Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Parvin Devi & Ors. on 18 December, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 18th December, 2012
+ MAC. APP. 541/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
Versus
PARVIN DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate.
+ MAC. APP. 542/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
Versus
SAVITA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate.
+ MAC. APP. 543/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
Versus
NIRU AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate.
MAC. APP. Nos.541/2012, 542/2012, 543/2012, 544/2012, 545/2012, 548/2012 & 553/2012 Page 1 of 17
+ MAC. APP. 544/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
Versus
KUSUM DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate.
+ MAC. APP. 545/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
Versus
PARVESH JAIN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate.
+ MAC. APP. 548/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
Versus
GOVIND SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate.
+ MAC. APP. 553/2012
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.
Versus
BRAHAMWATI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Pooja Goel, Advocate.
MAC. APP. Nos.541/2012, 542/2012, 543/2012, 544/2012, 545/2012, 548/2012 & 553/2012 Page 2 of 17
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. These seven Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 28.02.2012
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal)
whereby seven Claim Petitions were decided awarding various amount of
compensation, which is extracted hereunder:
S. MAC. Suit Name of the Name of the Amount of
injured/ claimant compensation
No. APP.No. No.
deceased awarded
1. 541/12 628/10 Gajender Parvin Devi `5,08,000/-
Rastogi & Ors
2. 542/12 621/10 Yakshit Savita Devi `2,92,000/-
Sharma @ & Ors
Jhonny
3. 543/12 623/10 Deepak Niru `9,68,000/-
Aggarwal Aggarwal &
Ors.
4. 544/12 624/10 Sonu Kumar Kusum Devi `5,94,400/-
& Ors
5. 545/12 625/10 Parvesh Jain Parvesh Jain `95,700/-
6. 548/12 629/10 Nitin Sharma Govind `2,46,000/-
Sharma
7. 553/12 627/10 Shailesh Bhati Brahamwati `5,54,800/-
& Ors.
2. There is twin challenge to the impugned judgment. First, the insured
vehicle Scorpio Car No.DL-7-CC-6848 was being used by Respondent
Nirmal Kumari for hire and reward, the Appellant was, therefore, entitled
to avoid the contract of insurance. Second, the increase towards inflation
could not have been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Reliance is placed
on Smt. Dhaneshwari & Anr. v. Tejeshwar Singh & Ors., (MAC.APP.
997/2011) decided on 19.03.2012.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents(Claimants)
urges that the Appellant Insurance Company failed to prove that the
Respondent Nirmal Kumari permitted the driver to use the vehicle for
hire and reward. No legal evidence whatsoever was produced by the
Appellant Insurance Company to prove that there was any breach of the
terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, the Appellant Insurance
Company cannot be permitted to avoid the contract of insurance. It is
contended that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is very
conservative and needs enhancement.
4. I shall deal with the issues one by one.
LIABILITY:
5. The Claims Tribunal dealt with the issue of liability in paras 66 to 69 of
the impugned judgment, which are extracted hereunder:
"66. Respondent no. 1 examined herself as R1W1 and deposed
that she was owner of vehicle no. DL-7CC-6848 and Sh. Sushil
Garg was her driver and was working with her as driver for the
last three years. On 10.01.2010, her driver Sh. Sushil Garg
asked her for the said vehicle as he wanted to go to Vaishno
Devi for pilgrimage alongwith his friend and she gave the said
vehicle and on 12.01.2010 she came to know about the accident
through newspaper. R1W1 stated that she had not given the said
vehicle on hire or for using for commercial purpose.
During cross-examination, R1W1 stated that she was paying
salary of Rs. 4,000 per month to Sh. Sushil Kumar and she did
not have any document to show that Sh. Sushil Kumar was her
driver and she had no knowledge if Sh. Sushil Kumar was using
the vehicle for commercial purpose at the time of accident.
R1W1 also stated that Sh. Sushil Kumar was being paid salary
by her husband and was working in the workshop of her
husband. R1W1 further stated that whenever she was to go to
any place Sh. Sushil Kumar was driving her vehicle and Sh.
Sushil Kumar was not her driver and she was not paying salary
to Sh. Sushil Kumar.
