Karnataka High Court
Smt.Madhushree B.R. W/O ... vs Sri.Venkatesh P S/O Paarameshiva on 8 November, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08 T H DAY OF NOV EMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.J USTICE RAVI V .HOSMANI
M.F.A .NO.100907 OF 2020 (MV)
C/W
MFA NOS.100908/ 2020, 100909/ 2020,
100910/2020, 100911/2020,
100912/2020, 100913/2020, 100914/2020 &
MFA NO.100915/ 2020
IN M.F.A .NO.100907 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SMT.SOWMYA H.G. W/O SUNDRESH G.T.
AGE: 28 YEARS ,
OCC: TAILORIN G AND HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GANA PATHI HALLI ,
TQ: KADUR, DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU,
NOW @ VIDYA NA GAR,TQ: RANEBEN NUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...A PPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRA SHEKHAR M HOSA MANI, ADVOCAT E)
AND
1 . SRI.VENKATESH P S/O PAARAMESHIV A
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS WORK ,
R/O: #142, 4TH CROSS, SRINIVAS N AGAR,
S K 3RD STAGE, S BM COLONY,
BENGALURU- 560051,
(OWNER OF THE I NDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE CO.LTD.
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR,
2
HUBBALLI-580023,
(INSURER OF THE INDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
(POLI CY NOT E NO.0730013118P100483599)
(VALID FROM 10/04/2018 TO 09/04/ 2019)
...RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.S .S.J OSHI , ADV OCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173( 1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEA L BY ENHANCING
COMPENSATION F ROM RS.2,33,520/- TO RS.9,90,000/- BY
MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR DATED 23.12.2019 IN
MVC NO.1084/ 2018.
IN M.F.A.NO.100908 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SMT.THIMMAMMA W/O MANJAPPA B.
AGE: 42 YEARS , OCC: MILK VENDIN G AND
HOUSEHOLD W ORK,
R/O. B KAREHALLI VILLA GE, TQ: BRI RUR,
DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU,
NOW @ VIDYANAGAR, T Q: RANEBEN NUR,
DIST: HAVERI,
...A PPELLANT
(BY SRI.CHANDRA SHEKHAR M HOSA MANI, ADVOCAT E)
AND
1 . SRI.VENKATESH P S/O PAARAMESHIV A
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS WORK ,
R/O: #142, 4TH CROSS, SRINIVAS N AGAR,
S K 3RD STAGE, S BM COLONY,
BENGALURU- 560051,
(OWNER OF THE I NDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
3
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE CO.LTD.
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580023,
(INSURER OF THE INDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
(POLI CY NOT E NO.0730013118P100483599)
(VALID FROM 10/04/2018 TO 09/04/ 2019)
...RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.S .S.J OSHI , ADV OCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173( 1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEA L BY ENHANCING
COMPENSATION F ROM RS.1,91,280/- TO RS .10,00,000/- BY
MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR DATED 23.12.2019 IN
MVC NO.1085/ 2018.
IN M.F.A.NO.100909 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SRI.MANJAPPA
S/O.HAN UMANTA @ HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE : 47 YEARS,OCC : COOLI E W ORK
R/O : B.K .KAREHA LLI VILLAGE,T Q : BRIRUR,
DSIT : CHIKKARM AGALURU
NOW @ VIDYA NA GAR,TQ : RANEBENNUR
DIST : HAVERI
...A PPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRA SHEKHAR M HOSA MANI, ADVOCAT E)
AND
1 . SRI.VENKATESH.P S/O. PAARAMES HIVA
AGE : MAJOROCC : BUSINESS WORK ,
R/O : #142,4TH CROSS,SRINIVAS N AGAR,
S.K.3RD STA GE,SBM COLONY,
BENGALURU- 560 051
4
(OWNER OF THE I NDICA CAR BEARI NG REG.N O.KA- 41/A-
0462)
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE CO.LTD.,
ENKAY COMPLEX,K ESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580 023
(INSURER OF THE INDICA CAR BEARI NG REG.N O.KA-
41/A- 0462)
(POLI CY NO.T E N O.0730013118P100483599)
(VALID FROM .10.04.2018 T O 09.04.2019)
...RES PONDEN TS
(BY SRI.S .S.J OSHI , ADV OCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173( 1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEA L BY ENHANCING
COMPENSATION F ROM RS.1,91,280/- TO RS .10,00,000/- BY
MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR DATED 23.12.2019 IN
MVC NO.1086/ 2018.
IN M.F.A.NO.100910 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SRI.KIRANKUMAR V. S/ O V ENKATARAMU
AGE: 32 YEARS ,OCC: BUSIN ESS W ORK,
R/O: BEHIND NAN ASHANKARI TEMPLE,
TQ: KADUR,DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU,
NOW @ VIDYA NA GAR, 2ND CROSS,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI .
...A PPELLANT
(BY SRI.CHANDRA SHEKHAR M HOSA MANI, ADVOCAT E)
AND
1 . SRI.VENKATESH P S/O PAARAMESHIV A
AGE: MAJOR,OCC: BUSINESS WORK ,
R/O: #142, 4TH CROSS,SRINIVAS N AGAR,
5
S K 3RD STAGE,S BM COLONY,
BENGALURU- 560051,
(OWNER OF THE I NDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE CO. LTD .
