Karnataka High Court
The Regional Manager vs P V Nageswar on 2 July, 2019
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna, K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4758 of 2015 (MV-D)
C/w
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.6161 of 2015 (MV-D)
IN M.F.A. No.4758 of 2015:
BETWEEN:
THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SUNDRAM TOWERS, Nos.45 & 46,
WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI - 560 014.
REGISTERED OFFICE, 21,
PATULLOS ROAD,
CHENNAI - 600 002.
BY
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE COMPANY LTD.,
SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, No.1,
CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASASALAI,
CHENNAI - 600 002.
BY ITS MANGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. P.V. NAGESWAR,
S/O. P. VEERABHADRAPPA ,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
2. SHANTHA NAGESH,
W/O. P.V. NAGESWAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
3. P.V. SANTHOSH,
S/O. P.V. NAGESWAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
4. SMITHA SANDEEP R.P.,
W/O. P.N. SANDEEP,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
5. MUKESH MUTTU,
MINOR,
S/O. P.N. SANDEEP,
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
6. DEVIVAISHNAVI,
D/O. P.N. SANDEEP,
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 ARE
MINOR M/G 4TH RESPONDENT
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
MAIN ROAD,
SRI KEDARESWARA NILAYA,
SANTHEBENNUR POST AND HOBLI,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213.
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
7. M. GANESH,
S/O. K.M. MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
3
RESIDENT OF KANTHOOR VILLAGE,
MURUNAD POST, MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.
8. R.B. HEMANTH,
MAJOR,
S/O. B.K. VISHWANATH,
VINAYAKA ESTATE, ARJI VMP,
VIRAJPET,
MADIKERI - 571 218,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATHA P. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-R6;
SRI M. VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R8)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
27/03/2015 PASSED IN MVC No.796 of 2012 ON THE FILE OF
THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & VII MACT,
DAVANAGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.55,56,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A. No.6161 of 2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI P.V. NAGESHWAR,
S/O. P. VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. SMT. SHANTHA NAGESH,
W/O. P.V. NAGESHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
3. SRI P.N. SANTHOSH,
S/O. P.V. NAGESHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
4
4. SMT. SMITHA SANDEEP R.P.,
W/O. P.N. SANDEEP,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
5. MUKESH MUTTU,
S/O. P.N. SANDEEP,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
6. DEVI VAISHNAVI,
D/O. P.N. SANDEEP,
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS.
APPELLANT Nos.5 & 6 ARE MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
APPELLANT NO.4.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MAIN ROAD,
SRI KEDARESWARA NILAYA,
SANTHEBENNUR POST AND HOBLI,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH PATTAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M. GANESH,
S/O. K.M. MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
DRIVER OF THE MINI BUS
BEARING NO.KA-12-A-4797,
RESIDING AT KANTHOOR VILLAGE,
MURUNAD POST,
MADIKERE TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 252.
2. R.B. HEMANTH,
S/O. B.K. VISWANATH,
VINAYAKA ESTATE,
ARJI VMP, VIRAJPET,
5
MADIKERE - 571 218,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
3. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
SUNDARAM TOWERS,
45 AND 46 WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI - 560 014,
REGISTERED OFFICE,
21, PATULLOS ROAD,
CHENNAI - 600 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
27/03/2015 PASSED IN MVC No.796 of 2012 ON THE FILE OF
THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND VII
MACT, AT DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
NATARAJAN J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed to consider I.A.No.2/2018, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.
2. MFA No.4758/2015 is filed by the insurance company assailing the judgment and award dated 27.03.2015 passed in MVC No.796/2012 by the III Additional Senior 6 Civil Judge & VII MACT at Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for the sake of convenience) while MFA No.6161/2015 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing the very same judgment and award referred to above.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as for the respondents.
4. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience.
