Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sushil Kumar And Anr on 11 April, 2017
Author: Ramalingam Sudhakar
Bench: Ramalingam Sudhakar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
1. CIMA No. 472/2012
2. CIMA No. 476/2012, MP No. 1/2015
3. CIMA No. 478/2012, MP No. 1/2015
4. CIMA No. 477/2012, MP No. 1/2015
5. CIMA No. 473/2012
6. CIMA No. 470/2012
7. CIMA No. 474/2012
8. CIMA No. 469/2012, MP No. 1/2015
Date of decision: 11.04.2017
1. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar and anr.
2. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Darshana Devi and anr.
3. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Preetma Devi and anr.
4 Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Rashid and anr.
5. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bashir Ahmed and anr.
6. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anju Devi and anr.
7. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaheena Begum and ors..
8. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siraj Din and anr.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishnu Guopta, Advocate ,
For the Respondent(s): Mr. M. P. Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Rahil Raja, Advocate Mr. B.R.Manhas, Advocate.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No NET
ii) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Digest/Journal
1. These appeals are of the year 2012.
2. The Appellant-Insurance Company has filed these appeals challenging the award dated 31.07.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doda.
3. These batch of appeals arise out of a common accident happened on 27.11.2006. More than 45 passengers were travelling in a Mini Bus bearing registration No. JK06/159 from Bhalla towards Doda, which met with an accident near Forest Check Post Pul Doda. The vehicle, admittedly, was registered and was entitled to carry 20 passengers plus driver and conductor. However, it CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 1 of 20 was carrying 45 passengers and committed the breach of condition of the Insurance Policy. The offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and rolled down from the road and caused accident resulting death of nine passengers and injuries to all others. Consequent thereupon, claim petitions were filed by the legal heirs of the deceased persons as well as by the injured claimants.
4. The Tribunal adjudicated upon the case in common and held that the driver was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company was liable to pay and recover, as the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company.
5. On this issue, there appears to be no serious dispute, however, learned counsel for the Appellant-insurance company pleads that in case of breach of condition of the Insurance Policy, more than 45 passengers are taken on board in the offending vehicle over and above the carrying capacity of 20 passengers plus driver and conductor. The offending vehicle was admittedly overloaded with 23 passengers.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company states that since it is a case of overloading, the Tribunal should have apportioned the liability in terms of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in national Insurance Co. ltd. V. Anjana Shyam and others, 2007 ACJ 2129.
7. Similar issue was considered by this Court in a batch of appeals with main case titled "The National Insurance co. Ltd. V. Narso Devi and another (CIMA No.119/2011) decided on 10.08.2016, where based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision, this Court apportioned the liability as per the Insurance Policy and insofar as other claims CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 2 of 20 accrued, benefits were given based on the Apex Court decision. The relevant portion of judgment passed in CIMA No.119/2011 is as follows:-
"The Hon'ble Apex Court in National insurance Co. Ltd. V. Anjana Shyam and others, 2007 ACJ 2129, held that:-
"16. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the insurance company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the insurance company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the insurance company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90, and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 3 of 20 satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately."
8. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M.Poonam and others, 2011 ACJ 917, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 26, held as follows:-
"26. Having arrived at the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation was limited to six persons traveling inside the vehicle only and that the liability to pay the others was that of the owner, we, in this case, are faced with the same problem as had surfaced in Anjana Shyam's case, 2007 ACJ 2129(SC). The number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is one of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice we may apply the procedure adopted in Baljit Kaur's case, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC) and direct that the Insurance Company should deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect to their claims, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amounts paid by it over and above the compensation amounts payable in respect of the persons covered by the Insurance Policy from the owner of the vehicle, as was directed in Baljit Kaur's case."
9. In the present cases, the facts are similar. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, foremost thing is to identify the number of passengers for whom, Insurance Company is liable in terms of the policy and they have to be paid. In respect of excess claims, the Insurance Company to satisfy the award(s) and recover it from the owner of the vehicle as specified above.
10. Accordingly, the claim of highest of the 22 passengers shall be settled by the Insurance Company and the other claims will be first discharged by the Insurance CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 4 of 20 Company and then recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle.
