Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, The Oriental vs Manisha D/O Vinayak Ranpise And Ors on 21 November, 2023
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732
MFA No. 202385 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018
MFA No. 200993 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202385 OF 2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200902 OF 2018 (MV-D),
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200993 OF 2018 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO.202385 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
1. MANISHA D/O VINAYAK RANPISE,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. MAHADEV S/O VINAYAK RANPISE,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
Digitally signed 3. MAYABAI W/O KERAPPA RANPISE,
by LUCYGRACE AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ALL ARE R/O PERMANENT ADDRESS IS GURASALE,
KARNATAKA TQ. PANDRAPUR, DIST. SOLAPUR,
NOW R/AT: GANDI NAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. VAMAN
S/O RAMCHANDRA SALUNKE,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732
MFA No. 202385 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018
MFA No. 200993 of 2018
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
AT POST: KHEDBHALAVANI,
TQ. PANDRAPUR, DIST. SOLAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA STATE-413 304.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, HASHANI MANJIL,
MADIVAL ARKED, CLUB ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BIDARI COMPLEX, S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 - SERVED; )
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 29.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.696/2015 ON
THE FILE OF THE III SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XII, VIJAYAPURA AT
VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY RS.12,18,000/- ONLY AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS.
IN MFA NO.200902 OF 2018:
BETWEEN:
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, HASHANI MANJIL,
MADIVAL ARKED, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, KALABURAGI NOOLVI MAGISTRATE,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732
MFA No. 202385 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018
MFA No. 200993 of 2018
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580 029,
THROUGH LEGAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANISHA D/O VINAYAK RANPISE,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. MAHADEV S/O VINAYAK RANPISE,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
3. MAYABAI W/O KERAPPA RANPISE,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK,
ALL ARE R/O PERMANENT ADDRESS IS GURASALE,
TQ. PANDRAPUR, DIST. SOLAPUR,
NOW R/AT GANDI NAGAR,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
4. MR. VAMAN
S/O RAMCHANDRA SALUNKE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O A/P KHEDBHALAVANI,
TQ. PANDRAPUR, DIST. SOLAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA STATE - 413 304.
5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BIDARI COMPLEX, S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE
FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI. UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R1 AND R4 - SERVED)
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732
MFA No. 202385 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018
MFA No. 200993 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 29.01.2018 PASSED BY THE III SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT NO.XII, VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.696/2015.
IN MFA NO.200993 OF 2018:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, BIDARI COMPLEX,
S.S.FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANISHA D/O VINAYAK RANPISE,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. MAHADEV S/O VINAYAK RANPISE,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
3. MAYABAI W/O KERAPPA RANPISE,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK,
ALL R/O PERMANENT ADDRESS IS GURASALE,
TQ. PANDHARPUR, DIST. SOLAPUR,
NOW R/AT GANDHI NAGAR,
VIJAYPUR - 413 304.
4. MR. VAMAN
S/O RAMCHANDRA SALUNKE,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O A/P KHEDBHALAVANII,
TQ. PANDHARPUR, DIST. SOLAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA STATE-413 304.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732
MFA No. 202385 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018
MFA No. 200993 of 2018
5. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, HASHANI MANZIL, MADIVAL ARKED,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R4 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2018 AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2018
BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.202385/2019 is filed by the claimants, MFA No.200902/2018 is filed by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and MFA No.200993/2018 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 29.01.2018 passed in MVC No.696/2015 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XII, Vijaypur.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that, on 29.04.2015, one Vinayak S/o Kerappa Ranpise -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 was proceeding as a pedestrian by the side of the road near his house. At that time, the Tractor bearing Reg. No.MH-13/AJ-9922 along with two trailers driven by its driver in a high speed and rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit him resulting in he falling down and sustaining grievous injuries, due to which he died on the spot. Thereupon, a claim petition was filed by the claimants contending that the deceased was 45 years old and doing milk vending work and also goundi and agricultural work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. That, the death of deceased on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor has caused financial distress to the claimants.
