Karnataka High Court
Lakshmi Bai W/O Srinivas Rao ... vs G Adinarayan S/O G. Kondanna on 7 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
M.F.A.NO.104164/2018 (MV-D)
C/W.
M.F.A.NO.104162/2018 (MV - I)
M.F.A.NO. 104163/2018 (MV - )
M.F.A.NO.104165/2018 (MV -I)
M.F.A.NO. 101411/2020 (MV)
In MFA No.104164/2018
BETWEEN:
1.Smt. Padma
W/o S Thrinatha Reddy
Aged: 45 years
Occ: Nil.
2. Aruna
D/o S Thrinatha Reddy
Aged: 45 years
Occ: Nil.
3. Laxmi
D/o S Thrinatha Reddy
Aged: 45 years
Occ: Nil.
All are r/o Sangapur village,
Tq: Ganagvthi, Dist: Koppal.
...APPELLANTS.
(BY SHRI RAJASHEKAR GUNJALLI , ADVOCATE.)
2
AND:
1. G Adinarayan
S/o G Kondanna
Aged about 45 years
Occ: Driver of lorry bearing
No.AP-21/TY-3108
R/o Edavaulaparthi village,
Bukkarayasamudram Mandal
Dist: Anantapur, Andra Pradesh State,
2. Mekal Mallikarjuna
S/o M Kambagiri Ramudu
Aged about : 42 years
Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing
No.AP-21/TY-3108
R/o 1-162 Neereducherla Peapully, Karnool,
Andra Pradesh State
Pin:518221
3. The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
Priyadarshini Hotel Compound
Station Road,
Hospete
Dist: Ballary.
...Respondents.
(BY SHRI B.D. NARASAGOND,ADVOCATE, FOR R.1 & R2)
(BY G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINSGT THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.363/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
3
In MFA No.104162/2018
BETWEEN:
1. Lakshmi Bai
W/o Srinivas Rao Alavandikar
Occ: Nil,
R/o Gangavathi
Tq: Gangavathi,Dist: Koppal
1(a) Sridhar Alavandikar
S/o Srinivas
Age: 57 years
R/at 1121246
Ward No.1, Satynarayanapee
Gangavathi, Dist: Koppal
...APPELLANT.
(BY SHRI RAJASHEKAR GUNJALLI , VIJAYA S CHINWAR ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. G Adinarayan
S/o G Kondanna
Aged about 45 years
Occ: Driver of lorry bearing
No.AP-21/TY-3108
R/o Edavaulaparthi village,
Bukkarayasamudram Mandal
Dist: Anantapur, Andra Pradesh State,
2. Mekal Mallikarjuna
S/o M Kambagiri Ramudu
Aged about : 42 years
Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing
No.AP-21/TY-3108,R/o 1-162
Neereducherla Peapully,
Karnool,Andra Pradesh State
Pin:518221
3. The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
4
Divisional Office,
Priyadarshini Hotel Compound
Station Road,
Hospete, Dist: Ballary.
...Respondents.
(BY SHRI B.D. NARASAGOND, ADVOCATE, FOR R.1 & R2)
(BY G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINSGT THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.364/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
In MFA No.104163/2018
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Sugamma Patil
W/o Bheemanagouda Parth Patil
Aged about: 44 yers
Occ: Nil
2. Suresh Reddi
S/o Bheemanagouda Parth Patil
Aged about: 21 yers
Both r/o Gangavathi,Tq: Gangavathi
Dist: Koppal.
...APPELLANTS.
(BY SHRI RAJASHEKAR GUNJALLI , ADVOCATE)
AND:
5
1. G Adinarayan
S/o G Kondanna
Aged about 45 years
Occ: Driver of lorry bearing
No.AP-21/TY-3108
R/o Edavaulaparthi village,
Bukkarayasamudram Mandal
Dist: Anantapur, Andra Pradesh State,
2. Mekal Mallikarjuna
S/o M Kambagiri Ramudu
Aged about : 42 years
Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing
No.AP-21/TY-3108
R/o 1-162 Neereducherla Peapully, Karnool,
Andra Pradesh State
Pin:518221
3. The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
Priyadarshini Hotel Compound
Station Road,
Hospete, Dist: Ballary.
...Respondents.
(BY SHRI B.D. NARASAGOND, ADVOCATE, FOR R.1 & R2)
(BY G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINSGT THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.365/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
6
IN MFA.NO.104165/2018:
BETWEEN:
K Venkatesh
S/o Guruswamy
Aged about 47 years
Occ: Business,
R/o Gangavagthi
Tq: Gangavathi,
Dist: Koppal
...APPELLANT.
