Karnataka High Court

Shriram General vs Sathish V on 12 July, 2022

Bench: J.M.Khazi

                               1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
                           BEFORE
              THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

                M.F.A.NO.6113 OF 2016 (MV)
                           C/W
                M.F.A.NO.5422 OF 2016 (MV)

IN M.F.A.NO.6113 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

SRI SATHISH V
S/O VENKASHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O NO.79,
URIGILI VILLAGE,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 101
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     SRI MUNI KRISHNA
       S/O MUNI NANJAPPA,
       MAJOR,
       R/AT NO.1, 1ST CROSS,
       KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT,
       AMRUTHAHALLI,
       BENGALURU - 560 092

2.     SRI KUMAR
       S/O HANUMAIAH
       RESIDENT OF NO.105,
       RAMANAGARAM
       BENGALURU RURAL-571 511
                            2


3.   THE MANAGER
     SRIRAMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
     # NO.302, 3RD FLOOR,
     SS CORNER COMPLEX,
     OPPOSITE TO BOWRING HOSPITAL,
     SHIVAJINAGAR - 01
     BENGALURU
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    V/O/DTD 26.02.2019, R1 & R2 ARE
    NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)


     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO MODIFY AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
AWARDED IN JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.06.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.5707 OF 2013 BY THE HON'BLE SMALL
CAUSES AND MACT, AT BENGALURU (CCH-16); ALLOW THIS
APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.

IN M.F.A.NO.5422 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

SHRIRAM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTED,
NO.302, 3RD FLOOR,
S S CORNER COMPLEX,
OPP TO BOWRING HOSPITAL,
SHIVAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 002
BY
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5/4, 3RD CROSS, S V ARCADE,
BELAKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OPP BANNERAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
II M B POST, BENGALURU - 560 076
BY ITS MANAGER
                                          ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
                               3


AND:

1.     SATHISH V
       AGE 35 YEAR,
       S/O VENKATASHAMAPPA,
       R/O NO.79, URIGILLI VILLAGE,
       KOLARA TALUK,
       KOLARA DISTRICT - 563 101

2.     MUNI KRISHNA
       MAJOR,
       S/O MUNI NANJAPPA,
       NO.1, 1ST CROSS,
       KRISHNA LAYOUT,
       AMRUTHAHALLI,
       BENGALURU - 560 092

3.     KUMAR K H
       MAJOR,
       S/O HANUMAIAH,
       NO.105, KEMPANAHALLI,
       RAMANAGARAM,
       BANGALORE RURAL - 571 511
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
    V/O/DTD 07.06.2017, R2 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT;
    V/O/DTD 14.06.2018, R3 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)


     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.06.2016 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN MVC NO.5707 OF 2013 WITH
COSTS IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
     THESE MFAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
17.03.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  4


                        JUDGMENT

These two appeals are arising out of judgment and award

dated 06.06.2016 in MVC.No.5707/2013, whereby the claim

petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part granting

compensation in a sum of Rs.6,91,885/- with interest at 9% p.a.

and directing respondent No.3 - Insurance company to pay the

same.

2. While MFA.No.6113/2016 is filed by the petitioner

seeking enhancement. MFA.No.5422/2016 is filed by respondent

No.3 challenging the quantum as on the higher side.

3. Since these two appeals are arising out of the same

judgment and award they are clubbed together and disposed of

by a common judgment.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to by their rank before the Tribunal.

5. FACTS: Brief facts leading to the filing of the petiiton

are that on 16.09.2013 at about 9.30 a.m., petitioner was

travelling in car bearing registration No.KA-07-A-2247 along with

driver Shashikumar. It was driven by driver Shashi Kumar slowly

and cautiously. They were proceeding on Bengaluru-Kolar NH-4

from Bengaluru towards Kolar. When they reached Mylapura

Gate, lorry bearing registration No.KA-40-1480 (hereinafter

referred to as offending vehicle), was proceeding in front of

petitioner's car, driven by its driver in a rash or negligent

manner. Since the driver of the offending vehicle negligently

applied brake and stirred the same towards right side without

any indicator, accident occurred. In the said accident, petitioner

sustained grievous injuries.

5.1 Immediately, he was shifted to MVJ Hospital,

Hoskote and after first aid, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital.

Though he had undergone prolonged treatment, petitioner is not

completely cured. He has spent more than Rs.4,50,000/- for

treatment and Rs.50,000/- for conveyance and other incidental

expenses. His car is completely damaged.

