Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S National Insurance Co Ltd vs Kalari Ramesh Babu And 4 Others on 9 May, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3420 of 2017 AND 143 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
I. Introductory:-
[i] M.A.C.M.A.No.3420 of 2017 is directed against the award and
decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.1422 of 2012 and M.A.C.M.A.No.143 of 2018 is directed against the award and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.1423 of 2012. Both the Awards and Decrees are dated 13.06.2017 passed by the XII Additional District Judge-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guntur, [for short "MACT"] and both cases are arising out of the same accident dated 08.03.2012. One Kalari Ramesh Babu and his wife/Kalari Padma met with the accident while travelling on a motor cycle. Wife died, husband suffered severe injuries.
[ii] M.V.O.P.No.1422 of 2012 is filed by the husband, with a prayer for awarding compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the Motor Vehicle Accident and the learned MACT has allowed the same awarding compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
[iii] M.V.O.P.No.1423 of 2012 is fled by the legal representatives of Kalari Padma [herein after referred as 'the deceased'] viz., her husband and children for her death due to motor vehicle accident. The claim made 2 for Rs.10,00,000/- was allowed by the learned MACT under the impugned order, awarding a compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-. [iv] Husband is Claimant No.1 in M.V.O.P.No.1423 of 2012 and he is the sole claimant in M.V.O.P.No.1422 of 2012.
2. Feeling aggrieved by imposing the liability and quantum of compensation awarded, the Insurance Company filed both the appeals.
3. The Insurance Company is the 2 nd respondent, owner of Tractor bearing No.AP 07 Y 6393 [herein after referred as 'the offending vehicle'] is the 1st respondent, its driver is the respondent No.3, before the learned MACT.
II. Description of the parties with reference to the present Appeals:-
4. Kalari Padma will be referred as 'the deceased', the petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.1423 of 2012, who are the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in M.A.C.M.A.No.143 of 2018 will be referred as the claimants, owner and driver of offending vehicle will be referred with the same description. 1 st respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.3420 of 2017 will be referred as 'the injured claimant'. Appellant in both the appeals will be referred to as the Insurance Company.
3III. Case of the claimants and injured claimant, in brief, is that:
5. [i] One Kalari Ramesh Babu/injured claimant and his wife, one K.Padma/deceased, after attending marriage, while travelling on their motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AJ 1972, on 08.03.2012 at about 10.30 p.m. near Chalapathi College at Lam village, Tadikonda, Guntur District, within the limits of Tadikonda Police Station, another motor cycle came in an opposite direction and dashed, due to collision the injured claimant and the deceased fell down from their motor cycle. While they were getting up, the offending vehicle/Tractor bearing No.AP 07 Y 6393 , being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle and ran over the deceased and the injured claimant, causing instantaneous death of the deceased and injuries to the injured claimant. The injured claimant was shifted to Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad, where he has undergone surgery and suffered amputation. Further debridement/partial closure of S-K stump was done. He was treated as inpatient for about one month. Again he was admitted in the same hospital for further treatment for coverage of raw area with posterior Flap and split skin grafting. He was discharged on 20.04.2012. He suffered severe pain and was bed ridden, unable to move from bed for six months.
4
[ii] Tadikonda Police registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle.
[iii] The deceased was hale and healthy aged about '38', home maker, due to her death, the claimants lost all her love and affection and support of every kind. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
[iv] The injured claimant was aged '48', earning Rs.8,00,000/- per annum, suffered fracture of Tibia, fracture left Clavicle and other injuries including amputation of right below knee, he has undergone treatment at various hospitals, spending more than Rs.3,64,000/- for treatment, suffering permanent disability. Hence, entitled for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
IV. Case of the Driver of the offending vehicle:-
6. Allegations made by the claimants are not correct and they are put to strict proof. There was no negligence on his part. He was driving the Tractor very slowly by observing traffic rules, due to collision between the motor cycles the accident occurred. He has applied sudden break, the deceased fell under the tires of the Tractor. As there is no negligence on his part, he is not liable to pay any compensation. He was having valid and 5 effective driving licence. There was valid Insurance Policy for the vehicle. The petition is liable to be dismissed against him. V. Case of the Insurance Company:-
7. [i] Petition allegations are false. Subsistence of valid Insurance Policy issued by the Insurance Company shall be proved, including compliance of the conditions of the Policy. The claimants are put to strict proof of all the allegations including the involvement of the vehicle and rash and negligent driving of the same by its driver, age, occupation and income of injured claimant, disability suffered by him and the same contributing for loss of income. Further, disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased.
