Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bismilah W/O Vajir Mujawar vs The Divisional Controller on 19 June, 2023
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 19 DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101337 OF 2021 (MV)
C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101664 OF 2021
IN MFA NO. 101337/2021.
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
M.S.R.T.C. SANGLI, SANGLI DISTRICT,
MAHARASHTRA STATE,
REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER.
...APPELLANT.
(By Sri. C. V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
AND
1. SMT. BISMILAH W/O. VAZIR MUJAWAR,
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
AGE MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEMAKER,
KANKUPPI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
R/O. DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590001.
Date: 2023.06.21
13:12:12 +0530 2. MR. SHARUKH VAZIR MUJAWAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE 590001.
3. KARISHMA VAZIR MUJAWAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE 590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(By SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
31.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.883/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.32,06,290/- WITH INTEREST
AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
PAYMENT.
IN MFA NO. 101664/2021.
BETWEEN
1 . SMT. BISMILAH W/O. VAZIR MUJAWAR
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE-MAKER,
R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001,
TALUKA & DIST: BELAGAVI.
2 . SHRI. SHAHRUKH S/O. VAZIR MUJAWAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT,
R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001,
TALUKA & DIST: BELAGAVI.
3 . KUMARI. KARISHMA D/O. VAZIR MUJAWAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT,
R/O: DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001,
TALUKA & DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS.
(By SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
M.S.R.T.C, SANGLI-416406.
...RESPONDENT
(By SRI. C. V. ANGADI, ADV.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
31.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.883/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
3
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
'RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT' ON 01.06.2023, COMING ON
FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY,
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
M.F.A.No.101664/2021 is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Vajir Rehman Mujawar and M.F.A.No.101337/2021 is filed by the Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Sangli (for short, 'Corporation'). The claimants' appeal is for enhancement of the compensation and the Corporation is challenging the liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.03.2021 passed by VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Addl. MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.883/2013.
2. Brief facts giving raise to the filing of these appeals are that the claimant appellants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 4 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- from the respondent for the death of Mr.Vajir Mujawar who died in the road traffic accident on 05.11.2012. It is averred that the deceased Vajir was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-10/T-463 from Vasagade to Charan on Bhilavdi main road in a moderate speed when he reached Bhilavde-Nagthane Phata road, MSRTC bus bearing registration No.MH- 14/BT-1075 coming from Ankalkop side driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle and caused the accident. In the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, he was shifted to the Wanless Hospital, Miraj and thereafter he was shifted to Dr.Magdum's Orthopaedic Hospital, Miraj and subsequently to Army Hospital, Pune and he was inpatient for a period of 15 days in the Army Hospital, Pune and they have incurred huge expenses on medical treatment, other attendant 5 charges, food and nourishment and they have lost the bread earner of the family. It is further averred that the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of accident and serving in the Indian Defence getting salary of Rs.45,000/- p.m. and he would have earned Rs.80,000/- to Rs.90,000/- per month in future and the claimants being the wife and children of the deceased were completely depending on the income of the deceased. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of MSRTC bus by its driver and they are liable to pay the compensation.
3. The respondent MSRTC filed objections before the Tribunal denying the averments of the claim petition by contending that there was no nexus between the death of deceased Vajir and the injuries sustained by him. It is averred that the claimants have incorrectly stated the age, occupation, employment and monthly income of the deceased and 6 the accident in question had happened solely due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing No.MH-10/T-463 by the deceased and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The Tribunal has framed the issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. The appellant/claimant No.1 was examined herself as PW- 1 and examined two other witnesses and marked documents at Exs.P-1 to P-29. The respondent examined RW-1 and marked discharge summary at Ex.R-1. On appreciation of the material on record, the Tribunal has awarded the total compensation of Rs.32,06,290/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation on the following heads:
Sl. Particulars Amount
No.