5.2 At the time of accident, the petitioner was working

as an Electrician. He was aged 32 years and earning Rs.15,000/-

p.m. After the accident, he is unable to work as he used to and

as such suffering loss of income. In respect of the accident, a

case is registered in Cr.No.398/2013 against the driver of the

offending vehicle. As the owners and insurer, respondents are

jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

6. Inspite of due service of notice, respondent Nos.1

and 2 have remained absent and they are placed Ex-parte.

7. Respondent No.3 has appeared through counsel and

filed written statement denying that accident occurred due to

rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.

Though respondent No.3 admits the issue of policy, its liability is

subject to its terms and conditions. At the time of accident, the

driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and

effective driving license.

7.1 Inter-alia respondent No.3 has pleaded that it was

the driver of the car who was negligent and dashed against the

rear portion of the offending vehicle. Since the car in which

petitioner was travelling is having comprehensive policy,

petitioner has already claimed damages from his own insurer.

The owner and insurer of the car are also necessary parties. The

compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and without any basis

and has sought for dismissal of the petition.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

issues.

9. On behalf of petitioner, three witnesses are

examined as PWs-1 to 3 including the petitioner and Ex.P1 to 56

are marked.

10. Respondent No.1 has examined himself as RW-1 and

got marked Ex.R1. On behalf of respondent No.3 RWs-2 to 4 are

examined and Ex.R2 to 8 are marked.

11. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted

compensation in a sum of Rs.6,91,885/- including damage to the

car and directed respondent No.3 to pay the same with interest

at 9% p.a. The details of compensation granted are as under:

                    Heads                         Amount
                                                   In Rs.
    Pain and sufferings                                   50,000
    Attendant charges, extra nutritious                    6,000
    food and conveyance expenses
    Medical expenses                                    2,23,125
    Loss of income during laid of period                  18,000
    Loss of future income due to                        1,49,760
    permanent disability
    Loss of future amenities and                          20,000
    happiness
    Future medical expenses                                50,000
    Damages sustained to the car                         1,75,000
    TOTAL                                               6,91,885

12. Petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment

and award contending that the compensation granted under

various heads is on lower side and requires enhancement.

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing

respondent No.3 argued that at the time of accident petitioner

himself was driving the car and as such he is not entitled to

claim compensation for his own negligence. The insurer of the

car is also necessary party. Under Section 235 of the Karnataka

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the petitioner was under obligation

to call upon the owner/driver of the vehicles to produce any

evidence they may wish to tender on the issue of negligence as

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S.Mylarappa and

others.1

14. He would further submit that the Tribunal has not

appreciated the evidence placed on record in proper perspective,

as it has failed to appreciate the fact that the nature of injury

sustained by the petitioner are possible only if he was driving the

car. The very fact that the alleged driver of the car has not

2008 ACJ 1964

suffered any injury goes to show that he was not driving the car

and on the other hand, it was the petitioner who was driving the

car. The IMV report, wound certificate and photographs at Ex.P4,

5 and 37 to 54 are contrary to the case put forth by the

petitioner. Had the petitioner maintained safe distance from the

offending vehicle, he would have avoided the accident. The

Tribunal has erred in granting compensation in a sum of

Rs.2,23,125/- towards medical expenses in the absence of any

proper evidence.

15. Heard the arguments and perused the records.

16. Thus, while petitioner has challenged the impugned

judgment and award contending that the compensation granted

under all the heads is on the lower side and requires

enhancement, respondent No.3 has taken up a specific

contention that at the time of accident, it was the petitioner who

was driving his car, in rash or negligent manner and dashed

against the offending vehicle and as such respondent No.3 is not

liable to pay the compensation.

17. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the

petitioner that at the time of accident his driver Shashikumar

was driving the car and in the said accident, he was also injured.

Therefore, before considering the appeal filed by the petitioner

for enhancement, it is necessary to examine whether petitioner

has proved that the car was being driven by Shashikumar and he

was also injured.

18. It is relevant to note that even though the

petitioner's car was covered by a valid policy, he has not claimed

any compensation under own damages with regard to the

damage sustained by the car. On the other hand, his entire claim

is against the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the offending

vehicle. In the light of this, it is to be examined whether the

petitioner has proved that his car was being driven by

Shashikumar and if he fails to establish the said fact then as to

why he has taken up a specific contention that he was not the

one who was driving his car, especially when he is not having

any claim against the insurer of the car. Anyhow, whether the

car was driven by the petitioner himself or his driver, it is

necessary to examine whether there was any contributory

negligence on the part of the driver of the car in causing the

accident.

