M/S. Oriental Insurance Company ... vs K. J. Prashanthkumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 898 Kant

                        1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                     PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                       AND

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

           M.F.A. NO.1075 OF 2017 (MV-D)
                       C/W
         M.F.A. NO.1076 OF 2017 (MV-D),
          M.F.A. NO.1077 OF 2017 (MV-I),
         M.F.A. NO.3657 OF 2016 (MV-D) &
         M.F.A. NO.3658 OF 2016 (MV-D),

IN MFA NO.1075/2017:

BETWEEN:

M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE,
SHARADA COMPLEX,
CHITRADURGA,
NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
1ST FLOOR, THILUVALLI COMPLEX,
P.B. ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES,
DAVANAGERE-577 002,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
                               ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
                          2




AND:

1.     K.J. PRASHANTHKUMAR
       S/O UPPINAKAI THIPPAMMA,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

2.     DAKSHA PRASHANTHKUMAR
       S/O K.J. PRASHANTHKUMAR,
       AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
       SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR,
       REP. BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
       i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN,

       BOTH ARE R/AT GOPALAPURA ROAD,
       CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.

3.     THE PARTNER
       M/S. SATI ENTERPRISES,
       OWNER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING
       REG. NO.KA-19/B-5631,
       R/AT D.NO.4.3.406/10,
       BEHIND SDM LAW COLLEGE,
       M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE-575001.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. T.H.NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.231/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL    MACT-V,    CHITRADURGA     AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.43,55,000/- WITH INTEREST AT
                          3




7.5% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.


IN MFA NO.1076/2017:

BETWEEN:

M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE,
SHARADA COMPLEX,
CHITRADURGA,
NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
1ST FLOOR, THILUVALLI COMPLEX,
P.B. ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES,
DAVANAGERE-577 002,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
                               ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
     SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     Y.A. CHANDRANNA
       S/O. Y.S. AJJANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

2.     Y.C. MANOJ
       S/O. Y.A. CHANDRANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
       13TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE,
       CHANDRA LAYOUT,
       NOW RESIDING AT GOPALPURA,
       CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.

3.     THE PARTNER
                         4




     M/S. SATI ENTERPRISES,
     OWNER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING
     REG. NO.KA-19/B-5631,
     R/AT D.NO.4.3.406/10,
     BEHIND SDM LAW COLLEGE,
     M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE-575001.

                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2;
SRI. T.H.NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.230/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL    MACT-V,    CHITRADURGA     AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,95,100/- WITH INTEREST AT
7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE
OF DEPOSIT.

IN MFA NO.1077/2017:

BETWEEN:

M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE,
SHARADA COMPLEX,
CHITRADURGA,
NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
1ST FLOOR, THILUVALLI COMPLEX,
P.B. ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES,
DAVANAGERE-577 002,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
                                      ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
     SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
                          5




AND:

1.     Y.A. CHANDRANNA
       S/O. Y.S. AJJANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
       R/AT 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE,
       CHANDRA LAYOUT,
       NOW RESIDING AT
       GOPALPURA,
       CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.

2.     THE PARTNER
       M/S. SATI ENTERPRISES,
       OWNER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING
       REG. NO.KA-19/B-5631,
       R/AT D.NO.4.3.406/10,
       BEHIND SDM LAW COLLEGE,
       M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE-575001.
                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. T.H.NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.232/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL    MACT-V,    CHITRADURGA     AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5%
PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE
OF DEPOSIT.

IN MFA NO.3657/2016:

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI. K.J. PRASHANTHKUMAR
                          6




       S/O UPPINAKAI THIPPAMMA,
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

2.     SRI. DAKSHA PRASHANTHKUMAR
       S/O K.J.PRASHANTHKUMAR,
       AGED ABOUT 04 YEARS,

       THE APPELLANT NO.2 IS SINCE MINOR
       AND REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN/
       FATHER/ APPELLANT NO.1

       THE APPELLANT NOs.1 AND 2 ARE
       R/O. GOPALAPURA ROAD,
       CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.
                                        ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M.,
ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE PARTNER
       M/S. SATI ENTERPRISES,
       OWNER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING
       REG. NO.KA-19/B-5631,
       D.NO.4.3.406/10,
       BEHIND SDM LAW COLLEGE,
       M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE-583257.