ENKAY COMPLEX,K ESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580023,
(INSURER OF THE INDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
(POLI CY NOT E NO.0730013118P100483599)
(VALID FROM 10/04/2018 TO 09/04/ 2019)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S .S.J OSHI , ADV OCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173( 1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEA L BY ENHANCING
COMPENSATION F ROM RS.2,08,000/- TO RS.9,00,000/- BY
MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR DATED 23.12.2019 IN
MVC NO.322/ 2019.
IN M.F.A.NO.100911 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SMT.MADHUSHREE B.R. W/O KIRANKUMAR K.V .
AGE: 24 YEARS ,OCC: TAILORING W ORK,
R/O: RA GEEV GAN DHI BADAVANE,TQ: KADUR,
DIST CHIKKAMAGALURU,
NOW @ PAMPA NA GAR,2ND CROSS ,T Q: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...A PPELLANT
(BY SRI.CHANDRA SHEKHAR M HOSA MANI,ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SRI.VENKATESH P S/O PAARAMESHIV A
AGE: MAJOR,OCC: BUSINESS WORK ,
R/O: #142, 4TH CROSS, SRINIVAS N AGAR,
6
S K 3RD STAGE,S BM COLONY,
BENGALURU- 560051,
(OWNER OF THE I NDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE CO. LTD .
ENKAY COMPLEX,K ESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580023,
(INSURER OF THE INDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
(POLI CY NOT E NO.0730013118P100483599)
(VALID FROM 10/04/2018 TO 09/04/ 2019)
...RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.S .S.J OSHI , ADV OCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173( 1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEA L BY ENHANCING
COMPENSATION F ROM RS.2,34,000/- TO RS .10,00,000/- BY
MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR DATED 23.12.2019 IN
MVC NO.323/ 2019.
IN M.F .A.NO.100912 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SMT.SUSHEALAMM A W/O D. VENKAT ARAMU
AGE: 50 YEARS , OCC: TAILORING W ORK,
R/O: CHIKKAMAGALURU,
NOW @ PAMPA NA GAR, 3RD CROSS ,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...A PPELLANT
(BY SRI.CHANDRA SHEKHAR M HOSA MANI, ADVOCAT E)
AND
1 . SRI.VENKATESH P S/O PAARAMESHIV A
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS WORK ,
R/O: #142, 4TH CROSS, SRINIVAS N AGAR,
7
S K 3RD STAGE, S BM COLONY,
BENGALURU- 560051,
(OWNER OF THE I NDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE CO. LTD .
ENKAY COMPLEX,K ESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580023,
(INSURER OF THE INDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
(POLI CY NOT E NO.0730013118P100483599)
(VALID FROM 10/04/2018 TO 09/04/ 2019)
...RESPOND ENTS
(BY SRI.S .S.J OSHI , ADV OCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173( 1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEA L BY ENHANCING
COMPENSATION F ROM RS.1,49,000/- TO RS .10,20,000/- BY
MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR DATED 23.12.2019 IN
MVC NO.324/ 2019.
IN M.F.A.NO.100913 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SRI.RAMACHANDRA K R S/O K V RAN GASWAMY
AGE: 42 YEARS ,OCC: AGRI CULT URE WORK,
R/O: KADURHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KADUR,DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU,
NOW @ ASHOK NA GAR, 4TH CROSS ,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,DIST: HAVERI.
...A PPELLANT
(BY SRI.CHANDRA SHEKHAR M HOSA MANI, ADVOCAT E)
8
AND
1 . SRI.VENKATESH P S/O PAARAMESHIV A
AGE: MAJOR,OCC: BUSINESS WORK ,
R/O: #142, 4TH CROSS,
SRINIVAS NAGAR,
S K 3RD STAGE,S BM COLONY,
BENGALURU- 560051,
(OWNER OF THE I NDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE CO. LTD .
ENKAY COMPLEX,K ESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580023,
(INSURER OF THE INDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
(POLI CY NOT E NO.0730013118P100483599)
(VALID FROM 10/04/2018 TO 09/04/ 2019)
...RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.S .S.J OSHI , ADV OCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173( 1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEA L BY ENHANCING
COMPENSATION F ROM RS.1,88,400/- TO RS .09,80,000/- BY
MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR DATED 23.12.2019 IN
MVC NO.325/ 2019.
IN M.F.A.NO.100914 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SMT.CHANDANA W/O RAMACHANDRA
AGE: 37 YEARS ,OCC: TAILORING W ORK AND
MILK VENDING W ORK,
R/O: KADURHALLI VILLAGE,TQ: KAD UR,
DIST: CHIKKAMAGALURU,
NOW @ VIDYA NA GAR, 3RD CROSS ,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI .
...A PPELLANT
(BY SRI.CHANDRA SHEKHAR M HOSA MANI, ADVOCAT E)
9
AND
1 . SRI.VENKATESH P S/O PAARAMESHIV A,
AGE: MAJOR,OCC: BUSINESS WORK ,
R/O: #142, 4TH CROSS,SRINIVAS N AGAR,
S K 3RD STAGE,S BM COLONY,
BENGALURU- 560051,
(OWNER OF THE I NDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE CO. LTD .