19. It is pertinent to note that in the claim petition as

well as during the course of his examination-in-chief affidavit,

though petitioner has pleaded and deposed that the car was

being driven by his driver Shashikumar, he has not pleaded and

deposed whether in the said accident, Shashikumar was injured

and whether he was also shifted to the hospital. The concerned

police have recorded the statement of Shashikumar and based

on it, they have registered the criminal case against respondent

No.1, who is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. The

complaint is marked as Ex.P2.

20. In the complaint, there is an endorsement by the

Medical Officer that the statement was recorded in his presence.

There is also an endorsement by the concerned ASI that he has

recorded the statement of the injured at the hospital and based

on it, he has registered the case. However, the petitioner has

not chosen to produce any medical records pertaining to

Shashikumar to show that he was admitted to MVJ Hospital and

took treatment. Ex.P24, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44 and other

photographs of the damaged car goes to show that though the

front portion of the car was damaged, the portion towards the

driver seat is more extensively damaged than compared to the

front passenger seat. In that case Shashikumar, who was said to

have been driving the car at the time of accident must have

been injured extensively.

21. It is also relevant to note that petitioner has suffered

severe injuries on his face and other parts of the body and in

fact PW-3 Dr.Sunil Kumar has deposed that he has suffered 40%

disability so far as the particular limb is concerned. If as a

passenger, sitting in the front passenger seat of the car,

petitioner could sustain so many severe injuries, certainly,

Shashikumar who was allegedly driving the car might have

sustained more severe injuries. For reasons best known to him,

petitioner has not chosen to either examine Shashikumar before

the Court or produce at least medical records pertaining to him

to show that he was also injured in the accident and took

treatment.

22. Admittedly, the said Shashikumar has not made any

claim for compensation or at least petitioner has not produced

any document to show that he has also sustained injuries and

claimed compensation. During the course of his evidence,

respondent No.2 who is examined as RW-1 has specifically

deposed that after the car hit the back portion of his lorry he

stopped the lorry and got down and found that petitioner was in

the driver seat and he i.e. RW-1 with the help of other public

removed the petitioner from the driving seat and shifted him to

the hospital. In the light of his evidence, the least the petitioner

would have done is to examine the said Shashikumar and also

produce medical records pertaining to him to show that in the

said accident, Shashikumar was driving the car and he was also

injured and took treatment.

23. During his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that

he is not ready to examine Shashikumar, as he has left the job.

Shashikumar might have left the job, but there was no

impediment for the petitioner to examine him. If the said

Shashikumar is not ready to come forward to give evidence, he

could have summoned him through Court. For reasons best

known to him petitioner has kept behind the said Shashikumar.

In the absence of his oral testimony and also the medical records

to corroborate the say of the petitioner that Shashikumar was

driving the vehicle and was injured, I find the case of the

petitioner and his testimony so far as Shashikumar being the

driver of the offending vehicle is not reliable and trustworthy.

Therefore, I hold that the petitioner has failed to establish that

Shashikumar was the driver of the car when the accident took

place and he was also injured in the said accident.

24. As already discussed, whether it was the petitioner

or Shashikumar, who was driving the car does not assume

importance as petitioner is not claiming any compensation from

the insurer of the car. This fact also doesn't assume importance

as the petitioner has failed to establish that either himself or

Shashikumar were holding a valid driving license at the time of

accident.

25. Now coming to the question whether the entire

negligence is on the part of respondent No.1 or the driver of the

car has also contributed towards the accident.

26. It is the definite case of the petitioner that at the

time of accident the offending vehicle was proceeding in front of

the car and suddenly the driver of the offending vehicle i.e

respondent No.1 applied brake and without giving any indicator

suddenly turned it to right and therefore the car which was

proceeding behind it hit the back portion of the lorry resulting in

the accident. On this aspect RW-1 has specifically deposed that

at the time of accident, he was not at all going towards right side

and therefore, there was no necessity for him to put on indicator

and it was the driver of the car who was rash or negligent and

dashed against the lorry.

27. On this aspect during his cross-examination PW-1

has stated that the distance between offending vehicle and his

car was about 25 ft. If the driver of the car had maintained the

distance of 25 ft, certainly when respondent No.1 allegedly

applied brake abruptly and stirred his vehicle towards right side,

the driver of the car would have been able to apply brake and

prevent the car from colliding with the offending vehicle. The

very fact that he was not able to do so goes to show that he had

not maintained the requisite distance from the offending vehicle

as required under Regulation 23 of the Rules of Road Regulation

1989. This regulation requires that driver of a motor vehicle

moving behind another vehicle shall keep a sufficient distance

from that another vehicle to avoid collision, if the vehicle in front

should suddenly slow down or stop.

