Karnataka High Court
Smt. H.K. Manjula vs Sri. Nagaraju H L on 11 December, 2020
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
M.F.A.No.8697/2015 c/w
M.F.A.No.7790/2015 & M.F.A.No.7791/2015 (MV)
IN M.F.A.No.8697/2015:
BETWEEN :
1. SMT.H.K.MANJULA
W/O H.V.KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
2. SRI H.K.KANTHARAJU
S/O H.V.KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
3. SMT.H.K.PAVITHRA
D/O H.V.KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
4. SMT.H.K.KAVYA
D/O H.V.KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT
VIDYANAGARA EXTENSION,
HASSAN TOWN-573201 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADV.)
-2-
AND :
1. SRI NAGARAJU H.L.,
S/O LINGARAJU, MAJOR
R/AT MARUTHI NILAYA,
3RD STAGE, 7TH CROSS,
HEMAVATHI NAGAR, HASSAN TOWN,
HASSAN-573201
2. THE MANAGER
BHARATHI AXA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR,
THE FIRN ICON SY.NO.28,
NEXT TO AKKI BYALET,
DODANEKUNDI OF OUTER RING ROAD,
BANGALORE-560037 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R-2;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.01.2017 NOTICE TO R-1 IS
DISPENSED WITH.)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
18.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC No.983/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL
MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No.7790/2015:
BETWEEN :
THE MANAGER
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
I FLOOR, FERNS ICON, SY.NO.28
NEXT TO AKKI BYALET
DODDANEKKUNDI OUTER RING ROAD
BANGALORE-560 037
HEREIN APPEAL AS:
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE
-3-
COMPANY LIMITED
1st FLOOR, FERNS ICON, SY.NO.28
DODDANEKKUNDI, K.R.PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 037
REPRESENTED BY THE
ZONAL MANAGER -LEGAL CLAIMS ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.)
AND :
1. NAGARAJU H.L.,
S/O LINGARAJU, MAJOR
MARUTHI NILAYA, 3RD STAGE
7TH CROSS, HEMAVATHI NAGAR
HASSAN-573201.
2. H.K.KANTHARAJU
S/O LATE H.V.KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT VIDYANAGARA EXTENSION
HASSAN TOWN-573201. ...RESPONDENTS
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
18.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC No.984/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL
MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.12,000/-
WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THE REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No.7791/2015:
BETWEEN :
THE MANAGER
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
1ST FLOOR, FERNS ICON, SY.NO.28
NEXT TO AKKI BYALET
DODDANEKKUNDI OUTER RING ROAD
BANGALORE-560 037
-4-
HEREIN APPEAL AS:
BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
1st FLOOR, FERNS ICON, SY.NO.28
DODDANEKKUNDI, K.R.PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 037
REPRESENTED BY THE
ZONAL MANAGER -LEGAL CLAIMS ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.)
AND :
1. NAGARAJU H.L.,
S/O LINGARAJU, MAJOR
MARUTHI NILAYA, 3RD STAGE
7TH CROSS, HEMAVATHI NAGAR
HASSAN-573201
2. H.K.MANJULA
W/O LATE H.V.KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
3. H.K.KANTHARAJU
S/O LATE H.V.KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
4. H.K.PAVITHRA
D/O LATE H.V.KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
5. H.K.KAVYA
D/O LATE H.V.KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESPONDENT No.2 TO 5 ARE
R/AT VIDYANAGARA EXTENSION,
HASSAN TOWN-573201 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADV. FOR R-2 TO R-5;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 14.12.2015 NOTICE TO R-1 IS
DISPENSED WITH.)
-5-
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
18.08.2015 PASSED IN MVC No.983/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL
MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.6,57,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 09.11.2020, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Since these appeals arise out of the same accident, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 18.08.2015 passed in MVC No.983/2012 and MVC No.984/2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Hassan ['Tribunal' for short]. -6-
3. The claimants in MVC No.983/2012 averred that on 07.05.2012 at about 3.30 p.m., H.V. Krishna while traveling with his son H.K.Kantharaju in the Innova Car bearing registration No.KA-13-M-0459 (offending vehicle), met with the road traffic accident on account of the actionable negligence of the driver of the said car near Ibbeedu village on Hassan-Belur Road, Belur Taluk. As a result, both the deceased H.V. Krishna and H.K.Kantharaju sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, H.V. Krishna was shifted to the Government Hospital, Belur in 108 Ambulance and as per the advice of the doctors of the said Hospital, he was then shifted to Hassan Government Hospital, wherein the doctor on examination informed that he was brought dead.
