Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Mithlesh Yadav And Ors on 21 March, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
XOBJC-21-CII-2009 -1-
223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
XOBJC-21-CII-2009
Date of Decision : 21.03.2025
National Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Mithlesh Yadav and others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate, for
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance Company.
Mr. Jaswant Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate,
for the respondents No.1 to 4 (in FAO-3904-2007)
for the cross-objectors (in XOBJC-21-CII-2009).
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
1. The aforesaid appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the
Cross-Objections filed by the claimants/cross-objectors against the same
award dated 01.02.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Rewari (for short, 'the Tribunal') are being decided by way of this
common judgment. For brevity, facts have been taken from FAO-3904-
2007.
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M)
2. The present appeal has been preferred by appellant-Insurance
Company for setting aside the award dated 01.02.2007 passed by the learned
Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby, the
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 were awarded a compensation of
Rs.7,80,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of
Subhash Yadav and the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondents
No.1 & 2 were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2002, Subhash (since
deceased) was returning to his house from his brick kiln, situated in the
vicinity of Village Berli on the Rewari-Mahendergarh road. When he
reached near the village of Roliawas, a truck bearing registration No.HR-12-
1487, which was coming from the direction of Rewari and was being driven
by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with his car.
Due to the impact of the same, the said car overturned and Subhash (since
deceased) sustained multiple injuries. In this regard, FIR No.166 dated
02.11.2002, was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Khol.
4. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and
filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:-
1. Whether Subhash son of Ram Kumar died in a road
accident which took place on 02.11.2002 due to rash and
negligent driving of truck No.HR-12/1487 being driven by
respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
2. If Issue No.1 is proved, to what amount, the petitioners
are entitled to and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not having a valid and
effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident, if so
to what effect? OPR
4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present
form? OPR
5. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the
petition? OPR
6. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-
joinder of necessary parties? OPR
7. Relief.
6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence
on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of
Rs.7,80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on account
of death of Subhash Yadav and the appellant-Insurance Company as well as
respondents No.1 and 2 were held liable to pay the compensation jointly and
severally. Hence, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal
challenging the award dated 01.02.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends
that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR-12-1487 was got
insured by one Ram Rattan son of Umar Singh but he has not been arrayed
as a party-respondent. He further contends that since respondent No.6-
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
Bhooru Mal, who claims to be the owner of the said offending truck, did not
get the said truck insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, therefore,
the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He
further contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
on the higher side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed
and the impugned award of the learned Tribunal be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the cross-objectors contends:-
(i) that the deceased-Subhash Yadav was 48 years of age
and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from Brick Kiln and
agricultural pursuits, therefore, the learned Tribunal has gravely
erred in assessing his income as Rs.7,000/- per month.
(ii) that the learned Tribunal has also erred in applying the
multiplier of 12 instead of 13 and also erred while deducting
1/3 amount instead of 1/4 towards personal expenses.
(iii) that no amount was granted towards future
prospects, loss of estate, loss of consortium and the amount
awarded towards funeral expenses is also on the lower side.
Therefore, he prays that the cross-objections be
allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal
be enhanced as per the latest law.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case.
10. The relevant extracts of the award are reproduced as under:-
"24. However, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
company has submitted that the truck bearing registration No.
HR-12-1487 had been got insured by one Ram Rattan son of
Umar Singh resident of village Mungan, District Rohtak and as
the said Ram Rattan has not been arrayed as respondent, so the
insurance company is not liable to pay compensation because
the respondent No.2 Bhooru Mal, who has claimed to be the
owner of the said truck, has not got the said truck insured with
the insurance company. Regarding this contention, it is suffice
to say that if the said vehicle was sold by the owner along with
the insurance policy and if the transferee owner failed to apply
to the insurance company for the transfer of policy in his name,
then in that eventuality, failure to apply for transfer would not
nullify the deemed transfer of insurance policy and the
insurance company is not exempted from its liability vis-à-vis
third party.
25. The vehicle in question i.e. truck bearing registration no.
HR-12-1487 was fully insured on the date of accident i.e. on
2.11.2002 as is evident from the perusal of copy of insurance
cover note Ex.R1 available on the file, as per which, the vehicle
in question was insured with the National Insurance Company
w.e.f. 23.11.2001 to 22.11.2002."
11. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned
Tribunal has rightly held regarding the contention of the appellant-Insurance
Company that offending truck bearing registration No.HR-12-1487 was got
insured by one Ram Rattan son of Umar Singh, who sold the offending truck
to one Bhooru Mal along with insurance policy and Bhooru Mal failed to
apply to the insurance company for transfer of the offending vehicle in his
name and that would not nullify the deemed transfer of insurance policy and
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
insurance company is not exempted from its liability viz-a-viz third party.
Since, the accident took place on 02.11.2002 so the offending truck was
insured with the appellant-Insurance Company on the date of accident,
therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held the appellant-Insurance
Company liable to pay the compensation.