11. Insofar as issue regarding quantum of compensation in respect of the each of the case is concerned, the Court is inclined to take up each case separately.
CIMA No. 472/201212. In this case, injured claimant was 30 years old at the time accident and was an agriculturist. He suffered compression fracture Lumber Ist Vertebra. He was treated at District Hospital Doda for six days and disability of the injured- claimant was assessed between 20 to 30%. The Tribunal granted the following compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition and till its realization if the same is paid within two months and thereafter at the enhanced rate of 9% per annum till realization:-
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 80, 000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 70,000/-
3. Inconvenience, hardships, Rs. 50,000/-
discomfort, disappointment, frustration, and mental stress
4. Disability & Loss of income etc. Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs. 3,00,000/-
13. In almost all other cases, the Tribunal has granted interest and default interest and in some cases, has granted interest on future loss of income.
14. In these batch of appeals, two issues are vehemently contested. First issue is on the question of default interest stating that there is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act to impose default interest. Second contention is that in CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 5 of 20 the case of injury, the Tribunal has granted interest in respect of compensation awarded for the loss of income in the future.
15. These two contentions raised by the appellant's counsel merits consideration.
16. In all cases where default interest has been levied, it has to be set aside because there is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act for levying default interest. Similarly, the injured claimant will be entitled to compensation for loss of income in the future and that is being paid for the present. The question of interest for the amount that is being paid for the present in respect of loss that would arise in the future is a misconception and, accordingly, the interest component on compensation awarded towards loss of income in the future in case of injury is set aside.
17. In some cases interest at the rate of 9% has been awarded and there is no uniformity and in some cases 7% interest has been awarded. Considering the period of accident which is of the year 2006 in all these appeals, interest shall be at the rate of 7.5% per annum and where it is 9%, it shall stand reduced to 7.5%.
18. In this case, the Tribunal has granted Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company pleads that there is no proof shown by way of documents/medical bills with regard to the medical expenses. Be that as it may, no amount has been granted for attendant charges during the period of treatment, extra nutrition, attendant charges and for Physiotherapy.
19. Taking note of the above, the amount granted on account of medical expenses is deleted. Going by the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, modifying the award, following amount has been granted:-
CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 6 of 20 Head Award of the Modified Award
Tribunal
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 80,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs. 70,000/- -
3.Inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000
hardships,
discomfort,
disappointment,
frustration, and mental
stress
4. Disability and loss of 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
income
5. For Physiotherapy - Rs. 10,000/-
6. For Extra nutrition - Rs. 7,500/-
7. For Attendant - Rs. 10,000/-
charges
8. For Loss of income - Rs. 10,000/-
during the period of
treatment
Total 3,00,000/- Rs. 2,67,500/-
20. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified.
21. Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount along with interest as modified hereinabove.
22. Excess amount be returned to the appellant- Insurance Company.
CIMA No. 476/2012:
23. In this case, claimant-Darshna Devi, at the time of accident was 47 years old. She suffered fracture both bones right forearm with compression fracture Lumber third vertebra. She was treated in District Hospital Doda with effect from 27.11.2006 to 10.01.2007. Operated on 11.12.2006 and also operated for the second time.
24. She claimed a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant at Rs. 6,000/- per month and taking note of the disability at 30 to 35%, granted the following amount as compensation along with CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 7 of 20 interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition and till its realization if the same is paid within two months and thereafter at the enhanced rate of 9% per annum till realization:-
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 70, 000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 80,000/-
3. Inconvenience, hardships, Rs. 50,000/-
discomfort, disappointment, frustration, and mental stress
4. Disability & Loss of income etc. Rs. 2,00,000/-
Total Rs. 4,00,000/-
25. In this case, the Tribunal has granted Rs. 80,000/- towards medical expenses. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company pleads that there is no proof shown by way of documents/medical bills with regard to the medical expenses. Be that as it may, no amount has been granted for attendant charges during the period of treatment, extra nutrition, attendant charges, transport and for Physiotherapy.