[ii] Specific case of the Insurance Company is that the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The accident place is very wide and there are no curves, negligence of the motor cycle cannot be ignored. The valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle shall be proved. The offending vehicle is planted to suit the convenience and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
[iii] By way of additional written statement, the Insurance Company pleaded that the petition is very bad for non-joinder of necessary parties like owner, Insurance Company of the motor cycle. The driver of 6 offending vehicle is having non-transport category of driving licence, but the offending vehicle is a commercial category, for which a specific endorsement is necessary to prove such vehicle. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
8. On the strength of pleadings and contentions of both sides, issues framed by learned MACT in respective cases are as follows:
[i] Issues in M.V.O.P.No.1422 of 2012:
1) Whether the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TRACTOR bearing No.AP 07 Y 6393?
2) Whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, from whom?
3) To what relief?
[ii] Issues in M.V.O.P.No.1423 of 2012:
1) Whether the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TRACTOR bearing No.AP 07 Y 6393?
2) Whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so, from whom?
3) To what relief?7
VI. Evidence before the learned MACT:-
9. [i] In M.V.O.P.No.1422 of 2012 filed by injured-claimant in Injuries Case:-
For the Claimant For the 2nd Respondent
Ex.No. Description Ex.No. Description
Ex.A1 Certified copy of F.I.R. in Ex.B1 Policy A liability only issued to
Cr.No.34/2012 of Tadikonda P.S. Tractor bearing NO.AP 07 Y
6393
Ex.A2 Certified copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.B2 D.L. Verification Endorsement
issued by Addl. Licensing
Authority, Piduguralla.
Ex.A3 Certified copy of MVI Report Ex.B3 O/c. of letter sent to the
Superintendent of Police,
Guntur.
Ex.A4 Wound Certificate Ex.B4 Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.A5 Discharge Summary of Dept., of Ex.X1 Authorization Letter
Orthopedics of Sunshine Hospital,
Hyderabad in the name of the
petitioner.
Ex.A6 In patient final bill issued by Ex.X2 Certified copy of registration
Sunshine Hospital, Hyderabad from extract of Tractor bearing
09.03.2012-05.04.2012. No.AP 07 Y 6392
Ex.A7 Bill., dt.20.04.2012 issued by Ex.X3 Authorization letter
Sunshine Hospital, Hyderabad.
Ex.A8 Medical Bills (13 in nos.) issued by Ex.X4 CC of driving licence of
Sunshine Pharmacy, respondent No.3 by name
Secunderabad. S.Chinnaiah
Ex.A9 I.T. returns of the injured claimant
for the year 2010-11
Ex.A10 I.T. returns of the injured claimant
for the year 2011-12
Ex.A11 I.T. returns of the injured claimant
for the year 2012-13
8
Ex.A12 I.T. returns of the injured claimant
for the year 2013-14.
Ex.A13 Payment receipt issued by Otto
bock.
Witnesses examined Witnesses examined
PW.1 Kalari Ramesh babu RW.1 Hari Nageswara Rao
[Sr. Asst. of 2nd
[Claimant]
respondent Company at
Vijayawada.]
PW.2 Manukonda Narasimha Rao RW.2 Ch.Sunil Kumar
[eye witness] [Sr. Asst. of RTO office,
Narasaraopet]
PW.3 Dr.T.Chiranjeevi RW.3 Sk.Gabbar Khan
[Orthopaedic consultant-Sunshine Hospital, [Jr. Asst. of DTO office,
Secunderabad. Guntur]
[ii] In M.V.O.P.No.1423 of 2012 filed by claimants in Death Case:-
For the Claimant For the 2nd Respondent
Ex.No. Description Ex.No. Description
Ex.A1 Certified copy of F.I.R. in Ex.B1 Policy issued to Tractor
Cr.No.34/2012 of Tadikonda P.S. bearing No.AP 07 Y 6392 and
Trailer No. AP 07 Y 6393
Ex.A2 Certified copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.B2 D.L. Verification Endorsement
issued by Addl. Licensing
Authority, Piduguralla.
Ex.A3 Certified copy of Charge Sheet Ex.B3 O/c. of letter sent to the
Superintendent of Police,
Guntur.
Ex.A4 Certified Copy of Postmortem Ex.B4 Postal Acknowledgement.
Report
Ex.A5 Certified M.V.I. Report Ex.X1 Authorization Letter
Ex.A6 Certified copy of inquest Ex.X2 Certified copy of registration
extract of Tractor bearing
No.AP 07 Y 6392
Ex.A7 Attested copy of Certificate of Ex.X3 Authorization letter
Registration of the Tractor and
9
Trailor AP 07 Y 6393
Ex.A8 Attested copy of From PPC Goods Ex.X4 CC of driving licence of
Carriage permit of Tractor & Trailer respondent No.3 by name
S.Chinnaiah
Ex.A9 Attested copy of driving licence of
river of Tractor
Ex.A10 Attested copy of fitness certificate
issued by RTA, Piduguralla.
