Himachal Pradesh High Court
Oriental Insurance Company vs Smt. Indiro & Others on 19 June, 2015
Author: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 256 of 2010 a/w FAOs No. 257 to 260, 266 to 274, 297, 298, 301, 337 of 2010, 64, .
152, 153 of 2011, 4009, 4089, 4093 and 4102 of 2013 Reserved on: 29.05.2015 Decided on: 19.06.2015
1. FAO No. 256 of 2010 Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Indiro & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
2. FAO No. 257 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Kanta & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
3. FAO No. 258 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Vidya & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
4. FAO No. 259 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus Smt. Bimla Devi & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 2 :- 5. FAO No. 260 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus .
Shri Ashok Kumar & others ...Respondents. .......................................................................................................................
6. FAO No. 266 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Maya & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
7. FAO No. 267 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus Smt. Sumitra Devi & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
8. FAO No. 268 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Kamlesh & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
9. FAO No. 269 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Lambo & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
10. FAO No. 270 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 3 :- Versus Smt. Lambo & others ...Respondents. .
.......................................................................................................................
11. FAO No. 271 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Kanta & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
12. FAO No. 272 of 2010 Oriental Insurance Company r to
Versus
...Appellant.
Smt. Veena Devi & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
13. FAO No. 273 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Ashok Kumar & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
14. FAO No. 274 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus Shri Ramesh Kumar & others ...Respondents. .......................................................................................................................
15. FAO No. 297 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP
-: 4 :-
Uttam Kumar & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
16. FAO No. 298 of 2010.
Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus Smt. Leela Devi & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
17. FAO No. 301 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
Des Raj & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
18. FAO No. 337 of 2010Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
Darshna Devi & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
19. FAO No. 64 of 2011Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Lekh Raj & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
20. FAO No. 152 of 2011Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus Smt. Naseem Begum & others ...Respondents. .......................................................................................................................
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 5 :- 21. FAO No. 153 of 2011Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
.
Versus Smt. Naseem Begum & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
22. FAO No. 4009 of 2013Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Man Dei & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
23. FAO No. 4089 of 2013The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Uttam & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
24. FAO No. 4093 of 2013The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant.
Versus
Shri Des Raj & others ...Respondents.
.......................................................................................................................
25. FAO No. 4102 of 2013The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Sumitra & others ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP
-: 6 :-
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
FAO No. 257 of 2010For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Nemo for respondent No. 6.
............................................................................................................................
FAO No. 256 of 2010For the appellant:
r Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Nemo for respondent No. 6.
............................................................................................................................
FAO No. 258 of 2010For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Nemo for respondent No. 6.
............................................................................................................................
FAO No. 259 of 2010For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 5.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 7 :-Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.
Nemo for respondent No. 7.
............................................................................................................................
.
FAO No. 260 of 2010For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Nemo for respondent No. 4.
............................................................................................................................
FAO No. 266 of 2010For the appellant:
For the respondents:
r to Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, and 4 to 7.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Nemo for respondent No. 3.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 267 of 2010
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.
Nemo for respondent No. 7.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 268 of 2010
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Nemo for respondent No. 6.
............................................................................................................................::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 8 :-
FAOs No. 269 & 270 of 2010 For the appellant(s): Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
.
For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.
Nemo for respondent No. 7.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 271 of 2010
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Nemo for respondent No. 6.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 272 of 2010
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Nemo for respondent No. 5.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 273 of 2010
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Nemo for respondent No. 4.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 274 of 2010
For the appellants: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 9 :-
For the respondents: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for .
respondent No. 4.
Nemo for respondent No. 5.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 297 of 2010
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Nemo for respondent No. 5.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 298 of 2010
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Nemo for respondent No. 6.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 301 of 2010
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.
Nemo for respondent No. 7.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 337 of 2010
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vijay K. Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 10 :-
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Nemo for respondent No. 5.
.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 64 of 2011
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Nemo for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
............................................................................................................................
FAOs No. 152 & 153 of 2011 For the appellant(s): Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Nemo for respondents No. 1 and 3.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
............................................................................................................................FAO No. 4009 of 2013
For the appellant: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vijay K. Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Nemo for respondent No. 5.
............................................................................................................................
FAOs No. 4089, 4093 & 4102 of 2013 For the appellant(s): Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Nemo for respondent No. 3.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 11 :-
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice This judgment shall govern all the twenty five appeals .
because these are outcome of one motor vehicular accident.
2. These appeals are outcome of the awards made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (for short "the Tribunals") in various claim petitions, which were filed by the claimants being victims of the vehicular accident for grant of compensation, as per the break-ups given in the respective claim petitions (for short "the impugned awards").