2.     THE BRANCH MANAGER
       ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       BRANCH OFFICE,
       SRI SHARADA COMPLEX,
       OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND,
       CHITRADURGA-577501.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED BUT
UNREPRESENTED;
                           7




SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.231/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT-V, CHITRADURGA PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.


IN MFA NO.3658/2016:

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI. Y.A.CHANDRANNA
       S/O Y.S.AJJANNA
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

2.     SRI. Y.C.MANOJ
       S/O Y.A.CHANDRANNA
       AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

       THE APPELLANT NOs.1 AND 2 ARE
       R/O 13TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE,
       CHANDRA LAYOUT,
       NOW AT GOPALAPURA,
       CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.
                               ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M.,
ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE PARTNER
       M/S. SATI ENTERPRISES,
                           8




     OWNER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING
     REG. NO.KA-19/B-5631,
     D.NO.4.3.406/10,
     BEHIND SDM LAW COLLEGE,
     M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE-583257.

2.   THE BRANCH MANAGER
     ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
     BRANCH OFFICE,
     SRI SHARADA COMPLEX,
     OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND,
     CHITRADURGA-577501.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED BUT
UNREPRESENTED;
SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.230/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT-V, CHITRADURGA PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

Though these appeals are listed today for orders, it

is seen that MFA Nos.3657 and 3658 of 2016 are already

admitted and all these appeals are taken up for final

disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties.

2. The respective appellant in MFA

Nos.1075/2017, 1076/2017, 1077/2017 is the insurer of a

Heavy Transport vehicle bearing registration number KA-

19/B-5631 (henceforth referred to as the 'offending

vehicle'). The appellants in the above appeals will

henceforth be referred to as the 'insurer'. The appellants in

MFA Nos.3657/2016 and 3658/2016 are the claimants in

MVC Nos.231/2015, and 230/2015 respectively. The

appellants in the above appeals shall henceforth be

referred to as the claimants.

3. The claim petitions in MVC Nos.231/2015 and

230/2015 discloses that the claimants were the legal

representatives of Smt.Shwetha and Smt.Padma

respectively. It is stated that on 14-03-2014, the

aforesaid persons along with the claimant in MVC

No.232/2015 were travelling with their family members in

a Innova car bearing registration number KA-02-MJ-1419

from Horanadu to Bengaluru via Belur to Hassan. At about

5:15 pm, the driver of the offending vehicle drove it from

the opposite direction and dashed against the left side

portion of the Innova car. Due to the impact, Smt.Shwetha

and her mother Smt.Padma sustained severe head injuries

and they died at the spot. Mr.Chandranna, the claimant in

MVC No.232/2015 sustained injuries and was shifted to

Government Hospital, Belur where he was treated. A case

in Crime No.86/2014 was registered against the driver of

the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under

Section 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The

claimants filed respective claim petitions in MVC

Nos.230/2015, 231/2015 and 232/2015 claiming

compensation of a sum of Rs.16,00,000/-

Rs.8,30,80,000/-, and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively.

4. It is claimed that deceased Smt.Shwetha was

employed as a Senior System Engineer in a Multinational

Company and was drawing an annual salary of

Rs.10,00,000/- while the deceased Smt.Padma was a

home maker and her notional income was claimed at

Rs.5,000/- per month. The injured Mr. Chandranna was

employed with BESCOM drawing a monthly salary of

Rs.50,000/-. All of them alleged that the accident was due

to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the

offending vehicle.

5. The claim petitions were contested by the

insurer of the offending vehicle, who denied the assertions

made in the claim petitions. It contended that the driver of

the offending lorry was not negligent and accused the

driver of the car of contributing to the accident by moving

the car to the opposite lane and dashing against the

offending vehicle. It also contended that the compensation

claimed was excessive.

