Divisional Manager vs Smt. Basanti Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 1974 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                           M.A. No. 378 of 2018
                                 .........

Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Ranchi ..... Appellant Versus

1.Smt. Basanti Devi

2. Sri Kedar Nath Gupta @ Bhagat

3.Sri Sagar Sahu

4.Sri Sarvesh Kumar Gupta

5.Office-In-charge (D.M.), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, Ranchi ........ Respondents With M.A. No. 395 of 2018 ......

      1.Smt. Basanti Devi
      2. Sri Kedar Nath Gupta @ Bhagat                                  ..... Appellant

     1. Sri Sagar Sahu

2. Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd, Ranchi

3. Sri Sarvesh Kumar Gupta

4. Office-In-charge (D.M.), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, Ranchi ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. G.C.Jha, Advocate (In M.A. No.378/2018) : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate (In M.A. No.395/2018) For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G.C.Jha, Advocate (In M.A. No.395/2018) ..........

06/Dated: 22/06/2021.

1. Heard, learned counsel for the parites.

2. Both the appeals are arising out of common award dated 22.03.2018 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims, Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 49 of 2012 whereby the claimants namely,

1.Smt. Basanti Devi and 2. Sri Kedar Nath Gupta @ Bhagat have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.30,04,000/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of admission of claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act i.e. from 03.04.2012 till its realization. However, the learned Tribunal has mentioned that aforesaid amount shall be paid through account payee cheque drawn in the name of applicant no.2 namely, Kedar Nath Bhagat, father of the deceased within 30 days.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant, Mr. G.C. Jha has submitted that income of the deceased has been considered on higher side contrary to the material brought on record. The claimants have led positive evidence with regard to the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- per month, but the learned Tribunal has considered the income of his friend, Chandan Kumar Jha, associate of deceased- Rupesh Kumar Gupta, who has jointly submitted

project report with him was subsequently appointed in a company namely 'GRANT THORANTON' in the year, 2014. The joining letter was issued on 10.02.2014, on a salary amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- per annum and thus learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month being a Computer Software Engineer, as such, income was excessively considered by the learned Tribunal, which is not based on evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. G.C. Jha has submitted that there was contributory negligence of the deceased- Rupesh Kumar Gupta. Deceased was riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.JH01Z-4003 of his brother namely, Sarvesh Kumar Gupta. When he reached at Kolambi More at about 7.00 P.M., offending vehicle Tempo bearing registration No.JH01Z-0746 coming from opposite direction driven rashly and negligently collided against him, as such, there was contributory negligence of both the offending vehicles.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant has further submitted that learned Tribunal has granted interest @ 9% per annum from the date of admission of the claim application i.e. 03.04.2012 instead of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application in view of Section 171 of the MV Act and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P. Transport Corporation, reported in (2008) 4 JCR 79 SC.

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant has further submitted that mother of the deceased can be dependent and the compensation amount can be awarded to the mother, Smt. Basanti Devi, but the same cannot be awarded in favour of the father, Sri Kedar Nath Gupta @ Bhagat, as such, appropriate correction may be made by this Court in awarding the compensation to be paid to both or to the mother but not entirely to the father as per the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, paras 31 and 32 of which are profitably quoted hereunder:-

31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.

