Madras High Court
M/S.United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Dr.S.Jayachandra on 10 October, 2012
Author: R.Banumathi
Bench: R.Banumathi, R.Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.10.2012 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1156 of 2009 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.72 and 76 of 2011 C.M.A.No.1156 of 2009: --------------------- M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., 38, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. ... Appellant. vs. 1.Dr.S.Jayachandra 2.Minor Revanth Minor represented by 1st Respondent 3.S.Selvaraj ... Respondents. C.M.A.No.72 of 2011: ------------------- 1.Dr.S.Jayachandra 2.Minor Revanth Minor represented by mother and natural guardian 1st Appellant. ... Appellants. vs. 1.S.Selvaraj 2.The United India Insurance Co., Ltd., 45, Silingi Buildings, Anna Salai, Chennai. ... Respondents C.M.A.No.76 of 2011: ------------------- Dr.S.Jayachandra ... Appellant. vs. 1.S.Selvaraj 2.The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 45, Silingi Buildings, Anna Salai, Chennai. ... Respondents. Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common order made in M.C.O.P. Nos.1901 and 1902 of 2002 dated 30.6.2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Small Causes Court), Chennai. For Appellant in CMA No.1156/2009 : Mr.K.S.Narasimhan and 2nd Respondent in CMA Nos.72 and 76 of 2011 For Respondents 1 & 2 in CMA No. : Mr.K.R.Ponnusamy 1156/2009 and for Appellants in CMA M/s.Anand & Suryas No.72 & 76/2011 COMMON JUDGMENT
R.BANUMATHI,J Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded for the death of deceased Dr.Sezhiyan, Insurance Company has preferred appeal - C.M.A.No.1156 of 2009. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded for the death of Sezhian and also for the injuries sustained by Claimant Jayachandra, wife of Sezhian and seeking enhancement of compensation both in fatal as well as injury case, Claimants have preferred appeals - C.M.A.Nos.72 and 76 of 2011 respectively.
2. Brief facts are that on 24.02.2002 at about 18.45 hours, deceased Sezhian was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-07 L 3007 on Tharamani 100 feet road from east to west. At that time, the van bearing registration No.TN-49-A 2700 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and hit against the two wheeler. Due to the accident, Sezhian and his wife (Claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1901 of 2002) and minor son were thrown away from the two wheeler and Sezhian sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to injuries in Malar Hospital on the same day. In the accident, Claimant Jayachandra also sustained grievous injuries. Regarding the accident criminal case was registered against the van driver in Crime No.82 of 2002 under Section 337 I.P.C. of Traffic and Investigation J-3 Guindy Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the van driver, for the death of Sezhian, Claimants, who are wife and minor son have filed M.C.O.P.No.1902 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. For the injuries sustained by Jayachandra, M.C.O.P.No.1901 of 2002 was filed claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. Insurance Company resisted the Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.1902 of 2002 contending that deceased Sezhian was riding the two wheeler in Taramani 100 feet road from east to west direction speedily and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the van. It is averred that the accident occurred only due to own negligence of deceased Sezhian in riding his two wheeler and the driver of the van was not responsible for the accident and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Insurance Company also disputed the age, income of Sezhian. In the counter filed in the Claim Petition filed by injured Jayachandra in M.C.O.P.No.1901 of 2002, Insurance Company has disputed the percentage of disability sustained by the Claimant and the income.
4. Before the Tribunal both the Claim Petitions were tried together. Claimant-Jayachandra examined herself as P.W.1. Dr.Jothi Ramalingam was examined as P.W.2. The Managing Director of M/s.Millenex Solutions Private Limited, Chennai viz., S.Sethuraman was examined as P.W.3. Dr.Thiagarajan was examined as P.W.4. Exs.P1 to P44 were marked on the side of Claimants. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of Insurance Company.
5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the van driver and that Insurance Company and owner of the van are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In M.C.O.P.No.1902 of 2002, for the death of Sezhian, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.23,11,000/-. In M.C.O.P.No.1901 of 2002 for the injuries sustained by Claimant Jayachandra, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,41,000/-.