5. The claimants filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for the sake of brevity) claiming compensation of Rs.52,00,000/- on account of the death of P.N.Sandeep, who died in a road traffic accident inter alia, contending that on 10.12.2012, at about 7 00 p.m. when the said Sandeep was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA-17/EC-2931 at Bada Cross on the left side of the road, at that time, a Mini Bus bearing Regn.No.KA- 7 12/A-4997 came from Chitradurga side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed and dashed to the motorcycle of the said Sandeep, due to which, he died on the spot. The claimants have contended that they have spent huge amount towards funeral and other incidental expenses and have lost the earning member of the family. The deceased was earning more than Rs.35,000/- per month as salary. He was also a wholesale food-grains merchant and agent for Hindustan Lever, Airtel and LIC and other private insurance companies and was running the business in the name of style of Sri Shusheel Trading and due to the death of Sandeep, they have lost the entire income of the deceased. Therefore, they claimed compensation on various heads.
Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurance company respectively appeared through their counsel. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed separate statement of objections. Respondent No.1 adopted the objections filed 8 by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 denied the entire averments made in the claim petition as false including the rash and negligent driving, accident in question and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
Respondent No.3-insurance company also filed its objections denying the rash and negligent driving of the mini bus and contended that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of the deceased himself. Further, the insurance company contended that the driver of the bus had no valid driving license at the time of the accident and in view of the absence of RC and permit of the bus, respondent No.2-owner violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, respondent No.3-insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, the insurance company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. Based upon the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues and additional issues for its consideration:
9
"Issues
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the death of P.N.Sandeep S/o P.V.Nagewar was due to rash and negligent driver of Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-12/A-4797 on 10.05.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. near Bada Cross, Davanagere Taluk by the respondent No.1 as pleaded in the petition?
2. Whether the respondent No.1 and 2 prove that they are not liable to pay the compensation for the reasons mentioned in the objection statement?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom?
4. What order or award?
Additional Issues
1. Whether the respondent No.3 proves that he is not liable to pay the compensation for the reasons mentioned in the objection statement?"10
7. To substantiate the contentions of the claimants, claimant No.1 as well as claimant No.4 examined themselves as PWs.1 and 4. They also examined two more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked 34 documents. On behalf of respondent No.3-insurance company, the ARTO, Davanagere was examined as RW.1. Respondent No.2 was examined as RW.2. The insurance company also examined one more witness as RW.3 and got marked eight documents as per Exs.R.1 to R.8. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, additional issue in the negative and awarded compensation of Rs.55,56,000/- under various heads in the following manner:
Loss of financial dependency - Rs.53,76,000/- Loss of love and affection - Rs. 75,000/-
Loss of consortium - Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of estate - Rs. 50,000/-
Funeral expenses - Rs. 25,000/-
8. Assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the insurance company filed its appeal in MFA 11 No.4758/2015 questioning the liability as well as the quantum of compensation and the claimants have filed MFA No.6161/2015 for enhancement of compensation.
9. During the pendency of these appeals, the claimants filed an application in I.A.No.2/2018 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking permission of the Court to produce additional documents namely, copy of the D.L extract of the driver of the offending vehicle and permit of the vehicle in question. Though the said application was objected to by the insurance company, it did not file any written objections.
10. Learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. mini bus had no valid license to drive the said vehicle. That he had only a LMV non-transport license, whereas he has driven mini bus, which is a transport vehicle. The driver was not having transport endorsement in the Driving License (DL). Thereby, the owner of the vehicle violated 12 the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by allowing the person who does not hold a valid license. Learned counsel has also taken the contention that there is no permit for the vehicle in question to ply on the road and therefore, the liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company. The insurance company also contended that the award of compensation is on the higher side and the Tribunal has awarded loss of dependency by considering the income of the deceased as Rs.35,000/- per month in the absence of any positive evidence. Further, it contended that the personal expenses of the deceased ought to have been deducted at 1/4th of the income, but the Tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/5th of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company and to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants contended that the claimants have established the fact 13 that the accident that occurred on 10.05.2012 was due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini bus by its driver and the claimants also examined the witnesses and got marked the insurance policy. Though the respondents produced the DL extract of the driver as per Ex.R.1, the DL. extract itself clearly goes to show that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license for driving the Public Transport Vehicle (PSV). When he is having DL for driving the PSV bus, he is also entitled for driving the mini bus. Therefore, there is no necessity to have any special endorsement on the DL for driving mini bus, which is a maxi cab having capacity of thirteen seats. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of DL and fastened the liability on the insurance company. However, as a matter of caution, the claimants also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to produce additional documents, viz., the DL extract of the driver as well as the permit for plying the vehicle. These documents were inadvertently not produced before the Tribunal. Though the ARTO was 14 examined by the respondent-insurance company, the permit had been issued by the transport authority, Bengaluru and not the Regional Transport Authority. These documents are very much necessary for considering the case of the claimants, which were not produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, if these documents are allowed to be produced by the claimants that would support the contention taken by the claimants as well as the insurance company and hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal filed by the insurance company.