4. It was contended that the deceased - H.V. Krishna was Class - I contractor and was doing contract work from 25 years and at the time of the accident he -7- was earning Rs.35,00,000/- per month. The deceased was owning 5 Tippers, 2 rollers, 1 tar mix maker flavor, 2 Itachies, 1 J.C.B., 1 S.C. Lorry, 2 Tractors and he had raised loan from different banks to own the said vehicles. The deceased had constructed 'Annapoorneshwari Choultry' in the Hassan City. He was also looking after the agricultural property at Holenarasipura. It was further contended that the deceased died in harness. He had high respect and status in the society. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the family members lost the earning member and they have become helpless to discharge the loan borrowed by the deceased. The future life of the entire family is disturbed.
5. The claimant in MVC No.984/2012 contended that he took treatment as an inpatient at SSM Hospital, Hassan and incurred huge medical expenses. Due to the accidental injuries, he has become -8- permanently disabled. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and due to the accidental injuries sustained, he is not in a position to work as before.
6. In response to the service of notice issued by the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle remained absent and was placed ex-parte. The insurer had appeared before the Tribunal through its counsel and filed written statement denying the petition averments. It was specifically contended that the driver of the Innova Car was a necessary party; the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. Its liability was admitted subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further, it was contended that the claims made by the claimants are exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
7. In the additional written statement filed, it was submitted that the claim petitions have to be dismissed for suppression of material facts and for -9- misguiding the Tribunal by falsely alleging negligence against the driver of the insured car. The deposition of the material eye witness in C.C.No.114/2012 recorded on 24.09.2012 was referred to contend that the alleged eye witness has attributed negligence against the driver of the Swift Car contending that when the accused was driving the offending vehicle one KSRTC bus came from the opposite direction, at that time, a Swift Car was overtaking the bus, in order to avoid the accident with the Swift car, the accused took Innova car [offending vehicle] to the side and hit to the stone. The rash and negligent driving of the accused - driver of the insured car was denied. The accused - driver of the offending vehicle having been acquitted by the Criminal Court vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2012, the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Swift Car and the at the instance of the claimants, the said driver was deliberately kept away from the clutches of law.
- 10 -
8. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-
In MVC No.983/2012:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that H.V.Krishna died in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 07.05.2012 at about 3.30 p.m. on Hassan-Belur Road, Near Ibbeedu Village, Belur Taluk, due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Reg.
No.KA13-N-0459 driven by its driver, when he was travelling in the said vehicle?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
In MVC No.984/2012
1. Whether the petitioners prove that he has sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 07.05.2012 at about 3.30 p.m. on Hassan-Belur Road, Near Ibbeedu
- 11 -
Village, Belur Taluk, due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Reg. No.KA13-N-0459 driven by its driver when the petitioner was travelling in the said vehicle?
2. Whether the petitioners is entitled to compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?"
9. Common evidence was recorded in both the cases. The petitioner No.2 in MVC No.983/2012 who is none other than the petitioner in MVC No.984/2012 got examined himself as PW1 and one witness as PW2. Further one more witness on commission was examined as PW.3. 17 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17.
10. The respondent got examined the driver of offending vehicle as RW.1 and representative of the insurance company was examined as RW.2. 6 documents were marked as Ex.R1 to R6.
- 12 -
11. On analyzing the material evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the petitions with costs holding that claimants in MVC No.983/2012 are entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,57,50,000/- and the claimant in MVC No.984/2012 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.12,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization.
12. Being aggrieved, the insurer has filed MFA No.7790/2015 and MFA No.7791/2015 against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.984/2012 and MVC No.983/2012 respectively challenging the negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas the claimants have preferred MFA No.8697/2015 against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.983/2012 seeking for enhancement of compensation.