6. P.W.1-injured Claimant Jayachandra had clearly spoken about the manner of accident and that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the van driver. Ex.P29 is the F.I.R. registered against the van driver. Evidence of P.W.1 and registration of Ex.P29-FIR against the van driver are unassailable. P.W.1 being the injured Claimant, her evidence stands on higher footing and credence to be attached to her evidence. In the counter, even though, Insurance Company has taken the plea of contributory negligence, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced to rebut the evidence adduced by the Claimants. Conclusion of the Tribunal as to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver is based on evidence and the same is not under challenge. Insurance Company has preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.1156 of 2009 mainly challenging the quantum of compensation awarded in fatal case.
7. C.M.A.No.1156 of 2009 and C.M.A.No.72 o 2011 (M.C.O.P.No.1902 of 2002):-
In her evidence, P.W.1 stated that her husband was a Dental Surgeon and was having independent practice. In her evidence, P.W.1 stated that prior to marriage Sezhian was working as Tutor in Ragas Dental College and Hospital and he was also attending his private clinic at Kandanchavadi. Sezhian was also an income tax assessee. At the time of accident, he was then working as Part time Editor in M/s.Millenex Solutions Private Limited, Chennai from 01.04.2001 to 23.02.2002 and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
8. Ex.P24-series is the Income Tax Returns. For the assessment year, 2002-2003, the income of Sezhian from house property, business/profession and other source of income is stated as Rs.1,64,400/-. Based on evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P24-series, Tribunal held that Sezhian was earning the monthly income of not less than Rs.13,700/- per month. Considering the "future prospects", Tribunal has taken the monthly income of Sezhian at Rs.15,000/- per month. At the time of accident, Sezhian was aged 28 years and adopting multiplier 18, Tribunal has calculated the "loss of income" at Rs.32,40,000/-. Deducting one-third for personal expenses i.e. Rs.10,80,000/-, Tribunal has calculated the "loss of dependency" at Rs.21,60,000/-. Adding conventional damages and also another Rs.50,000/- for "pain and suffering", Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.23,11,000/-.
9. Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, learned counsel for Insurance Company contended that the income tax return for the assessment year 2002-2003 was filed on 06.8.2002, subsequent to the death of Sezhian and also Tribunal erred in taking the income as stated in the income tax return for the assessment year 2002-2003. Learned counsel further contended that in order to arrive at the average income, three years income tax return submitted by the deceased prior to the accident ought to have been taken into account; whereas Tribunal erred in taking the gross income for the assessment year 2002-2003 (filed on 6.8.2002) without keeping in view that the accident occurred on 24.02.2002 and submitted that the compensation awarded is excessive. Learned counsel would also submit that in death case, Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- for "pain and suffering".
10. Per contra, Mr.K.R.Ponnusamy, learned counsel for Claimants contended that apart from working as Tutor in a Private Dental College, Sezhian was also working as Part Time Editor in M/s.Millenex Solutions Private Limited, Chennai and was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month and by applying the ratio of Sarla Verma's case and Santosh Devi's case, Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the income towards "future prospects". It was further submitted that Sezhian was a Dental Surgeon and over the years, he would have better prospects which aspect was not kept in view by the Tribunal.
11. In her evidence, P.W.1 stated that prior to marriage Sezhian was working as Tutor in Ragas Dental College and Hospital, Chennai-4. By perusal of Ex.P23-salary certificate issued by Ragas Dental College and Hospital, Chennai-4, it is seen that Sezhian was working as Tutor in Ragas Dental College and Hospital from August 1996 to August 1999. In August 1996, Sezhian was getting salary of Rs.2,800/- per month which was gradually increased to Rs.3,800/- per month in August 1999. Ex.P28 (25.02.2002) is the condolence message given by Ragas Dental College and Hospital condoling the death of Sezhian who worked with their Institution remembering his services from 01.8.1996 to 31.8.1999.
12. As is seen from Ex.P25-certificate issued by M/s.Millenex Solutions Private Limited, it is seen that Sezhian was employed as Part Time Editor in M/s.Millenex Solutions Private Limited from 01.01.2001 to 23.02.2002 and his last drawn salary was Rs.10,000/- per month. As pointed out earlier, Tribunal has taken the income tax return filed on 6.8.2002 for the assessment year 2002-2003 in which the total income is stated as Rs.1,64,400/-. By perusal of Ex.P24-(series) income tax return for the assessment year 2002-2003 (filed on 06.8.2002), the split up figure of the income is stated as under:-
Income from House property ... Rs. 26,094.00 Income from business or profession ... Rs. 1,30,906.00 Income from other sources ... Rs. 7,400.00
-----------------
Total ... Rs. 1,64,400.00
-----------------
Income tax paid ... Rs. 24,500.00 Date of accident was on 24.02.2002. Income tax return for the assessment year 2002-2003 was filed on 06.8.2002 i.e. after the accident and also after the filing of Claim Petition (12.04.2002). Therefore, we are of the view that much reliance cannot be placed for the income as per the income tax return for the assessment year 2002-2003 filed on 06.8.2002.