7. The same impugned award has been assailed for enhancement by the claimants in M.A. No.395 of 2018 with a delay of 8 days in preferring the appeal and for condonation of the same, I.A. No.6245 of 2018 has been preferred before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the claimants, Ms. Swati Shalini on the instruction of learned counsel for the claimants, Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee has submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the Computer Engineer from a reputed college on a higher side, but instead of that learned Tribunal has considered the meager amount of Rs.20,000/- per month which is on the lower side, as such, the same may be enhanced, as the learned Tribunal has failed to adjudicate the appropriate income of the deceased in para 13 of the impugned award while deciding the issue no.6.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that A.W.2- Kedar Nath Gupta @ Bhagat has categorically stated at paras 6 to 8 of his deposition, during examination-in-chief, that his deceased son was a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Technology and was earning amount Rs.20,000/- per month from working as a teacher of programming at 2-3 places. He was offered job on 03.03.2011 from RIIT Circular Road, Lalpur, Ranchi for package of Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and he had joined the same. A.W.3- Rohit Verma, friend of the deceased has also supported the evidence of A.W.2, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly interpreted Exhibit-21, photocopy of the Bank statement of Loan Account No.4943272210000001 in the Bank of India, Branch Nagri, in the name of deceased namely, Rupesh Kumar Gupta.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that deceased was unmarried, but the learned Tribunal has not granted filial consortium in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, which ought to have been Rs.40,000/- at least, as such, the same may be granted and the compensation amount may be enhanced.

11. So far the interest is concerned, learned counsel for the claimants has

further submitted that interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim application or 9% from the date of admission as granted by the learned Tribunal will not cause much change, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same in a benevolent legislation.

12. Learned counsel for the claimants in support of her submission has relied upon the judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deo Patodi and Ors., reported in (2009) 13 SCC 123 paras 5 to 8 are profitably quoted hereunder:-

"5. The claimants preferred an appeal thereagainst in the High Court which was registered as MA No. 1842 of 2005. Enhancement in the amount of compensation was claimed inter alia on the premise that the dependency of the parents should have been taken into consideration at two-third of the income of the deceased and furthermore the expenses incurred during treatment should have also been awarded. The Insurance Company filed cross-objections in the said appeal in terms of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the income of the deceased could not be taken at Rs 18,000 per month in the absence of any cogent evidence and that the claimants were not dependant on the deceased.

6. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court while maintaining the estimated income of the deceased at Rs 18,000 per month on a notional basis opined that the dependency of the claimants should have been taken at two-third of the income of the deceased. The High court also noticed that although the Tribunal had found that the claimants must have spent a sum of Rs 2 lakhs towards treatment of the deceased, but no compensation on that head was awarded by it. The High Court, thus, awarded a sum of Rs 1,25,000 towards the medical expenses. Applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of dependency was calculated at Rs 18,72,000. A sum of Rs 25,000 was also granted towards the funeral expenses.

7. Both the Insurance Company as also the claimants are before us. Mr M.K. Dua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company would contend that the deceased being a bachelor and for all intent and purport being a dependant on his parents and as he intended to pursue his higher studies in Australia, the Tribunal had rightly calculated the loss of dependency of parents at one-third of his income and not two-third. Mr Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, on the other hand, would contend that the learned Tribunal could not have estimated the income of the deceased only at Rs 18,000 per month keeping in view the background as also the salary he had obtained even as a part-time employee as also the offer which he received from a US based company.

8. The question in regard to the calculation of loss of dependency, it is trite, would vary from case to case. The fact that the deceased was a brilliant student is not in dispute. He had graduated in Business Administration in the UK. Even as a student, in a job on a part-time basis he was being paid a salary of Rs 80,000 per month (UK £1008.31). He paid his income tax even in the UK. After his graduation, he came back to India. He was offered a job as EU Controller by GOA LLC, a company based in Chicago, USA at an annual salary of Rs 18 lakhs (i.e. $41,600). However, when the accident took place he was not working; having not accepted the said offer. He was still a student. It would have been hazardous for the Tribunal to calculate the amount of compensation towards the loss of dependency on that basis."

13. Learned counsel for the claimants in support of her submission has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi and Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2018 (15) SCC

649 paras 10, 11, 12 and 13 are profitably quoted herein:-

10. On having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the record, we may note that the parties are ad idem on the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs 6273 per month. The question, thus, is whether the Tribunal was right in increasing the amount for future rise in income by 100%, or the High Court was within its right to reduce the said amount to 50%.

