Karnataka High Court
Jagadish Sagar And Ors vs Arif Ali And Ors on 28 September, 2022
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
MFA No.202101/2018 (MV)
C/W
MFA No.202103/2018 (MV)
MFA No.202101/2018
BETWEEN
1. SMT. LALITABAI W/O AMBARAYA
AGE: 41 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2. AMBARAYA S/O SAIBANNA
AGE: 48 YRS, OCC: COOLIE
3. KAILESH S/O AMBARAYA
AGE: 21 YRS, OCC: STUDENT
4. MAHAVEER S/O AMBARAYA
AGE: 20 YRS, OCC: STUDENT
5. MAPANNA S/O AMBARAYA
AGE: 18 YRS, OCC: STUDENT
6. VISHAL S/O AMBARAYA
AGE: 17 YRS, OCC: STUDENT
7. BHAGYASHREE D/O AMBARAYA
AGE: 15 YRS, OCC: STUDENT
2
8. ANJALI D/O AMBARAYA
AGE:13 YRS, OCC: STUDENT
9. SHAAN S/O AMBARAYA
AGE:4 YRS.
APPELLANT NO. 6 TO 9 ARE MINOR
U/G OF HIS NATURAL FATHER THE
APPELLANT NO.2
ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE TONASANAHALLI
TQ:CHITTAPUR, NOW R/AT PLOT NO.106,
VITTAL NAGAR, KIALABURAGI
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ARIF ALI S/O MAGDUM ALI MUCHALE
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS OWNER
OF LORRY BEARING REGN.
NO.MH-24/U-0194, R/O DIGGI ROAD,
OMERGA, TQ:OMERGA,
DIST:OSMANABAD, MAHARASHTRA STATE
2. THE MANAGER TATA AIG
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
II FLOOR JP & DEVI JUMBU KESHORE
ARCADE NO.69, MILLERS ROAD,
BANGALORE-5600052
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
P.W.D & I.W.T.D GULBARGA DIVISION
OLD JEWARGI ROAD, KALABURAGI
4. NISHANT S/O KISHANRAO PILANIA
AGE:30 YRS, OCC: CONTRACTOR
3
R/O H.NO.A-30, GURU NANAK COLONY
BIDAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANTOSH BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH; R3 SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING
THAT THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2017, PASSED
BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
KALABURAGI, IN FILE BEARING M.V.C.NO.544/2015 BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
MFA NO.202103/2018
BETWEEN
1. JAGADISH SAGAR S/O SABANNA
AGE: 48 YRS OCC: PRIVATE WORK
2. SUNITA W/O JAGADISH SAGAR
AGE: 43 YRS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
3. VISHAL S/O JAGADISH SAGAR
AGE: 18 YRS OCC: STUDENT
4. VISHWA S/O JAGADISH SAGAR
AGE: 12 YRS OCC: STUDENT,
APPEALLANT NO. 4 IS MINOR
U/G OF HIS NATURAL FATHER
THE APPELLANT NO.1,
ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE TONASANAHALLI
TQ:CHITTAPUR NOW R/AT H.NO.2-377,
JAGAT, KALABURAGI
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)
4
AND
1. ARIF ALI S/O MAGDUM ALI MUCHALE
AGE:MAJOR OCC: BUSINESS OWNER
OF LORRY BEARING REGN.NO.MH-24/U-0194
R/O DIGGI ROAD, OMERGA TQ:OMERGA
DIST: OSMANABAD MAHARASHTRA STATE
2. THE MANAGER TATA AIG
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, IIND FLOOR JP
& DEVI JUMBU KESHORE ARCADE NO.69,
MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE-5600052
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
P.W.D & I.W.T.D GULBARGA DIVISION
OLD JEWARGI ROAD, KALABURAGI
4. NISHANT S/O KISHANRAO PILANIA
AGE:30 YRS OCC: CONTRACTOR
R/O H.NO.A-30, GURU NANAK COLONY
BIDAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT.MAYA.T.R, HCGP FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 SERVED;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO- MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2017, PASSED BY THE II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KALABURAGI, IN FILE
BEARING M.V.C.NO.543/2015 BY ENHANCING THE
COMEPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
5
JUDGMENT
MFA No.202101/2018 is filed by the claimants in MVC No.544/2015 and the appeal in MFA No.202103/2018 is filed by the claimants in MVC No.543/2015 under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V.Act') aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 04.10.2017 passed in MVC Nos.543/2015 and 544/2015 on the file of the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kalaburagi (for short 'Tribunal').