Ex.A11 Attested copy of Policy of the
Tractor
Witnesses examined Witnesses examined
PW.1 Kalari Ramesh Babu RW.1 Hari Nageswara Rao
[Sr. Asst. of 2nd respondent
[1st Claimant-husband of the deceased] Company at Vijayawada.]
PW.2 Manukonda Narasimha Rao RW.2 Ch.Sunil Kumar
[eye witness] [Sr. Asst. of RTO office,
Narasaraopet]
RW.3 Sk.Gabbar Khan
[Jr. Asst. of DTO office,
Guntur].
VII. Common Evidence and Common Documents:-
10. K.Ramesh Babu-injured claimant is an eye witness in both the cases. Manukonda Narasimha Rao, another eye witness to the accident, examined as PW.2, in both cases. He is the informant under F.I.R.-Ex.A1. RWs.1 to 3 are common witnesses in both cases. F.I.R., Charge Sheet, MVI report are common in both the cases. Policy copy-Ex.B1, Driving licence-Ex.B2, Endorsement letter sent to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur- Ex.B3, Postal Acknowledgment-Ex.B4, Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 are same in both cases.
10VIII. Findings of the learned MACT:-
11. [i] Both cases are touching the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle viz., Tractor bearing No.AP 07 Y 6393.
[ii] The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, are having a corroboration from F.I.R., Charge Sheet, MVI report, inquest report etc.. During cross- examination of PWs.1 and 2, the plea as to planting of offending vehicle was taken by the Insurance Company but the same is not established, hence, the same cannot be believed.
[iii] Evidence of Rws.1 to 3 is not touching the accident and negligence. Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, non-mentioning of number of the Tractor in F.I.R., cannot be considered as the basis to believe planting of offending vehicle. When the Tractor ran over after hitting the deceased, when PW.2 said that he has chased for some distance but unable to catch the Tractor, when driving of the Tractor rash and negligently and causing of accident is spoken by the witness at initial and at later stages, the absence of mentioning of Tractor number in F.I.R., cannot be the ground to disbelieve the involvement of the Tractor. The collusion between the 1 st respondent and the claimants, for the purpose of compensation and planting of vehicle 11 is not proved. The evidence on record is sufficient to believe the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
[iv] In respect of the death case, the income of the deceased can be notionally taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. Then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,60,000/-, claimants are entitled under the head of loss of consortium @Rs.1,00,000/-, and under loss of love and affection, loss of estate @ 25,000/- each, towards funeral expenditure at Rs.20,000/-. In all entitlement is for a compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-.
[v] With regard to holding of driving licence for non-transportation category, the objection is not tenable, in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs.Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another 1, And National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and Others 2.
[vi] The income of the injured claimant, can be taken at Rs.50,000/- per month and Rs.6,00,000/- p.a., and disability @25%. Hence, the injured-claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,70,000/- in all. However, Rs.25,00,000/- compensation is awarded as the claim is made for Rs.25,00,000/- only.
1 2008 (2) An.W.R.249(SC) 2 2008 ACJ 2860 12 IX. Arguments on behalf of the Insurance Company:-
12. [i] The involvement of another motor cycle in the accident when referred the same is not considered, which is an error.
[ii] The driver of the Tractor did not possess valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. Therefore, there is violation and the learned MACT failed to consider the same.
[iii] Quantum of compensation awarded is excessive. [iv] Disability of the injured claimant is not properly assessed. For Claimants:-
13. [i] Future prospects to the income of the deceased are not added. Awarding of compensation is not in accordance with mandates of law and in terms of the guidance of the Supreme Court.
[ii] Claimants are entitled for more compensation than what claimed. Learned MACT ought to have awarded more compensation than what claimed and there is no bar to award just and reasonable compensation even beyond what is claimed, by this Appellate Court.
14. Perused the record.
13
15. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides.
16. Now the points that arise for determination in both the appeals are that -
1) Whether the offending vehicle bearing No. AP 07 Y 6393 is involved in the accident?
2) Whether the pleaded accident dated 08.03.2012 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver?
3) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle?
4) Whether the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.1423 of 2012 are entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum? And whether the quantum of compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable? Or require any interference? If so, to what tune?
5) Whether the injured/claimant/K.Rmesh Babu, is entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum and whether the compensation @Rs.25,00,000/- awarded by learned MACT is just and reasonable Or require any interference? If so, to what extent?
6) What is the result of the appeal in MACMA No.3420 of 2017?
