Karnataka High Court
Smt Anitha vs Krishna Naik on 27 February, 2024
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9029 OF 2018(MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6018 OF 2018(MV-D)
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9029 OF 2018(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Anitha,
W/o. V.P. Bramhadeva
Aged about 50 years.
2. V.P. Bramhadeva,
S/o. Late V.B. Padmanabhaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
3. Neema Jain,
D/o. V.P. Bramhadeva
(wrongly mentioned as Late V.B. Padmanabhaiah)
Aged about 17 years,
Minor represented by
Natural mother guardian
1st appellant
All are residing at
Kshetrapala, 5th Cross,
Siddaganga Extension,
Tumakuru 572 101.
.. Appellants
(By Sri. K. Shantharaj, Advocate )
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
2
AND:
1. Krishna Naik,
S/o. Hanuma Naik,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at No.34,
Havadigara Colony,
Jai Bhuvaneshwarinagar,
Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 080.
2. National Insurance Company Limited,
By its Manager,
Division -4, 1st floor,
Flat No.C-17 to 19,
Minerva complex, S.D. Road,
Secundarabad,
Andhra Pradesh.
.. Respondents
(By Sri. S. Srishaila, Advocate for R-2;
R-1 - notice is dispensed with vide order dated 28-11-2018)
****
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, praying to allow the
appeal by modifying the judgment and award dated
14-03-2018 passed by the learned VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge and Member, AMACT, at Tumakuru, in
M.V.C.No.806/2016, by enhancing compensation, in the
interest of justice and equity.
IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6018 OF 2018(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Division IV, I Floor, Flat C-17-19,
Minerva complex, S.D. Road,
Secunderabad,
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
3
Andhra Pradesh
Represented by Authorised
Signatory at Regional Office,
# 144, Shubharam Complex,
M.G. Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
.. Appellant
(By Sri. S. Srishaila, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Anitha, W/o. Brahmadeva,
Aged 50 years.
2. V.P. Brahmadeva,
S/o. Late V.B. Padmanabhaiah,
Aged 58 years.
3. Neema Jain,
D/o. V.B. Padmanabhiah,
Aged 17 years, being a minor
Represented by natural guardian/
Mother Smt. Anitha
All are r/at "Kshetrapala"
5th Cross, Siddaganga Extension,
Tumkuru.
4. Krishna Naik,
S/o. Hanuma Naik,
Aged about 47 years,
R/o. Hawadigara Colony,
Jai Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,
Nandini Layout,
Bangalore - 560 006.
.. Respondents
(By Sri.K. Shantharaj, Advocate for R-1 to R-3;
R-4 - notice dispensed with vide order dt.09-02-2024)
****
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, praying to call for the
records in the case M.V.C.806/2016, on the file of VI additional
District and Sessions Judge and Member, Addl. MACT,
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
4
Tumakuru examine the same and on being satisfied of the
illegality and unjustness of the impugned judgment and award
dated 14-03-2018 passed therein, the same be set aside and
the above appeal be allowed, and costs and such other and
further reliefs as is deemed fit and proper to be granted under
the circumstances of the case.
These Miscellaneous First Appeals having been heard
through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing and
reserved for judgment on 09-02-2024, coming on for
pronouncement this day, Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry J.
delivered the following:
COMMON JUDGMENT
The claimants before the Court of the learned VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member,
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tumakuru
(hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Tribunal")
seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them in
a road traffic accident case in M.V.C.No.806/2016 vide
judgment dated 14-03-2018 passed by the Tribunal, have
preferred M.F.A.No.9029/2018.
The second respondent in the said
M.V.C.No.806/2016 has filed M.F.A.No.6018/2018,
seeking to set aside the very same impugned judgment
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
5
and award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.806/2016
dated 14-03-2018, awarding compensation of a sum of
`35,02,000/- for the death of deceased V.B. Pavan on
account of the grievous injuries sustained by him in the
road traffic accident in question.