67. On the other hand, insurance company examined two
witnesses. R3W1 Sh. Iqbal Singh, Investigator deposed that
he carried out investigation and submitted his report to the
company on 09.12.2010. He stated that during investigation
he met with IO of the case and also contacted the other
persons and the IO and the other person informed him that
vehicle involved in accident was brought by the persons
travelling in the same on hire basis. During cross-examination,
R3W1 stated that he did not know on what basis IO has stated
that vehicle involved was hired one and he did not know the
name of the person with whom he has investigated the matter.
R3W1 stated that he never investigated from the injured
persons. R3W1 further stated that he did not record the
statement of IO or any public witness and he did not have any
documentary proof to show about the use of the vehicle by the
passengers.
68. R3W2 Sh. V.D. Talwar exhibited the copy of the
policy as R3W2/1. R3W2 further stated that he was relying
upon Ex.PW-1/9.
69. I have gone through the material on record. As per the
report of the investigator the vehicle was taken on hire. The
investigator has admitted that he has not recorded statement of
any person nor placed on record any document to show that
the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. The
report of the investigator is based on hear say. Further no
question was put by the Insurance company to the injured
person nor any suggestion was given to the injured that vehicle
was being used for commercial purpose. The insurance company
failed to establish that vehicle was being used for commercial
purpose or was taken on hire basis."
6. Primarily, the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company
relies on the closure report filed by SHO P.S. Bharari, District Bilaspur,
H.P. wherein the SHO had recorded that one of the occupants of the
Scorpio Car (Parvesh Jain) informed the Investigating Officer that they
had hired the Scorpio Car from Delhi on 10.01.2010. Iqbal Singh, the
Investigator appointed by the Appellant Insurance Company was
produced as R3W1 who deposed that as per the investigation carried by
him and the information received from IO of the criminal case, the
persons were travelling in the Scorpio on hire basis.
7. Parvesh Jain appeared as his own witness(PW11). He proved his
affidavit Ex.PW11/A. He testified that on the night intervening
11.01.2010 and 12.01.2010 at 00.10 a.m., he along with other occupants
of Scorpio Car No. DL-7-CC-6848 reached near Village Dhadhol, P.S.
Brari, District Bilaspur. The driver of the Scorpio Car No. DL-7-CC-
6848 was driving the same rashly and negligently and without taking due
caution and without following rules of the road. Because of his rash and
negligent driving, he lost control of the vehicle which skid off the road
and fell into a gorge at Village Dhadhol. He did not state a word that he
or any occupant of the Scorpio Car had paid any consideration to the
driver for travelling to Shimla or Vaishno Devi. No suggestion was given
to PW11 that he or any other person was travelling in the Scorpio Car on
hire charges. He was not confronted with his statement alleged to have
been made to the police. It is well settled that statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used to
discredit a witness by drawing his attention to the said statement. That
was not done by the Appellant in cross-examination of PW11.
8. As against this, Respondent Nirmal Kumari, owner of the Scorpio Car
entered the witness box as R1W1 and testified that she had permitted
their driver Sushil Kumar to take the Scorpio Car for visiting Vaishno
Devi on a pilgrimage along with his friends. Of course, a suggestion was
given to R1W1 that Sushil Kumar was using the said vehicle for
commercial purpose, but the same was denied by R1W1.
9. It is true that R3W1 who is an Investigator appointed by the Appellant
deposed that as per his investigation the vehicle was being used for hire at
the time of the accident. As observed by the Claims Tribunal in his
testimony was only a hearsay evidence and was of no consequence.
10. It is well settled that the initial onus to prove breach of the terms and
conditions of the policy is on the insured. The Insurance Company failed
to discharge the said onus. Thus, even if R1W1's testimony is ignored as
to the circumstances under which the vehicle was entrusted to Sushil
Kumar who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, no
material has been brought on record by the Appellant to prove wilful
breach of the terms and conditions of policy. The Appellant, therefore,
cannot be permitted to avoid the contract of insurance.
11. The finding on negligence reached by the Claims Tribunal is not disputed
by the Appellant Insurance Company; the same has, therefore, attained
finality.
