Karnataka High Court
M/S. National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Sudhakar @ Sudhakara Reddy on 30 September, 2020
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
MFA No.5090/2010 [MV]
C/W MFA Nos.5086/2010, 5087/2010,
5088/2010, 5089/2010,
MFA CROB No.119/2013 IN MFA NO.5088/2010
MFA CROB No.120/2013 IN MFA NO. 5087/2010
IN MFA NO. 5090/2010
BETWEEN:
M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE, KOLAR
NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU,
BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARTHIKA.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADV.)
AND:
1. SUDHAKAR @ SUDHAKARA REDDY
S/O LATE D. B. SRIRAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O RAYALPAD VILLAGE AND POST
SRINIVASAPUR TALUK,
KOLAR DIST.
2
2. VENKATESHWARAIAH
C/O K. YOGANANDA,
R/O PATTUR SANTHAGATE
IRALA MANDALAM,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.G. CHANDRA MOHAN, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICENT
V/O. DATED 28.01.2015)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.09.2008 PASSED
IN MVC NO. 202/2005 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) & CJM, KOLAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
Rs.1,19,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
IN MFA NO. 5086/2010
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
II FLOOR, PVN COMPLEX
SESHADRIPURAM STREET, CHITTOOR
ANDHRA PRADESH
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD,
M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU
BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARTHIKA. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADV.)
AND:
1. MURALI
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
S/O REDDAPPA
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HIS FATHER REDDAPPA
3
RESIDING AT MANDYALA VILLAGE,
RAYALPAD HOBLI, SRINIVASPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
2. VENKATESHWARALU
S/O NOT KNOWN (INSURED)
C/O YOGANANDA MAJOR
R/O PATTUR SANTHA GATE
IRALA MANDALAM,
CHITOOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH
3. K YOGANANDA
S/O K. ANANDANAIDU
MAJOR (R C HOLDER TN 04 C5509)
NO. 17-6-432 NEAR COURT,
THIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR,
ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.M. VENKATAREDDY, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICENT;
V/O. DATED 28.01.2015)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.09.2008 PASSED
IN MVC NO. 70/2005 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) & CJM, KOLAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
Rs.35,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT.
IN MFA NO. 5087/2010
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
II FLOOR, PVN COMPLEX
SESHADRIPURAM STREET, CHITTOOR
ANDHRA PRADESH
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE
4
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD,
M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU
BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARTHIKA.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI . L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O KETHAGANAHALI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
SRINIVASAPUR TALUK
KOLAR DIST.
2. VENKATESHWARALU
S/O NOT KNOWN (INSURED)
C/O YOGANANDA, MAJOR
R/O PATTUR SANTHA GATE
IRALA MANDALAM
CHITTOOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR
SRI. S. CHENNARAYA REDDY, ADV. FOR R-1
NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O. ORDER DATED 28.01.2015)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.09.2008 PASSED
IN MVC NO.128/2005 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) & CJM, KOLAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
Rs.87,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT.
5
IN MFA NO. 5088/2010
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
II FLOOR, PVN COMPLEX
SESHADRIPURAM STREET, CHITTOOR
ANDHRA PRADESH
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD,
M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU
BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARTHIKA. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI . L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV.)
AND:
1. KUMARI PAVANI
D/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED 7 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REP BY HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND
MOTHER SMT SAVITHRAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
AGED 33 YEARS
R/O KETHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
2. VENKATESHWARALU
C/O YOGANANDA, MAJOR
R/O PATHUR SANTHAGATE
IRALA MANDALANM, CHITOOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR
SRI. S. CHENNARAYA REDDY, ADV. FOR R-1
NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O. DATED 28.01.2015)
6
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.09.2008 PASSED
IN MVC NO.130/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) KOLAR AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF Rs.41,250/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT.
IN MFA NO. 5089/2010
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE, KOLAR
NOW REP BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD,
M. G. ROAD, BENGALUR
BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARTHIKA.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV.)