12. It is a well-established principle of law that an insurer cannot
evade liability merely on the ground that the transfer of the vehicle was not
notified to it. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New
India Assurance Company Ltd., 1996(1) SCC 221, wherein, it was
observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the failure to apply for transfer
of the insurance policy does not nullify the deemed transfer of the policy,
nor does it absolve the insurer from liability towards third parties. The
relevant extract of the M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd.'s case (supra) is
reproduced as under:-
10. There can be no doubt that the said chapter provides for
compulsory insurance of vehicles to cover third party risks.
Section 146 forbids the use of a vehicle in a public place unless
there is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle a policy of
insurance complying with the requirements of that chapter. Any
breach of this provision may attract penal action. In the case of
property, the coverage extends to property of a third party i.e. a
person other than the insured. This is clear from Section 147(1)
(b) (i) which clearly refers to 'damage to any property of a third
party' and not damage to the property of the 'insured' himself.
And the limit of liability fixed for damage to property of a third
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
party is rupees six thousand only as pointed out earlier. That is
why even the claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 is
invested with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for
compensation in respect of accidents involving death of or
bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles,
or damage to any property of a third party so arising, or both.
Here also it is restricted to damage to third party property and
not the property of the insured. Thus, the entire chapter XI of
the New Act concerns third party risks only. It is, therefore,
obvious that insurance is compulsory only in respect of third
party risks since Section 146 prohibits the use of a motor
vehicle in a public place unless there is in relation thereto a
policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter
XI. Thus, the requirements of that chapter are in relation to
third party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the
New Act must be limited thereto. The certificate of insurance to
be issued in the prescribed form (See Form 51 prescribed under
Rule 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) must,
therefore, relate to third party risks. Since the provisions under
the New Act and the Old Act in this behalf are substantially the
same in relation to liability in regard to third parties, the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was right
in the view it took based on the decision in Kondaih's case
because the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third
party qua the vehicle in question. It is only in respect of third
party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the
certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance
described therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in
favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred.
XXX XXX XXX XXX"
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
13. In view of the above foregoing discussion, the findings of the
learned Tribunal fastening liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company
do not warrant any interference by this Court and are accordingly upheld.
Cross-Objections No.21-CII-2007
14. So far as cross-objections are concerned, a perusal of the award
shows that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the
deceased-Subhash Yadav as Rs.7,000/- per month, whereas, his Income Tax
Return shows that he was earning Rs.2,50,980/- per annum. The learned
Tribunal had erred in assessing his contribution in running the said
businesses on much lower side. Reference at this stage can be made upon
the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in S.Vishnu Ganga and others
Vs. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2025 INSC 123. The
relevant extracts of the same are reproduced as under:-
11. XXX XXXX XXX .....
It is no longer res integra that Income Tax Returns are reliable
evidence to assess the income of a deceased, reference whereof
can be made to Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738, Para 17; Kalpanaraj v. Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764 Para
7, and K Ramya (supra) Para 14.
12. The observations, as under, in Sushma (supra) fortify our
view:
"7. Therefore in the matter of determining the
compensation certain larger aspects have to be kept in
perspective and even if it is expected that the Bakery
business is continued, the loss due to the death of the
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
husband and his expertise in such business certainly
would be at least to the extent of 50% of the normal way
in which the business was conducted..."
13. XXX XXXX XXX
12. Furthermore, Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a
beneficial and welfare legislation, Ningamma v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710. that
seeks to provide compensation as per the
contemporaneous position of an individual which is
essentially forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability,
which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past
and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the
compensation under the Act is concerned with providing
stability and continuity in peoples' lives in the future.
See Peter Cane, Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and
the Law (7th Edition, Cambridge University Press,
2006) 411-412. Keeping the above mentioned principles
in the backdrop, we now move on to the facts at hand."
XXX XXXX XXX
17. The mere fact that the Deceased's share of
ownership in these businesses ventures was transferred
to the Deceased's minor children just before his death or
to the dependents after his death is not a sufficient
justification to conclude that the benefits of these
businesses continue to accrue to his dependants. On the
contrary, it has come on record that the Deceased was
actively involved in the day-to-day administration of
these businesses from their stage of infancy, had
undergone specialized training to administer his
business and that the audit reports neatly delineate
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
Deceased's share of income from the businesses. These
facts necessitate that the entire amount from the
business ventures is treated as income. Similarly, the
amount earned from the bank interests and remaining
investments must also be included as income." (sic)
15. On the touchstone of the above referred to judgment, it is
pertinent to take into consideration the Income Tax Return of the deceased
for assessing his actual income. The learned Tribunal had erred in
calculating the income of the deceased on lower side solely on the basis that
his business was transferred to his father and therefore, no loss of income
would accrue due to his death. The learned Tribunal had completely ignored
the personal expertise of an entrepreneur in running his business, even
though, the deceased's business was transferred and running after his death
but it cannot be said that the death of deceased had not effected the
functioning of his business. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
assess the monthly income of the deceased on a higher side than the one
assessed by the learned Tribunal. Naveen Gulati, who was examined as
PW5, deposed that he had seen Saral Form 2D, which was attested by him
and the same pertains to the Assessment Year 2002-2003 of the deceased-
Subhash Yadav which is proved on record as Ex.PW5/B. The statement of
Naveen Gulati was further corroborated by the statement of PW7-Yashpal
Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Assistant of Income Tax Department, Rewari,
who tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.PW7/A, vide which, he brought
the Income Tax Return of the deceased-Subhash Yadav for the Assessment
Year 2002-2003. The annual income of the deceased-Subhash Yadav was
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
proved to be Rs.2,50,980/- for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 as per Saral
Form 2D (Ex.PW7/B). Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased-
Subhash Yadav is to be assessed as Rs.20,000/-.