1. Loss of dependency Rs.29,27,123/-
2. Transportation of dead body Rs.15,000/-
and funeral expenses
7
3. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
5. Loss of love and affection to Rs.80,000/-
the son
6. Medical expenses Rs.1,29,163.65
Total Rs.32,06,286.65
Rounded off Rs.32,06,290/-
5. Learned counsel Sri C.V. Angadi appearing for the Corporation submits that the accident has happened due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased Vajir and not by the driver of the MSRTC bus as held by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in not considering the evidence of RW-1 and panchanama at Ex.P-2 which clearly establish the fact that the driver of the MSRTC bus is not responsible for the said accident and it is due to rash and negligent driving of the motorbike by the deceased, the accident has taken place. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate Ex.R-1 the discharge summary of Wanless Hospital, Miraj which clearly 8 indicates that the deceased had slipped from the motorbike and sustained injures, subsequently succumbed to those injuries. The Tribunal has committed error in not appreciating the said exhibit which has resulted in fastening the liability on the MSRTC which is contrary to the evidence on record. It is also submitted that the award of the compensation by the Tribunal is on higher side on all the heads. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record resulted in awarding exorbitant compensation by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased had only 4 years of service to retire and Tribunal ought to have added 15% towards the future prospects and the Tribunal ought to have considered 11 as the multiplier taking the date of birth of the deceased as 01.06.1962 as he has completed 50 years 6 months of age on the date of accident. He submits that for the age group of 51-55 9 years the applicable multiplier would be 11. However, the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 13. He submits that Tribunal ought to have applied split multiplier method. Learned counsel for the corporation relies on the following decisions by contending that this Court has given due weightage to the medical records while fixing the liability and based on the medical records the liability has been reversed from the insurance company to the owner of the vehicle.
1) M. F. A. No.20422/2009 c/w M.F.A.Crob.No.817/2013 in the case of Hanumanthappa Anandappa Patroti Vs. Hanumantha S/o. Rangappa Goundi and another
2) M.F.A.No.962/2007 in the case New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Jagadeesh S/o. Krishna Reddy and another
6. Per contra, Smt. Sunanda Patil Lerned counsel appearing for the claimants appellants submits that the document on record clearly 10 establishes that the driver of the bus bearing registration No.MH-14/BT-1075 driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle bearing registration No.MH-10/T-463 resulted in sustaining grievous injuries to Mr. Vajir Rehman Mujawar and he succumbed to those injuries. It is submitted that the Tribunal has recorded categorical finding that the accident has happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the Corporation bus by its driver and not by the deceased Vajir. Hence, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on MSRTC which does not call for interference.
7. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in calculating the actual bills submitted towards the expenditure incurred for providing treatment to the deceased. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,29,163.65 towards medical expenses, however, it ought to have calculated correctly and as 11 per the calculation, the total bills before the Tribunal is for Rs.1,71,023/-, which is the actual amount incurred by the deceased.
8. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding 30% for future prospects and it has committed error in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.25,527/-. The appellant claimants have examined the HR officer of the Indian Army, he has deposed that the deceased was working in Indian Army and the age of retirement would be 55 years and the same can be extended by two years. To establish the income of the deceased, the appellant/claimants have produced the documents at Exs.P-14 and P-21, and the Tribunal has committed error in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.25,527/-. It has erred in not adding other allowances components of exhibits P-14 which are entitled to be added in the gross salary. She relies on 12 the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.R. Madhusudan and others Vs. Administrative Officer and another 1 and on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No.101592/2014 c/w M.F.A. No.101111/2014 disposed of on 01.02.2016 and submits that the Tribunal has committed error in not adding other components in the net salary. She submits that, the Tribunal required to deduct only the income tax and professional tax, if any, from the gross income and not perks and allowances which are shown in the salary slip, or in pay package. Hence, sought to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.33,694/- p.m. She submits that the contention of the Corporation that the split multiplier ought to have been adopted by the Tribunal is required to be rejected, since the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 1 AIR 2011 SC 979 13 R. Valhi and others (Supra) for made it clear that, the method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is clearly erroneous and non counter to the judgment of Apex Court in Pranay Sethi. The Tribunal has rightly applied 13 multiplier, which does not call for any interference. In support of her contention, she has relied on the decision in the case of Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others2, and M.H. Uma Maheshwari and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And others 3 and in the case of R. Valli and others Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited 4 and sought for allowing the appeal of the claimants and for dismissal of the appeal filed by the Corporation.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the memorandum of appeals and Tribunal records.
2 2013 ACJ 1441 3 2020 ACJ 1865 4 (2022) 5 SCC 107 14
10. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are:
1) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening liability on the corporation?
2) Whether the Tribunal is justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.25,527/-
p.m.?
3) Whether the Tribunal is justified in applying the multiplier of 13 and justified in not awarding compensation towards future prospects?
4) Whether the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation?