2. The summary of the case of the claimants in the
Tribunal was that, on the date 08-01-2016, at about 2:00
p.m., when Sri. V.B. Pavan, the son of claimants No.1 and
2 and brother of claimant No.3 was riding a new Bajaj
Motor Cycle bearing Engine No.5-906-31747 and Chassis
No.MD-02/JY-C4-F8-FCO-35934, along with his friend one
Sri. Hamslin Benjamin as a pillion rider and going from
Tumakuru towards Bengaluru and reached a place near
Indian Oil Corporation Petrol Bunk, Sompura Hobli, on
National Highway No.4, the driver of a TATA ACE motor
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-04/AA-120 driving the
said motor vehicle in a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner by overtaking the Motor Cycle, suddenly
took a left turn on the road without any indication or
signal and dashed against the right side of the Motor Cycle
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
6
ridden by the deceased V.B. Pavan, resulting in the
occurrence of the road traffic accident. Due to the said
road traffic accident, Sri.V.B. Pavan, the rider of the Motor
Cycle sustained grievous injuries on different parts of his
body including head, legs and hands and died on the spot.
The pillion rider sustained injuries.
The claimants further contended that they have
spent a sum of `60,000/- towards transportation of the
dead body and the funeral expenses. They contended that
the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of
occurrence of the road traffic accident and was an
Engineering student. He was supposed to earn a sum of
`50,000/- per month after his education. Due to his
untimely death, the claimants are put to mental shock and
agony. Holding the respondents No.1 and 2 in the claim
petition, who are the owner and insurer of the alleged
offending TATA ACE motor vehicle, as liable to pay the
compensation, the claimants claimed a total compensation
of a sum of `60,00,000/- with interest thereupon from
them.
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
7
3. In response to the summons served upon them
before the Tribunal in the motor vehicles case, it is the
Insurance Company alone which entered its appearance
through its counsel and filed its objections Statement. It
denied the occurrence of the road traffic accident and the
death of the deceased V.B. Pavan in the alleged road
traffic accident. It also denied the alleged rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the TATA ACE
motor vehicle. On the other hand, it contended that the
accident has occurred solely due to the contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased V.B. Pavan himself.
It also contended that the compensation claimed by the
claimants is also exorbitant and very much on the higher
side.
4. Before the Tribunal, the claimants got examined
the father of the deceased - Sri.V.P. Bramhadeva as PW-1
and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-10. On
behalf of the second respondent - Insurance Company,
neither any witness was examined nor any documents
were got marked as exhibits.
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
8
5. After analysing the evidence and the materials
placed before it, the Tribunal by its impugned judgment
and award dated 14-03-2018, has awarded the
compensation under the following heads with the sum
shown against them:
Sl.
Particulars Amount in `
No.
1 Towards Loss of income due to the 33,60,000-00
death of V.B. Pavan
2 Towards funeral expenses 25,000-00
3 Towards loss of love and affection 1,00,000-00
4 Towards loss of estate 15,000-00
5 Towards transportation of dead body 2,000-00
Total 35,02,000-00
6. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of a sum of
`35,02,000/- with interest at `7.5% per annum thereupon
from the date of petition till the date of realisation of the
amount in the Tribunal, holding the owner and the insurer
of the offending TATA ACE motor vehicle as liable to pay
the said compensation and directed the second respondent
therein - Insurance Company to deposit the awarded
amount.
7. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in its judgment and award dated
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
9
14-03-2018, the claimants have preferred M.F.A.No.9029/
2018, seeking enhancement of compensation under all the
heads, on the ground that the same is inadequate. The
contesting respondent No.2 (the Insurance Company) in
the said appeal, who was the second respondent before
the Tribunal also, has preferred M.F.A.No.6018/2018,
seeking to set aside the very same impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal.
8. The claimants (appellants in M.F.A.No.9029/
2018) who are respondents No.1 to 3 in
M.F.A.No.6018/2018, represented by their learned counsel
and Insurance Company (appellant in
M.F.A.No.6018/2018) who is respondent No.2 in
M.F.A.No.9029/2018, represented by its learned counsel
are appearing physically in the Court.
Notice to the respondent No.1 (owner of the
offending TATA ACE motor vehicle) in
M.F.A.No.9029/2018, who is respondent No.4 in
M.F.A.No.6018/2018 is dispensed with, in both the
appeals.
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
10
9. Records are called for from the Tribunal and the
same are placed before the Court.
10. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused
the materials placed before this Court including the
memorandum of appeal in both the appeals, impugned
judgment and also the records of the Tribunal.
11. For the sake of convenience, the claimants in
the claim petition, who are the appellants in
M.F.A.No.9029/2018 and respondents No.1 to 3 in the
connected M.F.A.No.6018/2018 are henceforth referred to
as "the claimants" and the second respondent in the claim
petition who is the appellant in M.F.A.No.6018/2018 and
the second respondent in the connected M.F.A.
No.9029/2018 is henceforth referred to as "the Insurance
Company".