11. We have the benefit of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205 : AIR 2017 SC 5157] . While examining the observations in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , the Constitution Bench gave its imprimatur to the addition of 50% to actual salary of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, as in the present case. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice a recent order passed by this Court in Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 15 SCC 654] dated 22-11- 2017 wherein while taking note of the views expressed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205 : AIR 2017 SC 5157] , it has been observed that the percentage for calculating future rise in income is no bar to future prospects being taken at a higher level where the assessment is based on actual evidence led to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/the Court that the future prospects were higher than the standard percentage. The learned counsel, thus, submitted in the context of the evidence led in the present case that the two certificates dated 16-10-1998 and 8-7-2005 were proved in terms whereof the deceased's future prospects would have entitled her to a gross salary in the range of Rs 14,000 to Rs 17,000 per month. No doubt the second certificate is dated 8- 7-2005, after a lapse of 7 years from the first certificate, but then that would be a more realistic estimate of what a person holding that post would be earning at that stage of time. There is no rebuttal evidence led by the Insurance Company and we see no reason to doubt these certificates. Thus, the assessment of the Tribunal is based on the evidence led in the present case. As noticed above, the standardised percentage is capable of being varied if the evidence is so led.

12. We are, thus, of the view that looking into the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and the legal position, the Tribunal was justified in giving a 100% increase and taking the future prospects at Rs 12,000 per month.

13. The second aspect relates to the percentage of deduction. It really could not be seriously disputed before us that considering that the deceased is survived by the two parents, 50% amount be deducted as personal and living expenses of the deceased when the deceased is unmarried or widowed, as in the present case in view of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205 : AIR 2017 SC 5157] , which has affirmed the position in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] . Thus, the High Court was justified in increasing the percentage of personal expenses to the extent of 50% and not 1/3rd as held by the Tribunal.

14. Since the same impugned award has been assailed by the Insurance Company as well as by the claimants in their separate Miscellaneous Appeals under Section 173 of the MV Act, this Court assesses the compensation afresh in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjana Prakash & Ors. vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., reported in 2011 (14) SCC 639, para 8 of which is profitably quoted hereunder:-

"8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is

to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation."

15. The Court has difficulties in assessing the exact income of such persons in absence of positive and documentary evidence, but the Court also cannot take such view that income will not increase by lapse of time and experience. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to standard income of Rs.10,000/- per month or Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. The learned counsel for the claimants has assailed the impugned award for enhancement of the compensation amount on the basis of income of his partner in a joint project, who got appointment in the year 2014 (after 3 years of death) in a company 'GRANT THORANTON' on monthly salary of Rs.80,000/- whereas learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. G.C. Jha has submitted that considering the income to be twice is on the higher side even if the deceased was a progressive person.

16. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. G.C. Jha has further submitted that in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 at para 59.4, the concept of Future Prospect has been considered, which has been granted @40% for the deceased below 40 years. This means the learned Tribunal ought to have granted Future Prospect @40% on the deceased's income, meaning thereby amount of Rs.10,000/- per month with Future Prospect @40%, but the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that on the basis of positive evidence of income of Rs.10,000/- per month or Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, future prospect cannot be granted by doubling the same i.e. 100% enhancement, only on the basis of the income of associate of a joint project, who got appointment after three years of the accident.

17. As such, this Court has to consider that if positive evidence of the income of the deceased comes to Rs.10,000/- per month then consideration of any other income by the learned Tribunal is without any basis and not proper decision in a Motor Claim Case for just and fair compensation rather granted booty to the bereaved family, which is not the object of beneficial legislation under Motor Vehicle Act.

18. On this issue, learned counsel, Mr. G.C. Jha has further submitted that there

is time constraint for the person to earn from 2-3 institutes and there is no positive evidence in the deposition of A.W.2 (Kedarnath Gupta @ Bhagat) that apart from RIIT, Circular Road, Lalpur Ranchi from which other institutes, the deceased was earning.

19. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the claimants has opposed and submitted that in view of no cross-examination made by the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the person was earning Rs.20,000/-, i.e. Rs.10,000/- from RIIT, Circular Road, Lalpur Ranchi and Rs.10,000/- from another institute. Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that income of the deceased of Rs.20,000/- per month is not on the higher side, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same.