26. Taking note of the above, the amount granted on account of medical expenses is deleted. Going by the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, modifying the award, following amount has been granted :-
Head Award of the Modified
Tribunal Award
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 70,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs. 80,000/- -
3.Inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
hardships,
discomfort,
disappointment,
frustration, and mental
stress
4. Disability and loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-
income
CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 8 of 20
5. Physiotherapy - Rs. 15,000/-
6. Extra nutrition - Rs. 20,000/-
7. Attendant charges - Rs. 20,000/-
8. Transport charges - Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 3,85,000/-
27. Default interest and interest on loss of income in future shall stand deleted.
28. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified.
29. Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount along with interest as modified hereinabove.
30. Excess amount be returned to the appellant- Insurance Company.
CIMA No.478/201231. It is a case of injury.
32. The claimant-Preetma Devi at the time of accident was 41 years old. She has sustained the following injuries:-
1. Blunt trauma chest due to RTA with multiple bilateral ribs fracture.
2. Bilateral lung contusion due to RTA.
3. Acute renal failure due to RTA.
4. Multiple soft tissue injuries all over the body due to RTA.
33. The permanent disability of the claimant has been assessed by the doctor at 60%.
34. The Tribunal taking the income of the injured claimant at Rs. 6000/- per month, granted the compensation under the following heads along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization if the award amount is paid within two months and if the same is not paid within aforesaid CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 9 of 20 period, the interest at enhanced rate of 9% per annum till realization of the award amount shall be paid:-
1. Pain and sufferings Rs 1,00, 000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 3,00,000/-
3. Inconvenience, hardships, Rs. 2,00,000/-
discomfort, disappointment, frustration, and mental stress
4. Disability & Loss of income. Rs. 2,50,000/- Total compensation. Rs. 8,50,000/-
35. In this case, the Tribunal has granted Rs.3.00 Lakhs towards medical expenses. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company pleads that there is no proof shown by way of documents/medical bills with regard to the medical expenses. Be that as it may, no amount has been granted for attendant charges during the period of treatment, extra nutrition, attendant charges and for Physiotherapy.
36. In this case, the claimant was said to be suffering from 100% disability. She was in Jammu Hospital for two months and in Chandigarh Hospital for further time. The injured claimant is a 38 years lady said to be doing agriculture labour, therefore, some reasonable amount can be granted towards medical expenses, as it is justified in the facts of the present case.
37. Taking note of the above, the amount granted on account of medical expenses is reduced to Rs. 30,000/-. By the nature of injuries suffered, the claimant will be entitled to the following amount as compensation which is not seriously disputed by the appellant-Insurance Company:-
CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 10 of 20S.No. Heading Award of the Modified Award Tribunal
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00, 000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
3. Inconvenience, Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-
hardship, discomfort, disappointment, Frustration, mental Stress & loss of Future prospects.
4. Disability and Rs. 2,50.000/- Rs. 2,50,000/-
Loss of income
5. Attendant charges _ Rs. 30,000/-
6. Transport charges - Rs.30,000/-
7. Special diet - Rs. 25,000/-
8. Loss of Income - Rs.60,000/-
during treatment
9. Physiotherapy Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs. 8,50,000/- Rs. 7,55,000/-
38. Interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum shall stand confirmed but there shall be no interest on loss of income in future.
39. The appeal is partly allowed.
40. Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount along with interest as modified hereinabove.
41. Excess amount be returned to the appellant- Insurance Company.
CIMA No. 477/2012:
42. In this appeal, claimant-Abdul Rashid, a labourer (BPL) suffered fracture of wrist and treated in Doda Hospital. His disability was assessed at 55%.
43. Going by the nature of injuries suffered by the injured- claimant, the Tribunal granted the following amounts along CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 11 of 20 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization:-
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.70,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 80,000/-
3.Inconvenience, Rs. 1,00,000/-
hardships, Discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress.
4. Disability & loss of Rs. 1,50,000/-
income
Etc.
Total Rs.4,00,000/-
44. Since there is no record to support the medical treatment, sum of Rs. 80,000/- shall stand deleted. However, the claimant shall be entitled to compensation for loss of income during treatment, for extra nutrition, for physiotherapy and attendant charges.
45. In modification of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant is held entitled to compensation as under:-
S. Heading Award of the Modified
Tribunal award
No.
1. For Pain & sufferings Rs.70,000/- Rs. 70,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 80,000/- -
3. Inconvenience, Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
hardships, discomfort,
disappointment,
frustration and mental
sress.