(BY SHRI RAJASHEKAR GUNJALLI , ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G Adinarayan
S/o G Kondanna
Aged about 45 years
Occ: Driver of lorry bearing
No.AP-21/TY-3108
R/o Edavaulaparthi village,
Bukkarayasamudram Mandal
Dist: Anantapur, Andra Pradesh State,
2. Mekal Mallikarjuna
S/o M Kambagiri Ramudu
Aged about : 42 years
Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing
No.AP-21/TY-3108
R/o 1-162 Neereducherla Peapully, Karnool,
Andra Pradesh State, Pin:518221
3. The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
Priyadarshini Hotel Compound
Station Road,Hospete, Dist: Ballary.
...Respondents.
(BY SHRI B.D. NARASAGOND, ADVOCATE, FOR R.1 & R2)
(BY G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)
7
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINSGT THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.360/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA.NO.101411/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. A Srividya
W/o late A Vishwajit
Age: 39 years
Occ:Household
2. Vaishnavi
D/o late A Vishwajit
Age: 10 Years,
Occ: Student
3. Vishnuvaibhava
S/o late A Vishwajit
Age: 14 Years,
Occ: Student
Appellants No:2 & 3 being Minors
Are represented by their minor guardian-Mother
Appellant No.1: Smt. A Srividya
4. Smt. Lakshmikumari
W/o late Ramachandra Shetty,
Age: 56 years
Occ: ousehold & Agriculture
5. Virendra
S/o Late Ramachandra Shetty
Age: 29 years
Occ: Student
8
All are R/o Veerasavarkar Marga,
Gangavathi, Tq: Gangavathi,
Dt. Koppa, P.C.No.583 235l
...APPELLANTS.
(BY SHRI P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G Adinarayan
S/o G Kondanna
Aged about 45 years
Occ: Driver of lorry bearing
No.AP-21/TY-3108
R/o Edavaulaparthi village,
Bukkarayasamudram Mandal
Dist: Anantapur, Andra Pradesh State,
2. Mekal Mallikarjuna
S/o M Kambagiri Ramudu
Aged about : 42 years
Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing
No.AP-21/TY-3108
R/o 1-162 Neereducherla Peapully, Karnool,
Andra Pradesh State,Pin:518221
3. The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
Priyadarshini Hotel Compound
Station Road,Hospete
Dist: Ballary.
...Respondents.
(BY SHRI B.D. NARASAGOND, ADVOCATE, FOR R.1 & R2)
(BY G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINSGT THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.375/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GANGAVATHI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
9
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed for admission, with
consent of learned counsel for parties, they are taken up
together for final disposal.
2. Challenging judgment and award dated 09.10.2018
passed by Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Gangavathi, (hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal'), in MVC Nos.363/2016, 364/2016,
365/2016, 360/2016 and MVC.No.375/2016, these appeals are
filed.
3. Brief facts as stated are that on 26.12.2015, one
Bheemanagouda Partha Patil was traveling in Maruti Omni Van
bearing registration No.KA -37/M-3215 with six other inmates.
At about 2 a.m. on Ananthapur-Chennai (N.H.42), it met with
an accident when lorry bearing registration No.AP-21/TY-3108
dashed it. Due to rash and negligent driving by its driver
Bheemana Gouda Patil died on spot, while remaining three
sustained grievous injuries. Claiming compensation, three
separate claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicle Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') 1988.
4. Despite service of notice, driver and owner of lorry did
not appear, they were placed ex-parte. Respondent No.3-
insurer filed objections alleging that accident occurred on
account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Omni Van by its
driver. Insurer also denied age, occupation and income of
deceased and permanent physical disability sustained by injured
claimants, while it accepted issuing of insurance policy in
respect of lorry, but alleged violation of terms and conditions of
policy by insured.
5. Based on pleadings tribunal framed separate issues. As
all the claim petitions arise out of same accident, they were
clubbed together and common evidence was recorded. On
behalf of claimants 9 witnesses were examined and Exhibits P1
to P231 were marked. On behalf of respondents, an officer of
insurer was examined as RW1. Exhibits R1 to R.6 were marked.
On consideration, tribunal held that accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver and after
assessing compensation, held respondent No.2 liable to pay
compensation by discharging liability of respondent no.3 -
insurer on the ground that driving licence held by driver of lorry
was LMV (transport), while he was driving Heavy goods vehicle
(HGV). Not satisfied with quantum of compensation and also
assailing finding of tribunal on liability, claimants are in appeal.
