Karnataka High Court
The Claim Manager vs Sri Kenchappa on 14 December, 2021
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5243/2015(MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3210/2016(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.5243/2015:
BETWEEN:
THE CLAIM MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL,
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR,MALNAD ARCADEA,
SHANKARAMATT CIRCLE,
B H ROAD, SHIMOGA
BY THE CLAIMS MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
UNIT NO.04,NINTH FLOOR (LEVEL-06)
"GOLDEN HEIGHTS" COMPLEX,
59TH "C" CROSS,
INDURSTRIAL SUBURB,
RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH "M" BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 010
BY ITS CLAIM MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SRI KENCHAPPA
AGE 52 YEARS
S/O RANGAPPA,
2. SRI RAMESH
AGE 30 YEARS
S/O KENCHAPPA,
3. SMT RATHNAMMA
AGE 28 YEARS
W/O NINGAPPA
4. SRI DRAKSHAYINI
AGE 26 YEARS
D/O BASAVARAJU
5. SMT BHAGYA
AGE 22 YEARS
W/O JAGADIAH
ALL ARE R/O AINAHALLI VILLAGE
GULLADA MANE, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALORE-577228.
6. SRI RAJU Y T
MAJOR,
S/O THIMAPPA,
R/AT NO.260,
YAGABI (V)(P)
KADUR TALUK-577548
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH M.LATHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5;
SRI. DAYANAND S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS HEAR THE
PARTIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
3
01.04.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ARSIKERE IN MVC NO.1188 OF 2013 WITH COSTS IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.3210/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KENCHAPPA
S/O SRI. RANGAPPA,
AGE 52 YEARS
2. SRI RAMESH
S/O SRI. KENCHAPPA,
AGE 30 YEARS
3. SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O SRI. NINGAPPA
AGE 28 YEARS
4. SRI DRAKSHAYINI
D/O BASAVARAJU
AGE 26 YEARS
5. SMT BHAGYA
W/O JAGADISH
AGE 22 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O AINAHALLI VILLAGE
GULLADA MANE, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577228.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SURESH M.LATHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RAJU Y T
S/O THIMMAPPA,
4
R/AT NO.260,
YAGABI (V)(P)
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577548
2. THE MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL,
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR,MALNAD ARCADEA,
SHANKARAMATT CIRCLE,
B H ROAD, SHIMOGA-577201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DAYANANDA S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED
BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC M.A.C.T. MVC
NO.1188/2013 AT ARASIKERE DATED 01/04/2015 MAY
KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCE A COMPENSATION OF RS.16,00,000/-WITH
INTEREST OF 18% P.A. MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING
BEEN HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHYSICAL
HEARING AND RESERVED ON 28.10.2021, COMING ON
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHYSICAL HEARING FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, KRISHNA
BHAT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
These appeals are at the instance of the insurance
company and the claimants being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 01.04.2015 in MVC
No.1188/2013 passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
Arsikere.
2. One Mallamma is the deceased. Claimants are
her husband and 4 children. The claim petition proceeds to
state that on 26.02.2012 at about 9.45 a.m. when
Mallamma was traveling in a maxi cab bearing registration
No.KA-18-A-9337 near Laksmidevarahalli Gate on Arsikere
Tiptur Road, the driver of the vehicle drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle against
a tree situated by the side of the road and on account of
impact injuries, Mallamma died while she was being shifted
to hospital.
3. In the proceedings before the learned Tribunal,
respondent No.1 - the owner of the vehicle filed a written
statement denying the material averments in the claim
petition.
4. The insurance company though entered
appearance through a learned counsel, has not filed any
statement of objections as could be seen from para 3 of the
impugned judgment.
5. Claimant No.2 examined himself as P.W.1 and 2
eye witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and
Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked.
6. For the respondents, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were
examined. R.W.3 - Raju is the owner of the offending
vehicle. Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked for the respondents.
7. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides
and examining the materials placed before it, learned
Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by awarding
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of realization.
8. Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the
insurance company in support of his appeal contended that
learned Tribunal was in error in holding that driver of the
offending vehicle was negligent and he further submitted
that evidence clearly shows that it was an inevitable
accident and there was no negligence on the part of driver
of the vehicle in causing the accident. Further, he
strenuously contended that there was clear pleading as well
as admission by P.W.2 and P.W.3 that accident was caused
on account of a flying stone hitting the driver of the
offending vehicle and consequently, losing his control over
the vehicle resulting in the accident. He, therefore,
submitted that finding of the learned Tribunal in this behalf
is erroneous and accordingly, prayed that appeal may be
allowed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants in
support of the their appeal, per contra, contended that
finding of the learned Tribunal that driver of the offending
vehicle was negligent and accident had resulted on account
of his rash and negligent driving, is entirely supported by
evidence placed before the learned Tribunal and therefore
same is not liable to be interfered with. He further
contended that learned Tribunal was in error in taking a
lower monthly income for the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per
month and he drew our attention to the fact that the Courts
throughout the State have been uniformly taking the
income for a person who has died in the year 2012 and
whose income is not established at Rs.7,000/- per month
as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority. He therefore submitted that the
compensation awarded needs to be enhanced by applying
the correct principles of law and his appeal may be allowed.
