Karnataka High Court

Manager Legal vs Smt Padmamma on 24 May, 2023

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                          -1-



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
                       BEFORE
 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7891 OF 2014 (MV-D)
                          C/W
 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2261 OF 2014 (MV)

IN MFA NO.7891 OF 2014:
BETWEEN:

1.   SMT.PADMAMMA
     W/O.LATE KRISHNAPPA
     NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

2.   SRI JAGADISH
     S/O.LATE KRISHNAPPA
     NOW AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

3.   SANDHYA RANI
     D/O.LATE KRISHNAPPA
     NOW AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

     ALL ARE R/AT N.KURUBARAHALLI
     NANGALI POST
     MULABAGAL TALUK
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563 132
                                    ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANMOHAN D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT.MANJULA K.R.
       W/O.K.V.REDDAPPA
       MAJOR
       R/AT NO.1/P-59/2
       NAKKANAPALLI
       VEKATAGIRI KOTA
       CHITTOOR-517 001
       ANDHRA PRADESH
                         -2-



2.   M/S.ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
     INSURNACE CO.LTD.
     NO.89, 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX
     HOSUR MAIN ROAD
     MADIWALA,
     BENGALURU -560 068
     REP.BY ITS MANAGER

3.   SRI ELIYAZ
     S/O.JAMAL SAB
     MAJOR
     N.KURAPETA
     MULBAGAL TOWN
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
    R-1 IS SERVED;
    NOTICE TO R-3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
                         ---
     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.12.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.2136/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & XXVII ACMM AND
MOTOR    ACCIDENT   CLAIMS  TRIBUNAL   (SCCH-09),
BENGALURU     AND   SEEKING   ENHANCEMENT      OF
COMPENSATION AND ETC.

IN MFA NO.2261 OF 2014:
BETWEEN:
MANAGER-LEGAL
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NO.89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX
HOSUR MAIN ROAD
MADIVALA
BENGALURU - 560 068                    ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
                             -3-



AND:

1.     SMT.PADMAMMA
       W/O.LATE KRISHNAPPA
       NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

2.     SRI JAGADISH
       S/O.LATE KRISHNAPPA
       NOW AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

3.     SANDHYA RANI
       D/O.LATE KRISHNAPPA
       NOW AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

       ALL ARE R/AT N.KURUBARAHALLI
       NANGALI POST
       MULABAGAL TALUK
       KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI D.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3;
    R-4 IS SERVED)
                       ---
      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 13.12.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.2136/2008 ON THE
FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & XXVII
ACMM AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH-
09), BENGALURU AND ETC.

     THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 12.01.2023 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

These two appeals are preferred by the claimants and

the Insurance Company respectively challenging the

judgment and award passed in MVC.No.2136/2008 dated

13.12.2013 by the Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM

and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-9), Bengaluru

(for short 'the Tribunal').

2. The appeal preferred by the claimants in

MFA.No.7891/2014 is for enhancement of compensation

whereas the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company in

MFA.No.2261/2014 is to set aside the judgment and award

passed by the tribunal as being illegal and erroneous.

3. Though these matters are listed for admission, with

consent of both learned counsels, matters are taken up for

final disposal.

4. Parties to the appeals shall be referred to as per

their status before the tribunal.

5. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 06.02.2008 at about 10.30 p.m., near

Buthalabanda turning (NH-4) Palamaner Mandal, Chitoor

District, when deceased Krishnappa and one Naresh Babu

were traveling in an Eicher Tempo bearing registration

No.AP 03 U 9277 along with vegetable bags from Nangali to

Chennai for the purpose of selling the said vegetables,

which they had grown in their land, the driver of the said

Eicher Tempo drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner with high speed and as a result of which, the said

tempo turned turtle, due to which, the inmates of the

vehicle sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the

deceased Krishnappa was shifted to Devaraj Urs Hospital,

Kolar, but inspite of the treatment, he succumbed to the

injuries on 14.02.2008. According to the claimants, the said

accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of

the said Eicher Tempo bearing registration No.AP 03 U 9277

by its driver and that respondent No.1 is the owner,

respondent No.2 is the insurer and respondent No.3 is the

present owner of the said vehicle. It is stated that the

deceased Krishnappa was growing vegetable in his land and

earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum and apart from that, he

was earning Rs.10,000/- from Betel nut and Arecanut

business. Hence, the claimants have filed a claim petition

before the tribunal seeking compensation.