3. The claimants have averred in the claim petitions that the driver, namely Shri Satish Kumar, has driven the offending vehicle, i.e. passenger bus, bearing registration No. HP-48-3321, rashly and negligently on 14.08.2009, at place Kundi at about 2.15 -
2.30 P.M. and caused the accident in which 24 persons sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries and 40 persons sustained injuries.
4. Out of the said passengers, victims/claimants have filed only 25 claim petitions and compensation came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, details of which are given in the respective impugned awards.
5. The claimants, the owner-insured and the driver have ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 12 :- not questioned any of the impugned awards on any count, thus, all the impugned awards have attained finality so far the same relate to .
them.
6. The insurer has questioned the impugned awards on the ground that the owner-insured and the driver have committed breach for the reason that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the route permit and the insurance policy read with the mandate of Sections 147 to 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short "the MV Act").
7. Thus, the following points are to be determined in these appeals:
(i) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time?
(ii) Whether the owner-insured has
committed breach as more than
prescribed/permitted passengers were
travelling as passengers in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident?
8. The insurer has failed to prove the issue relating to the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. All the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 13 :- Tribunals, while making the impugned awards, have held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective .
driving licence at the time of the accident.
9. I have perused the records and am of the considered view that there is sufficient evidence on the file to hold that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. Thus, the insurer has failed to discharge the onus.
10. It is worthwhile to mention herein that the learned counsel for the insurer has not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunals relating to the driving licence of the driver.
Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunals on this issue are upheld.
11. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner-
insured has committed any willful breach, has failed to do so. No doubt, more than prescribed passengers were travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, but only twenty five persons have laid the claim petitions. The seating capacity of the offending vehicle was '42 + 2' and the factum of the insurance is not in dispute. Thus, the risk of 42 passengers is covered.
12. It is beaten law of land that the insurer has to satisfy ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 14 :- the award to the extent of the risk covered and if the claim petitions are more than the risk covered, then it is for the insured-owner to .
satisfy the same.
13. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Company Limited versus K.M. Poonam & others, reported in 2011 ACJ 917.
It is apt to reproduce para 24 of the judgment herein:
"24. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is confined to the number of persons covered by the r insurance policy and not beyond the same. In other words, as in the present case, since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. However, the liability of the Insurance Company to make payment even in respect of persons not covered by the insurance policy continues under the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it would be entitled to recover the same if it could prove that one of the conditions of the policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, any of the persons travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted number of six passengers, though entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle, would still be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer, who could then recover it from the insured owner of the vehicle."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 15 :-
14. It is also apt to reproduce para 15 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company .
Limited versus Anjana Shyam & others, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5237, herein:
"15. In spite of the relevant provisions of the statute, insurance still remains a contract between the owner and the insurer and the parties are governed by the terms of their contract. The statute has made insurance obligatory in public interest and by way of social security and it has also provided that the insurer would be obliged to fulfil his obligations as imposed by the contract and as overseen by the statute notwithstanding any claim he may have against the other contracting party, the owner, and meet the claims of third parties subject to the exceptions provided in Section 149(2) of the Act. But that does not mean that an insurer is bound to pay amounts outside the contract of insurance itself or in respect of persons not covered by the contract at all. In other words, the insured is covered only to the extent of the passengers permitted to be insured or directed to be insured by the statute and actually covered by the contract. The High Court has considered only the aspect whether by overloading the vehicle, the owner had put the vehicle to a use not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used. This aspect is different from the aspect of determining the extent of the liability of the insurance company in respect of the passengers of a stage carriage insured in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. We are of the view that the insurance company can be made liable only in respect of the number of passengers for whom insurance can be taken under the Act and for whom insurance has been taken as a fact and not in respect of the other passengers involved in the accident in a case of overloading."
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 16 :-15. This Court in batches of appeals, FAO No. 257 of 2006, titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Sumna @ .
Sharda & others, being the lead case, decided on 10.04.2015, and FAO No. 224 of 2008, titled as Hem Ram & another versus Krishan Chand & another, being the lead case, decided on 29.05.2015, has laid down the same principle, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the insurer.
16. Learned counsel for the insurer argued that the amount awarded in all the claim petitions, on the face of it, is excessive and came to be passed in violation of the Second Schedule appended with the MV Act read with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, and also not in tune with the insurance policy/agreement and the pleadings of the parties.
17. Perusal of the impugned awards does disclose that interest has been awarded @ 12% per annum in all the claim petitions except seven claim petitions, which are subject matter of FAOs No. 64, 152, 153 of 2011, 4009, 4089, 4093 and 4102 of 2013, in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 17 :- which interest has been awarded @ 7.5% per annum, which is not in tune with Section 171 of the MV Act, which provides that the .
interest is to be paid as per the prevailing rates.
