Madras High Court
Manjula vs M.Sakthivel on 8 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MAD 2110
Author: V.M.Velumani
Bench: V.M.Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.(MD)No.972 of 2011
1.Manjula
2.Rajappan
3.Gnanambal
4.Minor Mathina
5.Minor Sudhanthiraselvi
6.Mahalingam
7.Selvaraj
8.Minor Krishnamoorthy ... Appellants/Petitioners
[Minor appellants 4, 5 and 8 are rep.
By their next friend and mother, 1st
appellant herein]
Vs.
1.M.Sakthivel
2.The Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
Madapparapil Chambers, M.C.Road,
Muvattupuzha,
Kerala State. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the fair order and decreetal order passed in
M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2007, dated 05.01.2009, on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.
!For Appellants : Mr.R.P.Ramachanthiran
^For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.J.S.Murali
:JUDGMENT
The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai. They filed the said Claim Petition claiming a sum of Rs.14 Lakhs as compensation for the death of one Tamilselvan. The first appellant is the wife, appellants 2 and 3 are the parents, appellants 4 and 5 are the daughters, appellants 6 and 7 are the brothers and the eighth appellant is the son of the deceased.
2.According to the appellants, the deceased was doing business of buying and selling Tamarind. On 11.07.2006, the deceased Tamilselvan purchased Tamarind at Madurai and loaded the same in the Van belonging to the first respondent and travelled along with the goods and his loadmen. At that time, the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle on Pudukkottai Road in a rash and negligent manner and due to the same, the vehicle got capsized. In the accident, the said Tamilselvan and others sustained grievous injuries. The said Tamilselvan died on the way to the hospital and one Karunanithi, who had travelled along with the said Tamilselvan as a loadman, died in spite of medical treatment. One Suriyamoorthy, who had also travelled in the said vehicle as loadman, sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent and hence, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation. At the time of accident, the said Tamilselvan was doing Tamarind business and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and the appellants are legal heirs and dependants of the deceased.
3.The first respondent has filed counter before the Tribunal contending that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent, but due to overloading and the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and therefore, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the appellants/claimants.
4.The second respondent filed a counter and contended that the deceased and others had travelled in the vehicle belonging to the first respondent in violation of permit and policy condition. They travelled as passengers and not as owners or loadmen. As per permit condition, only 3 persons can travel in the Cabin. When the deceased and others got into the vehicle, already there were two persons in the Cabin and more than 6 persons travelled in the Van. In view of violation of policy and permit condition, the second respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants.
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the appellants, one Geetha was examined as P.W.1, one Sooriyamoorthy, who had travelled in the vehicle involved in the accident as a loadman, was examined as P.W.2, one Mayilvahanan was examined as P.W.3 and the first appellant examined herself as P.W.4. and six documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On the side of the respondents, one Anantha Raman was examined as R.W.1 and three documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.
6.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings and both the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that it is not clear from evidence whether the deceased and others travelled as owner of goods or as passengers. In view of such finding, the Tribunal exonerated the second respondent Insurance Company and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation arrived at.
7.Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants have come out with the present appeal.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants stated that the deceased Tamilselvan travelled in the Van along with 17 bags of Tamarind and the respondents have not produced any contra evidence.
9.A reading of Ex.P.1-First Information Report and the evidence of P.W.2 would show that the deceased Tamilselvan travelled as the owner of 17 bags of Tamarind and others as Coolies. The finding of the Tribunal that in view of minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 - First Information Report, the appellants have not proved their case is not correct. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the person, who lodged the complaint was in a disturbed state of mind and the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence let in by the appellants and the claimants in other Claim Petitions. The policy filed and marked by the second respondent as Ex.R.3 is not a complete policy and it is an incomplete document. The said policy did not include the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy need not be construed strictly, but, it must be read considering the main purpose of the policy, which is a contract.
10.The first respondent has paid extra premium and therefore, the second respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for the owner of goods and his representatives. As per Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the driver, cleaner, employees of insurer and owner of goods or authorized representatives of owner of goods are covered by policy. There is no necessity to pay additional premium to cover the owner of the goods or his authorized representatives. In any event, in the present case, the first respondent has paid additional premium for two more persons. The deceased Tamilselvan and others boarded the vehicle along with Tamarind bags purchased by Tamilselvan in the backside of the vehicle as owner and coolies respectively.