12. Now is the time to deal with the quantum of compensation.
MAC.APP.542/2012
13. This Appeal relates to death of Yakshit Sharma @ Jhonny who was aged
22 years at the time of the accident. During inquiry before the Claims
Tribunal, it was claimed that the deceased was working as a Finance
Executive with M/s. Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd., MZ-7, Modi Tower, 98
Nehru Place, New Delhi and was earning `8,500/- per month. The
Claimant admitted that she had no documentary evidence with regard to
Yakshit's employment or his salary. The Claims Tribunal, therefore,
took minimum wages of an unskilled worker (`4,000/-), added 50%
towards inflation, deducted 1/2 towards personal and living expenses(in
case of a bachelor) and applied a multiplier of 7 as the age of the
Claimant was 63 years.
14. This Court in Rakhi v. Satish Kumar & Ors. (MAC. APP. 390/2011)
decided on 16.07.2012, referred to the reports of the Supreme Court in
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,
Trivandrum v. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 176,
Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, (1996) 3 SCC 179, Bijoy Kumar Dugar v.
Bidya Dhar Dutta & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 242, Sarla Verma & Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Santosh Devi
v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (4) SCALE 559 and
held that as per Santosh Devi even in the absence of any evidence as to
future prospects an increase of 30% in the income has to be provided
where the victim had fixed income or was a self employed person.
Relevant portion of Santosh Devi is extracted hereunder:-
"14.....In our view, it will be naive to say that the wages or total
emoluments/income of a person who is self-employed or who is
employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment,
etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost
of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any
distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of
rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal
on the rich and maximum on those who are self- employed or who
get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people.
Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income
necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those
employed under the Central and State Governments and their
agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to
provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have
been made for providing security to the families of the deceased
employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have
also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could
have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government
would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher
echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac.
Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized
sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not
kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government
employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be
denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income
of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily
basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial
notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by
high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category
periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it
may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his
livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the
prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the
cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and
unskilled labour, like, barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc.
Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in
the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the
Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be
no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who
is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a
person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also
get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time
and if he / she becomes victim of accident then the same formula
deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of
compensation."
15. Admittedly, there was no evidence with regard to deceased Yakshit's
future prospects. Thus, addition of 50% could not have been given. On
the other hand, an addition of 30% should have been made on account of
inflation.
16. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Claimant that Claimant Savita
Devi on the date of the accident, that is, in January, 2010 was only about
56 years as according to the identity card issued by the Election
Commission of India, she was aged 40 years as on 01.01.1994. A copy of
the voter card was also presented during the course of arguments.
17. A meagre compensation of `2,92,000/- was awarded in favour of the
Claimant Savita Devi for the death of her young son aged 22 years. If a
multiplier of 7 is applied on addition of 30%, the loss of dependency
comes to `2,18,400/-(`4000/- + 30% x 1/2 x 12 x 7) and on making
addition of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and `10,000/-
each towards loss to estate and funeral expenses, the overall
compensation comes to `2,63,400/-. If the multiplier of 9 is applied, the
compensation awarded will be slightly less than `2,92,000/- which was
awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Admittedly, this voter identity card was
not produced during inquiry before the Claims Tribunal. Keeping in view
death of a young son, overall compensation of `2,92,000/- cannot be said
to be excessive and exorbitant.
18. The amount of compensation does not call for any interference.
19. The Appeal, therefore, has to fail; it is accordingly dismissed.
MAC.APP.543/2012
20. This Appeal relates to death of Deepak Aggarwal. During inquiry before
the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that deceased was working as a
Government contractor. However, no evidence with regard to the
deceased's income or his profession was produced. In this case also, the
Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of an unskilled worker, made
an addition of 50% towards inflation on the basis of judgment in Kiran
Devi & Ors. v. Surjeet Yadav & Ors. (MAC.APP.511/2009) decided on
18.01.2010, deducted 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses (as
the number of dependents were 4) and applied a multiplier of 17 to
compute the loss of dependency as `9,18,000/-.
21. By applying Santosh Devi as stated in the earlier part of the judgment, an
addition of 30% could have been made against 50% given by the Claims
Tribunal. The loss of dependency thus comes to `7,95,600/-(4,000/- +
30% x 3/4 x 12 x 17).