10. We have given anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both sides and carefully perused the
records.
11. The fact that Mallamma had died in a road
traffic accident on 26.02.2012 at about 9.45 a.m. on
account of maxi cab in which she was traveling bearing
registration No.KA-18-A-9337 dashing against a road side
tree near Lakshmidevarahalli Road on Arsikere Tumkur
Road is not in question. The only question that has been
raised in the context of this case by the learned counsel for
the insurance company is that there was no negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the
accident and it was in fact an inevitable accident. For the
said purpose, he has submitted that P.W.2 and P.W.3, who
are the eye witnesses to the accident have admitted to the
same in their cross-examination. His precise submission is
that on 26.02.2012 at about 9.45 a.m. when the deceased
driver - Y.T.Madhu @ Madhu Kumar, S/o. Thimmappa was
driving the maxi cab in question, a stone which was lying
on the road flew off on account of a lorry running over the
same and hit him and consequently he lost control over the
vehicle resulting in the vehicle dashing against the road
side tree. The question now is, whether the evidence
placed on record justifies such conclusion as canvassed
before us?
12. Records show that in this case only insured/
owner - Raju.Y.T, S/o.Thimmappa has filed written
statement and insurance company has not filed any written
statement. At para 4 of the written statement, the owner
of the offending vehicle has pleaded as follows:
"4. This respondent submits that
there is no negligence on the part of the
driver of the said vehicle in causing the
accident. This respondent submits that
the driver of the abovesaid vehicle No.
KA-18/A-9337 Madhu alias Madhukumar
was driving the said vehicle on
26.02.2012 in a slow manner on the left
side of the road observing all the traffic
rules and regulations. While going so
near Lakshmidevarahalli gate on NH-206
road in Arsikere taluk, all of a sudden
one lorry was came from opposite
direction in a rash and negligent manner
with excessive speed in the middle of
NH-206 without leaving space to the
opposite vehicle and during that process
one stone was fell in the middle of the
road and the driver and the said lorry
was ran his lorry over the said stone and
at that time, the said stone was came
and hit to the head of the driver of the
vehicle KA-18/A-9337 and due to that
impact, the driver sustained grievous
injures to head and lost his control over
the vehicle and the vehicle No. KA-18/A-
9337 was dashed to the road side tree,
there is no negligence on the part of the
driver of the said vehicle, but the
concerned police authorities have
changed the nature of the accident and
created the false story and fixed the
case against the driver of the vehicle
No. KA-18/A-9337 even though there is
no negligence on the part of the
deceased driver in causing the accident,
hence this respondent is not liable to
pay any compensation to the petitioner."
(underling by us)
13. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of
P.W.2 - Revappa @ Revanna, who is the complainant
before the police and C.W.1 in the charge sheet reads as
follows:
"CgÀ¹ÃPÉgɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄÄPÁÌ®Ä QÀ«ÄÃ
C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è JzÀÄgÀUÀqÉ MAzÀÄ ¯Áj ¥ÀAZÀgÁV ¤AwvÀÄÛ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ªÁºÀ£À §gÀÄwÛvÄÀ Û
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqÉ §gÀwÛzÝÀ ¯Áj MAzÀÄ PÀ°è£À
ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj PÀ®Äè £ÁªÀÅ
ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ ZÁ®PÀ£À vÀ¯ÉUÉ ©zÀÝ PÁgÀt ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt
vÀ¦à gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÌÀ zÀ°èzÝÀ ªÀÄgÀPÌÉ rQÌ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ZÁ®PÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀnÖgÄÀ vÁÛgÉ
JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÝÀ ZÁ®PÀ ¸ÁzsÀgÀt
ªÉÃUÀzÀ°è ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÝÀ JAzÀgÉ
¸Àj. DPÀ¹äPÀªÁV C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
ZÁ®PÀ£À vÀ¦à¤AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ
¸Àj."
(underling by us)
14. Similarly the relevant portion of cross
examination of P.W.3 - Sidappa @ Siddaiah, who is C.W.30
in the charge sheet reads as follows:
"C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ ¢£À ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è gÉêÀtÚ£ÀªÀgÄÀ
¥ÀæAiÀÄt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÄÀ ¸ÀzÀj
¢£À D¢ZÀÄAZÀ£ÀVj ªÀÄoÀPÌÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÝÉ ªÅÀ .