11.The said Tamilselvan travelled in the rear side of the vehicle along with goods and his coolies. As per Rule 236 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, six persons can travel in goods vehicle. As per IMT 37-A, owners of goods are covered under policy.
12.The Tribunal erred in fixing the meagre amount of Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased and wrongly deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have calculated loss of income at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month and applied multiplier of '16'. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the amount awarded under the head of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection for the appellants 2 to 5 and 8 are very meagre. The Tribunal even if comes to the conclusion that there is violation of policy condition, ought to have directed the second respondent to pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the first respondent. The deceased and others travelled as owner of goods and Coolies respectively and as per Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
13.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the following judgments:-
(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Baljit Kaur and Others reported in 2004 (1) TNMAC 1 (SC), it has been held as follows:
''17.By reason of the 1994 Amendment what was added as "including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle". The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. .....
19. ..... The premium in view of the 1994 Amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise.''
(ii)Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Meenakshi and others reported in 2009 (2) LW 353, it has been held as follows:
''6. .... Section 147(1)(i) provides that in order to comply with the requirements of the said Chapter, an insurance policy would cover any liability incurred by the insured in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods etc. ....... The insurer can and may contract to cover risks and liabilities which he is not bound to under the Act. To put it in other words, he can expand his net of coverage far beyond the statute-imposed limits, but he cannot restrict his net of coverage contrary to the statute. .....''
(iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Selvi and another reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 714, it has been held as follows:
''11. ..... But by virtue of the statutory fiction under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods is covered by the Policy without additional premium. .....''
(iv) Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D.Gunasekaran and others reported in 2014 (2) TN MAC 79, it has has held as follows:
''31.Learned counsel for the Appellant heavily contended that the vehicle was not hired or chartered with any specific destination and therefore, the Claimants are not entitled to any Compensation, whereas RW.1, witness examined, has specifically deposed that as per IMT 37-A, there is nothing to indicate that the vehicle should not be stopped in the midway and transport goods.
44.Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident, is a goods carriage vehicle and not a Contract Carriage Vehicle. Insofar as the goods carriage vehicle is concerned, Section 147 makes an exception, to the passengers, who accompany the goods, as owners or their representatives. As per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, liability to pay compensation to the owner of the goods or his authorised representatives, travelling in a Goods Vehicle, is covered under Act Policy. The provision amply makes it clear that there is no total prohibition, as to the coverage of liability for the persons travelling in a Goods Vehicle, other than the owner of the goods or his representative. The insurer is absolved of its liability from payment of Compensation only, in the case, where the injuries or death occurred to an individual, travelling in the goods carriage vehicle, not in the capacity as owner of goods.
45.In the light of Section 147 of the Act, a non-fare paying passenger is different from the owner of the goods. If we look at the IMT 37-A, it speaks about both, non-fare paying passengers and the owner of the goods.
This Court is of the view that no additional premium is required to be paid by the insured for covering the owner of the goods or his representative or an employee of the insured, if he was engaged in driving, and carried in a goods carriage vehicle. In IMT 37-A of the Tariff, there is a clear distinction between the owner of goods, who is statutorily covered under the Act Policy and a non-fare paying passenger, for whom, a sum of Rs.75/- has to be collected by the Company, if he has to be covered under the Policy. It means that the owner of a vehicle can pay an additional premium of Rs.75/- for a non-fare paying passenger, which is not required, in the case of owner/owners of the goods.
63.Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, states that no person shall be carried in the cabin of a goods carriage beyond the number for which there is a seating accommodation at the rate of thirty eight centimeters measured along the seat, excluding the space reserved for the driver, for each person, and not more than six persons in all in addition to the driver shall be carried in any goods carriage. Thirty eight Centimetres space may accommodate one passenger.
74.IMT 37-A, would cover persons, falling under Section 147(1)(c), I.e., to cover any contractual liability, which is provided under IMT.37-A, which states that, other than statutory liability. As per Rule 236 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, if six persons are permitted to travel in a goods carriage vehicle, then it cannot be expected that all the six persons can sit in the cabin. Inevitably, they have to travel only in the back portion of the vehicle, along with the goods. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the owner of the vehicle has to travel only in the cabin and if not, he is not entitled to any Compensation, cannot be accepted in the case of a goods carriage vehicle, when Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, permit carrying 7 persons, including a driver. No where in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a prohibition that the owner cannot travel in the back portion of a goods carriage vehicle.