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580023,
(INSURER OF THE INDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
(POLI CY NOT E NO.0730013118P100483599)
(VALID FROM 10/04/2018 TO 09/04/ 2019)
...RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.S .S.J OSHI , ADV OCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173( 1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEA L BY ENHANCING
COMPENSATION F ROM RS.2,23,000/- TO RS .09,90,000/- BY
MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR DATED 23.12.2019 IN
MVC NO.326/ 2019.
IN M.F.A.NO.100915 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SRI.CHIDANANDA S/O CHELUVARAJU
AGE: 24 YEARS ,OCC: PRIVATE W ORK ,
R/O: BHUVANAHALLI VILLA GE,TQ HA SSAN,
DIST: HASSAN,
NOW @ VIDYA NA GAR,4TH CROSS ,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI .
...A PPELLANT
(BY SRI.CHANDRA SHEKHAR M HOSA MANI, ADVOCAT E)
10
AND
1 . SRI.VENKATESH P S/O PAARAMESHIV A
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS WORK ,
R/O: #142, 4TH CROSS,SRINIVAS N AGAR,
S K 3RD STAGE,S BM COLONY,
BENGALURU- 560051,
(OWNER OF THE I NDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE CO. LTD .
ENKAY COMPLEX,K ESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580023,
(INSURER OF THE INDICA CAR BEARI NG
REG.N O.KA-41/A-0462)
(POLI CY NOT E NO.0730013118P100483599)
(VALID FROM 10/04/2018 TO 09/04/ 2019)
...RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.S .S.J OSHI , ADV OCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173( 1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEA L BY ENHANCING
COMPENSATION F ROM RS.2,28,520/- TO RS .10,10,000/- BY
MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF III ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JDUGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR DATED 23.12.2019 IN
MVC NO.327/ 2019.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT , D ELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
11
JUDGMENT
Challenging common judgment and separate awards
dated 23.12.2019 in MVC Nos.1084/2018, 1085/2018,
1086/2018 and MVC Nos.322, 323, 324, 325, 326,
327/2019 by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT,
Ranebennur, these appeals are filed.
2. Brief facts as stated are that on 04.07.2018,
claimants in MVC No.1084/2018 to 1086/2019 were
traveling towards Kadur from Ganapathihalli. Claimants in
MVC Nos. 322/2019 to 327/2019 were traveling towards
Arasikere in Maruti Omni car bearing Registration No.KA-
18/Z-0175. When vehicle came near Gadlehalli village on
NH 206, driver of Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-
41/A-0462 drove it in rash and negligent manner and
dashed to Maruthi Omni car. In the accident, claimants
sustained grievous injuries and they were admitted to
Shivamogga McGann hospital. Despite taking treatment,
they sustained physical disability and consequent loss of
earning capacity. Claiming compensation for same, claim
petitions were filed against owner and insurer of Indica
car under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Despite service of summons, respondent
No.1/owner did not appear and contest. He was placed
exparte. Respondent No.2/insurer filed objections
opposing claim petition on all counts. Violation of policy
conditions by insured as he allowed the vehicle to be
driven by a person not possessing valid licence and also
non-joinder of driver and insurer of Maruti Omni was
urged. Even negligence of Maruti Omni car driver was also
alleged. But, issuance of policy and its validity on the
date of accident was admitted.
4. As all claim petitions arose out of same
accident, they and were clubbed together, and common
issues were framed and evidence was recorded.
1. Whether the petitio n proves that, she has
sustaine d inj urie s in the road traffic accident
which had occurred on 04.07.2018, at about
12.15 hrs, near Gedle halli village on NH 206
road, on acco unt of rash and neglig ent driving of
Indica Car be aring RegistrationNo .KA41/A- 0462
by its drive r?
2. Whether the respo ndent No.2 proves for its
exoneration fro m the liability o n the gro unds
urge d in his writte n state ment?
3. Whether the pe titione r is entitled fo r
compensation? I f so, to claim compensation as
prayed for? If so, fro m who m? What is the
quantum? At what rate of inte rest?
4. What order or award?
5. Claimants examined themselves as PW1 to PW9.
They examined Dr. Umanath R.Ullal as PW10. Exhibits P.1
to P.60 were marked.
6. On behalf of respondent/insurer, RTO officer
was examined as RW-1 and administrative officer of
insurer was examined as RW-2. Exhibits R1 to R3 were
marked.
7. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1
in affirmative, issue no.2 in negative, issue no.3 partly in
affirmative and issue no.4 by allowing claim petitions and
awarded compensation as follows:
MVC NUMBERS TOTAL
COMPENSATION
(Rs.)
MVC No.1084/2018 2,33,520-00
MVC No.1085/2018 1,91,280-00
MVC No.1086/2018 1,91,280-00
MVC No.322/2019 2,08,000-00
MVC No.323/2019 2,34,000-00
MVC No.324/2019 1,49,000-00
MVC No.325/2019 1,88,400-00
MVC No.326/2019 2,23,000-00
MVC No.327/2019 2,28,520-00
Not satisfied with award, claimants are in appeal.