7) What is the result of the appeal in MACMA No.143 of 2018? 14 Point Nos.1 and 2:-
17. Points No.1 and 2 are somehow interlinked, hence, they are being discussed and answered together.
A. Involvement of the Offending Vehicle :-
18. Evidence of eye witness to the accident, PW.2-Manukonda Nararsimha Rao examined in both cases, discloses that he along with deceased and injured travelled to Tadikonda. Injured and the deceased were in one motor bike and PW.2, his niece were travelling on another bike. On their return journey, a motor cycle came in an opposite direction, to avoid hitting of the same, the injured/petitioner turned his vehicle on extreme left side, meanwhile the offending vehicle coming from backside, hit the motor cycle on which the injured and the deceased was travelling, and ran over the deceased causing instantaneous death and injuries to the claimant. During cross-examination, he did not shake as to his stand of witnessing the accident and asserted that there was no collision between the motor cycle on which the injured/claimant was travelling and the other motor cycle coming, whereas the tractor/offending vehicle hit the motor cycle on which the injured claimant and the deceased was travelling, when their motor cycle was in motion and that he has noticed the number of the offending vehicle. He does not know whether the number of the offending 15 vehicle was noted in Ex.A1/F.I.R. or in Ex.A6-Inquest report. He has denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle viz., the Tractor of the 1 st respondent did not involve in the accident.
19. The evidence of respondent side is concentrated on the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, but not on the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Ex.A1-F.I.R., is indicating that an unknown Tractor hit the motor cycle, this was an earliest document and the same is indicating involvement of a Tractor, but which is the said Tractor is a core question?. Charge sheet filed by the Police vide Ex.A2 is indicating the Tractor No.AP 07 Y 6392 and Sampangi Chinnaiah as the accused driver. Statements of one Kotta Ramesh, one Kalari Sambasiva Rao and 3 other witnesses recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Police indicating the number of the offending vehicle and the same appears to be the basis for fixing the identity of the offending vehicle. No doubt, the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. alone cannot be the basis to arrive at any conclusion. They cannot be used for any purpose except to contradict the witness, is the settled legal position.
20. Proper person to disown the involvement of offending vehicle is either its owner or its driver. Respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.3/driver of the offending vehicle was 16 represented by an advocate before the learned MACT. While denying the negligence, driver of the offending vehicle did not deny the involvement of the vehicle but attributed negligence to the deceased. He has stated that sudden break was applied by him, but by that time 3rd respondent applied sudden break, back tires of the Tractor due to skid ran over the petitioner's wife and hit the petitioner. This pleading of the 3rd respondent/driver of the offending vehicle is sufficient to believe the involvement of the crime vehicle, in the accident. The Insurance Company did not choose to examine any other witness cited in the charge sheet to vindicate its stand. B. Negligence:-
21. On the point of negligence, the evidence of PW.2, eye witness is clear and categorical. The driver of the offending vehicle viz., respondent No.3- Sampangi Chinnaiah though denied the negligence, did not choose to take the witness stand. There is positive evidence from the claimant side, stated by PW.2 Manukonda Narasimha Rao, eye witness. Further, the crime record covered by F.I.R. and Charge Sheet are indicating negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. What happened to the judgment in criminal case, and whether the same has ended in acquittal? If so, whether it was an honour acquittal or a clean acquittal is not known. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is fit to be accepted.
17
22. Here this Court finds it relevant to note the precedential guidance as to appreciating the point of negligence, which is as follows:-
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation observed as follows:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.."
24. For the reasons stated above, Points 1 and 2 answered against the appellant and in favour of the claimants concluding that the offending vehicle i.e., Tractor bearing No.AP 07 Y 6393 involved in the accident and pleaded accident dated 08.03.2012 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
Point No.3:-
Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle?18
25. Appellant Insurance Company relied on the evidence of RWs.1 to 3 to show that the there was no proper driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle. RW.1 is an employee working as Senior Assistant in the office of the Insurance Company. His evidence is that the driver of the offending vehicle having licence valid from 13.06.2008 to 12.06.2008 [date of accident is 08.03.2012] and it was a non-transport category of driving licence to drive the Tractor and trailor. Whereas the vehicle involved is transport category vehicle, therefore, there is violation for want of transport endorsement. During the cross-examination, it was admitted by him that the Insurance Policy was in-force. It was suggested to him that the Tractor was used for loading agricultural produce.
26. RW.2, is Senior Assistant working in the office of RTO, Narasaraopet. He has produced registration extract of the offending vehicle. He has admitted that offending vehicle can be used for agricultural purpose.