28. The very fact that the driver of the car was not able

to prevent collision, even when it is accepted that the driver of

the offending vehicle suddenly applied brake goes to show that

the driver of the car did not maintain the requisite distance and

therefore, he has also contributed towards the accident. It is

true that the concerned police have registered case against the

driver of the offending vehicle which is bigger vehicle based on

the complaint of Shashikumar. The very fact that the said

Shashikumar has been kept back by the petitioner and failed to

produce his medical records goes to show that the said

Shashikumar was not at all present in the car and the petitioner

was at fault. Therefore, taking into consideration the conduct of

the petitioner and the evidence placed on record, I hold that the

petitioner has contributed 50% negligence in the accident and

therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 3 being the owner-cum-driver

and insurer of the offending vehicle are responsible for payment

of compensation only to the extent of 50%. To this extent, the

appeal filed respondent No.3 succeeds.

29. Now coming to the quantum of compensation which

the petitioner is entitled under the following heads for the

injuries sustained by him in the accident in question and also

damage caused to his car.

30. Pain and suffering: As rightly observed by the

Tribunal and as evident from the wound certificate at Ex.P5,

discharge summary of Manipal Hospital at Ex.P7 coupled with the

evidence of PW-3 Dr.Sunil Kumar, petitioner has sustained facial

fracture with right orbital blow out fracture, bilateral Le Fort I

fracture NM and ZM buttresses fractured. He has also sustained

loose upper central right incisor and broken all other upper

incisors. As per the discharge summary he has sustained

comminuted anterior wall of maxillary sinuses fractures,

frontonasal fractures, Right infraorbital margin and orbital floor

fracture with entrapment of orbital fat, Right radial styloid

process fracture. He has undergone arch bar application, ORIF

facial fractures and orbital floor reconstruction under GA on

19.09.2013 and he was discharged with an advice of follow-up

treatment. PW-3 has deposed that due to the infraorbital injury,

the sensation of cheek was reduced and there is watering from

right eye with double vision. He has also lost 4 upper teeth and

fixed with artificial teeth. The Tribunal has granted compensation

in a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head pain and suffering.

However, looking to the extensive injury suffered by the

petitioner and prolonged treatment and also the fact that these

injuries have resulted permanent partial disability, I am of the

considered opinion, petitioner is entitled for compensation in a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering.

31. Food, nourishment and conveyance: The Tribunal

has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.6,000/- under this

head. However, having regard to the extensive injury suffered

by the petitioner, it would be reasonable to expect that he was

under treatment for a period of three months. Especially having

regard to the fact that petitioner has sustained injuries with

regard to his face and teeth, it would be reasonable to expect

that he was under liquid diet for a long time. Taking into

consideration these aspects, I hold that petitioner is entitled for

compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- under this head.

32. Medical expenses: Based on the medical bills, the

Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.2,23,125/-

and I find no reason to interfere with the same.

33. Loss of amenities: The Tribunal has granted

compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head.

However, looking to the nature of injury suffered by the

petitioner, the permanent partial disability sustained by him, I

am of the considered opinion that petitioner is entitled for

compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- under this head as

against Rs.20,000/- granted by the Tribunal.

34. Future medical expenses: Petitioner has claimed that

he requires Rs.3,00,000/- for further treatment. Even though the

incident has taken place on 16.09.2013 and the petition came to

be disposed of on 06.06.2016 i.e., even after expiry of nearly 2

½ years, petitioner has not chosen to get any further treatment.

However, looking to the nature of injury suffered by him, the

Tribunal has rightly granted compensation in a sum of

Rs.50,000/- under the head future medical expenses and I find

no reason to interfere with the same.

35. Compensation under the head laid up period: Though

the petitioner has claimed that before the accident, he was an

electrician he was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m, he has not produced

any evidence to establish the said fact. In fact cross-examination

reveal that he is not at all a trained electrician. He is not having

any educational qualification to do the electrician work. In the

absence of any documentary evidence and having regard to the

fact that the accident is of the year 2013, the Tribunal has

rightly taken his notional income at Rs.6,000/-. As noted earlier,

looking to the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner, it

would be reasonable to hold that he was under treatment for a

period of 3 months. Therefore, at the rate of Rs.6,000/- p.m,

petitioner is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.18,000/-

under the head loss of income during laid up period and I find no

reason to interfere with the compensation granted under this

head by the Tribunal.

