle of 50:50 in cases of contributory negligence has been discussed and applied in many cases before this court. In Sri Krishna Vishweshwar Hede v. The General Manager, K.S.R.T.C. (2008 ACJ 1617), this court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal assessing the ratio of liability at 50:50 in view of the fact that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and fixed the responsibility for the accident in the ratio of 50:50 on the driver of the bus and the appellant. In this case, the truck was stationary. Some amount of negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be ruled out.

18. Hence in the insistent case, we find that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and accordingly the claimant was entitled to only 50% of the total amount of loss of dependency.

15. From the material available on record, the consideration of the issue by the Tribunal appropriating negligence in equal proportion between tanker and the car does not suffer from any error of law. The challenge made both by the Insurance company and the claimants, on this count, accordingly fails and is rejected.

16. Coming to the next question of determination of loss of dependency, the Tribunal has relied upon the salary certificate of the deceased, showing his income as Rs. 16,160/- per month. The aforesaid amount consisted of Rs. 370/- received as house rent allowance and Rs. 187 towards electricity charge. Before the Tribunal, the parties contested on the question as to whether Rs. 370/- and Rs. 187/- be added or the salary be treated bereft of it amounting to Rs. 15,443/-. The Tribunal considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others: 2008 (1) TAC 424 (SC). This judgment of the Apex Court was also followed in para-10 of Raj Rani (Supra), which is reproduced below:-

"10. The fact that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.17,431/- is not in dispute. Apart from the dearness allowance, if other allowances were payable which were beneficial to the entire family, the same should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of the annual income. It was so held in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava & Ors. [(2008) 2 SCC 763]." ( emphasis supplied by us)

17. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that term 'income' not only includes pay packet which the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Superannuation benefits, contribution towards gratuity, medical policy, education scholarship etc. were held beneficial to the members of the entire family and thus included in the definition of 'income'. The Tribunal, therefore, was justified in holding the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 16,160/- per month or the annual income of Rs. 1,93,920/-.

18. The Tribunal correctly appreciated the position of law, according to which , it is only the element of tax paid , which is to be deducted from income. The Tribunal found from the certificate adduced before it that salary of the deceased, showed no payment of tax and as such amount of tax paid could not be determined. No evidence was led on this count by the Insurance Company either. The Tribunal, therefore, proceeded to treat the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 1,93,920/- and after appropriating 1/3rd towards personal expenses, determined the loss of dependency at Rs. 1,29,280/-. No amount towards payment of tax was deducted or appropriate. Although, the evidence led from either of the parties was silent on the quantum of tax paid but it was not open for the Tribunal to have completely ignored the factum of payment of income tax. The Tribunal while determining the amount of income of the deceased, is required to hold an enquiry by virtue of Section 168 of the Act and it was not mandatory for the Tribunal to confine its consideration and conclusions only on the evidence led by the parties. In enquiry under Section 168 of the Act, it is the duty of the Tribunal to determine just compensation. Payment of income tax is governed by the provisions of the Income Tax Act and for the relevant financial year 2000-2001, the provisions of Income Tax Act, as amended vide Finance Act, 2001 were applicable.

19. As the income of the deceased in the relevant year exceeded the limit of tax free income, the amount of tax payable by the deceased could not have been ignored. Difficulty nevertheless may have arisen as various deductions permissible may have been availed off, but in the absence of income tax return of the deceased for the respective year, it was not possible to correctly determine the amount paid as income tax, so as to correctly determine the loss of dependency.

20. Judicial notice, however, of the rates of taxation could be taken . In financial year 2000-2001, Rs. 50,000/- alone was exempted from income tax after which the income was to fall in the tax slab of 10% upto Rs. 60,000/- and it increased to 20% from Rs. 60,001 to Rs. 1,50,000/- and 30% above Rs. 1,50,000/-. Taking the income of Rs. 1,93,920/- it transpires that Rs. 35,000/- (approximately) would be payable towards income tax. However, as various deductions may have been availed by the deceased, therefore, in the absence of exact figures available on record, we feel it appropriate to deduct a sum of Rs. 25,000/- alone towards tax payable by the deceased. Accordingly, the income for the year determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 1,93,920/- would be reduced by a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and would come to Rs. 1,68,920/- p.a.

21. The deceased had left behind 5 family members as dependents. Deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased would be governed by para-30 of the judgment of Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another: 2009 (2) TAC 677 (SC), which is reproduced below:-

"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-forth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six."

The deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would be 1/4th instead of 1/3rd, as allowed by the Tribunal which would reduce the amount to Rs. 1,26,690/- as loss for the family.

22. We further find that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects of the deceased. The grievance of the claimants, on this count, has substance. The deceased was aged about 34 years. This issue has been considered in para 11 of Smt. Sarla Verma ( Supra), which is reproduced below:-

"11. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words ''actual salary' should be read as ''actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of 13 increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. "

We are, therefore, of the view that the income, determined above, needs to be increased by 50% under the head of future prospects, thereby adding Rs. 63,345/- (50% of the aforesaid). The multiplicand would thus work out to Rs. 1,90,035/-.