16. Further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal
has also erred in applying the multiplier of 12 instead of 13 and also erred in
deducting 1/3 amount instead of 1/4 towards personal expenses. The learned
Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future prospects, loss of estate,
loss of consortium. Moreover, the amount granted towards funeral expenses
is on the lower side. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases
121], laid down the law on assessment of compensation and the relevant
paras of the same are as under:-
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards
personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units
indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply
standardised deductions. Having a considered several
subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that
where the deceased was married, the deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-
third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is
2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family
members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of
dependent family members exceeds six.
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are
the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal
and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is
also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will
not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be
considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
dependants, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.
32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and
siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a
dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to
the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large
and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case
where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger
non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living
expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the
family will be taken as two-third.
* * * * * *
42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be
as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by
applying Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charlie),
which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age
groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to
35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and
M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every
five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60
years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified
the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
on the following aspects:-
(A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine
multiplicand;
(B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;
(C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;
(D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss
of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with
escalation;
(E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for
different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed
salary.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned,
we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in
Rajesh². It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral
expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs
1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor
children. The head relating to loss of care and minor
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh
Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The
conventional and traditional heads, needless to say,
cannot be determined on percentage basis because that
would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike
determination of income, the said heads have to be
quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable
foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that
price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in
many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain
oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in
this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in
determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is
applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind
of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders
passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable
sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000,
Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of
revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But
the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric.
We think that it would be condign that the amount that
we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage
basis in every three years and the enhancement should be
at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are
disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency
in respect of those heads.
* * * * *
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50%
of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent
job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased
was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be
15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less
tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was
below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10%
where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60
years should be regarded as the necessary method of
computation. The established income means the income
minus the tax component.
59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals
and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that
judgment.
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced
at the rate of 10% in every three years."
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Others [2018(18) SCC 130] after considering Sarla Verma (supra) and
Pranay Sethi (Supra) has settled the law regarding consortium. Relevant
paras of the same are reproduced as under:-
"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi²
dealt with the various heads under which compensation
is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is
loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a
compendious term which encompasses "spousal
consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial
consortium". The right to consortium would include the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.
With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse.
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which
allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of
"company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation".
21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon
the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training".
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a
child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
great shock and agony to the parents and family of the
deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their
child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their
love, affection, companionship and their role in the
family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing
norms about the status and worth of actual relationships.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that
the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the
economic value of the compensation awarded in the case
of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore
permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of
consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love,
affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation
aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families,
in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has
lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the
parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium
under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium
is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor
vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have
awarded compensation on this count. However, there
was no clarity with respect to the principles on which
compensation could be awarded on loss of filial
consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as
consortium will be governed by the principles of
awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as
laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the
deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial
consortium.
CONCLUSION
20. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above referred to judgments, the present appeal filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed being devoid of any merits, whereas cross-objections
filed by the claimants/cross-objectors are allowed. The award dated
01.02.2007 is modified accordingly. The cross-objectors/claimants are held
entitled to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-
Sr. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Monthly Income Rs.20,000/-
2 Future prospects @ 25% Rs.5,000/- (25 % of 20,000)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.6,250/- {( 20,000 + 5,000) X
expenditure 1/4 1/4}
4 Total Income Rs.18,750/- (25,000 - 6,250)
6 Annual Dependency Rs.29,25,000/- (18,750 X 12 X 13)
7 Loss of Estate Rs.18,000/-
8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/-
9 Loss of Consortium Rs.1,92,000/-
Spousal : Rs. 48,000 x 1
Parental : Rs.48,000 x 3
Total Compensation Rs.31,53,000/-
Amount Awarded by the Rs.7,80,000 /-
Tribunal
Enhanced amount Rs.23,73,000/-
(Rs.31,53,000 - 7,80,000)
FAO-3904-2007 (O&M) &
21. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma
2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the cross-objectors/
claimants are granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount
from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.
22. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
amount of compensation with the Tribunal within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to
disburse the amount of compensation along with interest in the account of
claimants/cross-objectors as per award. The claimants/cross-objectors are
directed to furnish their bank account details to the Tribunal.
23. In view of the order passed by this Court in FAO No.1682 of
2007 dated 18.07.2024, the Insurance Company is hereby directed to
disburse the current scheduled fee to Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate within
a period of twenty days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
24. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
21.03.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Virrendra JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