3. On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement.
4. Respondent No.1 in his written statement contended that as per the complaint, after the accident, -7- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 the villagers had caught hold of one Ravi Jadhav, who was allegedly driving the tractor. As such, respondent No.1 was not involved in the accident. He also contended that the tractor and trailer in question are in any case insured with respondent Nos.2 and 3 - Insurance Companies, the compensation payable, if any, shall be payable by the Insurance Companies.
5. Respondent No.2 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited in the statement of objections denied the claim petition averments, mode and manner of accident. It is also specifically contended that respondent No.1 has been added as the owner and driver of the vehicle in collusion with the claimants and the police. As such, it is contended that the liability has to be fastened on respondent No.1.
6. Respondent No.3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited in its written statement denied the claim petition averments and also contended that the trailers bearing -8- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 Reg. No.MH-12/T-9329 and MH-13/T-9330 which were attached to the said tractor were not involved in the accident and that there is implanting of the driver. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. Based on the pleading, the Tribunal framed the issues and recorded evidence. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses have been examined as PWs.1 and 2 and 7 documents have been marked as Exs.P1 to P7. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of respondents - Insurance Companies as RWs.1 and 2 and 4 documents have been marked as Exs.R1 to R4.
8. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the accident in question had indeed occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailers by respondent No.1 resulting in death of deceased Vinayak Ranpise and has consequently awarded compensation of Rs.7,32,000/- directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 - Insurance Companies to pay the -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 said compensation in the ratio of 50% each. Being aggrieved by the same, claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation, while the Insurance Companies are before this Court disputing the liability.
9. Sri Koujalagi Chandrakat Laxman, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in MFA No.202385/2019 reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submits that the deceased was aged about 45 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from his milk vending business and also doing goundi and agricultural work. However, the Tribunal has considered the income only at Rs.6,000/- per month. He submits that no future prospects has been awarded and grant of compensation on other heads is also on lower side. Hence, seeks for enhancement.
10. Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Bajaj Allianz General
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 Insurance Company in MFA No.200902/2018 reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not appreciating the contentions raised by the appellant - Insurance Company about implantation of the driver, despite the material evidence placed on record proving and establishing the said fact. He submits that the First Information Report produced at Ex.P1 would reveal about the eyewitness (who was examined as PW.2) having stated that the driver of the vehicle namely, Ravi Ankush Jadhav had been caught by the villagers and was handed over to the police. He submits that this being the fact and circumstance of the case, there was no possibility of changing the name of driver as Vaman S/o Ramchandra Salunke. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court. He also submits that the driver of the vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence. Thereby, there is breach of
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 terms of the policy and the appellant - Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
11. Sri Uday P. Honguntikar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Oriental Insurance Company Limited in MFA No.200993/2018 submits that the policy was not issued in respect of the trailers bearing Reg. No.MH-12/T-9329 and MH-13/T-9330. He submits that the policy merely refers to new trailer. As such, there is no question of fastening the liability on the appellant - Insurance Company. He further submits that the material evidence in the nature of First Information Report, Complaint and the Charge Sheet do not reflect that the trailers were in any manner involved in the accident. That apart, the Tribunal has not given any reasoning while rejecting the contention raised by the appellant - Insurance Company of swapping of the driver. He also submits that the accident had occurred only by the tractor, as it had apparently ran over the deceased and the trailers
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 had not caused the accident. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
13. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the claimants have made out a case for enhancement of compensation?
2. Whether the appellant in MFA No.200902/2018
- Bajaja Allianz General Insurance Company and the Appellant in MFA No.200993/2018 -
Oriental Insurance Company have made out a case for exoneration of their liability to pay the compensation?
14. The accident in question involving the tractor resulting in death of the deceased is not disputed by the appellant - Insurance Company namely, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, who was insurer of the tractor. However, learned counsel for the appellant - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company would contend that as
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 per the evidence, not only the tractor had caused grievous injuries, but also the trailers, as they had ran over the body of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant - Oriental Insurance Company on the other hand submits that though the accident and the death of the deceased cannot be disputed, but the fact of involvement of the trailers has not been established. It is also the contention of the appellant - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company that as per the Complaint and FIR, the villagers who were present at the spot had apparently caught one Ravi Jadhav, who was allegedly driving the offending vehicle and had handed over him to the police. However, in the Charge Sheet, based on the further statement given, name of Vaman Ramchandra Salunke has been included and he has been arrayed as respondent No.1 in the claim petition, thereby, showing the collusion between claimants, respondent No.1 and the police.
