Karnataka High Court
Smt Champa N Bhandary vs M/S Durgamba Motors on 30 March, 2023
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
MFA No.2172 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2172 OF 2020 (MV-I)
Between:
Smt. Champa N. Bhandary,
W/o. Nagaraj,
Aged about 49 years,
R/o.Gandhinagar,
Koteshwara Village,
Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi District.
...Appellant
(By Sri. Nagaraja H.R., Advocate)
And:
1. M/s. Durgamba Motors,
NH-17, Hangaloor,
Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi District - 576217.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office:
1st Floor, Pushpa Building,
Main Road, Kundapura,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager.
...Respondents
(By Sri. Shubham N.M., for
Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, Advocate for R-2;
R-1 - served and un-represented)
*****
-2-
MFA No.2172 of 2020
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with the following
prayers:
"i) To call for the entire records pertaining to the
proceedings in MVC No.184/2016 on the Senior Civil
Judge and Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
Tribunal, at Kundapura;
ii) After perusing the records enhance the
compensation by modifying the judgment and award
dated 15-03-2017, passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and Addl. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, at
Kundapura in MVC No.184/2016 and award just and
reasonable compensation considering the gravity of
the injury, permanent disabilities and other
surrounding circumstances, which is produced at
annexure A;
iii) And grant such other and further relief's as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of
justice and equity."
This Miscellaneous First Appeal having been heard
through physical hearing/video conferencing hearing and
reserved on 24-03-2023, coming on for pronouncement of
judgment, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, at Kundapura, -3- MFA No.2172 of 2020 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Tribunal"), in its judgment and award dated 15-03-2017, in M.V.C.No.184/2016.
2. The summary of the case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that, on the date 10-08-2015, at about 8:40 hours, while the claimant was riding her Scooty bearing registration No.KA-20/EA-9735 from Hegunje side towards Brahmavara side, near Herady Chande, Heradi village, Udupi Taluk, a Bus bearing registration No.KA- 20/B-5747 coming from Saibrakatte side towards Brahmavara, and being driven by its driver at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the Motor Cycle of the claimant, due to which road traffic accident, she sustained multiple grievous injuries.
The claimant has stated that, after the accident, she was shifted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, where she was treated as an in-patient from the date 10-08-2015 to the date 30-08-2015. She suffered head injury and multiple fracture injuries to her hand and right leg, including fracture of C-6 vertebra. She also stated that she has -4- MFA No.2172 of 2020 been bed ridden and for the past three years, she is undergoing follow-up treatment. She stated that towards medical treatment, she has spent a sum of `2,95,000/-, `95,000/- towards food and extra nourishment and a sum of `65,000/- towards conveyance charges and requires another sum of `5,00,000/- towards future treatment and medicine. She has also stated that at the time of the road traffic accident, she was working as a Staff Nurse in Mahesh Hospital, Brahmavara and was getting a monthly salary of a sum of `18,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries, she has suffered permanent disability and loss of future earnings. With this, she has claimed a compensation of a sum of `66,55,000/- from the respondents No.1 and 2, arraigning them as the owner and insurer of the alleged offending Bus respectively.
3. In spite of service of summons before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 - M/s. Durgamba Motors (owner) did not appear before the Tribunal, as such, it was placed ex-parte. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, appearing through its counsel, filed its -5- MFA No.2172 of 2020 statement of objections, wherein it denied the claim petition averments regarding the manner of occurrence of the road traffic accident, the alleged sustaining of injuries by the claimant, nature of injuries and also the permanent disability alleged to have been sustained by her. Further, denying the claim of the petitioner (claimant), respondent No.2- Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant got herself examined as PW-1 and also examined two more witnesses, i.e. Dr. Rakesh Adiga of Mahesh Hospital as PW-2 and Dr. Lakshmi Prasad G. of K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal, as PW-3 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-24. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, however, only one document in the form of a copy of the Insurance Policy was got marked as Ex.R-1.
5. After analysing the evidence and the materials placed before it, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation under the following heads with the sum shown against them:
-6-MFA No.2172 of 2020
Sl.
Particulars Amount in `
No.