AND:
1. RAMALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE D.B. SRIRAMAREDDY,
AGED 43 YEARS,
2. D.S. SHANKAR REDDY,
S/O LATE D.B. SRIRAM REDDY,
AGED 30 YEARS,
3. D.S. BHARATHI,
D/O LATE D.B. SRIRAMA REDDY,
AGED 25 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O RAYALPAD VILLAGE,
SRINIVASAPUR TALUK,KOLAR DISTRICT.
4. VENKATESHWARAIAH,
C/O K. YOGANANDA,
R/O PATTUR SANTHAGATE,
7
IRALA MANDALAM,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.G. CHANDRAMOHAN, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-3,
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-4 IS HELD SUFFICEINT
V/O. DATED 28.01.2012)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.09.2008 PASSED
IN MVC NO.198/2005 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) & CJM, KOLAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
Rs.3,04,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
IN MFA CROB NO.119/2013:
BETWEEN:
KUMARI PAVANI
AGED 10 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF NARAYANASWAMY
SINCE MINOR REPREPRESENTED
BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WIFE OF NARAYANASWAMY
RESIDING AT KETHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
... CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR
SRI. S. CHENNARAYA REDDY, ADV. (VC))
AND:
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
II FLOOR, PVN COMPLEX
SESHADRIPURAM STREET, CHITTOOR
ANDHRA PRADESH
8
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD,
M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARTHIKA.
2. SRI VENKATESHWARALU
MAJOR IN AGE
CARE OF YOGANANDA
RESIDING AT PATHUR SANTHAGATE
IRALA MANDALAM
CHITTOOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH- 527 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV.
NOTICE TO R.2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DATED 28.1.2015)
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.5088/2010 IS FILED
UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22(1) OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.9.2008 PASSED IN MVC
NO.130/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.)
AND CJM, KOLAR PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA CROB NO.120/2013:
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WIFE OF NARAYANASWAMY
RESIDING AT KETHAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT. ... CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR
SRI. S. CHENNARAYA REDDY, ADV. (VC))
9
AND:
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
II FLOOR, PVN COMPLEX
SESHAPIRAN, CHITTOOR
ANDHRA PRADESH
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD,
M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARTHIKA.
2. SRI VENKATESHWARALU
MAJOR IN AGE
CARE OF YOGANANDA
RESIDING AT PATHUR SANTHAGATE
IRALA MANDALAM
CHITTOOR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH- 511001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV.)
NOTICE TO R.2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DATED 28.1.2015)
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.5087/2010 IS FILED
UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22(1) OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.9.2008 PASSED IN MVC
NO.128/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.)
AND CJM, KOLAR PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFAs' AND CROSS OBJECTIONS COMING ON
FOR HEARING, THIS DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
10
JUDGMENT
MFA Nos.5090/2010, 5086/2010, 5087/2010, 5088/2010 and 5089/2010 are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award in MVC Nos.202/2005, 70/2005, 128/2005, 130/2005 and 198/2005 dated 8.9.2008 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Kolar ('the Tribunal', for short), wherein the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Insurance Company on the ground that the policy is an Act policy and the same does not cover the risk of the occupants of the private vehicle and it covers only the third party risk.
2. The claimants have filed cross objection in MFA No.5088/2010, which is numbered as MFA CROB No.119/2013 and MFA CROB No.120/2013 in MFA No.5087/2010 questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11
3. The factual matrix of the case is that, the claimants in the respective claim petitions have contended that on the date of the accident they were proceeding in Mahindra Commander Jeep bearing registration No.TN-04/C-5509 to go to their native place, the driver of the jeep drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at that time, front right side tyre was punctured and the driver lost control over the vehicle and the jeep fell down on the left side of the road. As a result, one of the occupants, D.B.Sriramareddy succumbed to the injuries at the spot and the other claimants have sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal.
4. Pursuant to the claim petitions, notice was ordered against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.1 was placed exparte and respondent No.2 represented through his Counsel. In the written statement, the Insurance Company contended that the 12 vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the policy and the policy is only an Act policy . Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy does not cover the occupants of the vehicle and it covers only the third party and no premium is collected against the occupants of the vehicle.