27. RW.3, is working as Junior Assistant in the Office of DTO, he has stated about the licence that it was valid for non-transport category. Ex.X4 is pertaining to the driver of the offending vehicle. During the cross- examination, he has stated that he cannot say whether there is any difference in skill for driving non-transport and transport category of 19 vehicles. As per the evidence of RW.2, Ex.X2 is the registration extract of the vehicle, Ex.X2 is indicating the unladen weight of the vehicle as Rs.1,870Kg.
28. The defence as to want of transport endorsement does not merit any consideration in the context of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The legal position as to a person holding of non-transport category driving licence of 'Light Motor Vehicle' driving transport vehicle has been addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited3 [Mukund Dewangan(2016)] and the same has been upheld by the Constitutional Bench in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 4 [Mukund Dewangan(2017)].
29. Further, reference made on the point whether "a person holding a licence for a 'Light Motor Vehicle' class non transport can drive a 'Transport Vehicle' without a specific endorsement, provided the 'Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)' of the vehicle does not exceed 7,500 Kgs?" is answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi and Others 5 at length and the 3 (2016) 4 SCC 298 4 (2019) 12 SCC 816 5 2024 SCC Online SC 3183 20 observation are made under the caption of conclusion vide para Nos.125 to 131 which are as follows:
125. The licensing regime under the MV Act and the MV Rules, when read as a whole, does not provide for a separate endorsement for operating a 'Transport Vehicle', if a driver already holds a LMV license.
We must however clarify that the exceptions carved out by the legislature for special vehicles like e-carts and e-rickshaws74, or vehicles carrying hazardous goods75, will remain unaffected by the decision of this Court.
126. As discussed earlier in this judgment, the definition of LMV under Section 2(21) of the MV Act explicitly provides what a 'Transport Vehicle' 'means'. This Court must ensure that neither provision i.e. the definition under Section 2(21) or the second part of Section 3(1) which concerns the necessity for a driving license for a 'Transport Vehicle' is reduced to a dead letter of law. Therefore, the emphasis on 'Transport Vehicle' in the licensing scheme has to be understood only in the context of the 'medium' and 'heavy' vehicles. This harmonious reading also aligns with the objective of the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2) to simplify the licensing procedure.
127. The above interpretation also does not defeat the broader twin objectives of the MV Act i.e. road safety and ensuring timely compensation and relief for victims of road accidents. The aspect of road safety is earlier discussed at length. An authoritative pronouncement by this Court would prevent insurance companies from taking a technical plea to defeat a legitimate claim for compensation involving an insured vehicle weighing below 7,500 kgs driven by a person holding a driving license of a 'Light Motor Vehicle' class.
128. In an era where autonomous or driver-less vehicles are no longer tales of science fiction and app-based passenger platforms are a modern 21 reality, the licensing regime cannot remain static. The amendments that have been carried out by the Indian legislature may not have dealt with all possible concerns. As we were informed by the Learned Attorney General that a legislative exercise is underway, we hope that a comprehensive amendment to address the statutory lacunae will be made with necessary corrective measures.
129. Just to flag one concern, the legislature through the 1994 amendment in Section 10(2)(e) in order to introduce 'transport vehicle' as a separate class could not have intended to merge light motor vehicle (which continued as a distinct class) along with medium, and heavy vehicles into a single class. Else, it would give rise to a situation in which Sri (our hypothetical character), wanting to participate in the cycling sport, is put through the rigorous training relevant only for a multisport like Triathlon, which requires a much higher degree of endurance and athleticism. The effort therefore should be to ensure that the statute remains practical and workable.
130. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal - regardless of whether the vehicle falls into "Transport" or "Non-Transport" category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7,500 kg - the quintessential common man's driver Sri, with LMV license, can also drive a "Transport Vehicle". We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving licence holder, driving a 'Transport Vehicle', is a significant cause for road accidents in India. The additional eligibility criteria as specified in MV Act and MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle ('medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger vehicle'), whose gross weight exceeds 7,500 Kg. Our present 22 interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating Transport Vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating "Transport vehicles" (below 7,500 Kg), with their LMV driving license. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court.
131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:--
(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle' class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a 'Transport Vehicle,' does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving 'transport vehicles' would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger vehicle'.
(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive 23 omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.
30. In view of the evidence and the legal position settled by the Honourable Apex Court, the objections as to want of proper driving licence is fit to be ignored/ rejected. Hence, Point No.3 is answered in favour of the claimants and against the appellant Insurance Company. Points No.4:-
Whether the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.1423 of 2012 are entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum? And whether the quantum of compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable? Or require any interference? If so, to what tune?
Precedential guidance for quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:-
a) Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation:
31. (i). Hon'ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.6 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned in column No.4 of the table. As 6 2009 (6) SCC 121 24 per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following:
1. Age of the deceased.
2. Income of the deceased.
3. Number of dependents.
(ii). Hon'ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are:
Step No.1:
Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased.