1 Pain and sufferings 75,000-00
2 Medical expenses 79,580-00
3 Loss of income during the laid- 1,90,000-00
up period
4 Loss of future earning capacity 6,15,600-00
5 Loss of amenities 40,000-00
6 Vehicle repair expenses 5,000-00
Total 10,05,180-00
6. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of a sum of `10,05,180/- with interest at the rate of `6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, holding the owner and Insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation and directed the Insurer to deposit the award amount. It is against the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. While filing this appeal, there was a delay of 965 days. Thus, on an application - I.A.No.1/2020 filed by the -7- MFA No.2172 of 2020 learned counsel for appellant, this Court on the date 25-01-2023, has condoned the delay of 965 days in filing the appeal, denying the interest on the enhanced compensation, if any, for the said delayed period.
8. Records were called for from the Tribunal and the same are placed before the Court.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant (claimant) and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 (insurer) before this Court are physically appearing before the Court. Though notice was served upon the respondent No.1 (owner), it has remained un-represented.
10. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and also the Tribunal records.
11. The present appeal being the claimant's appeal and the respondent Insurer having not preferred either cross-objection or a counter appeal, the question of occurrence of the road traffic accident on the date, time -8- MFA No.2172 of 2020 and place as alleged by the claimant and also the alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is not in dispute.
Further, the claimant, who got herself examined as PW-1, has reiterated the contentions taken up by her in her claim petition even in her examination-in-chief also. She also got examined one Dr. Rakesh Adiga of Mahesh Hospital as PW-2, who has stated that, he was the employer of the claimant, in whose Hospital, the claimant was working as a Senior Nurse, however, at the time of the road traffic accident, she was working as a Nursing Superintendent. He has also stated that, PW-1 (claimant) sustained injuries in a road traffic accident and stopped to attend to her work and subsequently resigned from her job. Another witness examined by the claimant by name Dr. Lakshmi Prasad G., a Neuro Surgeon and Associate Professor at the K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal, has also stated that, he has gone through the medical records of the claimant who was treated in their Hospital with the history of a road traffic accident.
-9-MFA No.2172 of 2020
In addition to the oral evidence, the claimant also produced and marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-24, which inter alia, includes the copies of the FIR with complaint, scene of offence panchanama, spot sketch, wound certificate, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Inspection report, discharge summaries and a disability certificate. From the respondents' side, none was examined as a witness, however a copy of the insurance policy was got produced as R-1. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 corroborated with the documents marked as Exhibit 'P' series clearly go to establish that a road traffic accident has occurred on the date, time and place mentioned in the claim petition and the said road traffic accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing registration No.KA-20/B-5747 by its driver. The said Bus was belonging to the respondent No.1, which vehicle, in turn, was insured with the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 corroborated with the medical documents would also go to show that, in the said road traffic
- 10 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries, as such, it is established that the road traffic accident, as alleged in the claim petition, on the date, time and place has not only occurred but it was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver. Further, it is also established that the claimant sustained multiple injuries in the said road traffic accident for which the respondents No.1 and 2, being owner and insurer of the offending Bus bearing registration No.KA-20/B-5747 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
As such, the only question that remains for consideration is, whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation awarded by Tribunal.
12. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, which is further corroborated by the wound certificate at Ex.P-4, discharge summaries at Exs.P-10 and P-11, Certificate issued by the Kasturba Hospital, Manipal at Ex.P-19 and the case sheet at Ex.P-20 would go to show that, in the road traffic accident that occurred on the date 10-08-2015, the claimant sustained the following injuries:
- 11 -MFA No.2172 of 2020
1. Right clavicle mid shaft fracture
2. severe head injury with capsuloganglionic laceration with frontal thin SDH
3. Subdural haemorrhage
4. fracture of tranverse process of C-6 Vertebra on right side.
The discharge summaries at Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11 would further go to show that, initially, the claimant was treated as an in-patient in Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, from the date 10-08-2015 to the date 20-08-2015 and subsequently, she was treated as an in-patient in Mahesh Hospital, Brahmavara from the date 20-08-2015 to the date 19-09-2015.
According to PW-2 (Dr. Rakesh Adiga), the claimant was suffering with paralysis. According to PW-3 (Dr.Lakshmi Prasad G.), the claimant was suffering with some percentage of disability, which, according to him, is 50% and opined that she is unable to do any strenuous activities or skilled work. Thus, the claimant must have suffered severe pain due to the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident. Since the Tribunal has awarded a
- 12 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020sum of `75,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferings', the same being reasonable, it does not warrant any modification by this Court.