18. The Apex Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others versus Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, reported in (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 281, reduced the rate of interest on compensation to 9% from 12% awarded by the High Court. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 39 of the judgment herein:
"39. ............................. Thereafter, the observations made in the case of Kaushnuma Begum, v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 268, have been quoted. After so much of discussion on the point of rate of interest and after mentioning the decisions relied upon by both the side or their part, it could not be said that rate of interest was not in dispute before the Court. As indicated earlier the observation is not indicated to have been made in reference to any statement of the Counsel for the party nor it come out that the respective parties may not have advanced arguments for maintaining the rate of interest as awarded and the other party for reducing the rate of interest. In the light of the position indicated above, we do not think it will be possible to shut out the Insurance Company from urging before us that lesser rate of interest should have been awarded in place of 12% as awarded by the High Court. Before us also, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has referred the decision of this Court reported in A. Robert v. United Insurance Co. Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 463 :::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 18 :-
1982 SCC (Cri) 478, to indicate that interest at the rate of 6% was awarded in that case. Another case cited awarding 6% interest is M. .
S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1426 : (2001) 2 ACC 540, particularly para 34 SCC para 39) has been referred. Jefford & Anr. v. Gee, (1970) 1 All ER 1202 : (1970) 2 QB 130 : (1970) 2 WLR 702 (CA), has also been referred to indicate that the amount awarded is on account of loss of future earning whereas the interest is payable on being kept out of the money it is therefore submitted that the interest may not be payable on the loss of future earning. Another decision which has been referred to is R. D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250, more particularly para 18 of the judgment where it has been held that no interest is awardable on the amount of future expenditure. It is further observed: (SCC p. 559, para 18) "It need not be pointed out that interest is to be paid over the amount which has become payable on the date of award and not which is to be paid for expenditures to be incurred in future."
But it not indicated by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company as to which is that amount out of the amount awarded which is on account of future expenditure yet to be incurred by the claimants. The interest is to be awarded on the amount which is payable on the date of the award. It is also to be noted that in some cases interest at the rate of 6% was awarded. This case however does not help the appellant Insurance Company. The next case which has been cited is Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 268. In this case, interest at the rate of 9% was awarded. The reason indicated in para 24 of the judgment, we quote hereunder : (SCC p. 16) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 19 :- "24. Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the M. V. Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that 'in .
addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as may be specified in this behalf'. Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalized banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposit for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the r rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants."
In our view the reason indicated in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (supra) is a valid reason and it may be noticed that the rate of interest is already on the decline. We therefore, reduce the rate of interest to 9% in place of 12% as awarded by the High Court.
(Emphasis added)"
19. The Apex Court in another case titled as Santosh Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2892, held that the Courts should take into consideration the changing socio-economic conditions. It is apt to reproduce para 11 of the judgment herein:
"11. We have considered the respective arguments. Although, the legal jurisprudence developed in the country in last five decades is somewhat precedent-centric, the judgments which have bearing on socio-economic ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 20 :- conditions of the citizens and issues relating to compensation payable to the victims of motor accidents, those who are deprived of their land .
and similar matters needs to be frequently revisited keeping in view the fast changing societal values, the effect of globalisation on the economy of the nation and their impact on the life of the people."
20. The Apex Court in a case titled as Amrit Bhanu Shali and others versus National Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 738, awarded interest @ 6% per annum. It is apt to reproduce para 17 of the judgment herein:
"17. The appellants produced Income Tax Returns of deceased-Ritesh Bhanu Shali for the years 2002 to 2008 which have been marked as Ext. P-10-C. The Income Tax Return for the year 2007-2008 filed on 12-03-2008 at Raipur, four months prior to the accident, shows the income of Rs. 99,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the aforesaid income of Rs. 99,000/- for computing the compensation. If the 50% of the income of Rs. 99,000/- is deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased the contribution to the family will be 50%, i.e., Rs.49,500/- per annum. At the time of the accident, the deceased-Ritesh Bhanu Shali was 26 years old, hence on the basis of decision in Sarla Verma applying the multiplier of 17, the amount will come to Rs. 49,500/- x 17 = Rs. 8,41,500/-. Besides this amount the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- each towards the affection of the son, i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on account of funeral and ritual expenses and Rs. 2,500/- on account of loss of sight as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the total amount comes to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 21 :- Rs. 9,54,000/- (Rs. 8,41,500/- + Rs. 1,00,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 2,500/-) and the claimants are entitled to get the said amount of .
compensation instead of the amount awarded by the Tribunal and the High Court. They would also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition leaving rest of the conditions mentioned in the award intact."