8. Sri.Chandrashekhar M. Hosamani, learned
counsel for claimants/appellants submits that though
claimants sustained fractures and grievous injuries,
Tribunal awarded meager compensation towards pain and
sufferings and towards loss of amenities. Monthly income
considered by Tribunal was at Rs.8,000/-, was on lower
side. Accident occurred during the year 2018.
Enhancement was also sought in compensation towards
loss of income during laid up period.
9. On other hand, Sri.S.S.Joshi, learned counsel
for respondent No.2/insurer supported the award and
opposed enhancement. It was submitted that on
consideration of evidence tribunal awarded sufficient
compensation to claimants and no enhancement was
called for.
10. From above submissions, occurrence of accident
due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Indica Car
is not in dispute. Claimants sustained injuries and
reduction in earning capacity is also not in dispute.
Tribunal passed awards against insurer. Insurer has not
questioned same. Therefore, liability of insurer to pay
compensation is also not in dispute. Claimants are seeking
for enhancement of compensation. Only point that arose
for consideration in these appeals is that
"Whethe r claimants are e ntitled fo r
enhance ment o f co mpensation as sought fo r?"
IN MFA No.100907/2020:
Claimant was 26 years of age and doing tailoring
apart from household work. She sustained injury on the
right shoulder and left leg region, fracture of right
humerus bone and left tibia and fibula. PW.10-Dr.Umanath
R. Ullal examined claimant and issued disability certificate
assessing limb disability at 40%. Tribunal considered loss
of earning capacity at 11.66%. Though, claimant has
stated that her monthly income was Rs.15,000/-. No
evidence was led to establish the same. In absence of
specific evidence, Tribunal was justified in taking notional
income. Notional income for the year 2018 is Rs.11,750/-
as per norms adopted by Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority for settlement of cases before Lok Adalath.
Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in taking notional
income at Rs.8,000/- per month. It has to be taken at
Rs.11,750/- instead.
As per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157,
multiplier applicable would be '17'. Considering limb
disability assessed by Doctor, by some approximation it
would be proper to consider loss of earning capacity at
12%. Therefore, loss of future income would be as
follows:
Rs.11,750/- X 12% X 12 X 17= Rs.2,87,640/-
Claimant sustained fracture of right humerus and left
tibia and fibula, which are grievous fractures. But,
Tribunal awarded sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and
suffering, which would be inadequate. It would be just
and proper to award compensation of Rs.50,000/-
instead. Claimant produced medical bills for sum of
Rs.5,000/- which was awarded by tribunal towards full
reimbursement. Hence, there is no scope for
enhancement.
PW.10 - doctor assessed limb disability of 40% due
to stiffness. Since claimant sustained three fractures and
as per opinion of PW10, she sustained disability, award of
Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities would be
inadequate. It would be just and proper to award
Rs.25,000/- instead.
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/-
towards loss of income during laid-up period. The
grievous fractures sustained would normally require more
than two months to heal. Claimant would have lost
income for at least three months. Therefore compensation
would be Rs.11,750/- x 3= Rs.35,250/-.
Tribunal has also awarded sum of Rs.16,000/-
towards food, diet and other incidental expenses
considering duration of inpatient treatment, same appears
adequate and no enhancement is called for. Thus,
claimant is warded compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1 Pain & Sufferings 45,000-00
2 Medical expenses 5,000-00
3 Loss of amenities 25,000-00
4 Loss of income 35,250-00
5 Future loss of income 2,87,640-00
6 Towards food, diet and 16,000-00
other incidental expenses
Total 4,13,890-00
Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above.
IN MFA NO.100908/2020
Claimant herein was a 46 years old house-wife and
milk vendor, sustained fracture of pelvic bone and left
tibia condyle bone. PW.10 - doctor on examination
assessed 40% disability to limb. Though claimant
asserted her monthly income as Rs.15,000/-, there is no
evidence to substantiate the same. Therefore notional
income of Rs.11,750/- taken above, is adopted for this
case also.
As per decision in Pranay Sethi's case (Supra)
multiplier applicable would be '13'. Considering disability
assessed by PW.10, by some approximation, it would be
proper to consider loss of earning capacity at 12%.
Therefore, loss of future income would be as
follows:
Rs.11,750/- X 12% X 12 X 13= Rs.2,19,960/-
Claimant sustained fracture of Pelvic bone and left
tibia condyle. Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain
and suffering as both fractures are grievous, it would
be just and proper to award compensation of
Rs.30,000/-. Claimant produced medical bills for sum of
Rs.5,000/-, which is awarded by tribunal towards full
reimbursement. Hence there is no scope for enhancement.
Taking disability assessed by PW.10, award of
Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities would be
inadequate. Awarding Rs.25,000/- under this head would
be just and proper.
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/-
towards loss of income during laid up period. Normally
grievous fracture, requires more than two months to heal.
Therefore, loss of income for three months is:
Rs.11,750 x 3= 35,250/- is awarded.
Tribunal has also awarded Rs.16,000/- towards
food, diet and other incidental expenses, which is
adequate and no enhancement is called for. Thus,
claimant is awarded following compensation:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1 Pain & Sufferings 30,000-00
2 Medical expenses 5,000-00
3 Loss of amenities 25,000-00
4 Loss of income during laid 35,250-00
up period.