6. Shri Rajashekar Gunjali, learned counsel for claimants
submitted that reason assigned by tribunal for absolving liability
of insurer was patently erroneous. It was submitted that
admittedly driver of lorry was having Light Motor Vehicle (LMV)
(transport) driving licence. Though vehicle involved in accident
was a HGV. In view of amendment to Section 10(1)(e) of M.V.
Act, by Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994, classification of
HGV came to be omitted and single classification viz., transport
vehicle was inserted. Therefore, driver having licence to drive
LMV would be authorized to drive any goods vehicle. On the
above grounds, learned counsel sought interference of this
Court.
7. On quantum it was submitted that deceased aged
about 53 years and was an agriculturist and astrologer. Though
he claimed his monthly at Rs.40,000/- per month, tribunal
considered his income at Rs.6,000/- notionally. Without adding
'future prospects' and deducting 1/3rd towards 'personal
expenses' applying multiplier '11' awarded Rs.5.28,00/0/-
towards loss of dependency. Tribunal also awarded Rs.25,000/-
towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.25,000/- towards 'loss of
estate' and Rs.80,000/- towards 'love and affection'.
8. On the other hand, G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for
respondent- insurer supported award and opposed appeal.
Learned counsel submitted that as the vehicle in question was a
HGV and as the claimant did not possess D.L. to drive same,
there was clear violation of policy conditions by insured. On
quantum, it was submitted that claimants failed to lead any
evidence to substantiate income of deceased. Therefore,
tribunal was justified in assessing it notionally. It was further
submitted that award passed by tribunal under conventional
heads was excessive, therefore submitted that there was no
case for enhancement. As both children of deceased have
attained age of majority, claimant no.1 - wife would be only
dependent and therefore, deduction towards personal expenses
would be ½.
9. Heard learned counsel on both side and perused
records. From the above submissions occurrence of accident
due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver and death
of four persons and injury to three persons is not in dispute.
Tribunal assessed compensation and passed award against
owner of the lorry. Liability of insurer was absolved on the
ground of not possessing valid and effective driving licence.
Claimants are in appeal challenging finding of tribunal both on
liability as well as quantum for enhancement. Therefore points
that arises for consideration in these appeals are:
i) Whether tribunal was justified in deciding the
liability of the insurer?
ii) Whether claimants are entitled to compensation
as sought for?
10. Re. Point No.1 (Common in all appeals):
Ex.R3 -Driving licence extract got marked by insurer
clearly establishes that driver of lorry was holding LMV
(transport) driving licence. In view of amendment to Section
10(1)(e) of the M.V.Act, by Act No.54 of 1994 substituting
classification of vehicles brought under category of transport
vehicle and earlier classification HGV and LGV were substituted.
Therefore, driver having LMV (transport) driving licence would
be authorized to drive any goods vehicle. Amendment to
provisions was w.e.f. 14.1.1994 and said amendment was in
force as on date of accident. Therefore, insurer cannot escape
liability. Hence, finding of tribunal regarding liability requires to
be set aside. Insurer would be liable to pay compensation to
claimants. Point no.1 for consideration is answered in negative.
11. Point No.2 in MFA No.104164/2018(MVC
No.363/2015): Admittedly, deceased Thrinath Reddy was an
agriculturist/ astrologer . Though is monthly income was stated
to be Rs.40,000/- ,there is no evidence led to establish same.
Income tax returns are also not filed. In the absence of any
specific evidence, tribunal would be justified in assessing
monthly income on notional basis. Accident occurred on
26.12.2015. Notional income for 2015 is Rs.8,000/- as per the
norms adopted for settlement cases before Lok Adalth.
Claimants are wife and two unmarried daughters. Deceased was
aged about 53 years, an agriculturist i.e., self employed. As per
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, addition of 25% has to be
awarded towards future prospects. Deduction towards personal
expenses has to be at '1/3', as deceased was married and
having unmarried daughter and multiplier applicable would be
'11'.Thus compensation towards loss of dependency would be
Rs.8,000 + 25% - 1/3 X 12 X 11=Rs.8,80,000/-. In addition,
claimant no.1 would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'spousal
consortium'. Claimants No.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.40,000/-
each towards 'parental consortium'; Further, claimants are
entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate'. Since more than three
years have been lapsed after rendering decision in Pranay
Sethi's case, there has to be addition of 10% to award under
conventional heads, which works out to Rs.1,65,000/-.
Thus, claimants are entitled to total compensation of
Rs.10,45,000/- (Rs.8,80,000 /-+ 1,65,000/-). Accordingly, point
for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
12. In MFA No.104162/2018 (MVC No.364/2016):
This appeal is field challenging award in MVC No.364/2016
filed for compensation towards death of Bheemasenrao, aged
about 62 years working as a tax consultant.