12. Learned counsel for the claimants also contended in respect of enhancement of compensation that the deceased Sandeep was the Sales Manager in Sri Renuka Agro Traders. He was earning Rs.26,000/- per month. Apart from that, he was also running a business in the name and style of Sri Shusheel Trading and earning profits. To prove the said contention, the claimants got marked Ex.P.11-appointment order of the deceased as well as Ex.P.13-copy of the profit and loss account, Ex.P.14- 15 Ledger account of the deceased and Exs.P.15 to P.18- Income Tax Returns. These documents clearly go to show that he was earning more than Rs.35,000/- per month. Though the Tribunal rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.35,000/- per month, but failed to consider the future prospects as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 [Pranay Sethi]. Learned counsel also contended that there are six claimants therefore, 1/5th of the income has rightly been deducted by the Tribunal. However, there was no compensation awarded towards conventional heads like loss of spousal consortium, loss of filial consortium and loss of parental consortium as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 [Magma]. Therefore, he prayed for enhancement of compensation and dismissal of the appeal filed by the insurance company.
16
13. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the record, the points that arise for our consideration are:
i) Whether the claimants have made out sufficient ground to produce additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC in this appeal?
ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company or the same calls for interference?
iii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?
iv) What order? 14. The claimants have established the factum of
accident that occurred on 10.05.2012, at about 7.00 p.m. near Bada Cross, Davanagere Taluk, while Sandeep was proceeding on his motorcycle, a Mini Bus bearing Regn.No.KA-12/A-4797 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to said Sandeep, due to which, he 17 sustained injuries and died on the spot. PW.1-claimant No.1 and PW.4-claimant No.4 have adduced oral evidence as well as got marked the documents namely, Ex.P.1-copy of FIR, Ex.P.3-copy of mahazar, Ex.P.4-copy of rough sketch, Ex.P.5-copy of photo, Ex.P.6-seizure panchanama, Ex.P.7-inquest panchanama, Ex.P.8-IMV report, Ex.P.9- P.M. Report and Ex.P.10-copy of the charge sheet. These documents clearly go to suggest that the said accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the mini bus. Though denied in the cross- examination, but there is no positive evidence let in by the respondent to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 and the documents Exs.P.1 to P.10 produced by the claimants. Though RW.2-Hemanth, the owner of the mini bus was examined, he did has not chose to examine the driver of the mini bus to disprove the contention of the claimants that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The main contention of the insurance company is that the driver of the mini bus did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the passenger bus or 18 mini bus and there is no permit produced by respondent No.2 to ply the vehicle on the road.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company mainly contended that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle ie. when the deceased was coming from the cross-road, he should have taken care of the vehicles plying on the main road. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the mini bus. As already stated above, the driver of the mini bus was not examined before the Court to disprove the evidence of PWs.1 and 4. The claimants examined PW.2-Ningappa, the eyewitness to the accident. He had clearly stated about the accident and the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the mini bus. Except the denial, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination by the counsel for the respondent. Ex.P.4 clearly goes to show that the accident has occurred below the highway bridge on the service road. The sketch and the evidence of PW.2, clearly suggest that the accident had occurred due 19 to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the mini bus.