4. Disability and loss of Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 1,50,000
income etc.
CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 12 of 20
5. Extra nutrition Nil Rs. 10,000/-
6. Loss of income during Nil Rs. 10,000/-
treatment
7. Attendant Charges Nil Rs. 10,000/-
8. Physiotherapy Nil Rs. 10,000/-
Total 4,00,000/- Rs3,50,000/-
46. Interest @ 9% per annum shall be reduced to 7.5% per annum. There shall be no interest on loss of income in future.
47. The appeal is partly allowed.
48. Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount along with interest as modified hereinabove.
49. Excess amount be returned to the appellant- Insurance Company.
CIMA No. 473/2012:
50. It is a case of injury.
51. The claimant-Bashir Ahmed claims to be a labourer/agriculturist. As per the statement of the Dr. N. D. Dar, the claimant has suffered fracture of left shoulder & fracture of ribs RT side. His disability was assessed at 50%.
52. The Tribunal based on oral and documentary evidence has awarded compensation under the following heads along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 60,000/-
3. Inconvenience, hardships, Rs. 1,00,000/-
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress.
CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 13 of 204. Disability & loss of income Rs. 1,50,000/-
Total Rs. 3,70,000/-
53. Insofar as the medical expenses are concerned, no record was produced and the same is deleted. However, the claimant will be entitled to compensation for loss of income during treatment, for extra nutrition, for physiotherapy and attendant charges.
54. In modification of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant is held entitled to compensation as under:-
S. Heading Award of the Modified
No. Tribunal award
1. For Pain & sufferings Rs.60,000/- Rs. 60,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 60,000/- -
3. Inconvenience, Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
hardships, discomfort,
disappointment,
frustration and mental
stress.
4. Disability and loss of Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 1,50,000
income etc.
5. Extra nutrition Nil Rs. 10,000/-
6. Loss of income during Nil Rs. 10,000/-
treatment
7. Attendant Charges Nil Rs. 10,000/-
8. Physiotherapy Nil Rs. 10,000/-
Total 3,70,000/- Rs. 3,50,000/-
55. Interest @ 9% per annum shall be reduced to 7.5% per annum. There shall be no interest on loss of income in future.
56. The appeal is partly allowed.
57. Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount along with interest as modified hereinabove.
58. Excess amount be returned to the appellant- Insurance Company.
CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 14 of 20CIMA No. 470/2012:
59. It is a case of injury. The claimant-Anju Devi at the time of accident was 12/13 years student. In the accident she suffered head injuries with left pneunothorax with haemopintonium with cut exterior tenderness of left middle finger.
60. The Tribunal keeping in mind the age of injured- claimant, nature of injury, period of hospitalization and further treatment granted the following compensation under the following heads along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization if the same is paid within two months and thereafter at the enhanced rate of 9% per annum till realization:-
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 50,000/-
3. Inconvenience, hardships, Rs. 30,000/-
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress.
4. Disability etc. Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs.1,50,000/-
61. There is no proof of medical expenses and on this count, the appeal is canvassed that there are no medical bills, therefore, the same shall stand deleted. However, the claimant shall be entitled to compensation for extra nutrition, for physiotherapy, Transport charges and attendant charges.
62. In modification of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant is held entitled to compensation as under:-
S. Heading Award of the Modified
Tribunal Award
CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 15 of 20
No.
1. For Pain & sufferings Rs.50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- -
3. Inconvenience, Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
hardships, discomfort,
disappointment,
frustration and mental
stress.
4. Disability etc. Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000
5. Extra nutrition Nil Rs. 10,000/-
6. Transport charges Nil Rs. 10,000/-
7. Attendant Charges Nil Rs. 10,000/-
8. Physiotherapy Nil Rs. 10,000/-
Total 1,50,000/- Rs. 1,40,000/-
63. Interest @9% per annum shall be reduced to 7.5% per annum. There shall be no interest on loss of income in future.
64. The appeal is partly allowed.
65. Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount along with interest as modified hereinabove.