5 Future loss of income 2,19,960-00
6 Towards food, diet and 16,000-00
other incidental expenses
Total 3,31,210-00
Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above.
IN MFA NO.100909/2020
Claimant was a collie, aged about 40 years,
sustained fracture of Pelvic bone and left tibia condyle.
PW.10 - doctor, who examined claimant, assessed limb
disability at 40%. Tribunal considered loss of earning
capacity at 11.66%. Claimant stated his monthly income
was Rs.15,000/-. But, there is no evidence to substantiate
the same. Hence, notional income at Rs.11,750/- is
taken. Loss of earning capacity assessed at 12%.
As per decision in Pranay Sethi's case (sppra)
multiplier applicable would be '15' and loss of future
income would be as follows:
Rs.11,750/- X 12% X 12 X 15= Rs.2,53,800/-
Claimant sustained fracture of Pelvic bone and left
tibia condyle, which are grievous in nature. But, Tribunal
awarded sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and
suffering, which would be inadequate. It would be just
and proper to award compensation of Rs.30,000/-
instead. Claimant produced medical bills for sum of
Rs.5,000/- which was awarded by Tribunal towards full
reimbursement. Hence, there is no scope for
enhancement.
PW.10-doctor assessed limb disability of 40% due
to stiffness. Since claimant sustained fractures and as per
opinion of PW10, he sustained disability, award of
Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities would be
inadequate. It would be just and proper to award
Rs.25,000/- instead.
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/-
towards loss of income during laid up period. The
grievous fractures sustained would normally require more
than two months to heal, claimant would have lost income
for at least three months. Therefore, compensation would
be Rs.11,750 x 3 = Rs.35,250/- is awarded.
Tribunal has also awarded sum of Rs.16,000/-
towards food, diet and other incidental expenses
considering duration of inpatient treatment, same appears
adequate and no enhancement is called for. Thus,
claimant is awarded compensation as follows.
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1 Pain & Sufferings 30,000-00
2 Medical expenses 5,000-00
3 Loss of amenities 25,000-00
4 Loss of income during laid 35,250-00
up period.
5 Future loss of income 2,53,800-00
6 Towards food, diet and 16,000-00
other incidental expenses
Total 3,65,050-00
Thus, claimant would be entitled for total
compensation of Rs.3,65,050/-. Point for consideration is
answered partly in affirmative as above.
IN MFA NO.100910/2020
Claimant herein was 30 years of age, doing business,
sustained fracture of left lateral mallelous bone and left
radius lower third. PW.10-doctor examined claimant and
issued disability certificate assessing disability at 35%.
Tribunal considered loss of earning capacity at 10%.
Though, claimant has stated that his monthly income was
Rs.20,000/-, no evidence was led to establish the same.
In absence of specific evidence, Tribunal was justified in
taking notional income. But notional income for the year
2018 is Rs.11,750/- as per norms adopted by Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority for settlement of cases
before Lok Adalath. Therefore, Tribunal was not justified
in taking income at Rs.8,000/- per month. It has to be
taken at Rs.11,750/- instead.
As per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157,
Multiplier applicable would be '17'. By considering limb
disability assessed by Doctor, some approximation would
be required, it would be proper to consider loss of earning
capacity at 12%.
Therefore, loss of future income would be as
follows:
Rs.11,750/- X 12% X 12 X 17= Rs.2,87,640/-
Claimant sustained fracture of left lateral mallelous
and left radius lower third. Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-
towards pain and suffering, which would be inadequate.
It would be just and proper to award compensation of
Rs.30,000/- instead. Claimant produced medical bills
for sum of Rs.5,000/- which was awarded by Tribunal
towards full reimbursement. Hence, there is no scope for
enhancement.
PW.10 - doctor assessed disability of 35% due to
stiffness. Since claimant sustained fractures and as per
opinion of PW10, he sustained disability, award of
Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities would be
inadequate. It would be just and proper to award
Rs.15,000/-instead.
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/-
towards loss of income during the laid up period. The
grievous fractures sustained would normally require more
than two months to heal. Claimant would have lost income
for at least three months. Therefore compensation would
be Rs.11,750 x 3= Rs.35,250/- is awarded.
Tribunal has also awarded Rs.16,000/- towards
food, diet and other incidental expenses considering
duration of inpatient treatment, same appears to be
adequate and no enhancement is called for. Thus,
claimant is awarded compensation as below:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1 Pain & Sufferings 30,000-00
2 Medical expenses 5,000-00
3 Loss of amenities 15,000-00
4 Loss of income during laid 35,250-00
up period.
5 Future loss of income 2,87,640-00
6 Towards food, diet and 16,000-00
other incidental expenses
Total 3,88,890-00
Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative as above.
IN MFA NO.100911/2020
Claimant was 22 years of age, doing tailoring apart
from household work. She sustained fracture of right
humerus and left tibial condyle. PW.10 - doctor examined
claimant and issued disability certificate assessing limb
disability at 40%. Tribunal considered loss of earning
capacity at 11.66%. Though, claimant has stated that her
monthly income was Rs.20,000/-, no evidence was led to
establish the same. In absence of specific evidence,
Tribunal has justified in taking notional income. Notional
income for the year 2018 is Rs.11,750/- as per norms
adopted by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for
settlement of cases before Lok Adalath. Therefore,
Tribunal was not justified in taking income at Rs.8,000/-
per month. It has to be taken at Rs.11,750/- instead.