22. The compensation of `5,000/- towards funeral expenses is enhanced to
`10,000/-.
23. On making addition of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and
`10,000/- each towards loss to estate and loss of consortium, the overall
compensation comes to `8,50,600/-.
24. The excess compensation of `1,17,400/- along with proportionate interest
and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall
be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
25. The compensation awarded shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in
favour of the Claimants in terms of the orders passed by the Claims
Tribunal.
26. The Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
MAC.APP.544/2012
27. This Appeal relates to death of Sonu Kumar. During inquiry before the
Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that deceased was working as a sales
executive in M/s. Double Diamond Tea Company, C-10, Patparganj
Industrial Area, Delhi and was getting a salary of `6,000/- per month. It
was proved on record that the deceased was a matriculate. The Claims
Tribunal in the absence of any evidence with regard to the deceased's
income took minimum wages of a matriculate, made an addition of 50%
towards inflation, deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses
and awarded a sum of `5,54,400/- towards loss of dependency.
28. For the reasons stated in the earlier part of the judgment, addition of 50%
towards inflation could not have been given. In view of Santosh Devi,
addition of only 30% could be awarded towards inflation. The loss of
dependency thus comes to `4,80,480/-(`4,400/- + 30% x 1/2 x 12 x 14).
29. The compensation awarded towards funeral expenses is raised from
`5,000/- to `10,000/-.
30. On making addition of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and
`10,000/- towards loss to estate, the overall compensation comes to
`5,25,480/-.
31. The excess compensation of `68,920/- along with proportionate interest
and the interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall
be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
32. The compensation awarded shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in
favour of the Claimants in terms of the orders passed by the Claims
Tribunal.
33. The Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
MAC.APP.545/2012
34. An overall compensation of 95,700/- was awarded in favour of the
Respondent (Claimant) Parvesh Jain who suffered grievous injuries in
this case. The quantum of compensation is not challenged by the learned
counsel for the Appellant.
35. The Appeal, therefore, has to fail and is dismissed.
36. The compensation awarded shall be disbursed in favour of the Claimants
in terms of the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal.
MAC.APP.548/2012
37. This Appeal relates to death of Nitin Sharma. The Claim Petition was
preferred by the parents of the deceased. Govind Sharma, the deceased's
father expired during pendency of the Claim Petition.
38. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that deceased
Nitin Sharma was working as a sales executive with M/s. Win Medicare
Pvt. Ltd. and earning `12,000/- per month. PW10 produced from M/s.
Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd., however, stated that the deceased had a total
income of `4,000/- per month from M/s. Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The
Claims Tribunal observed that the appointment letter of the deceased was
not placed on record and proceeded to compute the compensation on
minimum wages of an unskilled worker, which was also `4,000/- per
month. Thus, even if the deceased's income as per PW10 was accepted,
the same was `4,000/- per month only. The Claims Tribunal deducted
2/3rd of the deceased's income as the deceased father had also expired
during the pendency of the Claim Petition, which was not permissible.
The deduction towards the personal and living expenses, even if the
deceased is survived only by his widowed mother, is 50%. Following the
principles as have been mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, the
loss of dependency comes to `2,80,800/-(`4,000/- + 30% x 1/2 x 12 x 9).
39. The Claimant is further entitled to a sum of `25,000/- towards loss of
love and affection(as awarded by the Claims Tribunal) and `10,000/-
each towards funeral expenses and loss to estate. The overall
compensation thus comes to `3,25,800/-.
40. The enhanced compensation of `79,800/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment.
41. In this case, no Cross-Appeal or Cross-Objections have been filed by the
Claimant. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mamta
Rani & Ors., MAC APP.629/2010, decided on 06.09.2012 this Court
noticed the Supreme Court judgments in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh,
(2003) 2 SCC 274; Ibrahim v. Raju, AIR 2012 SC 534; New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopali & Ors., Civil Appeal No.5179 of 2012
decided on 05.07.2012 and a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Komal & Ors.,
MANU/DE/2870/2012, and held that the Court can increase the
compensation without filing any Cross Appeal or Cross Objections.
42. The enhanced compensation of `79,800/- along with interest shall be
deposited with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks. 50% of the
enhanced compensation shall be held in fixed deposit for a period of two
years, rest shall be released on deposit.