5. The claimants in order to substantiate their claims have examined eight witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.30. The respondent- Insurance Company examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked the insurance policy as Ex.R.1. The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record, allowed the claim petitions in part granting the compensation and the liability is fastened on the Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeals are filed by the Insurance Company.
13
6. In all the appeals, the main contention of the Insurance Company before this Court is that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. The policy covers only the risk of the third party. In the absence of paying additional premium for covering the risk of the inmates, no liability can be saddled against the Insurance Company. The finding of the Tribunal is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court.
7. The cross-objectors in the respective cross- objections have contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and not awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
8. Having heard the arguments of the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:
14
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed
an error in not awarding just and
reasonable compensation, as
contended in the cross-objections?
(iii) What Order?
Point No.(i):
9. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the cross-objectors, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company examined one witness as R.W.1 and got marked the policy as Ex.R.1. On perusal of Ex.R.1 - policy, it is clear that it is an Act policy. It covers the risk of the third parties i.e., the claimants who are the inmates of particular jeep. The fact that they were travelling in the jeep in order to 15 reach their vehicle is also not disputed. The question before this Court is whether there is a contractual liability to pay the compensation by the Insurance Company. There is no specific premium paid in respect of the occupants of the jeep. The policy which has been issued as Ex.R.1 is an Act only policy and it covers the risk of the third parties and not the inmates of the jeep.
10. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED v. BALAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2013 SC 473. In this judgment the Apex Court discussed with regard to Section 147, 149 and also Section 64(b) in respect of liability of the insurer. The Apex Court also discussed with regard to Act policy, which is distinct from comprehensive/package policy. It is held that the occupants in the car and pillion rider of scooter/motorcycle are covered under comprehensive policy. The policy in question mentions that if it is a 16 comprehensive policy, then the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation; if it is a Act policy, the Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
11. Having taken note of the policy, which is marked as Ex.R.1, it is clear that the same is an Act policy and not comprehensive policy and no premium is collected in respect of the occupants of the jeep. I have already pointed out that the claimants are the occupants of the jeep. The Apex Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SUDHAKARAN K.V. AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC 2729 has categorically held that if a separate premium is not paid in respect of the pillion rider and if the policy is an Act policy, it does not cover the risk of the pillion rider.
12. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Sudhakaran and Balakrishnan (supra), it is made clear 17 that if it is an Act policy and no specific premium is collected, the Insurance Company is not liable. In the case on hand, the vehicle involved in the accident is a jeep and the claimants have travelled as occupants of the jeep and no premium is collected and policy is also an Act policy. On perusal of Ex.R.1 - policy, it is specifically mentioned that the vehicle is a private car and the policy is a liability only policy. When such being the case, the Tribunal has committed an error in not noticing the fact that Ex.R.1 is an Act policy and no specific premium is collected and committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. hence, I answer point (i) in the affirmative. Point No. (ii):
13. In both the cross-objections, it is the contention that the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation. In Cross-objection No.119/2013 in M.F.A.No.5088/2010, the claimant was aged about 2 18 years as on the date of the accident and suffered the injury of displaced fracture proximal 1/3rd of shaft humerous. There was swelling and tenderness on the left maxillary region. The doctor also examined and assessed the disability of 5%. The Tribunal having considered the material available on record and the claimant being two year old, awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the head pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.11,250/- under the head loss of income to the parents, Rs.3,000/- under the head treatment and medical expenses and an amount of Rs.2,000/- under the head food, nourishment and conveyance. In all, Rs.41,250/- is awarded.
14. The Tribunal committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.41,250/-, even though the doctor has deposed the disability of 5% to the whole body. The Tribunal in the judgment has discussed that x-ray shows the evidence of mal-union of left humerus 19 and right upper limb disability is 15% and total body disability is 5%. The Tribunal has failed to take note of the mal-union of left humerus. When such being the case, even though the doctor has deposed 5% of disability to the whole body, the Tribunal ought to have taken the disability of 10% and the same is in respect of fracture of humerus and there was a mal-union. The very approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. Inspite of noticing that there was mal-union of left humerus, accepted the evidence of doctor. Hence, it is a case for reconsidering the disability.