11. The answer to the point No.1 in the affirmative and point Nos.2 to 4 in the negative for the following reasons:
It is not in dispute that the accident in question has taken place on 05.11.2012 between the motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-10/T-463 15 which was being ridden by Mr.Vajir Rehman Mujawar and the MSRTC Bus bearing registration No.MH-
14/BT-1075 driven by its driver. It is also not in dispute that Mr. Vajir Rehman Mujawar has died after taking treatment at various hospitals . It is also not in dispute that the deceased was working in Indian Army and his legal representatives have filed the claim petition for seeking compensation.
12. On meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record, it is evident that the jurisdictional police after investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of the MSRTC bus holding him prima facie guilty of negligence. Ex.P-1 the sketch on record clearly establishes that the MSRTC bus was proceeding from west to east from Ankalkop road to Audumbar. The accident has taken place in the circle on the right side of the said road. The deceased was riding the motorbike from south to north i.e., from Bhilavadi to 16 Nagthane Patha when he was about to reach the circle, the driver of the bus came extremely on the right side of the road hit the motorbike resulted in the accident. These facts are evident from the sketch on record. On close scrutiny of the Exs.P-1 and P-2(a) establishes that at the spot of accident, chalk marks have been done, the bus and the motorcycle have been removed from the road and glasses, helmet, shoe of the injured are lying on the road and there are tyre marks of the bus and bloodstains of the injured on the road and the headlight of the bus is broken on the driver side, the bumper is pressed and damaged and the petrol tank of the bike is pressed on the left side and the indicator of the bike is broken. These contents found in Exs.P-1 and P-2 which corroborate with the sketch on record. On bare perusal of the above exhibits, it can be fairly inferred that the driver of the bus has gone extremely on the right side in the 17 circle and caused the accident resulted in damage to bus and motor cycle. The contention of the corporation that the discharge summary at Ex.R-1 depict that the accident has happened due to injured slipped from the motorcycle. The said contention is required to be rejected for the reason that the discharge summary at Ex.R-1 is written by the nurse in Wanless Hospital, Miraj. The said document cannot be the sole basis to come to the conclusion that the injury has caused due to slipping from the motorcycle by the deceased. It is relevant to note that at the time of admission in the hospital, the attendant or the relative of the injured might have orally informed the hospital about the cause of injury, i.e., the injuries caused due to slipping from the motorcycle, that cannot be the sole basis to arrive at a conclusion that the accident and the consequential injuries are due to slipping from the motorbike by the deceased. The 18 jurisdictional police filed the charge sheet against the driver of the bus and the material on record clearly establishes that the accident has caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Hence, we hold that accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of MSRTC bus by its driver and the corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
13. We have gone through the medical records available on record, it is evident that the appellants/claimants have incurred Rs.1,71,023/- towards medical treatment of the deceased. However, the Tribunal has committed error in calculating the medical bills, and award Rs.1,29,163.65. We are of the opinion that, the appellants/claimants are entitle for Rs.1,71,023/- which is the actual medical expenditure incurred on the deceased as per medical bills and prescriptions available on record. 19
14. Insofar as quantum of compensation the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.25,527/- p.m. placing its reliance on Ex.P-21. On close scrutiny of the salary details dated 16.04.2014 where the monthly salary has been depicted from January 2012 to October 2012, the total monthly salary is shown as Rs.25,527/-. Ex.P-14 is the monthly pay slip for July, 2011 which depicts various components (debits) namely, Armed Forces Provident Fund (APFF) Rs.6,000/-, AGIF Rs.2,070/- and Postal Life Insurance (PLI) Rs.1,150/-. The Tribunal has failed to add the above components to the salary at Ex.P-21. In our considered view the Tribunal has committed error in not adding other components referred supra. The components like Armed Forces Provident Fund, Army Group of Insurance Fund, Postal Life Insurance are the amounts deducted from the salary of the deceased and they are part of the total 20 gross salary of the deceased. The Tribunal is entitled to deduct only the income tax and the professional tax, if any, from the gross salary of the deceased while assessing his income based on the salary slip/pay slip issued by the competent authority. It will be useful to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar referred supra. Para 19 reads as under:
"19. The first issue is "whether provident fund, pension and insurance receivable by claimants come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction?"
The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before this court in Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corpn., 1999 ACJ 10 (SC). In the said case, this court held that provident fund, pension, insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are all a 'pecuniary advantage' receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned 21 only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed a 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction The following was the observation and finding of this court:
"(37) Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death.
The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No correlation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy amount is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of 22 premium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on the insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly, any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc., though all are pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction? When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se, between them and not to which, there is no semblance of any correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount ceivable 23 as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act? The amount under this Act he receives without any contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual.