43. The Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
MAC.APP.553/2012
44. This Appeal relates to death of Shailesh Bhati, a bachelor who was
pursuing B.C.A. at Modern College of Professional Studies, Anand
Industrial Area, Mohan Nagar, U.P. Since the deceased was pursuing
graduation, the Claims Tribunal took minimum wages of a matriculate to
compute the loss of dependency.
45. It is no longer res integra that potential income of a student pursuing a
professional course is to be taken into consideration to award loss of
dependency to the parents. In the case of Haji Zainullah Khan (Dead) by
Lrs. v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, 1994 (5) SCC 667, death of a
young boy, aged 20 years took place in an accident which happened in
the year 1972. The deceased was a student of B.Sc Ist year (Biology), a
compensation of ` 1,46,900/- was increased and rounded off to `
1,50,000/-.
46. In Ganga Devi & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., MAC
APP. 359/2008, decided by this Court on 23.11.2009, which related to the
death of a student (studying medicine) who was doing internship and was
to be awarded MBBS degree in a short time, the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of ` 9,35,352/- on the basis of the minimum wages of a
Graduate. This Court observed that although the deceased was getting a
stipend of ` 5,000/- per month at the time of his death in the accident, he
would have ultimately joined as a doctor at a salary ranging between `
16,000/- per month to ` 25,000/- per month. Thus, average monthly
income of the deceased was taken as ` 18,000/- and after adding 50%
towards future prospects, the compensation was enhanced to `
21,36,000/-.
47. In Ramesh Chand Joshi v. New India Assurance Company MAC
APP.212-213/2006 decided on 20.01.2010 this Court took the potential
income of a BE (Bio-Technology) First year student of Delhi College of
Engineering (DCE) as ` 38,333/- per month.
48. Deceased Shailesh Bhati was doing B.C.A. from an ordinary college in
the State of U.P. I would take his potential income to be `10,000/- per
month. The deceased's mother at the time of Shailesh's death was aged
47 years. The loss of dependency thus comes to `7,80,000/-(`10,000/- x
12 x 1/2 x 13).
49. On making an addition of `25,000/- towards loss of love and affection
and `10,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss to estate, the
overall compensation thus comes to `8,25,000/-.
50. The enhanced compensation of `2,70,200/- shall carry interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till its payment. The
enhanced compensation shall be equally disbursed between the
deceased's parents. 50% of the enhanced compensation shall be held in
fixed deposit for a period of two years, rest shall be released on deposit.
51. The Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
MAC.APP.541/2012
52. This Appeal relates to death of Gajender Rastogi, a bachelor aged 24
years.
53. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that deceased
was working as a sales executive in M/s. Reliance Communications at C-
6/112, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi and was getting a salary `8,000/- per month.
In this case also, no evidence was produced with regard to the deceased's
income or his employment. The Claims Tribunal thus assessed the
compensation on the basis of minimum wages of an unskilled worker,
added 50% towards inflation, deducted 50% towards personal and living
expenses and applied a multiplier of 13 as per the age of the Claimant
Parvin Devi the deceased's mother to compute the loss of dependency.
The deceased was survived by his widowed mother and an elder brother
Anil.
54. The addition towards inflation in view of Santosh Devi has to be confined
to only 30% as against 50% granted by the Claims Tribunal. The loss of
dependency thus comes to `4,05,600/-(`4,000/- + 30% x 1/2 x 12 x 13).
55. In addition, the Claimant would be entitled to a sum of `25,000/- towards
loss of love and affection, `10,000/- towards loss to estate as awarded by
the Claims Tribunal. The compensation of `5,000/- towards funeral
expenses is enhanced to `10,000/-.
56. The overall compensation thus comes to `4,50,600/-.
57. The excess amount of `57,400/- along with proportionate interest and the
interest accrued, if any, during the pendency of the Appeal shall be
refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
58. The compensation awarded shall be disbursed/held in fixed deposit in
favour of the Claimants in terms of the orders passed by the Claims
Tribunal.
59. The Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
60. Statutory amount of `25,000/-, if any, in each of the Appeal shall be
refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.
61. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 18, 2012
pst