12. Learned counsel for the claimants (appellants in
M.F.A.No.9029/2018), who is also for the respondents
No.1 to 3 in the connected M.F.A.No.6018/2018, in his
very brief argument submitted that, the monthly notional
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
11
income of the deceased was required to be taken at least
at a sum of `30,000/-.
In his support, he relied upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ASHVINBHAI
JAYANTILAL MODI Vs. RAMKARAN RAMCHANDRA
SHARMA AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 180.
Contending that in similar circumstances, the income
of the deceased who was a student pursuing his first year
MBBS course was taken at a sum of `30,000/- per month
by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the learned
counsel relied upon an un-reported judgment in the case
of LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
CO.LTD., Vs. HANUMANTHAPPA AND OTHERS in
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1219/2017 (MV-D)
C/W. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4937/2018
(MV-D) disposed of on 20-03-2023.
The learned counsel further contended that the
Tribunal erred in taking the age of the parents of the
deceased to calculate the multiplier.
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
12
With this, the learned counsel prayed to allow the
appeal filed by the claimants and enhance the
compensation, as prayed.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company (appellant in M.F.A.No.6018/2018)
who is also for the respondent No.2 in the connected
M.F.A.No.9029/2018, in his brief argument, contending
that, in a similar case where a student of engineering
sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court had taken the income of the deceased
at a sum of `18,000/- per month, relied upon an un-
reported judgment of the co-ordinate Division Bench of
this Court in the case of THE NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED Vs. HAMSLIN BENJIMIN in
M.F.A.No.740/2018 (MV-I) C/W. M.F.A.No.5054/2017
(MV-I) disposed of on 25-06-2021.
The learned counsel also submitted that 50% of the
income is required to be deducted towards the personal
and living expenses of the deceased, as the deceased was
a bachelor, as such, the compensation awarded by the
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
13
Tribunal is exorbitant and required to be reduced
considerably.
14. After hearing the learned counsels for the
parties, the points that arise for our consideration in these
two appeals are:
[i] Whether the claimants prove that, a road
traffic accident occurred on the date 08-01-2016, at
about 2:00 p.m., on NH-4 road on the left side in
front of Indian Oil Corporation Petrol Bunk, Sompura
Hobli, involving a TATA ACE Motor vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-04/AA-120, solely due to the rash
and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the
said TATA ACE motor vehicle?
[ii] Whether the claimants have proved that
they are entitled for compensation as claimed from
the Insurer of the TATA ACE motor vehicle, for the
death of the deceased V.B. Pavan, due to the
multiple injuries sustained by him in the road traffic
accident that occurred on the date, time and place
mentioned at point No.[i] above?
[iii] Whether the impugned judgment passed
by the Tribunal warrants any interference at the
hands of this Court?
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
14
15. The occurrence of the road traffic accident on
the date 08-01-2016 at 2:00 p.m. involving a new Bajaj
Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No.MD-02-JY-C4-F8-FCO-
35934 and Engine No.5-9-6-31747 and a TATA ACE motor
vehicle bearing registration No.KA-04/AA-120 in front of
Indian Oil Corporation Petrol bunk, Sompura Hobli, on
National Highway-4 between Tumakuru and Bengaluru is
not disputed by either side. When the claimants are
claiming enhancement of compensation, the Insurance
Company is seeking reduction in the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Still, the evidence
of PW-1 who is the claimant No.2 - the father of the
deceased V.B. Pavan, which is corroborated by the true
copy of the FIR, complaint, scene of offence panchanama,
charge sheet, post-mortem report which are marked from
Exs.P-1 to P-5 respectively, would go to establish that the
road traffic accident, as alleged by the claimants in their
claim petition, has occurred on the date, time and place
mentioned in the claim petition. The said evidence of
PW-1 corroborated by the documentary evidence at
Exs.P-1 to P-5 would further go to show that the Police,
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
15
after investigation about the occurrence of the road traffic
accident have filed charge sheet against the driver of the
offending TATA ACE motor vehicle accusing him of
committing the offences punishable under Sections 279,
338 and 304A of the IPC. Further, the post-mortem report
at Ex.P-5 also shows that the deceased V.B. Pavan died
due to sustaining multiple injuries in the road traffic
accident. Thus, it stands established that V.B. Pavan, the
son of the claimants No.1 and 2 and brother of claimant
No.3, who was the rider of the New Bajaj Motor Cycle
bearing Chassis No.MD-02-JY-C4-F8-FCO-35934
succumbed to the injuries which he sustained in the road
traffic accident mentioned above and the said accident has
occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of
the TATA ACE motor vehicle, by its driver.