21. The Apex Court in the case titled as Smt. Savita versus Binder Singh & others, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2053, modified the order made by the Tribunal and enhanced the rate of interest to 8% from 6% as awarded by the Tribunal. It is apt to reproduce paras 3.2 and 10 of the judgment herein:
"3.2 In the claim petition, the appellant- claimant asked for compensation of 20,20,000/0 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum fromt he respondents/opposite parties. The parties filed their pleadings before the Tribunal and the following issues were framed:
....................
10. The order of the High Court and Tribunal is modified. We direct that the claimant/appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.
6,55,400/- plus interest @ 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment as compensation.
Accordingly, we direct that the enhanced amount should be paid to the appellant after deducting the amount already paid, within a period of four weeks from date. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is partly allowed."
22. The Apex Court in the case titled as Kalpanaraj & Ors.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 22 :-versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2982, held that the High Court was justified in reducing the .
rate of interest to 9% per annum from 12% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 16 of the judgment herein:
"16. Further, the High Court has awarded the compensation with interest @ 9% per annum.
We concur with this holding of the High Court in the light of the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association & Ors, (2011) 14 r SCC 481 : AIR 2012 SC 100 : 2011 AIR SCW 6418. Accordingly, we award an interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation to be awarded to the appellants- claimants. ...................."
23. The Apex Court in latest judgments in the cases titled as Amresh Kumari versus Niranjan Lal Jagdish Pd. Jain and others, reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 433, and Mohinder Kaur and others versus Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another, reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 434, awarded interest @ 9% per annum. It is apt to reproduce para 2 of the judgment in Amresh Kumari's case (supra) herein:
"2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question whether interest on the amount of compensation determined to be payable to the claimant is to be awarded from the date of the award or from the date of the filing of the claim petition came up for consideration before this court in Mohinder ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 23 :- Kaur v. Hira Nand Sindhi, (2015) 4 SCC 434, to which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a party, it was held that the claimant was entitled to .
interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Following the said decision, we hold that the appellant would be entitled to simple interest @ 9 per cent, as awarded by the learned Single Judge, from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 11-8-1986."
24. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the interest awarded in all the claim petitions is not in tune with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court read with the mandate of Section 171 of the MV act. Thus, I deem it proper to award interest at the prevailing rate. Accordingly, it is held that the interest @ 9% per annum is granted in all the claim petitions.
25. The next question is - whether the amount awarded is excessive and whether the insurer can question the same?
26. The law developed on the issue is that the insurer cannot question the adequacy of compensation, but, at the same time, the Court has to examine as to what is just compensation and where it appears, on the face of it, to be a booty and borne in disguise, the Court has to interfere.
27. The mandate of Section 168 (1) of the MV Act is to 'determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just'.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 24 :-28. The word "just' has been defined in the Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, .
Deluxe Edition, at page No. 1040, herein:
"just, adj. 1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situation. 2. done or made according to principle;
equitable; proper: a just reply. 3. based on right; rightful; lawful; a just claim. 4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis. 5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty. 6. in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right:
r just proportions. 7. (esp. in Biblical use) righteous. 8. actual, real, or genuine. -adv.
9. within a brief preceding time; but a moment before: The sun just came out. 10. exactly or precisely: This is just what I mean.
11. by a narrow margin: barely: The arrow just missed the mark. 12. only or merely: he was just a clerk until he became ambitious. 13.
actually; really; positively: The weather is just glorious."
29. In the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the word "just" has been defined at page No. 702, as under:
"just. - adv. 1. exactly, 2. at the same moment as, 3. as good,nice, easily, etc., 4. after, beefore, under, etc. sth, 5. used to say that you/sb did sth very recently, 6. at this/that moment, 7. about/going to do sth, 8. simply, 9. (informal) really; completely, 10. to do sth only, 11. used in orders to get sb's attention, give permission etc., 12. used to make a polite request, excuse etc., 13. could/might/may - used to show a slight possibility that sth is true to will happen,
14. used to agree with sb..........::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 25 :-
adj. 1. that most people consider to be morally fair and reasonable, 2. people who are just 3. appropriate in a particular situation."
.
30. In the case titled as State of Haryana and another versus Jasbir Kaur and others, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3696, the Apex Court has discussed the expression 'just'. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein:
"7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in S. 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to be 'just and reasonable'. It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate the compensation must be "just"
and it cannot be a bonanza; nor a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance.
The Courts and Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just" a wide discretion is vested on the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 26 :- whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness. The expression "just" denotes equitability, fairness and reasonableness, and non-arbitrary. If it is .
not so it cannot be just. (See Helen C. Rebello v.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (AIR 1998 SC 3191)."