6. With these rival contentions, the claim

petitions were set down for trial. The claim petition in MVC

No.231/2015 was treated as the lead case and common

evidence was recorded in it. The Claimants were examined

as PWs.1 to 3 and they marked documents Ex-P1 to P13.

The insurer of the offending vehicle examined its officer as

RW.1, who marked documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

7. The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence on record, held that the accident

was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of

the offending vehicle. In so far as the claim for

compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded the

following compensation to:

Claimants in MVC No.230/2015:

Sl.    Heads of compensation                      Amount    in
No.                                               Rupees
1      Towards Loss of dependency                  5,20,100/-
2      Towards Loss of consortium              of  1,00,000/-
       petitioner No.1
3      Towards loss of love and affection                1,00,000/-
4      Towards loss of expectation                         50,000/-
5      Towards transportation of dead                      25,000/-
       body, cremation and obsequies
       ceremonies
                   TOTAL                             7,95,100/-


Claimants in MVC No.231/2015:

    Sl. Heads of compensation                 Amount              in
    No.                                       Rupees
    1   Towards Loss of dependency             40,80,000/-





  2     Towards Loss of consortium of           1,00,000/-
        petitioner No.1
  3     Towards loss of love and                1,00,000/-
        affection
  4     Towards loss of expectation              50,000/-

  5     Towards    transportation of             25,000/-
        dead body, cremation and
        obsequies ceremonies
                    TOTAL                      43,55,000/-

8. In so far as the claimant in MVC No.232/2015

is concerned, in the absence of medical records, the

Tribunal considering the nature of injuries sustained by

him, awarded the global compensation of Rs.8,000/-.

9. The Tribunal directed the insurer of the

offending vehicle to pay the compensation determined by

it to the respective claimant/s along with interest at 7.5%

per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date

of realisation.

10. The insurer, feeling aggrieved by the liability

saddled upon it to pay the compensation as well as the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has

filed appeals, MFA Nos.1075, 1076 and 1077 of 2017. The

claimants in MVC 231/15 and MVC 230/15 have also filed

appeals, MFA Nos.3657/2016 and 3658/2016 respectively

for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal.

11. The learned counsel for the insurer contended

that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of

the driver of the car as is evident from Ex-R1 (sketch of

the spot of the accident). The learned counsel invited the

attention of the Court to the deposition of PW.3, who

stated that the car was moving on the left side of the road

from Belur to Hassan and on seeing the offending lorry

coming from the opposite side, the car driver moved the

car to the opposite lane and dashed against the offending

vehicle. Thus, he contended that the Tribunal ought to

have held that the driver of the car was negligent and had

contributed to the accident. He also contended that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive more

particularly towards loss of love and affection and the

interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum was

unjustified.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

claimants brought to our attention Ex-R1 and contended

that the road width at the place of the accident was 25 feet

and curved towards Hassan. He claimed that the driver of

the offending vehicle who was dangerously negotiating the

curve from the opposite direction, came onto the right

lane. Thus, the driver of the car to avoid the offending

vehicle went onto the right lane but the driver of the

offending vehicle ended up dashing against the car. The

learned counsel contended that if the driver of the car had

not done that then there would have been more casualties.

He therefore contended that the driver of the car was not

negligent and the driver of the offending vehicle was solely

responsible for the accident. He contended that the

jurisdictional police after conducting their investigation had

filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending

vehicle. Thus, there was no doubt that the driver of the

offending vehicle was guilty of negligence.

13. In so far as the claim for enhancement of

compensation is concerned, they claimed that the Tribunal

failed to consider that the deceased Smt.Shwetha had

completed bachelor of Engineering as per her provisional

Degree certificate (Ex.P11) and that she was a Director of

M/s.Shirdi Pharmaceutical Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. as per Ex-

P12. He also contended that the Tribunal did not accept

the income tax returns filed for the assessment year 2014-

15 filed on 04-11-2014 which indicated her gross income

at Rs.10,00,000/- per annum. He also contended that the

Tribunal failed to award loss of future prospects in respect

of the deceased Smt.Padma.