13. The claimant, in her claim petition, as well in her evidence as PW-1, has stated that, she has incurred medical expenses to an extent of a sum of `95,000/-, however, she could able to produce the medical bills and prescriptions under Exhibits P-12, P-13, P-15 and P-17, amounting in total to a sum of only `79,581/-. Rounding off the said sum to a sum of `79,580/-, since the Tribunal has awarded the said amount in its entirety to her as a compensation towards medical expenses, the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
14. The claimant, in her claim petition, has stated that, at the time of the road traffic accident, she was working as a Senior Nurse at Mahesh Hospital, Brahmavar and was earning a sum of `18,000/-per month, however, in her evidence as PW-1, she has stated that, her salary was `19,000/- per month. In support of her contention, she got examined her employer Medical Doctor as PW-2 and also
- 13 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020got produced the Salary Certificate shown to have been issued by PW-2 at Ex.P-7 and a salary register extract at Ex.P-8, which shows the salary of the claimant at a sum of `19,000/- per month. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the claimant at a sum of `19,000/- per month as on the date of the occurrence of the road traffic accident.
The claimant, as PW-1, contended that, due to the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident, she is suffering with permanent disability and could not able to do any of the work including her work as a Senior Nurse. In support of her contention, she got examined her alleged employer, i.e. Dr. Rakesh Adiga as PW-2 and a Neuro Surgeon at the K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal, Dr. Lakshmi Prasad G. as PW-3.
PW-2 - the employer Doctor has mainly spoken about the salary which the claimant was getting at the time of the occurrence of the road traffic accident. He has stated that, since she had suffered paralysis on the right side of her body, she stopped coming to her duty as a
- 14 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020Staff Nurse, however, she has been coming to his Hospital for treatment and physiotherapy. He also stated that, the claimant cannot work in future as a Nurse. In his cross- examination, he stated that, about the possibility of future curing of the ailment with the claimant, only a Neurologist can say.
PW-3 - Neurologist and an Associate Professor at Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, has stated that, based on the medical records maintained by the said Hospital, he could say that for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the claimant was treated in their Hospital as an in-patient. He has further stated that, he examined the claimant only on the date 31-08-2016 (i.e. one year after the occurrence of the road traffic accident) for assessment of the disability and opined that the claimant was having 50% permanent neurological disability to the whole body. He also stated that she could not able to do the work of Nurse or any other kind of strenuous activities or skilled work.
- 15 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020It is considering the evidence of these witnesses, i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, more particularly, the portion of the evidence in their examination-in-chief, the learned counsel for the appellant (claimant) in his argument, vehemently submitted that the functional disability of the claimant is 100%, as such, the Tribunal was at an error in taking the percentage of permanent disability of the claimant at only 30%.
In his support, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JAKIR HUSSEIN Vs. SABIR AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 252, where, even though the medical opinion was that the claimant (driver) had suffered 55% disability and that he could not drive any motor vehicle in future and the Tribunal and concerned High Court had taken the percentage of disability at 30% and 55% respectively, in an appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court, considering the fact that the claimant was a driver by profession and that his right hand was completely crushed and deformed, was
- 16 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020pleased to take the loss of earning due to permanent disability as 100%.
In the instant case, no doubt, the claimant has sustained above mentioned four injuries, among which, according to PW-3 - Neurologist, the head injury with capsuloganglionic laceration, sub-dural haemorrhage and fracture of C-6 vertebra are grievous in nature. The said witness, though in his examination-in-chief, which is evidenced in the form of an affidavit has stated that the claimant was having 50% permanent neurological disability and that she could not able to do the work of Nurse or any other kind of strenuous activities or skilled work, however, in his cross-examination, he made it clear that, the percentage of disability assessed by him was only with respect to the right side of the body of the claimant. He categorically stated that, there was no disability to the left portion of the body of the claimant. He also stated that his assessment of 50% disability is confined to the right side of the body of the claimant, as such, his evidence in the typed affidavit that 50% permanent disability, which
- 17 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020is the neurological disability, was to the whole body of the claimant gets specified that the said disability, according to PW-3, was confining to the right side portion of the body of the claimant.
Secondly, even though the employer of the claimant who was examined as PW-2 has stated that, the claimant could not able to work as a Nurse in future, however, it is not his case that the claimant was removed from her services from his Hospital. It is also not his case that, she could not able to do any other work in the Hospital to earn her livelihood. He has stated that, the claimant stopped coming to the work in the Hospital on her own. Thus, she was not removed from her employment but claimant herself has stopped and did not attend to her work in the Hospital of PW-2.