16. Undisputedly, the respondents No.1 and 2
before the Tribunal, being the owner and insurer of the
said TATA ACE motor vehicle, are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, as such,
the only question that remains for consideration is
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
16
regarding the quantification of the quantum of the
compensation for the death of deceased V.B. Pavan in the
road traffic accident in question.
17. The evidence of PW-1 corroborated by the
documentary evidence such as SSLC Marks Card at
Ex.P-7, PUC Marks Card at Ex.P-6 and Certificate issued
by the Bahubali College of Engineering, Shravanabelagola,
at Ex.P-8, would go to show that the deceased V.B. Pavan,
whose date of birth is 24-03-1996, was aged 19 years and
10 months as on the date of the occurrence of the road
traffic accident and that he was a meritorious student both
at his High School and College levels. The said documents
further proves that he was pursuing his first year B.E.
degree course in Information Science (IS) at Bahubali
College of Engineering, Shravanabelagola, Hassan District,
Karnataka.
18. In order to quantify the compensation towards
loss of earning due to the untimely and unnatural death of
deceased V.B. Pavan, the notional income of the deceased
Pavan is required to be assessed. PW-1 contends that, the
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
17
deceased would have earned a sum of `50,000/- per
month, had he been alive and completed his education.
19. The learned counsel for the claimants in his
argument relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in ASHVINBHAI JAYANTILAL MODI's case (supra)
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, for the death of a medical
student pursuing his first year MBBS, had taken the
notional income at a sum of `25,000/- per month and
deducted 1/3rd of his income towards the personal and
living expenses of the deceased.
20. In LEGAL MANAGER's case (supra), the learned
Single Judge of this Court, noticing that the deceased was
a medical student pursuing his MBBS Course had taken
the monthly notional income at a sum of `30,000/-. In
the process, the learned Judge also added 40% towards
future prospects of the deceased and arrived at a sum of
`42,000/- per month. However, the learned Single Judge
deducted 50% of the income of the deceased towards his
personal and living expenses and arrived at a sum of
`21,000/- per month as his notional income.
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
18
21. On the other hand, in HAMSLIN BENJIMIN's
case (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, towards
the injuries sustained by a student pursuing his II year
Engineering course had taken the notional income at a
sum of `18,000/- per month, after relying upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
RADHAKRISHNA AND ANOTHER Vs. GOKUL AND OTHERS
reported in (2013) 16 Supreme Court Cases 585, wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken the notional income of
an Engineering student at a sum of `15,000/- per month.
22. In the instant case also, the deceased V.B.
Pavan was a student pursuing his I year B.E. course, as
such, his course cannot be equated to that of the students
pursuing their MBBS course, who were the deceased in
ASHVINBHAI JAYANTILAL MODI's case (supra) and
LEGAL MANAGER's case (supra). Thus, the income of the
deceased in the present case which was taken at a sum of
`30,000/- by the Tribunal is without any reasoning or
basis, as such, it is on the higher side.
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
19
23. On the other hand, the income of the deceased
Pavan is to be taken notionally at a sum of `18,000/- per
month. Considering his age, which was two months
shorter to 20 years, as on the date of the occurrence of
the road traffic accident, the loss of future prospects
applicable as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., Vs. PRANAY
SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SUPREME
COURT 5157 would be 40%, which comes to `7,200/-
(40% of `18,000/-). Thus, in total, the monthly notional
income of the deceased V.B. Pavan would be a sum of
`25,200/- (`18,000/- + `7,200).
24. In ASHVINBHAI JAYANTILAL MODI's case
(supra), which was relied upon by the Tribunal, the
Hon'ble Apex Court had deducted 1/3rd towards the
personal and living expenses of the deceased. However,
to confine the said deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal
expenses of the deceased to 1/3rd, the Tribunal has not
assigned any reasons. On the other hand, in the
judgment of the learned Single Judge in LEGAL
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
20
MANAGER's case (supra), relied upon by none else than
the learned counsel for the claimants himself, deduction of
50% is made towards the personal and living expenses of
the deceased. In the said case, the deceased was a
bachelor and the claimants were four in number, whereas
in the instant case, the claimants are three in number and
deceased was a student. As such, in the case on hand
also, 50% is to be deducted towards the personal and
living expenses of the deceased. As such, after deducting
50% towards the personal and living expenses from out of
the total notional income of the deceased at `25,200/-,
the balance amount would be `12,600/- per month, which
would be the contribution of the deceased towards his
family. Per annum, it would be `1,51,200/- (i.e. `12,600/-
x 12 months). When the said sum is multiplied with
multiplier '18' which is applicable to the age of the
deceased, the quantum of compensation towards loss of
future earnings due to the death of the deceased V.B.