15. This Court would like to refer to the Apex Court's judgment in the case of MALLIKARJUN v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396, which is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Having suffered the fracture and the same was mal-union, this Court has revised the 20 disability to the extent of 10%. The Apex Court in the said case in respect of a minor awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for permanent disability upto 10% and table is also furnished with regard to different percentage of disability how the compensation has to be awarded in a case of minor petitions. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering.
16. Having taken note of the fact that the minor is aged about two years at the time of the accident, the minor's parents have suffered loss of income to provide treatment to the minor claimant. The minor claimant was admitted to hospital on 26.11.2004 and discharged on 6.12.2004. Having taken note of hospitalization of 11 days and providing treatment and taking care of the minor child by the parents, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of income to the parents. The Tribunal awarded an amount of 21 Rs.3,000/- under the head medical expenses and the same is not disturbed. An amount of Rs.2,000/- is awarded towards food, conveyance and nourishment and the same is not disturbed.
17. Having considered the material available on record and considering the nature of injuries and also the treatment provided to the minor claimant, in all the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-.
18. The cross-objector in M.F.A.Crob. No.120/2013 in M.F.A.No.5087/2010 is aged about 28 years. She has suffered injuries to the head and also madibular fracture, maxillary fracture and right temporal bone fracture. The doctor who has been examined assessed the disability of 10% to the whole body. The Tribunal taking note of the nature of injuries and also the evidence of the doctor, awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and it was the accident of the year 2004. Hence, I do not find any 22 reasons to enhance the compensation under the head pain and suffering.
19. On perusal of the records, it discloses that the injured claimant was in the hospital for a period of 30 days from the date of accident i.e., from 25.11.2004 to 24.12.2004. The claimant was also subjected to surgery. The doctor assessed the disability of 10%. It is the claim of the claimant that she was a coolie and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and accident is of the year 2004. The Tribunal taking the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum calculated the loss of income and the same is erroneous. The claimant was aged about 40 years in terms of the Exs.P.9 and 10 at the time of the accident. When the claim was made to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of Rs.3,000/- per month. Having taken the income of Rs.3,000/- per month and taking the relevant multiplier of '15' and disability of 10%, the 23 loss of income comes to Rs.54,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 15 x 10%).
20. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head loss of income during laid up period. Having taken note of the multiple fracture, it requires minimum three months to unite the fracture and also it requires rest. Hence, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.12,000/- under the said head taking the income of Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of four months.
21. The claimant was in the hospital for 30 days. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head conveyance, nourishment, food and attendant charges. Having taken note of the fact that the accident is of the year 2004 and cost of expenses, it is appropriate to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head conveyance, nourishment, food and attendant charges.
24
22. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.16,000/- under the head medical expenses on the basis of documentary evidence of medical bills. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal.
23. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of amenities and the doctor who has been examined categorically deposed that she has suffered 10% disability. The claimant has to lead rest of her life with the disability of 10%. Hence, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head loss of amenities.
24. The Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head future medical expenses taking note of the nature of injuries and disability and the same is not disturbed.
25. In all, the cross-objector is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,67,000/-.
25
26. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) MFA.Nos.5090/2010, 5086/2010, 5087/2010, 5088/2010 and 5089/2010 filed by the Insurance Company are allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 08.09.2008 passed in M.V.C.Nos.202/2005, 70/2005, 128/2005, 130/2005, 198/2005 are modified insofar as the liability is concerned exonerating the liability of the Insurance Company and directing the insured to pay the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of the order.
(iii) MFA Crob.No.119/2013 in MFA
No.5088/2010 and MFA
Crob.No.120/2013 in MFA
No.5087/2010 filed by the claimants are partly allowed.26
(iv) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 08.09.2008, passed in M.V.C.Nos.130/2005 and 128/2005 are modified granting compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- as against Rs.41,250/-.
and Rs.1,67,000/- as against Rs.87,000/- respectively, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.
(v) The amount in deposit, if any, be refunded to the Insurance Company.
(vi) The Registry is directed to send the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA/MD