2. The parties shall be referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. Facts leading up to filing of the present appeals in brief are that, on 19.11.2010 at about 12.30 p.m. the deceased Pruthviraj and deceased Akash were returning on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-32/V-1733. On Chittapur - Kalaburagi road, when they reached near Ganga Parameshwari College, a lorry bearing registration No.MH-25/U-0194 benig driven by its driver in a rash and 6 negligent manner came on a wrong side and dashed to the motorcycle of the deceased resulting in the accident causing grievous injuries to the aforesaid Pruthviraj and Akash who succumbed to the same on the spot. In this regard, a case in Crime No.143/2014 was registered.
4. Thereupon, the claimants being the parents and siblings of deceased Akash filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation of `30,00,000/- in MVC No.544/2015 on the premise that the deceased was aged about 22 years and was earning `2,00,000/- per annum from the agricultural work and was contributing his earning for the maintenance of the family; that untimely death of the deceased has caused financial and emotional distress to the claimants. Similarly parents and siblings of deceased Pruthviraj have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M. V. Act seeking compensation of `30,00,000/- in MVC No.543/2015 on the premise that the deceased was aged about 19 years and was earning `12,000/- per month from doing finance 7 business and was contributing the same for welfare of the family.
5. On service of notice, respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 remained absent and were placed exparte. Respondent No.2 - insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement denying the petition averments, age, income and occupation of the deceased and also mode and manner of the accident. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and thereby violated the policy conditions. It is further contended that respondent Nos.3 and 4 being the Executive Engineer in PWD, Kalaburagi and Contractor respectively have not maintained the road in good condition. That they have not placed any signals cautioning the road users as there are ditches and stones lying on the road. Therefore, respondent No.2 was not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim as against it.
8
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. The claimant No.1 - Jagadish in MVC No.543/2015 has been examined as PW.1 and claimant No.2 - Ambaraya in MVC No.544/2015 has been examined as PW.2 and they exhibited nine documents, which are marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the respondents, one M.Kartik has been examined as RW.1 and the insurance policy has been marked as Ex.R1.
7. After appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry and also due to the negligent act on the part of the respondent No.4 in not maintaining the road with proper signals, resulting in the death of the deceased. Consequently, held that the claimants in MVC No.544/2015 are entitled for total compensation of `9,08,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum and the claimants in MVC No.543/2015 are entitled for total compensation of `7,83,000/- together 9 with interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal while fixing the liability has directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally to pay 50% of the award amount and remaining 50% of the compensation has to be paid by respondent Nos.3 and 4 being the Executive Engineer and Contractor within a period of 60 days from the date of the award. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.
8. Sri.Sanjeevkumar Patil, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeals memorandum submitted that the Tribunal was erred in not taking into consideration the income being earned by the deceased Akash which is `2,00,000/- per annum from the agricultural work and also erred in assessing `6,000/- per month in the case of deceased Pruthviraj, though he was earning `12,000/- per month from finance business. He further submits that the 10 Tribunal also erred in not awarding compensation towards future prospects and consortium.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal ought to have directed the respondent No.2/Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation amount instead of directing to pay only 50%. The Tribunal further erred in directing Respondents 3 to 4 to pay the balance 50% of the consideration. He submits that the claimants cannot be made to recover the compensation from Respondent Nos.3 and 4. If at all there is any contributory negligence on their part, the Insurance Company shall pay the entire compensation and may recover the same from them in accordance with law. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal ought to have granted adequate compensation in accordance with law and sought for allowing of the appeals.