20. The necessary facts of this case is that, deceased- Rupesh Kumar Gupta died at the age of 25 years on 10.03.2011 as his death of birth is 15.02.1986. He has completed Diploma in Computer Science and obtained degree of B.E. in Computer Technology from Pryidarshini College of Engineering, Nagpur, Maharashtra in the year, 2010.

21. From perusal of the lower court records, it appears that deceased appeared in Class-X examination from Jharkhand Secondary Examination Board, Ranchi in the year, 2002 and secured 400 marks, out of total 600 marks and the same has been brought on record (Exhibits-11 and 12). The provisional certificate of Diploma in Computer Technology from Birla Institute of Technology (MESRA) with 72.3% marks dated 13.03.2007 (Exhibit-13) and thereafter did his degree of B.E. in Computer Technology from Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur

University, Nagpur with 1st Division marks in Winter, 2010 (Exhibit-14) and got certificate of merit from Seed Infotech Limited with B+ grade in October, 2010, which has been brought on record as Exhibit-17 and completed 4 years degree course from Pryidarshini College of Engineering, Nagpur, Maharashtra, which is brought on record as Exhibit-15. He has also appeared in Telecom Technical Assistant (TTA) in SRT in the year, 2010 examination for getting employment in the BSNL. The admit card has been brought on record as Exhibit-18. The document shows that deceased- Rupesh Kumar Gupta was not appointed in BSNL at the time of his death and documents shows that deceased was average student done different course from different institutes.

22. From perusal of the Bank Statement, which has been brought on record as Exhibit-21, it appears that on the date of accident i.e. 10.03.2011 in the account of the deceased, the balance was Rs.95,842/-, but from perusal of the bank statement

from 30.05.2008 till 30.10.2014 though the deceased died on 10.03.2011, the deposit was normally in 3 figures or 4 figures except one entry on 02.12.2010 when deposit was a sum of Rs.1 lac (i.e. six figures).

23. From perusal of the bank statement, it appears that effective available amount was Rs.91,000/- at the time of opening of the account and the balance was Rs.5,400/- .

24. From perusal of the academic records, this Court is of the opinion that

deceased was a student, who was getting approximately 1st Division Marks, but not so bright to consider in present date when cut of marks are so high.

25. This Court is of the opinion that income of the deceased was as Rs.10,000/- per month and the same has been proved by the cogent evidence adduced by the claimants, which has been discussed in Para-13 at Page No.14 of the impugned award. But for holding income of Rs.20,000/- per month from working as Teacher of computer of programming at 2-3 places, there is no evidence. Being a progressive student, who has done his Diploma and thereafter his income can improve, but his income cannot be considered to be double as the person was under a financial burden of bank loan. The statement of other bank accounts or return of income tax have also not been adduced by the claimants.

26. From perusal of the evidence of A.W.2, it appears that no positive evidence has been led by the claimants except income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month from RIIT, Circular Road, Lalpur, Ranchi. No other evidence has been brought on record nor the names of other programming center have been disclosed by the claimants' witnesses.

27. The same question came up before the Apex Court whether the learned Tribunal was right in increasing the amount for future rise in income by 100% or the High Court was right in reducing the same amount to 50%. In the case of Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi (Supra), the same issue has cropped up before the Apex Court.

In the aforesaid case, the evidence was led that two certificates dated 16.10.1998 and 08.07.2005 were proved in terms whereof the deceased, Future Prospects would have entitled her to gross salary in the range of Rs.14,000/- to 17,000/- per month and there was no rebuttal evidence led by the Insurance Company. Thus, the Apex Court has considered the income of the deceased Rs.12,000/- per month in Para 12 of the aforesaid judgment. The factual aspect is not the same in the present case. The facts of the present case is different from the facts of the case of Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi (Supra). In that case certificate

dated 16.10.1998 and other dated 08.07.2005 have been produced and the date of accident was 16.08.1998. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has considered the age of the person and granted 100% as Future Prospect, but in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) at Para 59.4 considering the age of the deceased below 40 years, Future Prospect can be granted 40 % only.

28. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that without any evidence with regard to income and only on the basis of oral statement income of the deceased was considered by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.20,000/- is not just and proper, though there no contrary evidence was brought by Insurance Company nor cross-examination has been done by the Insurance Company, but the learned Tribunal ought to have been very reasonable in granting compensation as the same cannot be bonanza rather the same must be just and fair compensation.

29. From perusal of the records, it appears that the income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month only from RIIT, Circular Road, Lalpur, Ranchi and there is only averment that he was earning from 2-3 other Institutes, without any detail disclosing name of institute, A.W.2 (Kedarnath Gupta @ Bhagat), [father of the deceased] or A.W.3 (Rohit Verma) have not disclosed the name of the other institutes or timing of working in other institutes or brought any statement from the Bank or from any institute showing that the deceased was also earning from such other institutes.

30. In my view, this approach is not based upon any evidence, as such, this Court has considered the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- at the time of death and thus is entitled for Future Prospect @40% in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court of Larger Bench in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) at Para 59.4. Since the deceased was unmarried, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) (Supra) at Para-30, the deduction for personal and living expense should be 50%. Since the deceased died at the age group of 21 to 25 years, multiplier would be 18 in view of judgment of passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) at Para-42 and under the conventional head, the amount of Rs.70,000/- i.e. for loss of estate as Rs.15,000/-, loss of consortium as Rs.40,000/- and funeral expenses as Rs.15,000/- in view of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Pranay Setthi (Supra) should be given.

31. So far the issue No.4 with regard to contributory negligence is concerned, learned Tribunal has discussed the same in Para-11 of the impugned award relying

upon the evidence of A.W.1 (Shani Oraon) is an eye- witness and he was a pillion rider of motorcycle which was hit by a tempo bearing Registration No.JH01Z- 0746 coming from opposite direction rashly and negligently and after investigation the investigating officer has filed the charge-sheet No.46/2011 Exhibit-2 showing negligence of the driver of the tempo only for causing accident. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company, as such, this Court in absence of any material is not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, that there was contributory negligence on part of the deceased. As such, the ground of contributory negligence is rejected.

32. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside with the following fresh calculation.

33. The new calculation chart would be as follows :-

 Income                              Rs.10,000/- per month
 Annual Income                       Rs.10,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,20,000/-

1/2 deduction towards personal and Rs.1,20,000/- minus Rs.60,000/- = living expenses as deceased was a Rs.60,000/-

bachelor [Sarla Verma (Supra) at para 30] Multiplier as 18 as deceased was in Rs.60,000/- x 18 = Rs.10,80,000/- the age group of 21- 25 [Sarla Verma (Supra) para 42] Future Prospect @ 40% [Pranay Rs.10,80,000/- + Rs.10,80,000/- x Sethi (supra) at para 59.4] 40% [Rs.4,32,000/-] = Rs.15,12,000/- Conventional Head [Pranay Sethi Rs.70,000/-

(supra) at para 59.8] Total Compensation Amount Rs.15,12,000/- + Rs.70,000/- = Rs.15,82,000/-.

34. The Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the amount of Rs.15,82,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal (Supra). However, the amount already paid by the Insurance Company shall be deducted from the same.

35. Accordingly, the Misc. Appeal vide M.A. No.378 of 2018 preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited stands allowed and M.A. No.395 of 2018 preferred by the claimants stands dismissed.

36. The statutory amount deposited by Insurance Company for preferring the appeal to the tune of Rs.25,000/- shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal by the learned Registrar General of this Court, within a period of four weeks, so as to indemnify the part of the Award. The learned Tribunal after notice and proper

verification of the claimants shall disburse the same to both the claimants in equal shares.

37. I.A. No.6245 of 2018 preferred by the claimants stands closed.

38. LCR of this case be sent down to the learned Tribunal at once.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/