14. We have thoughtfully considered the

arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the

parties and we have perused the records of the Tribunal as

well as its Judgment and award.

15. It is seen from the records that the offending

vehicle was moving from Hassan to Belur while the car was

moving from Belur to Hassan. It is seen from Ex.P3 and

Ex.R1 that the width of the road was 25 feet and the road

curved towards Hassan. The accident occurred at 5:15

p.m. The offending vehicle is a ten wheeler transport

vehicle which was negotiating the curve and gives an

impression that due to its length, the driver came onto

the right lane and the driver of the car attempted to avert

an accident by straying away from his lane onto the right

lane. This is also the evidence of PW.3. However, the

offending lorry still dashed against the car which resulted

in the accident. It is the rule of the road that a driver

negotiating a curve should do so cautiously and should try

to be within his lane by cutting down the speed. However,

having regard to the type of the offending vehicle, it is

quite probable that the accident has occurred due to the

negligence on the part of the driver of the offending

vehicle. The insurer who alleged actionable negligence

ought to have examined the driver of the offending

vehicle, since the burden to prove the alleged contributory

negligence was upon the insurer as held by the Apex Court

in the case of MANGLA RAM vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE

CO. LTD. [2018(5) SCC 656]. Further, the documents

prepared by the police, more particularly the sketch cannot

be relied upon to determine the question of contributory

negligence as the vehicles could have moved either due to

impact or by the parties themselves, as held by the Apex

Court in the cases of MINUROUT vs. SATYA

PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA, [(2013) 10 SCC 695] AND

SARALA DEVI VS. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE

INSURANCE CO. LTD., [(2014) 15 SCC 450]. Thus, in

the absence of any material proof of contributory

negligence alleged by the insurer, this contention is liable

to be rejected.

16. In so far as the claim for compensation is

concerned, the deceased Smt.Shwetha was a software

engineer which is evident from Ex.P11. It is also found that

she was a Director in a Private Limited Company. However,

except the income tax returns that was filed on

04-11-2014 which was subsequent to the accident, no

material is placed on record to prove the income of the

deceased. PW.3 deposed that the deceased was a software

Engineer at M/s.Tata Consultancy Services but he failed to

produce any evidence in that regard. Though, this Court

has all the sympathy for the claimants, yet this Court

cannot fancifully award compensation without the

claimants furnishing proof of income. It is not that it is

impossible for the claimants to furnish proof of income of

the deceased. They could have placed on record the bank

statement to show the salary received by the deceased

from M/s.Tata Consultancy Services or they could have

placed on record her income tax returns filed for the

assessment year prior to 2014-15. The Tribunal thus

considered the notional income of the deceased at a sum

of Rs.20,000/- per month and factored 50% of her income

as the loss of future prospects and after deducting 1/3rd

towards her living expenses, had awarded the

compensation. However, the Tribunal ought to have

considered that the deceased had completed her

Engineering degree in the year 2006 and therefore, the

deceased must have gained experience in the field. The

notional income prescribed by the Karnataka State Legal

Services Authority in respect of persons who do not have

any proof of income and who died or who were injured in

the year 2014 is a sum of Rs.8,500/-. Thus taking into

account the educational qualification and the work

experience that the deceased possessed as well as her

status as a Director of a Company, the notional income of

the deceased can be considered at a sum of Rs.30,000/-

per month. Since she was less than 30 years of age, the

loss of future prospects could be considered at 40%

(Rs.30,000/- + Rs.12,000/-) of her actual income and

after deducting 1/3rd (Rs.42,000/- - Rs.14,000/-) towards

her personal expenses, which would amount to a sum of

Rs.28,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants in MVC

No.231/2015 are entitled to the following compensation

including the loss of spousal consortium and loss of

parental consortium as held by the Apex Court in the case

of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram

Alias Chuhru Ram [2018 (18) SCC 130] and in the case

of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur

@ Satwinder Kaur and others [2020 SCC OnLine SC

410].