10. On the other hand, Sri.S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - insurance company submits that there is no evidence with regard to the 11 income of the deceased who were aged about 19 years and 22 years respectively. He further submits that since there was no evidence of they contributing to the family and there is no evidence of all claimants being dependent on the deceased, as such loss of dependency cannot be granted.
11. He further submits that fixing of liability on Respondents 3 and 4 by the Tribunal to the extent of 50% of the compensation is justified and the same does not warrant any interference. He submits that Respondents 3 and 4 have contributed for causing the accident by not maintaining the roads. He submits that the Tribunal is competent to entertain the petition against Respondents 3 and 4. He relies upon the Judgment of the following Judgments in support of his submissions:
i) UNION OF INDIA vs. BHAGAVATHI PRASAD [(2002)3 SCC 661]
ii) UNION OF INDIA vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER [(1997)8 SCC 683] 12
iii) ICICI LOMBARD INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. NEELAMMA W/O.LATE CHANDRASHEKAR AND OTHERS [MFA NO.200123/2015 (MV)] Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeals.
12. Smt.Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.3 and Sri Santosh Biradar, learned advocate appearing for Respondent No.4 submitted that the petition in the first place was not maintainable against Respondents 3 and 4. That under Section 165 of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal can entertain a claim petition for compensation in respect of accidents involving death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both. They further submit that under Section 168 of the M.V.Act, the Tribunal can direct that compensation amount to be paid only by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and nobody else. Therefore, they submit that fastening of liability on respondent Nos.3 and 4 is impermissible for the 13 reasons assigned by the Tribunal with regard to the road on which the accident had taken place not being maintained properly as found by the Tribunal, cannot be justified. Hence, sought for modification of the order.
13. In response to the same, the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability. He also submits that the said finding has not been challenged by respondent Nos.3 and 4 by preferring any appeal and hence, it is not permissible for them to raise the same issue in these appeals.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
15. On thoughtful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are:
i) Whether the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of the compensation?14
ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing liability of payment of compensation on Respondents 3 and 4 to the extent of 50% awarded by the Tribunal?
REGARDING POINT No.(i):
16. The accident in question resulting in the death of the deceased is not in dispute. The deceased Akash and Pruthviraj were aged about 22 and 19 years respectively and stated to have been earning `2,00,000/- per annum and `12,000/- per month respectively. However, no documentary evidence in this regard has been produced. The Tribunal however has assessed the notional income of both the deceased at `6,000/- per month, which the learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is on the lower side. This Court in the absence of evidence with regard to the income of the victims of the road traffic accident takes into consideration the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In terms of which, the notional income of the victims of the road traffic accident for the year 2014 is fixed at `7,500/- per month. 15 In the instant case, the accident had occurred on 19.11.2014, as such, the said income at `7,500/- has to be taken into consideration.
17. The deceased - Akash in MVC No.544/2015 was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and hence the proper multiplier applicable is '18'. There are nine dependents of the deceased. Therefore, 1/5th of the notional income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI [(2017) 16 SCC 680], deceased being a coolie worker and aged about 22 years, is entitled for addition of 40% of the established income. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of his income shall be deducted for personal expenses. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency computed would be `9,07,200/-. [`7,500/- + 40% (3,000) = `10,500/-. `10,500 - 1/5th (towards personal expenses) = `8,400 - 50% = `4,200 x 12 x 18 (multiplier) = `9,07,200]. 16
18. In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS [2018) 18 SCC 130] which clarified in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. SATINDER KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR & ORS. [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 410], the claimants being the parents and siblings of the deceased are entitled for `40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium. In addition, the claimants are entitled for `15,000/- towards loss of estate and `15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Hence, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of `12,97,200/- as follows:
Heads By Tribunal By this Court
Loss of dependency `6,48,000/- `9,07,200/-
Loss of estate `10,000/- `15,000/-
Loss of consortium `2,25,000/- `3,60,000/-
(40,000x9)
Funeral expenses `25,000/- `15,000/-
Total `9,08,000/- `12,97,200/-
17
19. The deceased - Pruthviraj in MVC No.543/2015 was aged about 18 years at the time of the accident and hence the proper multiplier applicable is '18'. There are four dependents of the deceased. Therefore, 1/4th of the notional income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRANAY SETHI (Supra), deceased being a coolie worker and aged about 18 years, is entitled for addition of 40% of the established income. Since the deceased was unmarried, 50% of his income shall be deducted for personal expenses. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency computed would be `8,50,608/-. [`7,500/- + 40% (3,000) = `10,500/-. `10,500 - 1/4th (towards personal expenses) = `7,875 - 50% = `3938 x 12 x 18 (multiplier) =`8,50,608/-].