36. Loss of future earnings due to permanent disability:

During the course of cross-objection, PW-3 Dr.Sunil Kumar has

deposed that according to him the disability suffered by the

petitioner is 45 % of the particular limb i.e., face and his whole

body disability is at 15%. However, the Tribunal has considered

the whole body disability at 13%. I am of the considered opinion

that based on the evidence of PW-3, it should be taken as 15%.

It is pertinent to note that the disability suffered by the

petitioner has not affected his earning capacity, though the

petitioner has deposed that after the accident he is not doing the

said work. His capacity to do the electric work is not affected by

the injury suffered by him and therefore it cannot be accepted

that his functional disability is more than 50% or 100% as

claimed by him.

29.1 As per the medical records at the time of accident,

petitioner was aged 33 years and therefore 16 multiplier taken

by the Tribunal is correct. Though the Tribunal has considered

his notional income as Rs.6,000/- p.m it has not added loss of

future prospects. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd., case, for calculating

loss of earning capacity, loss of future prospects is required to be

taken into consideration. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Erudayapriya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation's

case, even in case of permanent partial disability, loss of future

prospects is required to be taken. As per the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd case,

since the petitioner was aged less than 40 years and was self-

employed, 40% of his income is required to be added to

calculate loss of future prospects. 40% of Rs.6,000/- comes to

Rs.2,400/- and therefore the loss of income comes to Rs.8,400/-

With the multiplier 16 and 15% whole body disability, the

compensation under the head loss of future income is 8,400 x 12

x 16 x 15% = Rs.2,14,920/- as against Rs.1,49,760/- granted

by the Tribunal.

37. Compensation towards damage to the car: PW-2 is

the surveyor and his report is at Ex.P36. The testimony of PWs-1

and 2 establish the fact that the Indica car was of the year 2013.

As per the survey report, PW-2 has assessed the damage at

Rs.3,80,354/- out of which Rs.56,700/- is the labour charges. As

admitted by PW-2, there is lot of difference between the damage

noted in IMV report and as per his survey. He has also admitted

that without opening all the components, only superficially he

has prepared the survey report. As per PW-2 engine was not

damaged and except radiator and A/c, the major repair work is

only tinkering. Based on the overall appreciation of evidence of

PW-2 coupled with documents and having regard to the fact that

petitioner has not actually got the vehicle repaired, the Tribunal

has rightly granted compensation in a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-

under this head and I find no reason to interfere with the same.

38. Thus, from the above discussion I hold that the

petitioner is entitled for total compensation in a sum of

Rs.8,56,045/- (rounded of to Rs.8,57,000/-) as against

Rs.6,91,885/- granted by the Tribunal.

                                     Amount granted      Amount granted
                Heads                by the Tribunal      by this Court
                                          In Rs.             In Rs.
   Pain and sufferings                         50,000            1,00,000
   Attendant charges, extra                      6,000             25,000
   nutritious food and conveyance
   expenses
   Medical expenses                          2,23,125           2,23,125
   Loss of income during laid of               18,000             18,000
   period
   Loss of future income due to              1,49,760           2,14,920
   permanent disability
   Loss of future amenities and                20,000              50,000
   happiness
   Future medical expenses                     50,000            50,000
   Damages sustained to the car              1,75,000          1,75,000
   TOTAL                                    6,91,885          8,56,045
                                                          Rounded of to
                                                              8,57,000

39. The Tribunal has granted the interest at the rate of

9% without any basis. As per the interest allowed by the

nationalized Banks, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. As the owner-cum-driver and

insurer of the offending vehicle, respondent Nos.1 and 3 are

liable to pay the compensation. Since the offending vehicle is

duly covered by valid policy, respondent No.3 is directed to pay

the compensation. As 50% of the negligence was attributed to

the driver of the car, petitioner is entitled for only 50% of the

compensation which comes to Rs.4,28,500/-. Even though the

petitioner has succeeded in getting the enhanced compensation,

having regard to the fact that 50% of the negligence is

attributed to the driver of the car, the compensation which he is

entitled is reduced to Rs.4,28,500/-. Accordingly, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

(a) MFA.No.5422/2016 filed by respondent No.3 and MFA.No.6113/2016 filed by the petitioner are allowed in part.

     (b)   Appellant/petitioner             is        entitled       for
           compensation         in   a    sum    of    Rs.8,56,045/-
           (rounded      of    to    Rs.8,57,000/-)       as     against

Rs.6,91,885/- granted by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization (minus the amount already paid/deposited).

(c) However, respondent No.3 is directed to pay compensation in a sum of Rs.4,28,500/- with

interest at 6% p.a. only being 50% of the total compensation awarded to the petitioner.

(d) The respondent No.3 Insurance company shall deposit 50% of the total compensation amount with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.