As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157,
Multiplier applicable would be '18'. By applying '1/3' limb
disability formula since exact extent of earning capacity
cannot be measured, some approximation would be
required, it would be proper to consider loss of earning
capacity at 12%.
Therefore, loss of future income would be as
follows:
Rs.11,750/- X 12% X 12 X 18= Rs.3,04,560/-
Claimant has sustained fracture of right humerus and
left tibial condyle. Tribunal has awarded sum of
Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, since fracture
of humerus and fracture of left tibial condyle were both
grievous fractures, it would be just and proper to award
compensation of Rs.40,000/- instead. Claimant has
produced medical bills for Rs.5,000/-. Tribunal has
awarded the compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards full
reimbursement of medical bills, there is no scope for
enhancement.
PW.10 - doctor has assessed limb disability of 40%
due to stiffness, since claimant has sustained fractures
and as per opinion of PW.10, she sustained disability.
Award of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities would be
inadequate, awarding sum of Rs.25,000/- under this
head would be just and proper.
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/-
towards loss of income during the laid up period. Since
claimant has sustained grievous fractures, which normally
requires more than two months to heal, claimant would
have sustained loss of income for a period of at least
three months during period of treatment and recuperation
and loss of income during laid up period will be
Rs.11,750/- X 3= Rs.35,250/-.
Tribunal has also awarded sum of Rs.16,000/-
towards food, diet and other incidental expenses
considering duration of inpatient treatment, same appears
adequate and no enhancement is called for.
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1 Pain & Sufferings 40,000-00
2 Medical expenses 5,000-00
3 Loss of amenities 25,000-00
4 Loss of income during laid
up period. 35,250-00
5 Future loss of income 3,04,560-00
6 Towards food, diet and 16,000-00
other incidental expenses
Total 4,25,810-00
Hence, claimant would be entitled for total
compensation of Rs.4,25,810/- as against Rs.2,07,600/-
Point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
IN MFA NO.100912/2020
Claimant was 58 years of age, doing tailoring apart
from household work. She sustained fracture of Pelvic
bone and Right Ulna & radius bones. PW.10 - doctor, who
examined claimant issued disability certificate, assessing
limb disability at 40%. Tribunal considered the same as
loss of earning capacity at 11.66%. Though, claimant has
stated that her monthly income was Rs.20,000/- per
month, no evidence is led to substantiate same. In the
absence of specific evidence, Tribunal was justified it by
taking notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month. As per
notional income adopted by Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority for settlement of cases before Lok
Adalath, notional income for year 2018 is Rs.11,750/- per
month. Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in taking
income at Rs.8,000/- per month. It has to be taken at
Rs.11,750/- instead.
As per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC, multiplier
applicable would be '9'. By applying '1/3' limb disability,
since exact extent of earning capacity cannot be
measured, some approximation would be required, it
would be proper to consider loss of earning capacity at
12%.
Therefore, loss of future income would be as
follows:
Rs.11,750/- X 12% X 12 X 9= Rs.1,52,280/-
Claimant has sustained fracture of Pelvic bone and
right Ulna & Radius bones. Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-
towards pain and suffering, since fracture of humerus
and fracture of Pelvic bone and right ulna & Radius bones
were grievous fractures, it would be just and proper to
award compensation of Rs.40,000/- instead. Claimant
has produced medical bills for sum of Rs.5,000/-.
Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.5,000/-
towards full reimbursement of medical bills and there is
no scope for enhancement.
PW.10 - doctor assessed disability at 40%. He also
stated that claimant has stiffness, since she sustained
fractures and of the opinion that she sustained disability,
award of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities would be
inadequate, awarding Rs.25,000/- under this head would
be just and proper.
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/-
towards loss of income during the laid up period. Since
claimant has sustained grievous fractures, which normally
requires more than two months to heal, claimant would
have sustained loss of income for a period of at least
three months during period of treatment and recuperation
and loss of income during laid up period will be
Rs.11,750/-X 3= Rs.35,250/-.
Tribunal has also awarded Rs.16,000/- towards
food, diet and other incidental expenses considering
duration of inpatient treatment, same appears adequate
and no enhancement is called for.
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1 Pain & Sufferings 1,52,280-00
2 Medical expenses 40,000-00
3 Loss of amenities 5,000-00
4 Loss of income during laid 25,000-00
up period.
5 Future loss of income 35,250-00
6 Towards food, diet and 16,000-00
other incidental expenses
Total 2,73,530-00
Hence, claimant would be entitled for total
compensation of Rs.2,73,530/-. Point for consideration is
answered partly in affirmative.
IN MFA NO.100913/2020
Claimant was 40 years of age, doing agriculture. He
sustained fracture of left radius and Ulna bones. PW.10-
doctor, who examined claimant issued disability certificate
assessing disability at 35%. Tribunal considered same as
loss of earning capacity at 11.66%. Though, claimant has
stated that his monthly income was Rs.20,000/- per
month, no evidence is led to substantiate same. In
absence of specific evidence, Tribunal has justified it by
taking income on notional basis at Rs.8,000/- per month.