20. In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (Supra), which clarified in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 18 SATINDER KAUR (Supra), the claimants being the parents and siblings of the deceased are entitled for `40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium. In addition, the claimants are entitled for `15,000/- towards loss of estate and `15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Hence, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of `10,40,608/- as follows:
Heads By Tribunal By this Court Loss of dependency `6,48,000/- `8,50,608/- Loss of estate `10,000/- `15,000/- Loss of consortium `1,00,000/- `1,60,000/- (40,000x4) Funeral expenses `25,000/- `15,000/- Total `7,83,000/- `10,40,608/-
21. Thus, the claimants in MVC No.544/2015 are entitled for enhanced compensation of `12,97,200/- instead of `9,08,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants in MVC No.543/2015 are entitled for enhanced compensation of `10,40,608 instead of `7,83,000/- 19 awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% per annum.
REGARDING POINT NO.(ii)
22. The Tribunal in the impugned order at Paragraph 27 of its Judgment, taking note of the fact that a charge sheet had been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle as well as against Respondent No.4-contractor, held that the driver of the lorry was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and further held that Respondent No.4 being the contractor to whom the road repair work was entrusted did not take any care even to display any sign board about the progress of the road repair work and also did not put any fencing to the jelly and stones lying on the road. The Tribunal further held that Respondent No.3 is the P.W.D/I.W.T.D authority and it is its duty to look after the public road etc., and to keep the same in good condition and also to look after the progress of repair work. On these reasoning held that Respondents 3 and 4 are equally liable to pay the 20 compensation. Thus, the Tribunal directed Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay 50% of compensation and directed Respondents Nos.3 and 4 to jointly and severally pay the remaining 50% of the compensation. The Tribunal relied upon Judgment dated 18.03.2015 of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD (Supra), wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dealing with a case involving rider of motor-cycle falling into a pit which was dug up for construction of a bridge resulting in deceased sustaining injuries and succumbing to the same, had held the Respondent Nos.8 and 9 therein being Contractor and Executive Engineer, P.W.D and I.W.T.D, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga respectively had not taken any care to put any indicator to show that there was a pit at the place of accident and that the construction work was in progress and concluded that there was a contributory negligence both on the part of the rider of the motor-cycle as well as Respondent Nos.8 and 9 and apportioned the liability to 21 the extent of 50% on the Insurance Company and 50% on the Respondent Nos.8 and 9 therein.
23. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company referring to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BHAGAVATHI PRASAD (Supra), wherein, the Apex Court dealing with a case involving collusion between taxi and Allahabad-Saharanpur Passenger train, giving rise to the preliminary issue as to whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain claim for compensation against railway administration held that "In our considered opinion the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain application for claim of compensation in respect of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle depends essentially on the fact whether there had been any use of motor vehicle and once that is established the Tribunal's jurisdiction cannot be held to be ousted on a finding being arrived at a later point of time that it is the negligence of the other joint tortfeasor and not the negligence of the motor vehicle in question." 22
24. Thus learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that in view of the aforesaid position of law, the Tribunal is having jurisdiction to entertain the claim applications against the persons and agencies other than those referred to under Section 166 of M.V. Act and award compensation directing such persons/agencies to pay the compensation.