Step No.2:
Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself.
Step No.3:
Calculation of the compensation.
Final Step:
After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised.25
b) Adding of future prospects:
32. (i). Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others7 case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years.
(ii). The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is recommended by Hon'ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi's case.
c) Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium:
33. Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram 7 2017(16) SCC 680 26 and Others8, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium.
d) Just Compensation:
34. In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows:
10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280) "10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to 'make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just'. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be 'just'. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation."
The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213]
11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the 8 (2018) 18 SCC 130 9 (2013) 9 SCC 54 27 dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim.
e) Adding of future prospects in respect of self employed, non- earning group and notional income group :
35. In Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors.10, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide para 13 and 14 of the judgments, observed that in respect of self-employed or in respect of non-earning or not doing any job persons also there is no bar of adding future raise of income or adopting notional income.
Enhancement of compensation in the absence of appeal:
36. (i) Whether the compensation can be enhanced in the absence of an appeal or cross appeal by the claimant is the next question. The legal position as to powers of the Appellate Court particularly while dealing with an appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the award passed by the learned MACT under challenge at the instance of the Insurance Company (Respondents) and bar or prohibition if any to enhance the quantum of compensation and awarding just and reasonable compensation, even in the absence of any appeal or cross objections was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case between National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others 11 in 10 (2021) 17 SCC 148 11 2023 SCC Online AP 1725 28 M.A.C.M.A. No.945 of 2013, while answering point No.3 framed therein vide, para 50 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
50. In our considered view, the claimant/respondents are entitled for just compensation and if on the face of the award or even in the light of the evidence on record, and keeping in view the settled legal position regarding the claimants being entitled to just compensation and it also being the statutory duty of the Court/Tribunal to award just compensation, this Court in the exercise of the appellate powers can enhance the amount of compensation even in the absence of appeal or cross-
objection by the claimants.
(ii). Observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. E. Suseelamma and others (11 supra) case are in compliance with the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others12.
(iii). In Surekha and Others vs. Santosh and Others (12 supra) case, in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21.01.2020, three judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "it is well stated that in the matter of Insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants". While addressing a case where the High Court has declined to grant enhancement on the ground that the claimants fail to file cross appeal above observations are made.
12
(2021) 16 SCC 467 29 Analysis of Evidence:-
37. PW.1, husband of the deceased, claimed that due to demise of the deceased, he deprived physical and financial support; his children also lost all sorts of support including love and affection. Deceased was aged '38', hale and healthy, he did not specify as to the employment of the deceased and he has admitted that the deceased studied up to X class, his both children completed B.Tech.. Learned MACT has taken the income of the deceased, notionally, Rs.3000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards expenses and adopted multiplier '15', the awarded compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- is as follows:
Towards los of dependency and future earnings Rs.3,60,000-00 Towards loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000-00 Towards loss of love and affection Rs.25,000-00 Towards loss of estate Rs.25,000-00 Towards loss of estate Rs.20,000-00 Towards funeral expenses and other charges Rs.20,000-00 Rs.5,30,000-00 Total=
38. The argument of the Insurance Company is that the compensation awarded is excessive. The argument of the learned counsel for the claimants is that learned MACT has taken the income at Rs.3000/- per 30 month, which is very low and future prospects also not added. The compensation awarded under the heads and quantification thereof found not in tune with the directions in Pranay Sethi's case. Therefore, the income taken at Rs.3000/- is found not adequate and the same can be taken at least Rs.4000/- per month. Then the contribution to the claimants comes to [4000/- x 12] Rs.32,000/- per annum. Multiplier applicable is '15', entitlement of the claimant comes to Rs.4,80,000/- under the head of loss of dependency, the compensation awarded under loss of consortium without specifying the same to whom, found excessive. However, all the claimants are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- each, towards loss of spousal consortium for claimant No.1, loss of parental consortium for claimants 2 and 3.
Therefore, entitlement of the claimants under this head comes to Rs.1,20,000/- [40,000 x 3]. Since compensation was awarded under the head of loss of consortium, again awarding compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is found not necessary. Hence, the same is fit to be deleted. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, entitlement of claimants is at Rs.15,000/- against each head i.e., Rs.30,000/- in total. Then the total entitlement of the claimants, comes to Rs.6,30,000/-. 31
39. For the reasons stated above, the entitlement of the claimants for compensation under various heads and comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is as follows:
Head Compensation Fixed by this Court
awarded by the
MACT
(i) Loss of Dependency and future Rs.3,60,000/- Rs.4,80,000/-
earnings
(ii) Loss of Consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,20,000/-
[ClaimantsNo.1-3 each @Rs.40,000]
(iii) Loss of Love and Affection Rs.25,000/- - Nil -
(iii) Loss of estate Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
(iv) Funeral expenses and other Rs.20,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Transportation charges
Total compensation awarded Rs.5,30,000/- Rs.6,30,000/-
40. Accordingly, point No.4 is answered in favour of the claimants concluding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,30,000/- with interest @9% instead of Rs.5,30,000/- awarded by the learned MACT.