31. The Apex Court in another case titled as Ningamma & another versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4916, held that the Court is duty bound to award just compensation to which the claimants are entitled to. It is profitable to reproduce para 25 of the judgment herein:
"25. Undoubtedly, Section 166 of the MVA deals with "Just Compensation" and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made under section 166 of the MVA, in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting "Just Compensation" in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the Court is duty bound and entitled to award "Just Compensation" irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. However, whether or not the claimants would be governed with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and whether or not the provisions of Section 147 of the MVA would be applicable in the present case and also whether or not there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased, are essentially a matter of fact which was required to be considered and answered at least by the High Court."
32. The Apex Court in a latest judgment in the case titled as Smt. Savita versus Bindar Singh & others, reported in 2014 AIR ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 27 :- SCW 2053, has laid down the same proposition of law and held that .
the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court can ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation. It is apt to reproduce para 6 of the judgment herein:
"6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court r to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages.
In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation."
33. Applying the test, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the Tribunals have virtually fallen in an error in applying the multiplier in most of the claim petitions. Thus, I deem it proper to reduce the multiplier applied in most of the claim petitions as follows:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 28 :-1. FAO No. 256 of 2010:
34. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased .
to be ` 10,000/- per month and deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of ` 80,004/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '13', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 10,40,052/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 30,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 40,000/-
under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 11,20,052/- .
35. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 46 years. The age of the widow was 40 years and two of the children was 17 years and 14 years, at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '11' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 80,004/- x 11 = ` 8,80,044/- under the head 'loss of income'.
The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 29 :- consortium', ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
.
36. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 8,80,044/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 9,10,044/-.
2. FAO No. 257 of 201037. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased to be ` 10,000/- per month, after deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of ` 80,004/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '16', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 12,80,064/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 30,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 40,000/-
under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 13,60,064/- .
38. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 40 years. The claimants are the widow and the sons and daughters of the deceased.
The age of the widow was also 40 years at the relevant point of time.
Applying the ratio of the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 30 :- case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '14' is applicable.
.
Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 80,004/- x 14 = ` 11,20,056/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
39. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 11,20,056/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 11,50,056/-.
3. FAO No. 258 of 2010:
40. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased to be ` 9,591/- per month, after deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimant to the tune of ` 76,728/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '11', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 8,44,0888/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 30,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 30,000/-
under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 31 :- the tune of ` 9,14,088/- .
41. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 55 years. The .
age of the widow was 45 years at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimant and the judgments in Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari's cases (supra), multiplier of '9' is applicable. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to ` 76,728/- x 9 = ` 6,90,552/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimant is also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
42. Viewed thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 6,90,552/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 7,20,552/-.
4. FAO No. 259 of 2010:
43. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased to be ` 22,417/- per month, after deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of ` 1,79,340/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '15', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 26,90,100/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 32 :- awarded ` 30,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 40,000/-
under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the .
head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 27,70,700/- .
44. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of the accident. The claimants are the widow, sons, daughter and mother of the deceased. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the judgments in Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari's cases (supra), multiplier of '13' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 1,79,340/- x 13 = ` 23,31,420/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
45. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 23,31,420/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 23,61,420/-.
5. FAO No. 260 of 2010:
46. The Tribunal, after taking the future income of the deceased to be ` 10,000/- per month, assessed the loss to the parents to the tune of ` 24,000/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 33 :- '18', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 4,32,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also .
awarded ` 20,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 4,62,000/- .
47. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 2 years. The claimants are the parents of the deceased and the age of the father of the deceased was 31 years, when he appeared in the witness box.
Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari's cases (supra), multiplier of '15' is applicable.
Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 24,000/- x 15 = ` 3,60,000/-
under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
48. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,60,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + = ` 3,80,000/-.
6. FAO No. 266 of 2010:
49. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased to be ` 5,000/- per month and deducting one third towards his ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 34 :- personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of ` 39,820/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '5', .
held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 1,99,100/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 20,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 10,000/-
under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 2,39,100/- .
50. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 62 years. The multiplier of '5' applied by the Tribunal is just and appropriate in view of the age of the deceased read with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari's cases (supra), needs no interference. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/-
under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
51. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 1,99,100/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 2,29,100/-.
7. FAO No. 267 of 2010:
52. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 35 :- to be ` 7,000/- per month and deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to .
the tune of ` 56,000/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '15', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 8,40,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 30,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 40,000/-
under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 9,20,000/- .
53. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 41 years. The claimants are the widow, daughters and sons of the deceased. The age of the widow was 36 years and three children were minor at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '13' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 56,000/- x 13 = ` 7,28,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 10,000/-
under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 36 :- 'loss of estate'.
54. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to .
compensation to the tune of ` 7,28,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 7,58,000/-.
8. FAO No. 268 of 2010:
55. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased to be ` 5,000/- per month and deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of ` 40,000/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '15', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 6,40,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 30,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 40,000/-
under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 7,20,000/- .
56. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 37 years. The claimants are the widow, minor son and the parents of the deceased.
The age of the widow was 37 years at the relevant point of time.
Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 37 :- (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '14' is applicable. Thus, the .
claimants are held entitled to ` 40,000/- x 14 = ` 5,60,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/-
under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
57. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 5,60,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 5,90,000/-.
9. FAO No. 269 of 2010:
58. The Tribunal, after taking the future income of the deceased to be ` 10,000/- per month, assessed the loss to the parents to the tune of ` 24,000/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '15', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,60,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 20,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 3,90,000/- .
59. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 2 years. The claimants are the mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased. The ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 38 :- age of the mother was 45 years, when she appeared in the witness box. The multiplier of '15' applied by the Tribunal is just and .
appropriate in view of the age of the deceased read with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Reshma Kumari's cases (supra), needs no interference. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/-
under the head 'loss of estate'.
60. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,60,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 3,80,000/-.
10. FAO No. 270 of 2010:
61. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased to be ` 26,375/- per month and deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of ` 2,11,008/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '11', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 23,21,088/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 30,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 40,000/-
under the head 'loss of love & affection', ` 5,000/- under the head 'expenses on medicines' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 39 :- last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 24,06,088/- .
.
62. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 54 years. The claimants are the widow, sons and daughter of the deceased. The age of the widow was 45 years at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '9' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 2,11,008/- x 9 = ` 18,99,072/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
63. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 18,99,072/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 19,29,072/-.
11. FAO No. 271 of 2010:
64. The Tribunal, after taking the future income of the deceased to be ` 10,000/- per month, assessed loss of dependency to the parents to the tune of ` 36,000/- per annum, and applying the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 40 :- multiplier of '16', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 5,76,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal .
has also awarded ` 20,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 6,06,000/- .
65. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 14 years. The claimants are the mother, brother and sisters of the deceased. The age of the mother was 40 years at the relevant point of time.
Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '15' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 36,000/- x 15 = ` 5,40,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/-
under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
66. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 5,40,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 5,60,000/-.
12. FAO No. 272 of 2010:
67. The Tribunal, after taking the future income of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 41 :- deceased to be ` 10,000/- per month, assessed loss of dependency to the parents to the tune of ` 24,000/- per annum, and applying the .
multiplier of '17', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 4,08,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 20,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 4,38,000/-.
68. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 6 years. The claimants are the parents and minor sister of the deceased. The age of the father was 35 years at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '15' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 24,000/- x 15 = ` 3,60,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
69. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,60,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 3,80,000/-.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:34 :::HCHP -: 42 :-13. FAO No. 273 of 2010:
70. The Tribunal, after taking the future income of the .
deceased to be ` 10,000/- per month, assessed loss of dependency to the parents to the tune of ` 24,000/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '18', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 4,32,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 20,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 4,62,000/-.
71. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 5 years. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The age of the father of the deceased was 31 years at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '15' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 24,000/- x 15 = ` 3,60,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
72. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 43 :- compensation to the tune of ` 3,60,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 3,80,000/-.
.
14. FAO No. 274 of 2010:
73. The Tribunal, after taking the future income of the deceased to be ` 10,000/- per month, assessed loss of dependency to the parents to the tune of ` 24,000/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '17', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 4,08,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 20,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 4,38,000/-.
74. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 9 years. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. The age of the father of the deceased was 33 years and that of mother was 30 years at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '15' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 24,000/- x 15 = ` 3,60,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 44 :- awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/-
under the head 'loss of estate'.
.
75. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,60,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 3,80,000/-.
15. FAO No. 297 of 2010:
76. The Tribunal, after taking the future income of the deceased to be ` 10,000/- per month, assessed loss of dependency to the parents to the tune of ` 24,000/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '18', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 4,32,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 20,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 4,62,000/-.
77. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 6 years. The claimants are the parents and minor sister of the deceased. The age of the father of the deceased was 30 years at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 45 :- in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '15' is applicable.
Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 24,000/- x 15 = ` 3,60,000/-
.
under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
78. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,60,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 3,80,000/-.
16. FAO No. 298 of 2010:
79. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased to be ` 15,000/- per month and deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of ` 1,20,000/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '15', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 18,00,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 30,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 40,000/-
under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 18,80,000/- .
80. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 42 years. The ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 46 :- claimants are the widow, son, daughter and mother of the deceased.
The age of the widow was 40 years at the relevant point of time.
.
Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '13' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 1,20,000/- x 13 = ` 15,60,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/-
under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
81. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 15,60,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 15,90,000/-.