25. It is useful to refer few provisions of M.V.Act regarding liability of the Insurance Company and the persons against whom claim petition could be filed and against whom Tribunal could pass award directing payment of compensation.
26. Section 147 of the M.V. Act provides that once there is a valid policy of Insurance, the Insurance Company shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those class of persons unless the insurance 23 company proves breach of terms of policy as provided under Section 149 of the M.V.Act.
27. Further, Section 165 of the M.V. Act provides that the Claims Tribunal shall be established for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claim for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property or third party arising or both which includes claim for compensation under Section 164 of the M.V. Act.
28. Section 168 of the M. V. Act provides that the Tribunal subject to provisions of Section 163 of the M.V. Act may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just and specifying person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award, Claims Tribunal has specified the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or 24 driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them as the case may be.
29. Thus it is clear that the jurisdictional Tribunal to entertain a claim petition requires use of motor vehicle. Once it is proved that there is a valid Insurance Policy, insurance company is liable to indemnify except proof of default of the breach as provided under the Act. The Tribunal shall specify the insurer, or owner or the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them to pay the compensation.
30. The issue of controversy in the instant case is whether Respondents 3 and 4 being P.W.D and contractor respectively, can be directed to pay the compensation under the Act as directed by the Tribunal fixing 50% of liability on them. It is relevant to note at this juncture that provisions of Section 198-A of the M.V. Act:
"198A. Failure to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance.-(1) Any designated authority, contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible for the design or construction or maintenance of 25 the safety standards of the road shall follow such design, construction and maintenance standards, as may be prescribed by the Central Government from time to time.
(2) Where failure on the part of the designated authority, contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible under sub-section (1) to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance, results in death or disability, such authority or contractor or concessionaire shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and the same shall be paid to the Fund constituted under section 164B.
(3) For the purposes of sub-section (2), the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters, namely:--
(a) the characteristics of the road, and the nature and type of traffic which was reasonably expected to use it as per the design of road;
(b) the standard of maintenance norms applicable for a road of that character and use by such traffic;
(c) the state of repair in which road users would have expected to find the road;
(d) whether the designated authority responsible for the maintenance of the road knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the road to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to the road users;
(e) whether the designated authority responsible for the maintenance of the road could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the road before the cause of action arose;26
(f) whether adequate warning notices through road signs, of its condition had been displayed; and
(g) such other matters as may be prescribed by the Central Government. "
31. The aforesaid provision of Section 198A of the M.V. Act has been inserted into the Act by Act 32 of 2019 with effect from 01.09.2019. Now in view of the aforesaid specific provision available under the M.V. Act making it clear that any failure on the part of the designated authority, contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible to comply with the standards for road design, construction and maintenance results in death or disability, such authority or contractor or concessionaire shall be punishable with a file up to Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the fund constituted under Section 164-B of M. V. Act, the entire controversy in the present matter is put to rest.
32. As noted above, under the M.V. Act, there is no provision providing for direction to pay compensation against persons other than those mentioned under Section 168 of the M.V. Act. In that view of the matter, the order 27 of the Tribunal directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to pay 50% of the compensation awarded may have to be modified directing the insurance company to pay the entire compensation. In view of finding of the Tribunal regarding respondent Nos.3 and 4 being negligent and not complying with the standards of road construction and maintenance, they shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the funds constituted under Section 164-B of the M.V. Act as noted above.
33. Therefore the points raised above are answered accordingly. Hence, the following:
ORDER i. The appeals filed by the appellants/claimants are allowed in part.
The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC Nos.544/2015 and 543/2015 are modified.
ii. The claimants in MVC No.544/2015 are entitled for enhanced compensation of `12,97,200/- instead of `9,08,000/-28
awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants in MVC No.543/2015 are
entitled for enhanced compensation of `10,40,608 instead of `7,83,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization.
iii. The respondent No.2 - insurance company shall deposit the entire
compensation together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
iv. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of Section 198-A into the fund constituted under Section 164-B of the M.V. Act.29
v. The order regarding deposit and apportionment made by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt/bnv