As per Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for
settlement of cases before Lok Adalath, notional income
for year 2018 is Rs.11,750/- per month. Therefore,
Tribunal was not justified in taking it at Rs.8,000/- per
month. It has to be taken at Rs.11,750/- instead.
As per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157,
multiplier applicable would be '15'. By applying '1/3'
limb disability formula since exact extent of earning
capacity cannot be measured, some approximation would
be required, it would be proper to consider loss of earning
capacity at 12%.
Therefore, loss of future income would be as
follows:
Rs.11,750/- X 12% X 12 X 15= Rs.2,53,800/-
Claimant has sustained fracture of left radius and
Ulna bones. Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain
and suffering, since fracture of left radius and ulna
bones were both grievous fractures, it would be just and
proper to award compensation of Rs.30,000/- instead.
Claimant has produced medical bills for sum of
Rs.5,000/-. Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.5,000/-
towards full reimbursement of medical bills, there is no
scope for enhancement.
PW.10 - doctor has assessed limb disability of 35%.
PW.10 has also stated that claimant has stiffness, since
he sustained fractures and as per his opinion, he
sustained disability. Award of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of
amenities would be inadequate, awarding Rs.15,000/-
under this head would be just and proper.
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/-
towards loss of income during the laid up period. Since
claimant has sustained grievous fractures, which normally
requires more than two months to heal, claimant would
have sustained loss of income for a period of at least
three months during period of treatment and recuperation
and loss of income during laid up period will be
Rs.11,750/- X 3= Rs.35,250/-.
Tribunal has also awarded Rs.16,000/- towards
food, diet and other incidental expenses. Considering
duration of inpatient treatment, same appears adequate
and no enhancement is called for.
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1 Pain & Sufferings 30,000-00
2 Medical expenses 5,000-00
3 Loss of amenities 15,000-00
4 Loss of income during laid 35,250-00
up period.
5 Future loss of income 2,53,800-00
6 Towards food, diet and 16,000-00
other incidental expenses
Total 3,55,050-00
Hence, claimant would be entitled for total
compensation of Rs.3,55,050/- as against
Rs.1,49,040/-. Point for consideration is answered partly
in affirmative.
IN MFA NO.100914/2020
The claimant was 35 years of age, doing tailoring
apart from household work. She sustained fracture of left
humerus bone middle third and right patella. PW.10-
doctor, who examined claimant and issued disability
certificate assessed limb disability at 40%. Tribunal
considered the same as loss of earning capacity at
11.66%. Though, claimant has stated that her monthly
income was Rs.20,000/- per month, no evidence is led to
substantiate same. In absence of specific evidence,
Tribunal has justified it by taking income on notional basis
at Rs.8,000/- per month. As per notional income adopted
by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for
settlement of cases before Lok Adalath, notional income
for the year 2018 is Rs.11,750/-. Therefore, Tribunal was
not justified in taking income at Rs.8,000/-. It has to be
taken at Rs.11,750/- instead.
As per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157,
Multiplier applicable would be '16'. By applying '1/3' limb
disability formula since exact extent of earning capacity
cannot be measured, some approximation would be
required, it would be proper to consider loss of earning
capacity at 12%.
Therefore, loss of future income would be as
follows:
Rs.11,750/- X 12%X 12 X 16= Rs.2,70,720/-
Claimant has sustained fracture of left humerus bone
middle third and fracture of right patella, Tribunal has
awarded sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering
since fracture of humerus and left tibia and fibula were
both grievous fractures, it would be just and proper to
award compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
Claimant has produced medical bills for sum of
Rs.5,000/-. Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards full
reimbursement of medical bills and there is no scope for
enhancement.
PW.10 doctor has assessed limb disability of 40%.
PW.10 has also stated that claimant has stiffness, since
claimant has sustained fractures and as per opinion of
PW10, she sustained disability. Award of Rs.5,000/-
towards amenities would be inadequate, awarding sum
of Rs.25,000/- under this head would be just and proper.
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/-
towards loss of income during the laid up period. Since
claimant has sustained grievous fractures, which normally
requires more than two months to heal, claimant would
have sustained loss of income for a period of at least
three months during period of treatment and recuperation
and loss of income during laid up period will be
Rs.11,750/- X 3= Rs.35,250/-.
Tribunal has also awarded sum of Rs.16,000/-
towards food, diet and other incidental expenses.
Considering duration of inpatient treatment, same appears
adequate and no enhancement is called for.
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1 Pain & Sufferings 50,000-00
2 Medical expenses 5,000-00
3 Loss of amenities 25,000-00
4 Loss of income during laid 35,250-00
up period.