13. By perusal of Ex.P24-series, it is seen that the income tax return for the assessment year 2000-2001 filed on 25.04.2000, the gross income of Sezhian is stated as Rs.1,15,073/-. Since the said Returns was filed prior to the accident, it is desirable to take the same for determining the loss of contribution. The split up figure of Rs.1,15,073/- is stated as under:-
Income from Salary ... Rs. 12,533.00 Income from House property ... Rs. 14,010.00 Income from Business or Profession ... Rs. 70,881.00 Income from other sources ... Rs. 17,649.00
-----------------
Total ... Rs.1,15,073.00
-----------------
Income Tax paid ... Rs. 4533/-.
Amount of Rs.14,010/- is the income derived from the house property and there is no loss of income from the house property. Deducting the income from house property and the income tax paid by the deceased i.e. Rs.18,543/- (Rs.14,010/- plus Rs.4533/-), the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.96,530/- per annum.
14. As per the decision in Sarla Verma's case [(2009) 6 SCC 121], 50% additions to be made for "future prospects". The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-
"24. In Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit (1996) 3 SCC 179 the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah (2003) 2 SCC 148 the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax"). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances."
15. In Santosh Devi's case [2012 ACJ 1428], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that additions are to be made even in a case of employees of private sector and also unorganised sector.
16. Date of birth of Sezhian is 11.05.1973 (as per PAN card). At the time of accident, Sezhian was aged 28 years. Applying the ratio of Sarla Verma's case and Santosh Devi's case, 50% additions are made for "future prospects". Adding 50% additions i.e. Rs.48,265/-, the annual income of the deceased is calculated at Rs.1,44,795/-. But the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month i.e. Rs.1,80,000/- per annum which is slightly on the higher side. However, since the deceased was a Dentist and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the annual income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.1,80,000/- is maintained.
17. Tribunal has deducted one-third i.e. Rs.60,000/- towards "personal expenses" and calculated the loss of contribution to the family at Rs.1,20,000/-. Deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident. As per Second Schedule to M.V. Act, the proper multiplier to be adopted is "18" which the Tribunal has rightly adopted. By adopting multiplier '18", Tribunal has calculated the "loss of dependency" at Rs.21,60,000/- and the same is maintained.
18. Insofar as conventional damages, Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for "transport charges", Rs.1,000/- for "damages to cloth", Rs.10,000/- for "funeral expenses", Rs.10,000/- for "medical expenses" and Rs.50,000/- for "loss of consortium" and the same are maintained. Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- for "loss of love and affection" to minor 2nd Claimant. Tribunal has also awarded Rs.50,000/- for "pain and suffering". At the time of accident, 2nd Claimant was aged 4 years and that the minor 2nd Claimant has lost the love and affection of his father for his entire life. Considering the age of the 2nd Claimant, Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head "pain and suffering" is added to the comensation awarded for loss of love and affection and that Rs.25,000/- awarded for loss of love and affection is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-. Thus the total compensation of Rs.23,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Sezhian is confirmed.
19. C.M.A.No.76 of 2011 (M.C.O.P.No.1901 of 2002):
Tribunal awarded Rs.2,41,000/- for the injuries sustained by Claimant-Jayachandra in the accident as under:-
Loss of earning ... Rs. 40,000.00 Transport charges ... Rs. 5,000.00 Extra-nourishment ... Rs. 5,000.00 Damages to clothes ... Rs. 1,000.00 Medical expenses ... Rs. 45,000.00 Pain and suffering ... Rs. 15,000.00 Permanent disability ... Rs. 55,000.00 Loss of earning power ... Rs. 75,000.00
-----------------
Total ... Rs. 2,41,000.00
-----------------
In the accident, Claimant-Jayachandra sustained communited fracture clavicle left and lacerated wound right temporal region. After the accident, Claimant had taken treatment in Malar Hospital, Chennai-20 from 24.2.2002 to 27.02.2002. Ex.P1 is the discharge summary issued by Malar Hospital, Chennai. It is seen from Ex.P2-discharge summary, Claimant got herself admitted in Balaji Hospitals, Chennai where she had taken treatment from 27.2.2002 to 09.3.2002. Ex.P3 is the treatment record of Apollo Hospital, Chennai where she was advised for neuro-ophthalmological assessment, MRI brain/ENT surgeon/neuro psychological evaluation. Ex.P4 is the medical chits for the treatment taken for neuro problem by the Claimant. Ex.P5 is the certificate issued by Dr.K.Ravi, Ophthalmic Surgeon for the treatment given to Claimant-Jayachandra. Ex.P7 is the medical chit issued by P.W.2-Dr.Jothi Ramalingam, Professor and Head of Department, ENT, Medical College and Government Hospital, Chengalpattu.