17. FAO No. 301 of 2010:
82. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased to be ` 5,000/- per month and deducting one third towards her personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of ` 40,000/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '17', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 6,80,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 47 :- awarded ` 50,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded .
total compensation to the tune of ` 7,40,000/- .
83. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 31 years. The claimants are the husband, minor sons and daughters of the deceased. The age of the husband of the deceased was 36 years at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '15' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 40,000/- x 15 = ` 6,00,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/-
under the head 'loss of estate'.
84. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 6,00,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 6,20,000/-.
18. FAO No. 337 of 2010:
85. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased to be ` 5,551/- per month and deducting one third towards his ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 48 :- personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of ` 44,400/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of .
'17', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 7,54,800/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 40,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 40,000/-
under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 15,000/- under the head 'expenses on last rites', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 8,49,800/- .
86. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 32 years. The claimants are the widow, minor son and mother of the deceased.
The age of the widow was 22 years and that of the son was one year at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '15' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 44,400/- x 15 = ` 6,66,000/- under the head 'loss of income'.
The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 49 :-87. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 6,66,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + .
` 10,000/- = ` 6,96,000/-.
19. FAO No. 64 of 2011:
88. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased to be ` 2,500/- per month and deducting one third towards her personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to the tune of ` 20,000/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '17', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,40,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 50,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection/consortium' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 4,00,000/- .
89. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 29 years. The claimants are the husband and minor son and daughter of the deceased. The age of the husband of the deceased was 31 years at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 50 :- Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '16' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 20,000/- x 16 = .
` 3,20,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/-
under the head 'loss of estate'.
90. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,20,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 3,40,000/-.
20. FAO No. 152 of 2011:
91. The Tribunal, after taking the future income of the deceased to be ` 3,600/- per month, which were the minimum wages payable in the State of Himachal Pradesh at the time of passing the award, after deducting 50% towards his personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the mother to the tune of ` 21,600/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '15', while keeping in mind the age of the mother as 40 years, held the claimant entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,24,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 25,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 15,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses and other conventional charges', thus, awarded total ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 51 :- compensation to the tune of ` 3,64,000/-.
92. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 14 years. The .
claimant is the mother of the deceased and her age was 40 years at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimant and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '15' applied by the Tribunal is just and appropriate, needs no interference. The claimant is awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
93. Viewed thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,24,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 3,44,000/-.
21. FAO No. 153 of 2011:
94. The Tribunal, after taking the future income of the deceased to be ` 3,600/- per month, which were the minimum wages payable in the State of Himachal Pradesh at the time of passing the award, after deducting 50% towards her personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the mother to the tune of ` 21,600/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '15', while keeping in mind ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 52 :- the age of the mother as 40 years, held the claimant entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,24,000/- under the head 'loss of .
income'. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 25,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection' and ` 15,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses and other conventional charges', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 3,64,000/-.
95. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 11 years. The claimant is the mother of the deceased and her age was 40 years at the relevant point of time. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimant and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '15' applied by the Tribunal is just and appropriate, needs no interference. The claimant is awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of estate'.
96. Viewed thus, the claimant is held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 3,24,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 3,44,000/-.
22. FAO No. 4009 of 201397. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the deceased ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 53 :- to be ` 5,000/- per month and deducting one third towards his personal expenses, assessed loss of dependency to the claimants to .
the tune of ` 40,000/- per annum, and applying the multiplier of '11', held the claimants entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 4,40,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The Tribunal has also awarded, ` 5,000/- under the head 'loss of estate', ` 5,000/- under the head 'funeral charges', ` 5,000/- under the head 'transportation of the dead body', ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', and ` 50,000/- under the head 'loss of love & affection', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 5,15,000/- .
98. Admittedly, the age of the deceased was 52 years at the time of the accident. The claimants are the widow and minor daughters of the deceased. Keeping in view the age of the deceased read with the age of the claimants and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '9' is applicable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to ` 40,000/- x 9 = ` 3,60,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. The claimants are also awarded ` 10,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', ` 10,000/-
under the head 'funeral expenses' and ` 10,000/- under the head ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 54 :- 'loss of estate'.
99. Viewed thus, the claimants are held entitled to .
compensation to the tune of ` 3,60,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 10,000/- = ` 3,90,000/-.
23. FAO No. 4089 of 2013:
100. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the claimant-
injured to be ` 5,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of '16', held the claimant-injured entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 88,000/- under the head 'loss of future income', while taking into consideration the 5% permanent disability suffered by the injured. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 2,000/- under the head 'loss of earning for the period the claimant-injured remained admitted', ` 5,000/- under the head 'medical expenditure', ` 4,000/-
under the head 'attendant charges, ` 4,000/- under the head 'special diet', ` 15,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings' and ` 25,000/-
under the head 'loss of amenities of life', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 1,43,000/- .