160.As per Section 147 of the Act read with Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, six persons, can travel in the goods vehicle, apart from the Driver. As regards the alterative plea of the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company that as per IMT.37-A, Rs.75/- alone has been collected and on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is applicable to only passenger, this Court is not in agreement with the said contention. Even assuming that one of the women travelled as a Non-Fare Paying Passenger, apart from the statutory liability, in terms of Section 147 r/w. Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, that one person may fall under the head, legal liability, other than the statutory liability, this Court is inclined to follow National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anjana Shyam [2007 (2) TN MAC 193 (SC)].''
(v) National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Raja and others reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 243 (DB), it has been held as follows:
''7. ...... As per Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, driver, cleaner and owner of the goods or authorised representatives of owner of the goods are covered under basic premium. Insured is permitted to pay additional premium for workers, loadmen.
(vi) C.M.A.No.2825 of 2010 [Chitra and 4 others Vs.M.Shanthi and another, dated 25.09.2014], wherein at paragraphs 12 and 15, this Court has held as follows:
''12.The judgment delivered in C.M.A.Nos.1739 to 1746 of 2007, dated 13.06.2014 (Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. D.Gunasekaran and others) gives a fitting answer to this issue. In the said Judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court, considering Rule 236 & 238 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, has held as follows:
''63.Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, states that no person shall be carried in the cabin of a goods carriage beyond the number for which there is a seating accommodation at the rate of thirty eight centimeters measured along the seat, excluding the space reserved for the driver, for each person, and not more than six persons in all in addition to the driver shall be carried in any goods carriage. Thirty eight Centimetres space may accommodate one passenger.
74.IMT 37-A, would cover persons, falling under Section 147(1)(c), i.e., to cover any contractual liability, which is provided under IMT.37-A, which states that, other than statutory liability. As per Rule 236 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, if six persons are permitted to travel in a goods carriage vehicle, then it cannot be expected that all the six persons can sit in the cabin. Inevitably, they have to travel only in the back portion of the vehicle, along with the goods. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the owner of the vehicle has to travel only in the cabin and if not, he is not entitled to any compensation, cannot be accepted in the case of a goods carriage vehicle, when Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, permit carrying 7 persons, including a driver. No where in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is a prohibition that the owner cannot travel in the back portion of a goods carriage vehicle. In a given case, if the cleaner of a goods carriage vehicle, travels in the cabin, then the owner of the vehicle, has to travel in the back portion of the goods carriage vehicle. Though the learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance to Paragraph 19 of the judgment made in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma reported in 2008 (1) SCC 423, wherein, it is stated that,
19. It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle., no other judgment has been produced before this Court nor any specific provision, in the Act or the Rules, is pointed out, to substantiate his contention that the statute mandates that for claiming compensation, arising out of an accident, the owner of the goods or his representative, must have travelled only in the cabin. Otherwise, such a owner of goods or his representative, becomes an unauthorised or a gratuitous passenger.
76.As per Rule 238 of the Rules, no person shall be carried in goods carriage upon the goods or otherwise in such a manner that such person is in danger of falling from the vehicle, and in no case, shall any person be carried in a goods carriage in such a manner that any part of his person, when he is in a sitting position, is at a height exceeding 300 centimetres from the surface upon which the vehicle rests. The abovesaid rule also indicates that the owner of the goods or his representative, can travel along with the goods, but should ensure his safety. Reading of the rule makes it clear that he can travel in a sitting position, not upon the goods or otherwise, in such a manner, that such person is in danger of falling from the vehicle. One cannot expect the goods, to be kept in the cabin. If the rule permits the owner of the goods to travel along with the goods, in a sitting position, then, it cannot be contended that to claim compensation, arising out of an accident, the owner of the goods or his representative, must have travelled only in the cabin. What is contemplated in Rule 238 is that if the owner of the goods or his representative, travels in the goods carriage vehicle, in such a dangerous manner, then it would be a violation of the rule, and consequently, the policy condition, in which event, the Insurance Company, by substantiating the same, may seek for exoneration, from its liability to pay compensation. That is exactly the decision, rendered in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Minor Krishnan reported in 2004 (4) CTC 290, where the deceased and the injured travelled on the top of the goods.