C¥ÀWÁvÀ CgÀ¹ÃPÉgÉAiÀÄ PÉgÉ Kj §½ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀgÉ
¸Àj. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ
MAzÀÄ ªÁºÀ£À §gÀÄwÛvÄÀ Û JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. UÁrAiÀÄÄ
PÀ°è£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆÃzÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj PÀ°è£À ZÀÆgÀÄ
£ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÝÀ UÁrAiÀÄ UÁfUÉ ©¢ÝgÄÀ vÀÛzÉAzÀgÉ
¸Àj. £ÀªÀÄä ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ZÁ®PÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ vÀ¦à¸À®Ä
ªÀÄgÀPÉÌ rQÌ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj
C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁåQìPÁå¨ï ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ZÁ®PÀ
UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C¥ÀWÁvÀ DPÀ¹äPÀªÁV
¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ZÁ®PÀ¤UÉ r.J¯ï. EzÀÝ
«ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÀiÁåQ ìPÁå¨ï ZÁ®PÀ£À
vÀ¦à¤AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
ªÀÄÈvÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ßÀ ¸ÀA§A¢üAiÀiÁzÀ PÁgÀt DPÉUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀÄwÛzÝÉ Ã£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
(underling by us)
15. Respondent No.1 - the owner of offending
vehicle was examined as R.W.3 before the learned Tribunal.
He has stated in the examination-in-chief by way of
affidavit as follows:
"2. The entire averments in the
petition is here denied as false. The
deceased driver was experience in the
driving the said type of vehicles and
slowly going on the left side of the
road and suddenly on the said day the
lorry came from the opposite direction
and the stone which was on the road
due to the effect of lorry tire on the
said tip of the stone the stone fell
randamously hit on the deceased
driver vehicle of the front glass all of a
sudden the driver lost control over the
said vehicle hit against the road side
tree and this incident took place. The
driver of the said vehicle was having
valid driving licence to drive the said
vehicle since many years the insurance
policy in inforce at the time of accident
as such the insurance company is
liable to pay compensation in view of
supreme court verdict in civil appeal
4834/2013 in Iyyappan case. I am
responsible for the accident and I am
not liable to pay compensation".
(underling by us)
16. The standard of proof in this class of cases is
one of preponderance of probabilities. It is necessary to
examine the entire evidence both oral as well as
documentary before coming to a conclusion as to the
probabilities of the case. Immediately after the accident,
P.W.2 - Revanna had lodged the complaint before the
police. The complaint - Ex.P-2 clearly states as follows:
"£Á£ÀÄ FUÀ ºÉýgÀĪÀ xxxx
ªÀÄzsÀÄPÀĪÀiÁgï £ÀqɸÄÀ wÛzÝÀ gÄÀ . ¨É½îUÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ
9.45 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÁºÀ£ÀªÅÀ CgÀ¹ÃPÉgÉ
w¥ÀlÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÛÉAiÀÄ°è ®QëöäÃzÉêÀgÀºÀ½î UÉÃmï ºÀwÛgÀ
ªÉÃUÀªÁV ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ ZÁ®PÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
¤®ðPÀåvɬÄAzÀ gÀ¸ÛÉè JqÀ¨ÁUÀPÌÉ £Àqɹ gÀ¸ÛÉ ¥ÀPÁÌzÀ
ªÀÄgÀPÉÌ rQÌ ªÀiÁrzÀ. EzÀjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ §®
ºÀtUÉ, ªÉÄÊ, PÉÊUÉ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁAiÀÄÄÛ. ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°èzÝÀ
J®èjUÀÆ vÀÄA¨Á UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁAiÀÄÄÛ. vÀÄA¨Á
UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArzÀÝ £ÀªÄÀ äUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀÞ¼ÀPÌÉ §AzÀ
¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÄÀ DA§Ä¯É£ïì ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è CgÀ¹ÃPÉgÉ
¸ÀPÁðj C¸ÀàvæU É É PÀ½¹PÉÆlÖgÄÀ . zÁjAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß
CvÉÛ ªÀĮ讪ÀÄä ¸ÀvÄÀ Û ºÉÆÃzÀgÄÀ . ZÁ®PÀ
ªÀÄzsÀÄPÀĪÀiÁgï xxx dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÁV ¥ÁæxÀð£É"
17. After investigation, police filed charge sheet as
per Ex.P-3 against the driver of the vehicle namely, Madhu
Y.T. @ Madhu Kumar, S/o.Thimmappa on the allegation
that he had driven the offending vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the vehicle against a road
side tree and consequently, Mallamma had suffered fatal
injuries. The name of the father and other details of the
driver reasonably suggest that the driver of the offending
vehicle who died due to the impact injuries is the brother of
respondent No.1 before the Tribunal namely, the owner of
the vehicle. The only pleading filed from the side of
respondent is by the insured and insurer has refrained from
filing its written statement. It is in the written statement of
owner for the first time this 'flying stone' theory has been
advanced. P.W.2 - the complainant before the police and
P.W.3, who was cited as C.W.30 in the charge sheet having
filed an affidavit fully supporting the case of the claimants,
have on the subsequent occasion when they were cross
examined have made a volte-face and answered to the
suggestions put on behalf of the respondents in the
affirmative thereby contradicting themselves before the
Court. It needs to be remembered that PW.2 had lodged
the complaint-Ex.P1 on 26.02.2012 itself.