Pavan would be a sum of `27,21,600/-
(i.e. `1,51,200/-x'18').
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
21
Since the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
`33,60,000/- under the head of loss of future earnings,
the same requires interference by this Court.
25. Towards funeral expenses, loss of love and
affection, loss of estate and transportation of dead body,
the Tribunal has awarded compensation of a sum of
`25,000/- + `1,00,000/- + `15,000/- + `2,000/- =
`1,42,000/-. However, by virtue of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the
quantum of compensation at `25,000/- + `1,00,000/- +
`15,000/- + `2,000/- = `1,42,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal towards funeral expenses, loss of love and
affection, loss of estate and transportation of dead body is
required to be substituted.
26. Thus, the compensation under the conventional
heads including loss of parental consortium/loss of love
and affection, funeral expenses and loss of estate at
`40,000/- + `15,000/- + `15,000/- as per Pranay Sethi's
case (supra), would come to a total sum of `70,000/- in
favour of claimant No.1- mother of the deceased. The loss
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
22
of love and affection to the claimant No.2- father of the
deceased and claimant No.3 - the sister of the deceased
would be at a sum of `40,000/- each, which in total comes
to a sum of `80,000/- (i.e.`40,000/-x2). Thus, the total
compensation towards the conventional heads, i.e. loss of
parental consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses
at `70,000/- for claimant No.1 and at `40,000/- each for
claimants No.2 and 3 towards loss of love and affection,
would come to a sum of `1,50,000/- (i.e. `70,000/-
+`40,000/- + `40,000/-).
However, the Tribunal, while awarding the
compensation under other heads including the
compensation towards loss of love and affection, loss of
estate and funeral expenses, since has awarded only a
sum of `1,42,000/-, the same requires to be substituted
with the compensation towards conventional heads, as
computed above at `1,50,000/-.
27. Thus, the claimants in M.V.C.No.806/2016, who
are appellants in M.F.A.No.9029/2018 (respondents No.1
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
23
to 3 in M.F.A.No.6018/2018) would be entitled to a total
modified compensation as tabulated below:
Sl. Compensation Compensation
No. Particulars awarded by awarded in
Tribunal in ` this Court in `
1 Towards Loss of income 33,60,000-00 27,21,600-00
due to the death of V.B.
Pavan
2 Towards conventional 1,42,000-00 1,50,000-00
heads such as funeral
expenses and
transportation of dead
body, loss of love and
affection and loss of
estate
Total 35,02,000-00 28,71,600-00
Thus the reduction of compensation would be
`35,02,000/- (-) `28,71,600/- = `6,30,400/-
Thus the total quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal being higher in a sum of `6,30,400/- than
what the actual computation now comes, the same
deserves to be reduced to the said extent.
28. Barring the above, neither the claimants nor the
Insurance Company have raised any other ground worth
to be considered and that no arguments on any other
points were canvassed from either side.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
M.F.A.No.9029/2018
c/w. M.F.A.No.6018/2018
24
ORDER
[i] The appeal filed by the
claimants/appellants in M.F.A.No.9029/2018 is
dismissed;
The appeal filed by the Insurance Company
in M.F.A.No.6018/2018 stands allowed in part;
[ii] The impugned judgment and award,
passed by the Court of VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge and Member, Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal at Tumakuru, dated
14-03-2018, in M.V.C.No.806/2016, is hereby
modified to the extent that the compensation
awarded at `35,02,000/- is reduced and
restricted to a sum of `28,71,600/- (Rupees
Twenty Eight Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Six
Hundred only).
[iii] The rest of the order of the Tribunal
with respect to fixing the liability upon the
Insurance Company and directing it to deposit
the awarded amount, apportionment of the total
(appellants in M.F.A.No.9029/2018), terms
regarding the release of the amount, its deposit,
rate of interest, etc. shall all remain unaltered
and unmodified.
The amount deposited, if any, by the appellant -
Insurance Company in M.F.A.No.6018/2018 be transmitted
to the Tribunal, without delay.
There shall be a modified award accordingly.
Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Tribunal along with its records, without delay.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMV*