101. It is apt to record herein that the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the loss of future income as ` 88,000/- as it should be ` 48,000/- for the reason that the monthly income of the claimant-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 55 :-injured has been taken as ` 5,000/- per month. The claimant-injured has suffered 5% permanent disability. Meaning thereby, he has .
suffered the loss of future income to the extent of 5% of ` 5,000/- per month, which comes to 250/- per month, i.e. ` 3,000/- per annum.
102. Admittedly, the age of the claimant-injured was 31 years at the time of the accident. The claimant-injured has suffered 5% permanent disability, thus, has suffered loss of future income to the tune of 5% of ` 5,000/- per month, i.e. ` 250/- per month (` 3,000/- per annum). Keeping in view the age of the claimant-
injured and the extent of permanent disability suffered by him read with the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '15' is applicable. Thus, the claimant-
injured is held entitled to ` 3,000/- x 15 = ` 45,000/- under the head 'loss of future income'. The compensation awarded under the other heads is just and appropriate, needs no interference.
103. Viewed thus, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 45,000/- + ` 2,000/- + ` 5,000/- + ` 4,000/- + ` 4,000/- + ` 15,000/- + ` 25,000/- = ` 1,00,000/-.
24. FAO No. 4093 of 2013:
104. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the claimant ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 56 :-
-injured to be ` 5,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of '15', held the claimant-injured entitled to compensation to the tune .
of ` 2,25,000/- under the head 'loss of future income', while taking into consideration the 25% permanent disability suffered by the claimant-injured. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 5,000/- under the head 'loss of earning for the period the claimant-injured remained admitted', ` 50,000/- under the head 'medicines & transportation', ` 5,000/- under the head 'attendant charges, ` 5,000/- under the head 'special diet', ` 25,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings' and ` 1,00,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities of life', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 4,15,000/- .
105. Admittedly, the age of the claimant-injured was 38 years at the time of the accident. The claimant-injured has suffered 25% permanent disability, thus, has suffered loss of future income to the tune of 25% of ` 5,000/- per month, i.e. ` 1250/- per month (` 15,000/- per annum). Keeping in view the age of the claimant-
injured and the extent of permanent disability suffered by him read with the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '14' is applicable. Thus, the claimant-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 57 :-injured is held entitled to ` 15,000/- x 14 = ` 2,10,000/- under the head 'loss of future income'. The compensation awarded under the .
other heads is just and appropriate, needs no interference.
106. Viewed thus, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 2,10,000/- + ` 5,000/- + ` 50,000/- + ` 5,000/- + ` 5,000/- + ` 25,000/- + ` 1,00,000/- = ` 4,00,000/-.
25. FAO No. 4102 of 2013:
107. The Tribunal, after taking the income of the claimant-
injured to be ` 3,000/- per month and applying the multiplier of '15', held the claimant-injured entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 2,43,000/- under the head 'loss of future income', while taking into consideration the 45% permanent disability suffered by the claimant-injured. The Tribunal has also awarded ` 3,000/- under the head 'loss of earning for the period the claimant-injured remained admitted', ` 10,000/- under the head 'medicines', ` 5,000/- under the head 'attendant charges, ` 5,000/- under the head 'special diet', ` 1,00,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings' and ` 1,00,000/-
under the head 'loss of amenities of life', thus, awarded total compensation to the tune of ` 4,66,000/- .
108. Admittedly, the age of the claimant-injured was 40 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 58 :- years at the time of the accident. The claimant-injured has suffered 45% permanent disability, thus, has suffered loss of future income to .
the tune of 45% of ` 3,000/- per month, i.e. ` 1350/- per month (` 16,200/- per annum). Keeping in view the age of the claimant-
injured and the extent of permanent disability suffered by him read with the dictum of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), multiplier of '14' is applicable. Thus, the claimant-
injured is held entitled to ` 16,200/- x 14 = ` 2,26,800/- under the head 'loss of future income'. The compensation awarded under the other heads is just and appropriate, needs no interference.
109. Viewed thus, the claimant-injured is held entitled to compensation to the tune of ` 2,26,800/- + ` 3,000/- + ` 10,000/- + ` 5,000/- + ` 5,000/- + ` 1,00,000/- + ` 1,00,000/- = ` 4,49,800/-.
110. Having glance of the above discussions, all the appeals are disposed of and the impugned awards are modified, as indicated hereinabove.
111. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the respective impugned awards after proper ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP -: 59 :- identification. Excess amount, if any, be released in favour of the insurer through payee's account cheque.
.
112. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on each of the Tribunal's files.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice June 19, 2015 ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:23:35 :::HCHP