20. Loss of income - In her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that at the time of accident, she was working as Part Time Editor in M/s.Millenex Solutions Private Limited, Chennai and was earning Rs.8,500/- per month. P.W.1 further stated that apart from working as Part Time Editor, she was also doing private practice and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month from her private practice. Ex.P10 is the certificate issued by M/s.Millenex Solutions Private Limited certifying that Claimant-Jayachandra was employed in their Institution from 1.1.2001 to 23.2.2002 and her last drawn salary was Rs.8,500/-. Exs.P11 and P12 are the income tax returns. Taking the monthly income of injured Claimant as Rs.14,000/- per month , Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- for "loss of income" for three months. By perusal of Exs.P1 to P7, it is seen that Claimant-Jayachandra had taken treatment in various spells in various hospitals for the injuries sustained in the accident. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Claimant and period of treatment undergone and also the fact that Claimant is a Dental Surgeon, Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "loss of income" for the period of three months is maintained.
21. Permanent disability - In his evidence, P.W.2-Dr.Jothi Ramalingam had spoken about the nature of treatment given to Claimant-Jayachandra. P.W.2 has also opined that Claimant-Jayachandra had difficulty in hearing in her left ear and that P.W.2 assessed the disability at 57% for "loss of hearing". Ex.P38 is the disability certificate issued by P.W.2, assessing the average disability at 57% for "loss of hearing". P.W.4-Dr.Thiagarajan clinically examined Claimant-Jayachandra. In his evidence, P.W.4 stated that he had perused Exs.P1 to P7-treatment records and other medical records and assessed neurological disability at 55%. Though, P.W.2 and P.W.4 have separately assessed the disability at 57% for "loss of hearing" and 55% for neurological disability respectively, Tribunal has taken the permanent disability at 55% and awarded Rs.55,000/- for permanent disability.
22. Learned counsel for Claimant contended that Claimant suffered 55% disability for neurological and 57% disability for loss of hearing power in left ear and that the total percentage of disability caused by two types of disabilities should be assessed separately for neurological as well as ENT. It was further contended that since the injured Claimant-Jayachandra is a Dental Surgeon, the loss of hearing power has reduced her efficiency in the profession and for the disabilities caused, she has to suffer throughout her life and that Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation for loss of future earnings and urged us to adopt multiplier method. In support of his contention, learned counsel for Claimant placed reliance upon (2008) 2 MLJ 865 (SC) [Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud and others]; 2009(2) TN MAC 1 (SC) [Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another]; 2011 ACJ 1 [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another] and 2012 ACJ 28 [Govind yadav v. New India Assurance Co., Ltd.].
23. The above contention does not merit acceptance. When the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, assessment of compensation under the head of "Loss of future earnings" would depend upon the effect of impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. In appropriate cases only, where the disability resulted in functional disability, the Court can adopt multiplier method.
24. Even though Claimant-Jayachandra is said to have suffered loss of hearing power, she being the Dental Surgeon, the loss of hearing power cannot be said to have resulted affecting her normal avocation. P.W.4-Dr.Thiagarajan assessed the disability for neurological injuries at 55%. Tribunal has awarded only Rs.55,000/- for permanent disability suffered by the Claimant. Since the Claimant-Jayachandra had suffered 55% disability for neurological injuries, in our considered view, compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- is awarded for neurological injuries.
25. As pointed out earlier, P.W.2-Dr.Jothi Ramalingam assessed the disability for loss of hearing power at 57% and issued Ex.P38-disability certificate. Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the disability suffered for loss of hearing. Considering the percentage of disability suffered by the Claimant, for loss of hearing power a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- is awarded. Thus the compensation of Rs.55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "permanent disability is enhanced to Rs.2,24,000/- (Rs.1,10,000/- plus Rs.1,14,000/-).