13. Learned counsel for the insurer has restricted the arguments to the quantum of
- 13 -
compensation awarded. The arguments of the learned counsel for the insurer are two fold; firstly, the claimant No.1 - widow of the deceased - H.V. Krishna, being self- employed was earning Rs.13,00,000/- to Rs.14,00,000/- per annum. Major son and married daughters not being dependants on the deceased are entitled to compensation only towards loss of estate and not towards loss of dependency. The coordinate bench judgment of this Court in A. Manavalagan vs A. Krishnamurthy and Others reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268 has been referred to. Secondly, it was vehemently argued that the business of the deceased under the name and style of 'Annapoorneshwari Constructions', a partnership firm is continued with the remaining partners, widow and son - claimant Nos.1 and 2. Referring to the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Parimala and Others vs Riyaz Ahmed and Others reported in ILR 2001 KAR 1443, it was argued that the income returned in the income
- 14 -
tax returns by the deceased derived from the business of partnership firm M/s. Annapoorneshwari Constructions, rentals, bank interest from the fixed deposits cannot be construed as his personal income to reckon the compensation amount. It was submitted that the loss of income would be the monitory equivalent to the supervision, skill and efforts of the deceased. A judicious division requires to be made of the income to determine the income attributed to the skill and efforts of the deceased and the income attributed to the partnership firm having regard to the partnership business being continued by the family.
14. Learned counsel for the claimants placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and Others (Civil Appeal Nos.242-243/2020 dated 13.01.2020) submitted that the major children of the deceased who are married and earning can also claim
- 15 -
compensation under the provisions of the Act. They are entitled to compensation under the loss of dependency and the same cannot be restricted to loss of estate. It was argued that the deceased - H.V. Krishna has filed his income tax returns in his individual status as a contractor and paid the applicable rate of tax. Assessments were concluded based on the said returns. As such, the income declared in the income tax returns deserves to be considered as a guiding factor to determine the income of the deceased and no departure could be made from the same. The Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased taking average of the income tax returns filed for the period 2008-09 to 2011-12 after deducting income from deposits/rental income, IT, the same being justifiable, no interference of this Court is warranted. However, the Tribunal denying the compensation towards loss of dependency is wholly unjustifiable. It was argued that the compensation
- 16 -
awarded under the different heads is inadequate and the same requires to be enhanced substantially.
15. We have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
16. As aforesaid, the controversy in the present appeals is confined to the quantum of compensation awarded. The Tribunal denying the loss of dependency reckoned the compensation towards loss to estate and under other conventional heads considering the claimants as financially not dependent on the deceased.
17. It is trite that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals constituted under the Act are required to be hold an enquiry into any claim arising out of the motor accident and may pass an award determining the just compensation. There are two types of damages recoverable under the provisions of the Act. [1]
- 17 -
Compensation to the loss of estate; [2] Loss sustained by persons for loss of expectation of life i.e., one is the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident, the other is pecuniary loss sustained by the members of the victims family through his death. The starting point to ascertain such damages is the income which the deceased was earning, the ascertainment of which depends on the nature of the employment. In the case of A.Manavalagan supra, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court has explained the difference between cases where claimants are dependents and cases where claimants are not dependents by giving illustrations. It is held that where the claim is by dependents, the -basis for award of compensation is the loss of dependency, i.e., the loss of what has contributed by the deceased to such claimants. A conventional amount is awarded towards loss of expectation of life under the head loss to estate. On the other hand, where the claim by the legal
- 18 -
representatives of the deceased, who are not dependents of the deceased is made, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, i.e., the loss of savings by the deceased. It is categorically held that the procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly, the same as the procedure for determination of loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalising it by an appropriate multiplier. The annul contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is the same in both the cases.
18. In the case of Birender and Others supra, the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meager income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their
- 19 -
mother who was working as a peon in the office of the Tahasildar, Uchana and in fact, were staying with her. She met with the motor vehicle accident at the young age of 48 years. In that context, the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded compensation towards loss of dependency.