20. xxx
21. The third issue is "whether income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act?"
In the case of Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), this court held, "generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation".
This court further observed that "where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax'. Therefore, it is clear that if the annual income comes within the taxable range income tax is 24 required to be deducted for determination of the actual salary. But while deducting income tax from salary, it is necessary to notice the nature of the income of the victim. If the victim is receiving income chargeable under the head 'salaries' he/she should keep in mind that under section 192 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 any person responsible for paying any income charge- able under the head 'salaries' shall, at the time of payment, deduct income tax on estimated income of the employee from 'salaries' for that financial year. Such deduction is commonly known as tax de- ducted at source ('TDS' for short). When the employer fails in default to deduct the TDS from employee's salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non-deduction of TDS is prescribed under section 201 (1-A) of the Income Act, 1961". Therefore, in case the income of the y victim is only from 'salary', the presumption would be that the employer under section 192 (1) of the Income Tax Act, e 1961 has deducted the tax at source from -the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence e such as LPC to 25 suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary r of the employee.
However, there can be cases where the victim is not a salaried person, i.e., his income is from sources other than salary, and the annual income falls within taxable range. In such cases, if any objection as to deduction of tax is made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that the victim has already paid income tax and no, further tax has to be deducted from the income."
15. On close scrutiny of exhibits referred supra and keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hold that the deceased was drawing Rs.33,694/- as gross salary.
16. The contention of the Corporation that the Tribunal has committed error 13 in applying multiplier as the deceased was aged 50 years 6 months. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 26 Limited and another5 has determined the multiplier based on the age group of the deceased. Accordingly, the multiplier is 13 for the age group between 46-50 and 11 multiplier for age group between 51-55. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Varma referred supra, we are of the considered view that the deceased was in age group of 46-50 and not 51-55 as he has not completed 51 years of age on the date of accident. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal has justified in applying the multiplier of 13 which does not call for interference.
17. The contention of the Corporation that the Tribunal ought to have applied the split multiplier as the deceased was left only 4 years of service in Indian Army, and they are not entitled for 30% addition towards future prospects. It will be useful to refer the 5 (2009) 6 SCC 121 27 decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Madhusudhan referred supra. Para 14 and 15 read as under:
"14. xxx The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefore. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased.
15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method."
18. It is clear from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra that applying the split multiplier is not acceptable. Learned counsel for the corporation has failed to place any decision of the 28 Hon'ble Supreme Court contrary to the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma referred supra with regard to the split multiplier. Therefore, we reject the contention that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the split multiplier method. In our considered view, The Tribunal has committed error in not adding 30% towards future prospects as the deceased was aged about 50 years and he had still 7 years of service in the Indian Army and he had all the employment prospects after retirement in Government/ Boards & Corporations or private undertakings with equivalent or more salary than what he was drawing at the time of accident. Hence, the appellant claimants are entitled for adding 30% towards future prospects as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others.6 6 (2017) 16 SCC 680 29
19. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the following compensation towards loss of dependency.
Rs.33,694 + 30%= Rs.43,802/-
Rs.43,802 - 14601 (1/3rd of Rs.33,694/-) = Rs.29,201/- Rs.29,201 x 12 x 13 = Rs.45,55,356/-
20. The Tribunal has committed error in awarding Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Keeping in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram 7 all the appellants are entitled for loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. The appellants are entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realisation.
21. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for modified compensation on the following heads: 7
(2018) SCC 130 30 Sl. Particulars Amount No.
1. Loss of dependency Rs.45,55,356/-
2. Transportation of dead body Rs.15,000/-
and funeral expenses
3. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
6. Medical expenses Rs.1,71,023/-
Total Rs.48,76,559/-
Compensation awarded by the Rs.32,06,290/-
Tribunal Enhanced compensation Rs.16,70,269/-
22. For the aforementioned reasons, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) M.F.A.No.101337/2021 is dismissed.
ii) M.F.A.No.101664/2021 is allowed in part.
iii) The judgment and award dated 31.03.2021 passed by VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Addl. MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.883/2013 is modified and the appellant/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.16,70,269/- at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.31
iv) The respondent-MSRTC shall deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
v) Apportionment, deposit and disbursement of the enhanced compensation shall be made as per the award of the Tribunal.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
vii) Registry to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.
viii) The amount in deposit in M.F.A. No.101337/2021 shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
ix) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Naa