18. Spot panchanama - Ex.P-4 and the sketch map
- Ex.P-5 clearly show that if the driver of the offending
vehicle was driving the same slowly and carefully, as was
pleaded by the owner of the offending vehicle, the vehicle
would not have strayed off from the road across the
footpath and thereafter dashed against a tree with such an
impact as to cause the death of the driver as well as a
passenger like Mallamma. In other words, nature and
manner of the accident itself shows that driver was driving
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed.
Further there is no consistency in the stand of the
respondents regarding the manner of happening of the
accident. As could be seen from the extracted portions of
the cross examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also the
affidavit evidence of R.W.3 and the pleadings of the owner,
there is varying stand taken at various stages namely, that
at some stage it was alleged that a flying missile like stone
had hit the head of the deceased driver and at some other
stage it has been alleged that stone had hit the glass and
insofar as the affidavit of R.W.3 is concerned, it suggests
that the stone had hit both the wind shield glass of the
vehicle as well as the head of the driver. This clearly
probabalises that owner of the vehicle, who apparently is
the brother of the driver did not want the negligence to be
fastened on his brother and therefore inconsistent and false
stands were taken at various stages before the learned
Tribunal. Surprisingly, the insurance company has
abstained from filing its written statement for reasons best
known to it.
19. On a proper appreciation of the evidence, which
includes the oral evidence placed before the Tribunal,
Ex.P.2-complaint, Ex.P.3-charge sheet, Ex.P.4-spot
panchanama and Ex.P-5 sketch map, it can be reasonably
concluded that the accident was entirely due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle
and under such circumstances, there is no merit in the
contention of the learned counsel for the insurance
company that it was an inevitable accident and accordingly,
M.F.A.No.5243/2015 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
it is dismissed.
20. The deceased Mallamma was aged 53 years at
the time of her death. Therefore, appropriate multiplier
applicable to her age is 11. As per the chart prepared by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, monthly
income of a person whose income is not established is
required to be taken at Rs.7,000/- per month for the year
2012. Since she has left behind her husband and 4
children, 1/4 of her income is required to be deducted
towards her personal expenses. It is no doubt contended
by learned counsel for the insurance company that since
the children of the deceased namely, claimant Nos.2 to 5
are majors, they cannot be regarded as dependents. The
matter is now concluded by the authoritative
pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. BIRENDER AND OTHERS
(2020 ACJ 759) and therefore, such contention cannot be
entertained. Since deceased was aged 53 years, 10% of
her income is required to be added towards loss of future
prospects. Therefore, 'loss of dependency' is required to be
recomputed as follows:
Rs.7,000+10% (i.e., Rs.7,000/-+Rs.700/-)= Rs.7,700/-
Less:- Rs.7,700/- x ¼ (i.e. Rs.1,925/-) = Rs.5,775/-
Rs.5,775/- x 12 x 11 =Rs.7,62,300/-
21. Since she has left behind her husband and 4
children, Rs.2,00,000/- is required to be awarded towards
'loss of consortium' (Rs.40,000/- x 5). Another sum of
Rs.30,000/- is required to be added towards conventional
heads like 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate'.
22. Thus, the total compensation works out as
follows:
Heads Amount
in Rs.
Loss of dependency 7,62,300/-
Loss of consortium
(Rs.40,000x5) 2,00,000/-
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
TOTAL 9,92,300/-
23. Learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/-. Therefore, enhanced compensation works
out to Rs.5,92,300/-. On the enhanced compensation,
interest @ 6% p.a. is liable to be paid by the insurance
company to the claimants.
24. In view of the above, the MFA No.3210/2016 is
allowed in part. The award passed by the learned Tribunal
in MVC No.1188/2013 dated 01.04.2015 is modified by
awarding an enhanced compensation of Rs.5,92,300/- with
interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of payment.
Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit before
this Court to the learned Tribunal along with records
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DR