5.1 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the

tribunal through their counsel and filed their statement of

objections. Respondent No.3 remained absent. In the

written statement, respondent No.1 has admitted that she

is the RC owner of the offending vehicle. It is further stated

that the said vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and as

on the date of accident, the policy was in force and hence,

respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify her (respondent

No.1). It is further contended that prior to the date of

accident, she has sold and delivered the possession of

Eicher Tempo bearing registration No.AP 03 U 9277 to one

Eliyaz, S/o.Jamal Sab, resident of N.Kurapeta, Mulbagal

town and the said vehicle was in his exclusive custody and

control at the time of accident.

5.2 Respondent No.2, in the written statement has

admitted the issuance of policy in favour of respondent

No.1 pertaining to the said Eicher Tempo and also admitted

the validity of the insurance policy as on the date of

accident. Except admitting the said facts, respondent No.2

has denied the rest of the averments of the petition as false

and untenable. It is further stated that the said vehicle is a

goods vehicle meant to carry goods only, as such, no

person can travel in that vehicle. The deceased Krishnappa

by traveling in the said vehicle has violated the policy terms

and conditions and hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to

pay compensation. It is further stated that the driver of the

said vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to

drive the said vehicle. Hence, sought for dismissal of claim

petition.

5.3 On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal framed

relevant issues for consideration. In order to substantiate

the issues and to establish the case, claimant No.1 got

examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as

Exs.P1 to P13, whereas respondents examined witnesses as

RWs.1 to 3 and got marked documents on behalf of

respondent No.2 as Exs.R1 to R5.

5.4 On the basis of material evidence both oral and

documentary, the tribunal awarded the compensation of

Rs.6,44,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation and respondent No.2

shall deposit the compensation amount with interest.

5.5 Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

award both the claimants as well as the Insurance

Company are before this Court challenging the same

respectively on the grounds urged therein in the appeals.

6. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

for claimants that the tribunal has committed an error in

not considering the material placed on record both oral and

documentary and thereby has awarded meager

compensation for the death of Krishnappa without adverting

to the evidentiary material on record, thereby causing

miscarriage of justice to the claimants, who are the legal

representatives of deceased Krishnappa. It is also

contended by learned counsel that the tribunal has

committed an error in taking measly income of Rs.4,500/-

for calculating the compensation, whereas deceased

Krishnappa was earning about Rs.1,50,000/- p.a. from the

sale of vegetables and was also earning a sum of

Rs.10,000/- p.m. from the business of selling aracanut and

betel nut. Learned counsel further contends that the

tribunal has ignored these aspects that the deceased

Krishnappa being an agriculturist and merely for the reason

that RTC records - Ex.P10 does not reflect the crops being

grown, the tribunal has committed an error in coming to

the conclusion that income of the deceased is not proved.

6.1 Learned counsel further contends that the tribunal

has wrongly assessed the age of the deceased Krishnappa

to be 60 years as per the inquest report, but in reality, the

age of the deceased was 40 years, which is proved by

production of Ex.P3 - post mortem report and Ex.P9 - ration

card and it depicts the age of the deceased as 48 years.

Therefore, even if an average is taken, the deceased could

not be more than 46 or 47 years. He also contends that in

view of discrepancy of age assessed by the tribunal, if 46 or

47 years is taken as age, 30% income would have to be

added towards future prospects and the appropriate

multiplier ought to be taken as '13'.

6.2 Learned counsel further contends that the tribunal

has not awarded suitable compensation towards

consortium, which also requires to be enhanced, on these

grounds, he seeks for enhancement of compensation.