16. RW.2-Hemanth, who is the owner of the mini bus had stated that the driver of the mini bus was having a valid and effective driving license and badge to drive the vehicle at that point, but he has not produced any documents and during cross-examination, it was elicited that the vehicle was a mini bus and he was the owner of maxi cab having 12 + 1 seat capacity. He had also stated that the driver is having a valid driving license. Further, there is no contention in the cross-examination that there is no permit for plying the maxi cab by RW.2. The insurance company also examined RW.1-Nagendra. He has stated that the driver of the vehicle is in possession of DL and is eligible to drive the goods vehicle, motor cab and heavy passenger vehicle, but he has stated that he had no DL for driving the mini bus. However, he has stated that from 13.08.2012 to 29.12.2015 the driver was having heavy passenger driving license. However, in the cross- 20 examination, he has admitted that respondent No.1 is eligible to drive the maxi cab, which comes under the definition of LMV. The same was not disputed by the insurance company. Though the senior legal executive who was examined as RW.3 described the license as well as taken the same contention that the driver had LMV licence and he was not authorized to drive the said maxi cab, but in the cross-examination, he has admitted that in Ex.R.1- DL extract, there is badge number mentioned as MCAB and the respondent No.1 was holding DL to drive a maxi cab. This fact also corroborates with the evidence Ex.R.1 the DL extract of the driver of the vehicle which shows that he was having LMV-NT-Car license from 19.06.2006 and subsequently, he also obtained further license to drive the TRV Rigid Chassis from 26.06.2010 and from 30.10.2010, he has obtained LMV-TR-CAB, where badge number mentions 20729/MCAB from 30.10.2009 and from 13.08.2012, he has also obtained the license for driving the LMV-PSV bus with Badge No.222000 bus dated 13.08.2012.
21
17. Perusal of Ex.R.1 clearly shows that respondent No.1-driver of the bus was having LMV transport cab license to drive the vehicle including the bus. Apart from that the claimants have also produced the permit as well as the driving license of respondent No.1 along with application under Section XLI Rule 27 of CPC. Those documents were obtained by the claimants under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Ex.R.1-DL extract and the DL produced by the respondent-claimants corroborate with each other. The Tribunal also after considering the evidence on record relied upon Ex.R.1 and held that there is no violation of the insurance policy by the insured and fastened the liability on the insurance company. Another document produced by the claimants also goes to show that respondent No.2-Hemanth had obtained permit for running the maxi cab from 28.10.2011 till 20.07.2016 for five years. The accident in question has occurred on 10.05.2012. These two documents were not produced by the claimants before the Tribunal of course the claimants have been in custody of those documents, but respondent 22 No.2, who is the owner ought to have produced those documents. However, those documents were not controverted by learned counsel for the insurance company before this Court. These documents are necessary to settle the issue of violation of terms of driving license as well as permit. The claimants have shown sufficient cause for not producing those documents before the Tribunal. Therefore, these two documents deserve to be taken on record by allowing the claimants to produce the same before the Court by allowing interlocutory application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
18. That apart, though Ex.R.1 and other documents were produced by the claimants to show respondent No.1 is having valid driving license to drive the LMV cab from 19.06.2006 onwards, Heavy goods transport vehicle from 20.06.2010 and heavy passenger vehicle from 16.02.2010 and the accident has occurred on 10.05.2012. During the time of accident, respondent No.1 had valid license to drive mini bus, which is a maxi cab. He has obtained 23 badge as per Ex.R.1. Apart from that, the Hon'ble Apex Court had already clarified the issue of badge and obtaining badge for driving transport vehicle by a passenger holding non-transport driving license in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3368. Therefore, we are of the view that the claimants as well as respondent No.2 have established that Ex.R.1 was the valid license as on the date of accident and there is no violation of insurance policy in respect of driving license or permit for the vehicle in question. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the insurance company by considering the evidence on record. Therefore, we do not find any error in the findings which calls for interference by this Court. Hence, point no.2 is answered against the insurance company and in favour of respondent-claimants.