Learned counsel for claimant submitted that income tax
returns of deceased were filed as per Exs.P.44 to P.48. Tribunal
erroneously considered income tax return for assessment year
2013-2014 instead of income tax return for 2015-2016. Though
said submission is opposed by learned counsel for insurer on the
ground that accident occurred on 26.12.2015. Income tax
return of immediate preceding year has to be considered as
done by tribunal. But, from Ex.P.47 - income tax returns for
2015-2016 is filed on 07.08.2015, which is prior to date of
accident. Therefore, tribunal committed material irregularities
in taking the income tax for previous year for assessment of
compensation. Gross annual income declared in Ex.P.47 is
Rs.3,47,816/-. For said assessment year income up to
Rs.3,00,000/- was exempted from income tax. Income above
Rs.3,00,000/- attracts tax at 10% i.e., Rs.47,816/- X 10% =
Rs.4,781/- rounded off to Rs.4,700/- per annum and
Rs.2,400/- per annum towards professional tax was deducted,
which works out to Rs.5,91,391/- per month and Rs.200/- per
month. Monthly income of deceased would be Rs.3,47,816/-
divided by 12 = Rs.28,984/-. After deducting income tax and
professional tax of Rs.591/-, it would be Rs.28,393/-.
Deceased was aged 62 years. Claimant is mother,
therefore, deduction towards personal expenses will be '½'.
There would be no addition of 'future prospects'. Multiplier
applicable would be '7'. 'Loss of dependency' would be
Rs.28,983 - ½ X 12 X 7 = Rs.11,92,506/-. Claimant would be
entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads
(Rs.40,000/- (consortium) + 15,000/- (funeral expenses and
Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate'). Since more than three
years have been lapsed after rendering decision in Pranay
Sethi's case, there has to be addition of 10% award under
conventional heads, which comes to Rs.77,000/-.
Thus, claimants are entitled to total compensation of
Rs.12,69,506/- (Rs.11,92,506/- + 77,000/-). Accordingly, point
for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
13. In MFA No.104163/2018 (MVC No.365/2016):
This appeal is filed against award passed in MVC
No.365/2016 in respect of death of Bheemanagouda Partha
Patil, a businessman/agriculturist, aged 48 years. Claimants are
wife and dependent son, aged 19 years. Though, learned
counsel for claimants submitted that monthly income of
deceased at Rs.40,000/- established by production of record of
rights of lands held by him, tribunal considered meager monthly
income at Rs.6,000/-.
On the other hand learned counsel for insurer submitted
that monthly income claimed would attract income tax, but
income tax returns were not filed. Therefore, tribunal was
justified in taking notional income.
Admittedly, accident occurred on 26.12.2015. Notional
income for said period is Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, tribunal would
not be justified in taking it at Rs.6,000/-. Claimants are wife and
dependant son. Deceased was aged 48 years and self-
employed. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of 'National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & Ors. reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157, there has to be
addition of 25% towards 'future prospects'. Deduction towards
'personal expenses' has to be at '1/3', and multiplier applicable
would be '13'. Therefore, 'loss of dependency' would be
Rs.8,000/- + 25% - 1/3 X 12 X 13 = Rs.10,40,000/-.
In addition, claimant no.1 would be entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards 'spousal consortium', claimant No.2 would
be entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards 'parental consortium'. In
addition, they would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral
expenses' and Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate'. Since more
than three years have been lapsed after rendering decision in
Pranay Sethi's case, there has to be addition of 10% to award
under conventional heads.
Thus, claimants are entitled to total compensation of
Rs.11,61,000/- (Rs.10,40,000/- + 1,21,000/-). Accordingly,
point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
14. In MFA No.104165/2018 (MVC No.360/2016):
This appeal is filed against award passed in MVC
No.360/2016 in respect of injury caused to K Venkatesh, an
agriculturist, aged 46 years. As per Ex.P.56 - disability
certificate, claimant sustained fracture of middle 1/3 of left
femur. Dr. Mallikarjun Kunchigi, who examined claimant noted
that fracture was mal-united and assessed his permanent
physical disability at 26 to 28% to whole body and 38 to 40%
to affected part.
Though Shri Rajashekar Gunjali learned counsel for
claimant submitted that assessment of his functional disability
at 10% was on lower side, as also award under other heads.
Shri G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for respondent-insurer would
oppose same on the ground that disability would not affect his
earning capacity and award on over all consideration was just
and proper.