6.3 In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

claimants has relied on the following decisions:

i) Pushpa v. Shakuntala reported in 2011(1) AIR Kar R 815;

ii) Somappa v. Imamsab reported in 2017(2) Kar.L.J.665;

iii) Krishnashetty v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

reported in 2009(6) AIR Kar R 198;

iv) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Vijayakumar reported in 2009(1) AIR Kar R 175;

- 10 -

7. Per contra, learned counsel representing the

Insurance Company vehemently contends that the claim

petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that there

is no material to indicate that the RC owner has sold the

vehicle along with the policy of insurance in favour of

respondent No.3. He further contends that the Insurance

policy is a package policy and it clearly indicated that there

was no transfer certificate issued by the Insurance

Company in favour of subsequent purchaser namely,

respondent No.3. He contends that the Insurance Company

cannot be made liable to pay compensation, when there is

no existence of material to show that the vehicle was sold

along with the policy of insurance to respondent No.3.

Learned counsel relies on Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and Rule 144 of Central

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

7.1 Learned counsel further contends that the

deceased having merely carried two bags of vegetables

would not become the owner of goods to attract the

provisions of Section 147 of the Act. Learned counsel

further contends that as per the material evidence on

record, it is apparently clear that six persons were

- 11 -

travelling in the lorry whereas the seating capacity in the

lorry is only three. It is also forthcoming in the evidence

that in the cabin, along with the driver and cleaner, other

persons were travelling. He contends that there existed no

other accommodation for any other person to travel in the

goods carriage either of the owner of the goods or an

employee. It is also contended that the owner of the goods

or an employee can only travel in the cabin. The persons

who do not travel in the cabin as per the act and the policy

would not be covered under the policy of insurance and the

Insurance Company cannot be saddled with any such

liability. Learned counsel contends that deceased

Krishnappa was traveling on the load of vegetables stacked

on the body of the lorry. Therefore, the question of liability

being fastened on the Insurance Company would not arise.

7.2 Learned counsel further contends that there is no

insurable interest transferred to respondent No.3, who is

the owner of the vehicle to fasten the liability on the

Insurance Company. It is also not in dispute that the

accident occurred on 06.02.2008 and respondent No.1

admittedly sold the vehicle on 21.01.2008 to respondent

No.3, while making such a sale, the certificate of insurance

- 12 -

or transfer of insurance has not been passed on to

respondent No.3. Therefore, the Insurance Company would

not be liable to pay any compensation in view of there

being no insurable interest.

7.3 Learned counsel further contends that future

prospects as claimed and argued by the learned counsel for

claimants cannot be awarded in this case, as the deceased

was not possessing a stable or permanent job. It is also

contended that the amount awarded towards consortium is

on the higher side and same requires to be reduced.

Learned counsel further contends that the age adopted by

the tribunal of the deceased is correct, based on the

material documents and the same does not call for

reduction. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to allow

his appeal and consequently, dismiss the appeal preferred

by the claimants.

7.4 In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

respondent-Insurance Company has relied on the following

decisions:

i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma reported in 2008 ACJ 268;

- 13 -

ii) Balu Krishna Chavan v. The Reliance General Insurnace Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 932;

iii) Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in LAWS(SC)-2012-12-28 (DD 11.12.2012, Civil Appeal No.8925/2012);

iv) The Branch Manager v. Smt.Bellamma & Others (DD 08.06.2012, MFA.No.40/2010);

8. Having heard learned counsel for appellants-

claimants and respondent-Insurance Company, the points

that arise for consideration are:

"(i) Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation ?

(ii) Whether the Insurance Company has made out a case for interference of the impugned judgment by way of setting aside the judgment or reduction of compensation?

          (iii) Whether         the   liability fastened on the
               Insurance         Company        requires   to     be
               interfered?
          (iv) What Order?"

9. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on

06.02.2008 at about 10.30 p.m. when the deceased

Krishnappa was proceeding along with one Naresh Babu in

Eicher tempo vehicle bearing registration No.AP 03 U 9277

- 14 -

transporting vegetable bags from Mangali to Chennai. It is

also not in dispute that the goods vehicle in which the

vegetable bags were being transported met with a road

traffic accident due to over turning of the vehicle and a

criminal case came to be registered by way of FIR as per

Ex.P1, subsequently culminated into a chargesheet as per

Ex.P4. The Police records produced by the claimants clearly

depict the rashness and negligence as against the driver of

the goods vehicle due to which the accident occurred.