Moreover, PW-2 himself being the Doctor has stated that, the claimant was suffering with paralysis on the right side of her body. At more than one place in his evidence, he has repeated the same. His statement that the claimant was suffering with paralysis on the right side of her body
- 18 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020has not been denied from either side. Even according to PW-3, the alleged disability was with respect to the right side of the body of the claimant. However, neither PW-2 nor PW-3 has stated as to whether the said paralysis was as a result of the injuries suffered by the claimant in the road traffic accident that occurred on the date 10-08-2015. Thus, the claimant has not established the nexus between the alleged permanent disability, which, according to PW-3, is 50% and the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident. However, considering the manner how the road traffic accident has occurred and the parts of the body which were affected with the grievous injuries in the said road traffic accident, which also includes a head injury, some percentage of disability as permanent disability is required to be considered and accepted in the circumstances of the case. However, the same cannot be assessed and fixed at 100% disability or loss of 100% earning capacity due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. However, it also cannot be considered that there was functional disability to
- 19 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020an extent of 100%. As such, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jakir Hussein's case (supra) since differs from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the loss of earning capacity of the claimant in the instant case or the permanent disability though as functional, cannot be taken at 100%.
The Tribunal has considered the percentage of permanent disability of the claimant at 30%. However, I am of the view that even though PW-3 has made it clear that, the assessment of disability at 50% was confined to the right side portion of the body of the claimant and the left side portion of the body did not suffer with any disability, still I am of the view that, as a special circumstance of the case, the percentage of disability be taken at 50%, as opined by PW-3 and made applicable to the whole body. As such, the loss of future income on account of disability is to be taken at 50%.
The learned counsel for the appellant (claimant) in his argument further submitted that since the percentage of permanent disability is 50% according to PW-3, which
- 20 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020according to him is 100%, the loss of future prospects also is required to be considered while computing the compensation towards loss of future income on account of disability, however, the Tribunal has failed to consider the same.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company in their argument did not make any submission regarding the quantification of the compensation, except stating that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference.
In the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ABDUL AND OTHERS reported in 2022 (4) Kar.L.J. 627 (DB), a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 27-05-2022, while considering the question as to whether the principle of computing the compensation by giving the benefit of future prospects would not be applicable in a case of injury other than death cases, by making the computation of income, after
- 21 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020relying upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, was pleased to observe at paragraph 27 as below:
"27..... It is thus evident that this component of 'loss of future prospects' is a forensic tool forged by the Supreme Court to off-set the adverse effect of imponderable vagaries of inflation on the assessment of loss of future earning. To link this component only to disability arising from amputation of limbs defies logic and has no sanction of law. It is undoubtedly true that it is no part of the statutory law governing the field of award of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases. But, courts are enjoined under law to award "just compensation" and no compensation can be regarded as just unless law is capable of reinventing itself by making proper adjustments as the "needs of the time require". Judges some times make law if the statues made by the Parliament fall short of meeting the requirements of the time."
Thus, after observing as above, in paragraph 31 of the very same judgment, the Court proceeded to observe as below:
".... 'Loss of future prospects' also has to be factored in notwithstanding the fact that this is not a
- 22 -MFA No.2172 of 2020
case of death, but a case of injury without amputation resulting in whole body disability to the extent of 20% which ultimately has a bearing on the reduced earning capacity....."
Observing as above, the Court proceeded to consider the 'loss of future prospects' at 25% when even the percentage of disability was at 20% in the said case. Thus, in the case on hand also, since the percentage of disability is now taken at 50%, the loss of future prospects is required to be considered.
The Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant as 56 years based upon the medical records. However, the copy of the Driving Licence produced by the claimant at Ex.P-22 shows her date of birth as 12-12-2016. As such, as on the date of the occurrence of the road traffic accident, her age was 55 years. Thus, the multiplier applicable for the said age was not '9' as considered by the Tribunal, but it is '11'.
As analysed above, the income of the claimant was `19,000/- per month. The age being 55 years, the
- 23 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020percentage of future prospects to be added would be at 15% of the monthly income, which comes to `2,850/-. Thus the total income to be considered for computing the loss of future income would be `19,000/- (+) `2,850/-= `21,850/-. Thus, towards loss of future income, the claimant is entitled for a sum of `14,42,100/- (i.e. `21,850/-x 12 x '11' x 50/100). After deducting a sum of `6,15,600/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant/appellant is held entitled for a differential amount towards future loss of income at a sum of `8,26,500/- [i.e. `14,42,100/- (-) `6,15,600/-] as enhancement.