Point No.5:-
Whether the injured/claimant/K.Rmesh Babu, is entitled for compensation? If so, whether the compensation @Rs.25,00,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable Or require any interference? If so, to what extent?32
Precedential guidance as to quantum of compensation:
41. With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. 13, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and reasonable compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.14, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:
S. No. Head Amount (In ₹)
1. Medicines and Medical Treatment xxxxx
2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to xxxxx
Disability
3. Pain and Suffering xxxxx
4. Future Treatment xxxxx
5. Attendant Charges xxxxx
6. Loss of Amenities of Life xxxxx
7. Loss of Future Prospect xxxxx
8. Special Education Expenditure xxxxx
9. Conveyance and Special Diet xxxxx
10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx
_________
Total Rs. ...xxxxxx
_________
A reference to parameters for quantifying the compensation under various heads addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is found necessary, to 13 2025 AIAR (Civil) 1 14 2020 (04) SCC 413 33 have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled.
42. In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another 15 vide para No.19, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the medical boards etc., it is observed that :-
"...We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors..."15
2011 (1) SCC 343 34
43. In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr 16 vide para No.40, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar's case, and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident.
44. In Sidram's case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd17. From the observations therein it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable.
45. The purpose of any system of justice is to provide remedies to the victims and to restore the parties involved in litigation to their original positions to the extent possible. Therefore, the concerns of all stakeholders connected to the process of redressal and reparation should focus on 16 2023 (3) SCC 439 17 1995 (1) SCC 551 35 providing adequate compensation. The development and culture of any society will be seen from how it treats its criminals and victims. The evolution of legal system from retribution to restoration is clear in this century. If the aim of the law is to restore what is lost and to undo the wrong, then providing just and reasonable compensation to victims should be considered as important as punishing or reforming the wrongdoer. With this philosophy of law in mind, the claims made for compensation by victims of any crime or tort require careful consideration and appreciation.
46. Depending on the context of the case, the quantum and the heads under which compensation can be awarded may vary. But, broadly, the heads under which the compensation is awarded for personal injuries are :
A) Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) :
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earnings during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
(B)Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) :
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequences of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities.36
(vi) Loss of expectation of life.
Analysis of Evidence:-
Documentary Evidence:-
47. The objection of the Insurance Company is that the compensation awarded under various heads to the claimants is excessive, the documentary evidence relied by the claimant, is as follows:-
Exhibit Description Remarks
No.
Ex.A4 Wound Certificate Indicating nature of
injuries.
Ex.A5 Discharge Summary of Dept., of Orthopedics of Indicating treatment
Sunshine Hospital, Hyderabad in the name of the petitioner.
Ex.A6 In patient final bill issued by Sunshine Hospital, Standing for Hyderabad from 09.03.2012-05.04.2012. Rs.4,47,795/-
Ex.A7 Bill., dt.20.04.2012 issued by Sunshine Hospital, Standing for
Hyderabad. Rs.33,194/-
Ex.A8 Medical Bills (13 in nos.) issued by Sunshine Standing for
Pharmacy, Secunderabad. Rs.5,026/-
Ex.A9 to I.T. returns of the injured claimant
Ex.A12
Oral Evidence:-
48. [i] The injured claimant/ PW.1 stated about the medical
expenditure incurred, amputation suffered, wood leg arrangement, inability to walk, engaging an assistant to do business, expenditure incurred for artificial limb etc..
37
[ii] PW.3, Dr.T.Chiranjeevi, working as Orthopaedic Consultant in Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad, stated about the treatment given to the injured-claimant is as follows:-
"Patient by name Ramesh Babu Kalari (PW.1), aged 48 years, admitted in our hospital on 09.03.2012. Patient sustained the following injuries:
1. Grade III compound injury right tibia
2. Crush injury right foot with fracture II, III, Iv meta tarsals and
3. Fracture left clavicle
4. Fracture proximal phalynx of right ring finger After thorough investigation, patient was operated on 10.03.20012 with faciotomy with external fixator with doubtful vascularity. Below knee amputation was done on 13.03.2012 as patient developing gangrene changes. Again debridement and partial closure of below knee stump done on 04.04.2012. Patient was discharged on 05.4.2012 and his condition was satisfactory at the time of discharge. Patient came for follow ups for few months. After my clinical examination the functional disability is 60 to 80%. Patient may need correction below knee stump correction for its laxity. The estimated expenditure for the same will be Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. Ex.A4 to Ex.A8 are issued by their hospital. Ex.A9-pharmacy bills belongs to PW.1. I gave evidence basing on Ex.A5.