A reading of the above said judgment would show that there is no total prohibition under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, preventing the owner of the goods to travel in the back portion of the cabin of the goods carriage vehicle. Only if he travels in the vehicle by sitting at a height exceeding 300 centimetres from the surface upon which the vehicle rests, then only it would be a violation to the Rules. Only in those cases, the Insurance Company can deny their liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.''
14.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the deceased Tamilselvan and others travelled as gratuitous passengers and not as owner of goods or representatives of goods or loadmen.
15.In the claim petition, the appellant and others have stated that the deceased and others purchased Tamarind at Madurai and were travelling in the vehicle from Madurai as owner of goods and coolies respectively. On the other hand, from the evidence, it is seen that the deceased and others got into the Van not from Madurai, but at Sivagangai. It is also admitted that the deceased and others got into the Van, when already there were two persons in the Cabin. As per permit condition, only three persons can travel in the Cabin. More than three persons travelled in the Van and they were travelling in the backside of the vehicle. They travelled only as passengers not as owner or coolies along with their goods. The Tribunal has properly appreciated the First Information Report and oral and documentary evidence and rightly held that the second respondent was not liable to pay compensation in view of the violation of policy condition.
16.In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the judgment in Muram Mohan Vs. Gundumogula Venkata Rama Rao and another reported in 2014 ACJ 505, wherein at paragraphs 11 and 17, it has been held as follows:-
''11.A reading of the above provisions of the Act would show that carrying couple of bags of sweet potatoes by a passenger and boarding the vehicle midway, as admitted by him, would not become goods within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act, as the luggage carried do not fall within the meaning of goods as defined in Section 2(13) of the Act. A reading of Section 2(13) of the Act would indicate that weight and volume of bags carried by the passenger would have relevance to find out whether they are luggage or goods. Further, Section 147(1)(b)(1) of the Act reads as ''including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle''. The intention of the lawmakers appears to be cover the risk of owner of the goods or his representative, who actually engages the goods vehicle for transport of goods from one destination to anther, but does not include persons boarding the goods vehicle midway with a baggage of goods or luggage by paying some money to the driver of the vehicle. Few bags potatoes carried by the injured are not of such a volume which cannot be carried either in a bus, train or small van. The said baggage does not require a goods vehicle, more so a lorry.
17.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the second respondent and perused the materials available on record. Though the first respondent's name has been printed in the cause list, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.
18.The appellants have field Claim Petition claiming compensation for the death of one Tamilselvan. According to the appellants, the said Tamilselvan was doing business of selling Tamarind. He used to purchase Tamarind in bulk and sell the same in retail. On the date of accident, he purchased 17 bags of Tamarind and travelled in the vehicle belonging to the first respondent along with 17 bags of Tamarind and his coolies. He travelled in the rear side of the Van along with coolies as his representatives and goods. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent. The first respondent in his counter has stated that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving, but due to overloading.
19.The contention of the second respondent is that Tamilselvan and others travelled in the Van as gratuitous passengers and hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation in view of violation of policy conditions and the second respondent Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for gratuitous passengers or paid passengers travelling in the goods vehicle.
20.Considering the abovesaid arguments as well as the materials on record, it is seen that the appellants have specifically stated that the deceased Tamilselvan and others travelled in the van along with 17 bags of Tamarind. The respondents have not let in any evidence to disprove this contention. The deceased and others travelled with 17 bags of Tamarind. Therefore, they travelled with goods and not with luggage. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent reported in 2014 ACJ 505 does not advance the case of the second respondent but supports the case of the appellants.
21.The first respondent/owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle ought to have been examined by the second respondent to show that Tamilselvan and others did not travel along with the goods. Similarly, the respondents have contended that when Tamilselvan and others got into the vehicle, already there were two persons sitting in the Cabin. The respondents have given the names of two persons, who have alleged to have travelled in the Cabin. The respondents did not let in any evidence to substantiate this contention. They have not examined any one of the persons, who was sitting in the Cabin already to substantiate their contention.