15. After considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal has held that she must have been laid down for a period of ten months, as such, towards loss of income during the laid-up period, it has awarded a sum of `19,00,000/- (i.e. 19,000/- x 10 months). The same being just and proper, it does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.
16. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of `40,000/-, however, considering the
- 24 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020fact that the claimant had sustained multiple injuries including head injury and right side of her body was said to be paralysed, I am of the view that the compensation under the said head requires an enhancement by a sum of `20,000/-, thus making it to a total of a sum of `60,000/-.
17. Since it is considering the documentary evidence at Ex.P-5 the IMV report regarding the damage said to have been caused to the Motor Cycle (Scooty) of the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of a sum of `5,000/- towards vehicle repair charges, which is reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
18. The claimant as PW-1 has stated that, as on the date of her evidence in the Court also, she was under
medical treatment and the Doctor had prescribed her to take three gardenal tablets per day for five years. Though, she has stated that she requires a sum of `5,00,000/- for future medical expenses, however, the same has remained unsupported with any documents and also the evidence of the Doctors as PW-2 and PW-3. The
- 25 -MFA No.2172 of 2020
Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future medical expenses. Still, considering her evidence that she has been prescribed to take a particular tablet for few more years, I am of the view that, she deserves compensation of a sum of `30,000/- towards future medical expenses (which does not carry interest).
19. Thus, as analysed above, the claimant is entitled for a modified compensation as tabulated below:
Sl.
Particulars Amount in `
No.
1 Pain and sufferings 75,000-00
2 Medical expenses 79,580-00
3 Loss of income during the laid- 1,90,000-00
up period
4 Loss of future earning capacity 14,42,100-00
5 Loss of amenities 60,000-00
6 Vehicle repair expenses 5,000-00
7 Future medical expenses 30,000-00
Total 18,81,680-00
Since the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal at a sum of `10,05,180/- is in short by a sum of
- 26 -MFA No.2172 of 2020
`8,76,500/-, for the said enhancement of a sum of `8,76,500/- only, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be interfered with.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER [i] The appeal filed by the claimant stands allowed in part;
[ii] The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal at Kundapura, dated 15-03-2017, in M.V.C.No.184/2016, is hereby modified to the extent that the compensation awarded at `10,05,180/- is enhanced by a sum of `8,76,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred only), thus fixing the total compensation at `18,81,680/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty only).
Out of the enhanced compensation of a sum of `8,76,500/-, a sum of `30,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses by this Court does not carry interest.
- 27 -MFA No.2172 of 2020
[iii] The liability fixed by the Tribunal upon R-1 and R-2 jointly and severally and directing respondent No.2 Insurer to deposit the amount and also awarding rate of interest at `6% per annum on the awarded amount remains unaltered, as such, stands applicable to the enhanced sum also.
[iv] The enhanced amount with interest be deposited by the Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, before the Tribunal, within a period of 30 days from today.
[v] In view of the order of this Court dated 25-01-2023 passed on I.A.No.1/2020, the appellant/claimant is not entitled for interest on the enhanced compensation of a sum of `8,76,500/- for the delayed period of 965 days in filing the present appeal.
[vi] Upon the deposit of the enhanced sum by the second respondent (Insurance Company), as directed above, out of the enhanced compensation of a sum of `8,76,500/-, a sum of `4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) be deposited in the name of the claimant (appellant herein) in the Fixed/Term Deposit, in any
- 28 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020nationalised Bank of the choice of the claimant, for a period of three years, with liberty to withdraw the periodical interest at the option of the claimant.
After maturity of the Fixed/Term Deposit, the entire proceeds be released in favour of the claimant (appellant herein) by the concerned Bank, after her due identification in accordance with law, and with no further orders in that regard by this Court;
There shall be no premature closure of the said Fixed/Term deposit Account or creating any charge on the said deposit, without the permission of the Tribunal or the said deposit coming to an end by the operation of law;
The remaining enhanced amount of `4,76,500/- with interest shall be released in favour of the claimant after her due identification and in accordance with law.
[vii] However, the order of the Tribunal regarding apportionment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at `10,05,180/- remains unaltered without any modification.
- 29 -
MFA No.2172 of 2020Draw the modified award accordingly.
Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal along with its records, without delay.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*