26. Loss of earning power Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/- for loss of earning power. In 2006 ACJ 2703 [Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Ahmed Thambi and others], First Bench of this Court has considered the principles of assessment of compensation for permanent disability and on account of earning capacity. Holding that loss of earning capacity and compensation for permanent disability need not be separately assessed. To ensure clarity and transparency in the award of damages, First Bench of this Court has laid down guidelines and also enumerated various heads under which the compensation is to be itemised.
"19. In order to avoid any future confusion and to bring more clarity and transparency in the award of damages, it is necessary that the tribunal, while awarding damages, should itemise the award under each of the head namely, pecuniary losses and non-pecuniary losses. In the non-pecuniary losses the tribunal shall consider a) pain and suffering, b) loss of amenity, c) loss of expectation of life, hardship, mental stress, etc; d) loss of prospect of marriage and under the head pecuniary loses, the tribunal shall consider loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings as one component apart from medical and other expenses and loss of earning, if any from the date of accident till the date of trial. When loss of earning capacity is compensated as also the non-pecuniary losses under (a) to (d), permanent disability need not be separately itemised."
There cannot be an award of compensation under two different heads - "Permanent Disability" and "Loss of Earning Power". Now we have enhanced the compensation for permanent disability and awarded Rs.2,24,000/-. Since compensation for permanent disability is awarded, awarding of compensation under separate head for "loss of earning power" does not arise and therefore, the compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "loss of earning power" is deleted.
27. Medical expenses For medical treatment, Claimant has claimed Rs.75,000/-. Claimant had produced Ex.P8(series)-medical bills. Based on Ex.P8-medical bills, Tribunal has awarded Rs.45,000/- for "medical expenses" and the same is maintained.
28. Pain and suffering Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for "pain and suffering". Claimant-Jayachandra had undergone treatment from 24.02.2002 to 27.02.2002 in Malar Hospitals and from 27.2.2002 to 09.03.2002 in Balaji Hospitals as inpatient. Thereafter, she had undergone treatment as outpatient. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment undergone by the Claimant, Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for "pain and suffering" is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.
29. Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for "transport charges", Rs.5,000/- for "extra-nourishment", and Rs.1,000/- for "damages to clothes" and the same are maintained. Thus the total compensation of Rs.2,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,45,000/- as under:-
Loss of earning ... Rs. 40,000.00 Permanent disability ... Rs. 2,24,000.00 Medical expenses ... Rs. 45,000.00 Pain and suffering ... Rs. 25,000.00 Transport charges ... Rs. 5,000.00 Extra-nourishment ... Rs. 5,000.00 Damages to clothes ... Rs. 1,000.00
-----------------
Total ... Rs. 3,45,000.00
-----------------
30. Tribunal has awarded interest at 7.5% per annum and the same is maintained. In M.C.O.P.No.1902 of 2002 (C.M.A.No.1156 of 2009), Tribunal has ordered that the compensation of Rs.23,11,000/- is to be apportioned amongst the Claimants 1 and 2 equally and the said apportionment is also maintained.
31. In the result, the compensation of Rs.23,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1902 of 2002 for the death of Dr.Sezhian is confirmed and C.M.A.Nos.1156 of 2009 and 72 of 2011 are dismissed. Compensation of Rs.2,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1901 of 2002 for the injuries sustained by Claimant-Jayachandra is enhanced to Rs.3,45,000/- and C.M.A.No.76 of 2011 is partly allowed.
It was stated before us that in C.M.A.No.1156 of 2009 and C.M.A.No.72 of 2011 (M.C.O.P.No.1902 of 2002), Appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest. From out of which, 1st Claimant-Jayachandra is said to have withdrawn Rs.14,00,000/- along with interest. The compensation in respect of minor 2nd Claimant is ordered to be invested in a nationalised Bank till the minor 2nd Claimant attains majority. 1st Claimant-Jayachandra is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the Bank.
Insofar as, C.M.A.No.76 of 2011 (M.C.O.P.No.1901 of 2002), 2nd respondent - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, Claimant-Jayachandra is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with interest.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. However, there is no order as to costs in these appeals.
bbr To V Small Causes Court, Chennai