23. Since the age of the deceased was about 34 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal is in consonance with the principles laid down in the chart prepared in Smt. Sarla Verma (Supra). The multiplier of 17, therefore, would be valid.

24. Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of consortium. This issue has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2013) 9 SCC 54 Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others in para 17 and 18 of the judgment, is as under:-

17. The ratio of a decision of this court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-econmic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi. We may, therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs.25000 to Rs.10,000/- in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma case, it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs.5000 to Rs.10000. In legal parlance, "consortium" is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc. the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of non-pecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Austraila, etc. English courts have also recognised the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium.

18. We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head "funeral expenses". The "price index", it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head "funeral expenses" does not mean the fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased is a follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of "funeral expenses", in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000/-"

In view of the above, we hold that the claimants are entitled to loss of consortium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses.

25. The tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The Apex Court while dealing with a claim of compensation in Civil Appeal No.8251 of 2013: Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, observed as under in para 8 of the judgment:-

8. In view of the aforesaid fact, we have to hold that it would be just and proper for this Court to take a sum of Rs.5000/- as the monthly income of the deceased having regard to the nature of job that the deceased was performing as a polisher, which is a skilled job, wherein the annual income would come to Rs.60,000/-. This Court in judgment of Santosh Devi V. National Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors.5, has held that an addition of 30% increase must be applied for increase in total income of the deceased over a period of time if he had been alive. Further, in the recent decision in Rajesh & Ors. V. Rajbir Singh, this Court while referring to the case of Santosh Devi (supra) held that in the case of self-employed persons or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects of the deceased. Keeping in view the five dependents of the deceased in the case on hand, 1/5th amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Having regard to the age of the deceased as 25, as mentioned in the postmortem report, which age is taken by both the Tribunal as well as the High Court, and keeping in mind the life expectancy of the deceased, multiplier of 20 must be applied to the multiplicand for the purpose of quantifying loss of dependancy. Further, following the decision of this Court in Rajesh V. Rajbir Singh (supra), Rs.1,00,000/- must be added under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000 under the head of loss of care and guidance for minor children. Further, it was held by this Court in the case referred to supra that Rs.25,000/- must be awarded for funeral expenses as this Court has made observations in the case referred to supra that the tribunals have been frugal in awarding the compensation under the head ''funeral expenses' and hence, we award Rs.25,000 under the head of funeral expenses to the claimants/legal representatives."

Therefore, we hold that the appellants-claimants are also entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children.

26. The tribunal also has awarded amount of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate in the present case. The deceased was aged about 34 years, therefore, it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate.

27. In such circumstances, the claimants would be entitled to compensation under following heads:-

Sl. No.

Heads

Calculation

(i)

Compensation (for loss of dependency) after multiplier of 17 is applied.

Rs. 32,30,595/-

(Rs.1,90,035x17)

(ii)

Deduction 50% towards loss of contributory negligent.

Rs.16,15,297.5

(Rs.32,30,959-16,15,297.5

=16,15,297.5)

(iii)

Consortium

Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rs.1,00,000+16,15,297.5

=Rs.17,15,295.5/-)

(iv)

Funeral expenses

Rs.25,000/-

(Rs.25,000+17,15,297.5

=Rs.18,40,297.5/-)

(v)

Loss of care and guidance for minor children

Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rs.1,00,000+18,40,297.5

=Rs.19,40,297.5/-)

(vi)

Loss of estate

Rs.10,000

(Rs.10,000+19,40,297.5

=Rs.19,50,297.5)

Total compensation awarded

Rs.19,50,297.5/-

28. The tribunal has allowed interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the application till its disposal before tribunal or within one month from the date of judgment and thereafter 8% till its actual payment. Although, this court in 'United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra Pratap Singh and others: in F.A.F.O. No.236 of 2010' after noticing various decisions of the Apex Court, has held that payment of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. would be the appropriate interest to be awarded in such matters. However, in view of the fact that we have enhanced the compensation amount, we deem it appropriate to maintain the rate of interest at the rate of 6% per annum. We are fortified in taking this view, in light of observations made by the Apex Court in Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways: 2014 (3) SCC 210, which is to the following effect:-

"In view of the enhancement made by us, we do not consider it necessary to modify the rate of interest awarded by the High Court i.e. 6% from the date of application to the date of payment which will also be payable on the enhanced amount of compensation."

29. In view of our aforesaid findings, we modify the award dated 9.8.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow, in M.A.C.P. No. 53 of 2001 and allow the claim for payment of compensation amounting to Rs.19,50,297.5, as calculated above, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual payment. The respondent- insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the tribunal, after adjusting the amount already deposited, within a period of two months. Tribunal shall release the enhanced award in favour of the appellants-claimants in proportion to the amount directed by the tribunal.

30. Accordingly, F.A.F.O. No. 1380 of 2010, filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and F.A.F.O. No. 1375 of 2010 is allowed, in part, in terms of the aforesaid directions. However, no order is passed as to costs..

Order Date :- 29.5.2014

n.u.