These aspects of involvement of vehicle, occurrence of

accident, filing of chargesheet have been proved by

production of these Police records vide Exs.P1 to P7(a). The

medical records, ration card and vegetable market bills of

the deceased Krishnappa have been produced and marked

at Exs.P8 to P13. These documents are not seriously

controverted by the Insurance Company thereby the

occurrence of the accident is proved, rashness and

negligence by the driver of the offending goods vehicle is

also proved.

9.1 The death of deceased Krishnappa is apparently

not disputed, what is disputed by the Insurance Company is

that he was not traveling in the cabin as per the act and the

- 15 -

policy and hence, he would be disentitled to claim

compensation from the Insurance Company, more so, for

the reason that the owner of the vehicle has violated the

terms and conditions of the policy.

9.2 To advert to the arguments put-forth by learned

counsel for Insurance Company and for better

understanding, it is relevant to extract the following

provisions:

"147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability xxxxxxxxxxxx (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of issuance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases.

156. Effect of certificate of insurance When an insurer has issued a certificate of insurance in respect of a contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured person, then−

- 16 -

(a) if and so long as the policy described in the certificate has not been issued by the insurer to the insured, the insurer shall, as between himself and any other person except the insured, be deemed to have issued to the insured person a policy of insurance conforming in all respects with the description and particulars stated in such certificate; and

(b) if the insurer has issued to the insured the policy described in the certificate, but the actual terms of the policy are less favourable to persons claiming under or by virtue of the policy against the insurer either directly or through the insured than the particulars of the policy as stated in the certificate, the policy shall, as between the insurer and any other person except the insured, be deemed to be in terms conforming in all respects with the particulars stated in the said certificate.

- 17 -

157. Transfer of certificate of insurance (1) Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.

Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance.

(2) The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance."

- 18 -

9.3 It is the vehement contention of learned counsel

for Insurance Company that respondent No.1 has sold the

vehicle to respondent No.3 on 21.01.2008 and that the

accident has occurred on 06.02.2008 which is pursuant to

the sale made by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3.

Under these circumstances, he relies on the provisions of

Section 147 of the Act to contend that there is no certificate

of insurance issued by the Insurance Company or

transferred from respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 along

with the transfer of vehicle. Hence, he contends that the

Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability. In

my opinion, this argument of learned counsel for Insurance

Company is answered in Section 157 of the Act. The

explanation of which reads as under:

"Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance."

9.4 Hence, on a conjoint reading of Sections 147, 156

and 157 of the Act, it is clearly apparent that once the

ownership of the vehicle is transferred to another person in

respect of which the insurance policy was taken, the

- 19 -

certificate of insurance and the policy described in the

certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in

favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is

transferred with effect from the date of his transfer.

Therefore, once there is a transfer of ownership from

respondent No.1 to respondent No.3, the certificate of

insurance and the policy also get automatically transferred

to subsequent purchaser i.e. respondent No.3 herein. I am

afraid the arguments put-forth by learned counsel for

Insurance Company cannot be accepted in view of the

aforesaid reasons. Hence, it is negatived.

9.5 Now coming to the question of awarding of

quantum of compensation and consideration of age and

multiplier. It is apparently seen that the tribunal has

assessed the age of the deceased between the age group of

51-60 years. On the basis of Police records under Section

161 of Cr.PC which was mentioned as 60 years and further

the tribunal was influenced upon the inconsistency of the

age. But, it is seen from Ex.P3-post mortem report, the age

of the deceased is mentioned as 45 years and as per Ex.P9-

the copy of ration card, the age is mentioned as 48 years.

I am of the opinion that Ex.P9 being the ration card dated

- 20 -

11.09.2006, the age can be safely taken as 48 years. In

view of the same, the appropriate multiplier applicable in

the present case on hand is '13' as per the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt)

and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases

121.