19. Now, the controversy with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be considered.
24
20. The claimants have stated that the deceased Sandeep was doing food-grains business as well as working in Sri Renuka Agro Traders and was earning Rs.26,000/- per month as salary and was also having a private agency. In all, he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Exs.P.11 to 15 were produced. Ex.P.11 is the appointment letter of the deceased issued by M/s. Renuka Agro Traders. To prove the said document, the claimants have examined PW.3-Nagaraj, who has clearly stated that the deceased was earning salary of Rs.26,000/- per month. Apart from that, they were also paying him Rs.8,000/- per month towards TA/DA. In the cross- examination nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. The claimants also produced and marked Exs.P.15 to P.18-income tax returns, which show that he has filed income tax returns for Rs.1,14,609/- by way of business income by running business in the name and style of Sri Shusheel Trading, apart from the salary earned by him from M/s.Renuka Agro Traders as per 25 Exs.P.11, P.13 and P.14. However, apart from Ex.P.11, other documents are Ex.P.33-certificate of registration of the firm has been produced. Exs.P.22 to P.32 go to show that the deceased was also receiving extra payments and other allowances per day at Rs.150/- to Rs.250/- etc., But on perusal of these documents, the deceased was only getting Rs.50/- per day from M/s.Renuka Agro Traders, which amounts to Rs.1,500/- per month. The salary as per Ex.P.11 and P.13 is Rs.26,000/- per month. In all, the deceased was earning Rs.27,500/- per month. Therefore, we propose to consider the salary of the deceased at Rs.27,500/-. As per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, 40 % of the income should be considered towards future prospects. If 40% of Rs.27,500/- i.e Rs.11,000/- is added, it comes to Rs.38,500/-, which is the monthly income of the deceased. The claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, claimant No.4 is the widow of the deceased and claimant Nos.5 and 6 are the minor children of the deceased. But, claimant No.3 is the brother of the deceased aged about 29 years and 26 therefore, claimant No.3 cannot be considered as dependent on the deceased. Therefore, excluding claimant No.3, the other claimants are considered as dependents of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants are five in number. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) [Sarla Verma], 1/4th of the income should be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased i.e. 1/4th of Rs.38,500/- is Rs.9,625/- and Rs.38,500/- minus Rs.9625/- = Rs.28,875/- and annualizing the same would be Rs.3,46,500/- and applying the multiplier of 16 ie. Rs.3,46,500 x 16, it comes to Rs.55,44,000/-. This would be the compensation on the head of loss of dependency as against Rs.53,76,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
21. As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 [Magma], claimant Nos.1 and 2 being the parents of the 27 deceased are entitled to Rs.30,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium, claimant No.4 being the widow of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and claimant Nos.5 and 6 being the minor children are entitled to Rs.30,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. Further, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs,15,000/- towards funeral and transportation charges.
22. In the result, despite accepting contentions of the insurance company with regard to the calculation of compensation on the head of loss of dependency, ultimately on re-assessment of the same, the award of compensation is enhanced to Rs.57,34,000/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.
In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed.
The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
28
The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed in part. The re-assessed compensation is apportioned in the following terms:
The parents of the deceased shall each be entitled to 10% of the compensation. The widow of the deceased shall be entitled to 30% of the compensation. Each of the children of the deceased shall be entitled to 25% of the compensation. The brother of the deceased shall be entitled to Rs.30,000/- only. After deducting the aforesaid amount of Rs.30,000/-, the balance compensation shall be deposited and released in the following terms :
50% of the compensation awarded to the parents of the deceased shall be deposited in any Post Office or Nationalised Bank deposit for an initial period of five years. They shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to them after due identification.
The entire compensation awarded to the children of the deceased shall be deposited in any Post Office or 29 Nationalised Bank Deposit till they attain the age of majority. The interest accrued on the said deposits shall be released annually for the purpose of utilizing the same in the interest of minor children such as for educational expenses etc. 75% of the amount awarded to the widow of the deceased shall be deposited in any Post Office or Nationalised Bank Deposit for an initial period of ten years. She shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance amount shall be released to her after due identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE mv