5 Future loss of income 2,70,720-00
6 Towards food, diet and 16,000-00
other incidental expenses
Total 4,01,970-00
Claimant would be entitled for total compensation of
Rs.4,01,970/- as against Rs.1,49,040/-. Point for
consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
IN MFA NO.100915/2020
Claimant was a 22 years of age, a private worker. He
sustained fracture of left femoral condyle and left radium
upper third. PW.10 - doctor examined claimant and
issued disability certificate assessing disability of claimant
at 40%. Tribunal considered same as loss of earning
capacity at 11.66%. Though, claimant has stated that his
monthly income was Rs.20,000/- no evidence is led to
substantiate same. In absence of specific evidence,
Tribunal was justified in taking income at Rs.8,000/- per
month. As per notional income adopted by Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority for settlement of cases
before Lok Adalath, notional income for year 2018 is
Rs.11,750/- per month. Therefore, Tribunal was not
justified in taking income at Rs.8,000/- per month. It has
to be taken at Rs.11,750/- instead.
As per decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157,
multiplier applicable would be '18'. By applying '1/3'
limb disability formula since exact extent of earning
capacity cannot be measured, some approximation would
be required, it would be proper to consider loss of earning
capacity at 12%.
Therefore, loss of future income would be as
follows:
Rs.11,750/- X 12% X 12 X 18= Rs.3,04,560/-
Claimant sustained fracture of left femoral condyle
and left radius upper third. Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-
towards pain and suffering, since fracture of left
femoral condyle and left radium upper third were grievous
in nature, it would be just and proper to award
compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Claimant produced
medical bills for sum of Rs.5,000/-. Tribunal has paid
Rs.5,000/- towards full reimbursement of medical bills
and there is no scope for enhancement.
PW.10 - doctor assessed disability of 40%. PW.10
has also stated that claimant has stiffness, since he has
sustained fractures and as per opinion of PW10, he
sustained disability. Award of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of
amenities would be inadequate, awarding Rs.25,000/-
under this head would be just and proper.
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.8,000/-
towards loss of income during the laid up period. Since
claimant has sustained grievous fractures, which normally
requires more than two months to heal, claimant would
have sustained loss of income for a period of at least
three months during period of treatment and recuperation
and loss of income during laid up period will be
Rs.11,750/- X 3=Rs.35,250/-.
Tribunal has also awarded sum of Rs.16,000/-
towards food, diet and other incidental expenses
considering duration of inpatient treatment, same appears
adequate and no enhancement is called for.
Sl.No. Particulars Amount(Rs.)
1 Pain & Sufferings 40,000-00
2 Medical expenses 5,000-00
3 Loss of amenities 25,000-00
4 Loss of income during laid 35,250-00
up period.
5 Future loss of income 3,04,560-00
6 Towards food, diet and 16,000-00
other incidental expenses
Total 4,25,810-00
Claimant would be entitled for total compensation of
Rs.4,25,810/- as against Rs.1,49,040/-.
Point for consideration is answered partly in
affirmative.
11. In the result, I pass following:
ORDER
Appeals are allowed in part.
MVC CASE MFA NOS. TOTAL COMPENSATION
NUMBER COMPENSATION ENHANCED BY
AWARDED BY THIS COURT
TRIBUNAL (Rs.)
(Rs.)
N o. 1 0 8 4/ 2 0 1 8 1 0 0 9 0 7/ 2 0 2 0 2 ,3 3 , 5 2 0 - 0 0 4,13,890- 00
N o. 1 0 8 5/ 2 0 1 8 1 0 0 9 0 8/ 2 0 2 0 1 ,9 1 , 2 8 0 - 0 0 3,31,210- 00
N o. 1 0 8 6/ 2 0 1 8 1 0 0 9 0 9/ 2 0 2 0 1 ,9 1 , 2 8 0 - 0 0 3,65,050- 00
N o. 3 2 2/ 2 0 1 9 1 0 0 9 1 0/ 2 0 2 0 2 ,0 8 , 0 0 0 - 0 0 3,88,890- 00
N o. 3 2 3/ 2 0 1 9 1 0 0 9 1 1/ 2 0 2 0 2 ,3 4 , 0 0 0 - 0 0 4,25,810- 00
N o. 3 2 4/ 2 0 1 9 1 0 0 9 1 2/ 2 0 2 0 1 ,4 9 , 0 0 0 - 0 0 2,73,530- 00
N o. 3 2 5/ 2 0 1 9 1 0 0 9 1 3/ 2 0 2 0 1 ,8 8 , 4 0 0 - 0 0 3,55,050- 00
N o. 3 2 6/ 2 0 1 9 1 0 0 9 1 4/ 2 0 2 0 2 ,2 3 , 0 0 0 - 0 0 4,01,970- 00
N o. 3 2 7/ 2 0 1 9 1 0 0 9 1 5/ 2 0 2 0 2 ,2 8 , 5 2 0 - 0 0 4,25,810- 00
This Hon'ble Court in the case of
Rangappa and others Vs. B.L.
Mahalingappa and Another reported in
2004(1)KCCR 238(DB) and in MFA
No.1562/2001 held that rate of interest
applicable to award by Tribunal would be 6%.
Without disputing the same, interest
applicable on enhanced compensation would
be 6%.
Respondent/insurer is directed to
deposit the enhanced compensation amount
within six weeks.
On deposit of compensation, claimant
would be entitled to withdraw 50% of award
amount. Tribunal is directed to keep
remaining 50% in fixed deposit in any
nationlized bank initially for a period of three
years.
Claimants are at liberty to draw
periodical interest on fixed deposit.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
H MB