66. Excess amount be returned to the appellant- Insurance Company.
CIMA No. 474/2012:
67. It is a case of fatal accident.
68. Shabir Ahmed aged 38 years old, Milk Vendor, died in the accident. He is survived by widow and five minor children. The deceased was stated to be engaged in selling milk and the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 10,000/- per month and 1/4th was CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 16 of 20 deducted towards his personal expenses, which comes to Rs. 75,00/-. Adopting 16 as multiplier, the Tribunal has granted the following compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization if the same is paid within two months and thereafter at the enhanced rate of 9% per annum till realization:-
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 14,40,000/-
2. For loss of love and Rs. 10,000/- affection.
3. For funeral expenses Rs. 10,000/-
4. For loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-
5. For loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 14,80,000/-
69. Counsel for the appellant pleads that the question of fixation of income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/-
per month without proper records is not justified, when the accident happened in the year 2006.
70. Taking note of the minimum wages applicable to the date of accident which is of the year 2006, the nature of the occupation of the deceased namely a Milk seller, who was survived by his wife and five minor children and assuming that there is no record to show the actual income, same can be fixed at Rs. 7500/- per month. Therefore, loss of dependency after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, comes to Rs. 5625/- (Rs. 7500x1/4th= Rs. 5625/-). Adopting 15 as multiplier, keeping view the age of the deceased, total pecuniary loss will be Rs.5625 x 12 x 15= Rs. 10,12,500/-. Meager amount has been granted CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 17 of 20 towards loss of love and affection to the minor children and for loss of consortium to the widow. This has been strongly objected to by the appellant Insurance Company.
71. The minor children will be entitled to Rs. 2, 25,000/- on the death of their father. Wife will be entitled to Rs. 1.00 lakh for loss of consortium. Funeral expenses will be Rs. 15,000/- and loss of estate will be Rs. 10,000/-. The award is modified as under:-
S. Heading Award of the Modified
Tribunal Award
No.
1. Loss of dependency Rs.14,40,000/- Rs. 10,12,500/-
2. For loss of love and Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 2,25,000/-
affection to children
3. For burial expenses Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
4. For loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/-
5. For loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs.14,80,000/- Rs.13,62,500/-
72. Interest at the rate of 7.5% is confirmed.
73. The appeal is partly allowed.
74. Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount along with interest as modified hereinabove.
75. Excess amount be returned to the appellant- Insurance Company.
CIMA No. 469/2012:
76. It is a case of injury.
CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 18 of 2077. Claimant-Siraj Din, stated be working as labourer/agriculturist suffered the following injuries:-
1. Cut injury on skull.
2. Fracture dislocation of left wrist, and;
3. fracture of dislocation of 9th and 10th ribs.
Disability of the claimant-injured was assessed at 45%. The Tribunal has granted the following amount as compensation along with at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization:-
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 60,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 60,000/-
3.Inconvenience, Rs. 80,000/-
hardships, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration
and mental stress.
4. Disability & loss of Rs. 1,50,000/-
income etc.
Total Rs. 3,50,000/-
78. Insofar as the medical expenses are concerned, no record was produced and the same is deleted.
However, the claimants will be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- for extra nutrition, Rs. 10,000/- for attendant charges and Rs. 10,000/- for physiotherapy.
79. The award of the Tribunal is modified as under:-
S. Heading Award of the Modified
Tribunal award
No.
1. For Pain & sufferings Rs.60,000/- Rs. 60,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 60,000/- -
3. Inconvenience, Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 80,000/-
hardships, discomfort,
disappointment,
frustration and mental
stress.
CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 19 of 20
4. Disability and Loss of Rs. 1,50,000/ Rs. 1,50,000/-
income etc.
5. Extra nutrition Nil Rs. 10,000/-
6. Transport charges Nil Rs. 10,000/-
7. Attendant Charges Nil Rs. 10,000/-
8. Physiotherapy Nil Rs. 10,000/-
Total 3,50,000/- Rs. 3,30,000/-
80. Interest @ 9% per annum stands reduced to 7.5% per annum. There shall be no interest on loss of income in future.
81. The appeal is partly allowed.
82. Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount along with interest as modified hereinabove.
83. Excess amount be returned to the appellant- Insurance Company.
84. All appeals and Cross Appeals stand disposed of as above.
(Ramalingam Sudhakar) Judge Jammu 11.04.2017 Tilak, Secy CIMA No. 472/2012 Page 20 of 20 ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������������