  Heads of compensation in MVC Amount                      in
  No.231 of 2015/ MFA 3657of Rupees

  Loss of dependency                   57,12,000/-
  Rs.28,000/-x 12 x 17
  Loss of spousal consortium in           40,000/-
  respect of claimant no.1
  Loss of parental love and affection     40,000/-
  in respect of claimant no.2
  Loss of estate                         15,000/-
  Funeral and obsequies                  15,000/-
               Total                  58,22,000/-

17. In so far as the claimants in MVC No.230/15 -

appellants in MFA No.3658/2016 are concerned, the

Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards

loss of future prospects at 10% of the notional income of

the deceased Smt.Padma and must have awarded

compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of

parental love and affection as per the judgments of the

Apex Court in cases of Magma General Insurance

Company Limited and Satvinder Kaur referred supra.

However, the Tribunal erred in awarding excess

compensation towards loss of love and affection. Hence

these claimants are entitled to the following compensation:

Heads of compensation in MVC Amount in No.230 of 2015 / MFA No.3658 Rupees of 2016 Loss of dependency 5,72,052/-

Rs.5000/-+10% of Rs.5000/- = Rs.5500/-and after deducting 1/3rd of the same Rs.3667/-x 12 x 13 Loss of spousal consortium in 40,000/-

respect of claimant no.1 Loss of parental love and affection 40,000/-

in respect of claimant no.2
Loss of estate                        15,000/-
Funeral and obsequies                 15,000/-
         Total                      6,82,052/-

18. The Tribunal had awarded interest on the

compensation awarded to claimant/s at the rate of 7.5 %

per annum from the date of claim petition/s till realisation.

However, it is noticed that the rates of interest offered by

nationalized banks on fixed deposits during the year 2014

was 7% and this Court as well as the Apex Court has

awarded interest at 7% per annum. Hence it is appropriate

that in this case too, the interest of awarded at 7% per

annum.

19. In view of our findings recorded herein above,

the appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.3657/2016 is

allowed in part and the impugned Judgment and award

passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.231/2015 is modified

and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

enhanced to a sum of Rs.58,22,000/- (Fifty Eight Lakhs

Twenty Two Thousand Rupees only) which is payable by

the insurer of the offending vehicle to the claimants along

with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim

petition till the date of realisation.

20. MFA No.1076/2017 filed by the insurer of the

offending vehicle is allowed in part and the impugned

Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC

No.230/2015 is modified and the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal is reduced to a sum of Rs.6,82,052/- (Six

Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand and Fifty Two Rupees only)

which is payable by the insurer of the offending vehicle to

the claimants along with interest at 7% per annum from

the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation.

Consequently, MFA No.3658/2016 filed by the claimants in

MVC No.230/2015 is dismissed.

21. MFA Nos.1075/2017 and 1077/2017 filed by

the insurer are dismissed.

22. In vie w of the finding that the driver of the

offending vehicle was negligent and was responsible for

the accident, the compensation of a sum of Rs.8,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.232/2015 which is

questioned in MFA No.1077/2017 does not survive for

consideration and is also not maintainable in view of

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Hence MFA

No.1077/2017 is dismissed.

23. The insurer shall deposit the enhanced

compensation along with interest as ordered by this Court

in MFA No.3657/2016, within one month from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment. On such

deposit, the enhanced compensation shall be apportioned

amongst the claimants in the same ratio as ordered by

the Tribunal in MVC No.231/2015.

24. The amount in deposit by the insurer in MFA

Nos.1075/2017, 1076/2017 and 1077/2017 shall be

transferred to the Tribunal for necessary orders.

25. In view of disposal of these appeals, pending

applications do not survive for consideration and the same

stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

sma