9.6 The tribunal has assessed the income of the

deceased to be Rs.4,500/- p.m. on the basis of the notional

income chart. I do not find any error in the said income

being taken as there is no substantial proof produced by

the claimants with regard to deceased Krishnappa. The

tribunal has awarded future prospects of 15%, which in my

opinion, is on the lower side as this Court has already

assessed the age of the deceased to be 48 years, the future

prospects to be added would be @ 25% for the age group

40-50 years. It is also seen that in the present case, the

deceased has left behind three dependents, namely, a

widow and two children. Therefore, the loss of dependency

would be Rs.5,85,000/- (Rs.4,500/- + 25% = Rs.5,625/-

x 1/3rd = Rs.3,750/- x 12 x 13) as against Rs.4,55,400/-

awarded by the tribunal.

- 21 -

9.7 Towards consortium, the claimants would be

entitled to Rs.40,000/- per head, there being three

claimants as contemplated in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and

others reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases

680, which has been subsequently followed in the case of

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Satinder Kaur

alias Satwinder Kaur and others reported in AIR

2020 SC 3076, and in the case of Magma General

Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram and others,

reported in (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130.

Therefore amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 3

dependants) is awarded under the head of loss of

consortium.

9.8 Towards loss of estate and towards

transportation of dead body & funeral expenses, claimants

would be entitled to `15,000/- each i.e., a sum of `30,000/-

requires to be awarded and it is accordingly awarded.

Accordingly, under conventional heads `1,50,000/-

`1 (loss of

consortium `1,20,000/- + loss of estate `15,000/- +

towards transportation of dead body & funeral expenses

`15,000/-) is awarded.

- 22 -

9.9 As per the decision of Pranay Sethi, stated

supra, 10% on the conventional head for each block

period requires to be awarded, which in the present case

would be `15,000/- for one block period.

9.10 I am in agreement with learned counsel for

Insurance Company that the tribunal has awarded excess

amount of compensation under the conventional heads

which deserves to be modified as aforestated. In view of

the fact that the amount of compensation is awarded

towards consortium, loss of estate and transport of dead

body and funeral expenses, the question of awarding

compensation towards loss of love and affection would not

arise.

9.11 Towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.8,496/-

is awarded by the tribunal, the same does not call for

interference and is retained.

9.12 In view of the above, the claimants would be

entitled for enhancement of compensation as per the table

mentioned below:

As awarded by this Heads Court (Rs.) Loss of dependency 5,85,000.00 Loss of consortium 1,50,000.00

- 23 -

Loss of estate                                                 15,000.00
Transportation of dead body and                                15,000.00
funeral expenses
Medical expenses                                                8,496.00
10% of conventional heads (10% of                              15,000.00
1,50,000/-)
               TOTAL                                       7,88,496.00

10. It is relevant to note that PW.1, the widow of

deceased Krishnappa has categorically stated in her

evidence that her husband Krishnappa was travelling in the

cabin, strangely there is no cross-examination or

contravention of the statement of PW.1 or even a

suggestion that deceased Krishnappa was not travelling in

the cabin. There is nothing cogent material placed before

the Court to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 that deceased

Krishnappa was travelling in the cabin. It is also the case

of one Naresh Babu, who was travelling along with

deceased Krishnappa that they were travelling together

along with the goods. In view of there being no affirmative

clinching cogent evidence to prove the fact that deceased

Krishnappa was not travelling in the cabin, the argument of

learned counsel for Insurance Company cannot be accepted

more so when there is cogent positive evidence through

PW.1 regarding deceased Krishnappa travelling in the cabin

as on the date of occurrence of accident.

- 24 -

10.1. Under the said circumstances, I am of the

opinion that there is no illegality in the tribunal fastening

the liability on respondent No.2-Insurnace Company along

with respondent No.1-the R.C.holder of the offending

vehicle.

11. In view of the above discussions, I pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The appeals are allowed-in-part;

ii) The judgment and award passed in

MVC.No.2136/2008 dated 13.12.2013 by the

Court of Small Causes and XXVI ACMM and

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-9),

Bengaluru is hereby modified;

iii) The claimants would be entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.7,88,496/- as against

Rs.6,43,896/- awarded by the tribunal with 6%

interest from the date of petition till its

realisation;