15. Admittedly, claimant was an agriculturist. There is no
dispute about his age. In order to establish his income, claimant
has produced statement of income submitted along with his
income tax return and income tax returns. Tribunal has taken
annual income at Rs.1,95,500/- and determined monthly
income of Rs.16,292/-. Taking note of the assessment of limb
disability to an extent of 38 to 40% and 26 to 28 % to whole
body, tribunal considered functional disability to an extent of
10% and awarded sum of Rs.2,54,155/-, which appears just
and proper. Tribunal has also awarded Rs.28,211/- towards
medical expenses for the bills produced. It has also awarded
Rs,10,000/- towards loss of amenities; Rs.39,876/- towards
'loss of earning during treatment' and Rs.10,000/- towards
'food, attendant conveyance and other incidental charges' which
are also just and proper. But claimant has sustained fracture of
left femur, which is a major fracture. Therefore, award of
Rs.10,000/- towards p and s would be inadequate, it would be
just and proper to award a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards same
instead. Thus, point no.2 is answered partly in affirmative
holding claimant entitled for total compensation of
Rs.3,77,242/-.
16. In MFA No.101411/2020 (MVC No.375/2016):
This appeal is filed against award passed in MVC
No.375/2016 in respect of death of A Vishwajith Shetty, aged
34 years, in private service. Though, learned counsel for
claimant/appellant submitted that deceased was survived by
wife, two minor children, mother and younger brother, tribunal
awarded sum of Rs.50,000/- towards 'loss of consortium' and
Rs.60,000/- towards 'love and affection', and sought
enhancement only insofar as these heads. But learned counsel
for insurer would oppose same on the ground that tribunal had
added 50% towards future prospects, though deceased was in
private service and tribunal has also awarded Rs.25,000/-
towards 'funeral expenses' and Rs.25,000/- 'loss of estate'
which were excessive and would in any case, set off
enhancement under other heads.
17. Admittedly, deceased is survived by wife, minor
children and mother. Claimant No.5 - younger brother, aged 25
years cannot be a dependent. Tribunal has indeed awarded
higher compensation towards loss of dependency by adding
50% towards future prospects instead of correct addition of
40%. Even award towards 'spousal consortium' is higher, as
also award under 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses.'
Therefore, there is no scope for interference with quantum of
compensation assessed by tribunal. However, challenge to
finding of tribunal regarding liability would be meritorious and
covered by decision of this Court in MFA No.104164/2018. It is
held that insurer would be liable to pay compensation awarded
by tribunal to claimants.
Hence, I pass following:
ORDER
i) MFA.No.104164/2018 C/w MFA.
No.104162/2018, MFA.No.104163/2018,
MFA.No.104165/2018 and MFA.No.101411
of 2018 are allowed in part with cost.
ii) In MFA No.101164/2018 compensation
is enhanced from Rs.6,58,000/- to
Rs.10,45,000/- with interest at 6% per
annum from date of petition till deposit.
Respondent no.3 - Oriental insurance
company is held liable to pay
compensation. It is directed to deposit the
compensation within six weeks from date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
On deposit, out of total compensation
25% each is apportioned in favour of two
daughters and remaining 50% is
apportioned to claimant no.1-wife.
The proportion of deposit and release
of compensation in favour of claimants
would be in the same proportion as in the
award of tribunal.
iii) In MFA No.104162/2018 claimants are held
entitled for Rs.12,69,506/-.
Respondent no.3 - Oriental insurance
company is held liable to pay
compensation. It is directed to deposit the
compensation within six weeks from date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
On deposit, 75% of enhanced compensation
to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised
bank or post office for a period of three years and
remaining 25% to be released on proper
identification.
iv) In MFA No.104163/2018 claimants are held
entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,61,000/-.
Respondent no.3 - Oriental insurance
company is held liable to pay
compensation. It is directed to deposit the
compensation within six weeks from date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
On deposit, out of enhanced compensation,
claimant No.1 - wife is entitled for 75% and
remaining 25% to claimant no.2 -son.
Out of the amount apportioned in favour of
claimant no.1, 75% to be kept in Fixed deposit in
any Nationalised bank or Post office for a period
of five years and remaining 25% to be released
on proper identification.
Entire compensation apportioned in favour
of claimant no.2 is ordered to be released.
v) MFA No.104165/2018 on reassessment
claimant is held entitled for additional
compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
Respondent no.3 - Oriental insurance
company is held liable to pay
compensation. It is directed to deposit the
compensation within six weeks from date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Entire enhanced compensation is
ordered to be released on proper
identification.
vi) In MFA No.101411/2020, Respondent no.3
- Oriental insurance company is liable to
pay compensation and directed to deposit
compensation within six weeks from date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The direction issued by tribunal
regarding apportionment, proportion of
deposit and release of compensation shall
be as ordered by tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Psg*