Cross-examination by R2-:-
As patient is at high risk and was in shock and querry, pulmonary embolism was there at the time of admission, hence, they referred this case to tertiary level. It is true that Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 are issued by their billing department and I am no way concerned about these bills. I have not issued any disability certificate for PW.1. It is not true to suggest that the disability assessed by me is highly excessive and not 38 according to orthopaedic manual and I am not competent to assess disability. It is true that PW.1 can walk like normal man to some extent as he is wearing prosthesis now. The stump correction of PW.1 can be done at G.G.H., Guntur. It is not true to suggest that Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 are issued with boosted figures in order to help PW.1 and that I am deposing in favour of PW.1 in order to help to get more compensation ."
[iii] While referring to the evidence of PW.3, who stated that functional disability is 60 to 80%, the learned MACT has adopted the disability at 25%. It is relevant to note that although the disability certificate is not placed but there is amputation of right leg below the knee. The evidence of the Injured/claimant shows that his occupation is Commission Agent and he has engaged an assistant by paying monthly salary around Rs.6000/-. To prove the fact of engaging of an Assistant and paying salary for assisting the claimant there is no documentary proof. However, the amputation leading to disability and loss of income is evident. It is clear from the evidence that injured claimant is again engaged in business and started fresh life. In the context of the case, 25% financial loss adopted by the learned MACT can be considered as appropriate.
49. The quantum of compensation awarded by the learned MACT and the entitlement of the injured-claimant for compensation, on evidence available on record and facts and circumstances of case is found as follows:-39
S.No Head Awarded by the Remarks Entitlement
. learned MACT found by this
Court
1. Medical expenses Rs.4,00,000/- Total Rs.4,86,015/- Rs.4,90,000/-
[As per Bills under
Exs.A6, A7, A8]
2. Loss of earnings Rs.19,50,000/- -Nil- Rs.19,50,000/-
Capacity due to
Disability and loss of
future Prospect
3. Pain and suffering 1,00,000/- -Nil- Rs.50,000/-
4. Future Treatment -Nil- Artificial limb and Rs.50,000/-
change of the
same periodically
is required.
5. Attendant Charges -Nil- During treatment Rs.20,000/-
required.
6. Loss of amenities of Rs.1,00,000/- -Nil- Rs.50,000/-
Life
7. Conveyance and -Nil- -Nil- Rs.30,000/-
Special Diet
8. Rs.20,000/- [since injuries case,
[awarded under funeral funeral expenses not
exp.] required.]
Total: Rs.25,70,000/- 26,40,000/-
50. In view of the discussions made and the reasons assigned, point No.5 is answered concluding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.26,40,000/- with interest @9% p.a. instead of Rs.25,70,000/- with interest @9% p.a. awarded by the learned MACT.40
Granting of more compensation than what claimed, if the claimant/s are otherwise entitled:-
51. The legal position with regard to awarding more compensation than what claimed has been considered and settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that there is no bar for awarding more compensation than what is claimed. For the said preposition of law, this Court finds it proper to refer the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in:
(1) Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others 18, at para 21 of the judgment, that -
"..there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award "just" compensation, which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record."
(2) Kajal Vs. Jagadish Chand and Ors.19 at para 33 of the judgment, as follows:-
"33. We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in the motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award the just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor."18
(2003) 2 SCC 274 19 2020 (04) SCC 413 41 (3) Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others20 at para 5 of the judgment, as follows:-
"5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award "just compensation". The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A "just compensation" is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty- bound to award just compensation."
Point Nos.6 and 7:-
52. [i] In the result, MACMA No.3420 of 2017 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. However, compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.1422 of 2012 at Rs.25,70,000/-, is modified and enhanced to Rs.26,40,000/-
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
[ii] MACMA No.143 of 2018 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. However, compensation awarded by the learned MACT in M.V.O.P.No.1422 of 212 at Rs. 5,30,000/-, is modified 20 (2019) 2 SCC 192 42 and enhanced to Rs.6,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the enhanced portion of the compensation in the appeal shall be apportioned in tune with the apportionment made under the impugned decree and judgment.
[iii] The compensation awarded shall be deposited within a period of six (06) weeks from now, after adjusting the amount if any already deposited.
[iv] Claimant(s) shall pay Court fee for the enhanced part of compensation, within a period of six (06) weeks before the learned MACT.
[v] There shall be no order as to costs, in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 09.05.2025 Pnr