22.In view of the failure on the part of the respondents to disprove the contention of the appellants that the deceased Tamilselvan and others travelled along with the goods and the contention of the first respondent that the accident occurred due to overloading, I hold that the deceased Tamilselvan and others travelled in the vehicle along with their goods as owners and coolies.
23.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner of the goods or his representatives are covered by the Insurance Policy and no extra premium need be paid to cover owner or his authorized representatives, who travelled in the goods vehicle, has considerable force.
24.Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was amended in the year 1994 by Act 54 of 1994, which came into effect from 14.11.1994. As per amendment to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner of goods as well as his authorized representatives are covered by the policy issued by the Insurance Company. As per permit condition, only three persons can travel in the Cabin. In the present case, the respondents have not substantiated their contention that two persons were already travelling in the Cabin. As per Rule 236 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, six persons can travel in goods vehicle. The issue whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for owner of goods, who travelled in the goods vehicle along with goods, was considered by this Court in the judgments referred to above relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants.
25.In the said judgments, this Court held that as per Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as IMT.37-A, the owner or authorized representative of goods is entitled to claim compensation from the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. This Court, in the judgment dated 25.09.2014, made in C.M.A.No.2825 2010 referred to above, elaborately considered the scope of Rule 236 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules.This Court held that as per the said Rule, six persons can travel along with their goods. Once six persons are permitted to travel along with the goods as per the said Rule, some of the persons have to travel only in the backside of the vehicle as only three persons can travel in the Cabin. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that the deceased Tamilselvan travelled in the backside of the goods vehicle as an unauthorized passenger and therefore, the second respondent Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, is without merits.
26.The Tribunal has failed to consider Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 236 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules and IMT.37-A. As per the above provision, the owner of goods, even if he travels in the backside of the goods vehicle along with his goods, is entitled to claim compensation from the Insurance Company for the injuries and his legal heirs are entitled to claim compensation from the Insurance Company for the death.
27.For the above reason, the award of the Tribunal exonerating the second respondent Insurance Company is set aside. The second respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the appellants.
28.As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal erred in fixing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. Considering the nature of business carried out by the deceased and his age, the said amount is meagre. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.4,000/-. The age of the deceased was 35 at the time of accident. Considering the nature of business carried out by the deceased and his age, the appellants are entitled to 40% for future prospects. Eight appellants have claimed compensation. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd from the monthly income of the deceased instead of 1/5th. Thus, the loss of income is modified as follows:-
Rs.4,000 + 1,600 = 5,600 - 1/5th [Rs.1,120/-] X 12 X 16 = Rs.8,60,160/-.
29.The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. The amounts granted towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses are meagre. The same are enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The Tribunal has not granted any amount towards loss of estate. The appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed.
30.The break-up details of the award thus modified by this Court are as under:
Sl.
No. Description Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded by this Court Award confirmed or modified or enhanced or granted 1 Loss of Income 3,84,000 8,60,160 Enhanced 2 Loss of Love and Affection 10,000 10,000 Confirmed 3 Loss of Consortium 10,000 40,000 Enhanced 4 Funeral Expenses 3,000 15,000 Enhanced 5 Loss of Estate
-
15,000 Granted Total 4,07,000 9,40,160 Enhanced by Rs.5,33,160
31.The Judgements relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and judgements relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent do not advance the case of the second respondent.
32.The second respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount now modified by this Court with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the additional Court fees, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
33.In the light of the above modification in the award amount, the first appellant is entitled to Rs.1,75,160/- and the second appellant is entitled to Rs.90,000/- and the third appellant is entitled to Rs.1,08,000/- and the appellants 4, 5 and 8 would be entitled to Rs.1,49,000/- each and the appellants 6 and 7 are entitled to Rs.60,000/- each with accrued interest and costs, on making necessary application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall deposit the shares of appellants 4, 5 and 8, who are minor claimants, in a Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks, which shall be renewed periodically, till they attain majority. The first appellant ? mother of the minors is permitted to withdraw interest on the share of her minor children, viz., appellants 4, 5 and 8, once in three months from the bank directly.
34.In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award amount is enhanced from Rs.4,07,000/- to Rs.9,40,160/-. No costs.
CM/smn2 To
1.The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.