19. In the present case, the deceased was a contractor and declaration of income returned for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12 would indicate the income earned by him. Returns for the Assessment year 2012-13 were filed subsequent to the date of accident. In the statement of total income, under the head income from partnership firm, namely, M/s. Annapoorneshwari Constructions, it is declared as under:
Interest on Assessment interest on Share of capital + Sl.No. salary year capital profit Share of profit
1. 2008-09 2,90,035/- 20,768/- 56,506/- 3,46,541/-
2. 2009-10 2,59,232/- 22,049/- 22,049/- 2,81,281/-
3. 2010-11 2,94,590/- 20,415/- 7,562/- 3,02,152/-
[income from
4. 2011-12 partnership - 11,068/- 1,75,340/-
firm] 1,92,196/-
- 20 -
20. In all these returns, under the head income from other sources, bank interest, bank FD interest, rental income is shown. The details of which are as under:
Income after Interest on deduction of capital + share Interest I.T, Interest Sl. Assessment Total of profit of Exhibits income/Rent income/rent No Year Income Annapoornesh al Income al income as wari per the I.T. Constructions Returns 1 Ex.P.10 2008-09 3,12,35,930 14,76,803 1,90,84,017 3,46,541/- 2 Ex.P.11 2009-10 1,55,37,710 12,39,004 89,09,603 2,81,281/- 3 Ex.P.12 2010-11 2,79,40,960 12,07,439 1,78,33,181 3,02,152/- 4 Ex.P.13 2011-12 1,97,87,910 11,74,733 1,25,19,253 1,75,340/-
21. The Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased after deducting income from deposits as well as income tax paid/rental income as declared in the returns as shown in the table supra. The average annual income is reckoned at Rs.1,45,86,513/-. The arguments of the insurer that the claimants have not claimed themselves as dependents on the income of the
- 21 -
deceased H.V.Krishna in unequivocal words in the claim petition has some force. There being no specific assertion about the dependency of the claimants on the deceased, the compensation towards loss to estate awarded by the Tribunal though is justifiable but the quantification requires re-determination for the following reasons.
22. It is evident from the records that PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that both first and second claimants were the partners of M/s. Annapoorneshwari Constructions with the deceased H.V.Krishna, third and fourth claimants are well educated and married. Even prior to the death of H.V.Krishna, the claimant No.1 was engaged in contract work and was an income tax assessee. Independent tax returns were filed by both the claimant Nos.1 and 2 [Ex.R1 and R2]. It is categorically admitted by PW1 that after
- 22 -
the death of H.V.Krishna, movables, immovables, profits, remunerations, interest on fixed deposits, current assets, investments, rents from house property and the interest and deposits are continued having been transferred in the name of the claimant No.1 and 2; the firm, M/s. Annapoorneshwari Constructios is continuing its business with the remaining partners, claimant Nos.1 and 2.
23. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.Parimala and Others V/s. Riyaz Ahmed and Others, reported in ILR 2001 KAR 1443, has observed thus:
"20. There is a difference between an income earned by a person by investing his money in fixed deposits and an income earned by a person by investing money as capital in a partnership firm, and on account of his initiative, zeal exertion and business acumen, earning a profit. The profits earned are not only the result of the investment of capital, but is the result of
- 23 -
investment plus the time, skill and effort put in by the partner. There is also a difference between the income of a person who is a dormant partner, who does not contribute to the management, and income earned as an active member.
22. (iii) Where a person is an active partner, who has not only contributed to the capital of the firm but also participates in the management of the business, the calculation of income for purposes of loss of dependency is a somewhat difficult process. This is because what can be taken as income for determining the pecuniary loss, is the income attributable to the efforts, exertion, management skills of the deceased and not the 'income' attributable to the investment made, that is return or interest on the capital. In such cases where the partner is entitled to only a share in the profits/losses, and is not entitled to any remuneration, there should be judicious division of the amount received as share in profits, into income referable or attributable to the capital contribution and the income referable to the effort or exertion put in
- 24 -
by him as a partner to manage the affairs of the firm. The actual percentage of division will depend on the facts of each case. If the partnership deed provides for a share in the profits and also a remuneration, normally, but not always, the remuneration is attributable to the efforts and exertion put in by the partner and the share in profits is for the investment made by way of capital. Here again the matter depends on the facts of each case, that is the terms of partnership the evidence relating to investment, quantum of profits and quantum of remuneration and the time spent by the deceased (full time or part time) in managing the affairs of the firm. A judicious division will have to be made of the income to determine the 'income' attributable to the exertion/effort of the deceased and the income attributable to the investment made."
24. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, three aspects are relevant to determine the income of a partner from the partnership. The first is his share in the profits, the second is the interest on the capital invested in the
- 25 -
firm or advances made to the firm either by way of loan or deposit. The third is the salary or remuneration received by a partner from the firm. Where a person is an active partner who participates in the management of the business what has to be ascertained is whether the partner is entitled to only a share in the profits or losses and he is not entitled to any remuneration, income referable or attributed to the capital contribution and the income referable to the effort or exertion put by him as a partner to manage the affairs of the firm. A judicious division will have to be made to determine income attributable to the exertion or effort of the deceased and the income attributable to the investment made. As per the illustration-C of the judgment referred to supra, where the deceased during his lifetime was a partner in a family business of which he and his brother are the partners, each having invested Rs.1,00,000/- to the capital and both participating in the management of the partnership. Each partner taking a monthly remuneration of
- 26 -
Rs.5,000/- and interest at 12% on the capital invested by each of them and 50% share in the profits/losses, the share in profits being Rs.10,000/- per annum during the relevant year one of the partners died in a motor accident and his son is taken as partner of the deceased on the same terms; and thus the family continues to get the same income, in such situation, the entire income which the deceased used to get from the firm (remuneration plus interest on capital plus share in profits) will not be the loss to the family for the purposes of calculating the loss of dependency. Only the value of the effort put in by the deceased as partner will be a loss to the family. Thus, the remuneration of Rs.5,000/- p.m., will be the loss of income.
25. In the present case, Late H.V.Krishna was receiving remuneration from M/s. Annapoorneshwari Constructions. After his death, his widow and son have continued the business as the remaining partners in the
- 27 -
said firm. Thus, the family of deceased H.V.Krishna is having the benefit of income from the said firm, as it was getting when the deceased was a partner. The remuneration what he was getting from the firm with net profits would be the appropriate income for determination of loss of dependency which would be Rs.20,619/- p.a., taking the average of salary for four years as far as business from partnership firm is concerned.
26. However, the income from business as a civil contractor earned by the deceased is a loss to the family. Deducting income tax, interest on income/rental income as per the IT returns shown as per the table at paragraph 57 of the impugned judgment has been considered to determine the average annual income of the deceased and the same would work out to Rs.1,45,86,513/-. As discussed above, the salary/remuneration earned by the deceased, the
- 28 -
average of which would work out to Rs.20,619/- per annum would be the loss of income as far as partnership firm is concerned. Thus, the average annual income would be Rs.1,45,86,513/- - 2,76,328/- [Average of interest on capital + share of profit of partnership firm] = Rs.1,43,10,185/-.
27. It is evident that the two daughters of the deceased are married, son and widow of the deceased are working as contractors. In such circumstances, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased to be considered towards the savings of the deceased which becomes the multiplicand to reckon the loss to estate. This view is fortified by the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this court in A.Manavalagan supra, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that while considering the quantum of savings for determining the loss to estate [where the claimants are not dependents] in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary, it could be taken as 1/3rd of the income of the deceased where the spouses
- 29 -
are having a common establishment and the same would be applicable where the family consists of non- dependents of spouse/children/parents.
28. Thus, the multiplicand would be Rs.47,70,061/-. Applying the multiplier 9, the loss to estate would be Rs.4,29,30,549/-.
29. Having regard to the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ((2017)16 SCC
680) and New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Somwati and Others reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 720, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium; and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
30. For the reasons aforesaid, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:
- 30 -
Sl.No. Particulars Amount [in Rs.] Loss of spousal
1. 40,000/-
consortium
2. Loss of estate 4,29,30,549/-
3. Towards Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4,29,85,549/-
Total [rounded off to
Rs.4,29,85,550/-]
Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,29,85,550/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
31. In MFA No.7790/2015 arising out of MVC No.984/2012, it is borne out from the records that the claimant has sustained three simple injuries. Considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.9,000/- under the head pain and sufferings. In the absence of any material placed to establish the medical expenses incurred, considering the nature of injuries sustained in terms of the wound certificate marked at Ex.P8, the Tribunal has awarded
- 31 -
the compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses. It is held that the claimant shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.12,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till its realization.
32. On re-appreciation of the evidence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the same being just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, MFA No.7790/2015 stands dismissed.
33. Hence, the following:
ORDER i] Appeal filed by the claimants in MFA.No.8697/2015 stands dismissed. ii] Appeal filed by the insurance company in MFA No.7791/2015 stands allowed in part. iii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to
- 32 -
Rs.4,29,85,550/- as against Rs.6,57,50,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization.
iv] The insurance company shall deposit the re-
assessed total compensation determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.
v] The portion of the order of the Tribunal
inasmuch as apportionment and
disbursement remains intact.
vi] The modified compensation shall be
disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal.
vii] Draw modified award accordingly.
- 33 -
viii] Appeal filed by the insurer in MFA No.7790/2015 stands dismissed.
ix] The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit along with the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PMR/NC.