15. From the contents of the FIR, it is seen that one Raghunath Kerappa Ranpise has given a complaint stating
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 that on 29.04.2015 at about 9.00 p.m., when he along with Suresh Bheemrao Ranpise, Shashikanth Kerappa Ranpise, Hanmanth Shenkar Ranpise, Vijay Mahadev Ranpise, Siddeshwar Sanjay Ranpise and others were standing in a village Gurasale, a tractor and two trailers driven by its driver came from Ambedkar Nagar towards Kawatali road and they witnessed the said tractor dashing against the deceased Vinayaka Kerappa Ranpise and running over his body, due to which he died on the spot. The driver of the tractor after causing the accident had moved on, as such, the villagers chased the said tractor on a motorcycle and stopped the same and caught hold of the driver and brought him to the spot and it was learnt that the number of the tractor is MH-13/AJ-9922. On enquiry, the driver revealed that his name was Ravi Ankush Jadhav and accordingly gave the complaint. It appears that a further statement as per Ex.P4 has been given on 30.04.2015 by the said Raghunath Kerappa Ranpise, in which he has stated that, as per the complaint and FIR the
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 accident in question had occurred at 9:00 p.m., on 29.04.2015 and the complaint has been lodged at about 2:25 a.m., of 30.04.2015. That is just about four hours from the date of accident. Further in Ex.P4 on the very date i.e., 30.04.2015 he has stated the name of the person to whom the villagers had caught was Vaman Ramchandra Salunke, but due to incorrect information the name was stated as Ravi Jadhav at the time of filing the complaint. The charge-sheet has been filed by the jurisdictional police for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC against Vaman Ramchandra Salunke who has been arrayed as respondent No.1 in the petition. Referring to the aforesaid statements, learned counsel Sri Subhash Mallapur, appearing for the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., and learned counsel Sri Uday P. Honguntikar, appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vehemently submit that there is delay in filing the complaint and there is deliberate implantation of respondent No.1, thereby, the case of the claimant
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 requires to be rejected to the extent fastening the liability on the Insurance Companies. It is necessary to see the accident has occurred at 9:00 p.m., on 29.04.2015 and the complaint and FIR has been filed at about 2:30 a.m., of 30.04.2015. Thus, there is hardly difference of about 4 hours between the date and time of accident and the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the contention about the delay in filing complaint cannot be countenanced.
16. Though the contention that there is an implantation of respondent No.1 as a driver of the vehicle appears to be tenable, it is necessary to see when the claimants have approached the Tribunal by producing the very material evidence, namely; complaint, FIR, further statement, the charge-sheet. Respondent No.1 in the statement of objections has contended that he held valid driving license and the tractor and trailer involved in the accident were duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Companies and the liability, if any, has to be fastened on them. However, there is also statement in the written
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 statement that the driver of the vehicle had ran away. No doubt, there appears to be inconsistency in the statement of the complainant in FIR and in the further statement in referring to the name of the driver as Ravi Jadhav, which is subsequently changed as Vaman Ramchandra Salunke and the fact remains the jurisdictional police have filed the charge-sheet naming Vaman Ramchandra Salunke as the driver of the vehicle.
17. The complainant Raghunath Kerappa Ranpise has been examined as PW2. In the cross-examination PW2 has stated that though in the complaint he had given all the details, in his further statement he has stated that Ravi Jadhav was working as a Cleaner while Vaman Ramchandra Salunke was the Driver-cum-Owner of the offending vehicle. Except making suggestions nothing has been elicited from the said witness by the appellant- Insurance Companies to discredit his statements given in the complaint and in the further statement. Since the Insurance Company had raised a specific contention of
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 violation of terms of policy on account of vehicle being driven by one Ravi Jadhav, nothing prevented the Insurance Companies from examining the Investigating Officer. No attempt of any nature whatsoever had been made by the appellant-Insurance Companies as the burden of proving breach of terms of policy is heavily on them. The same is not discharged in the manner known to law. The witness namely PW2, who had given complaint, has withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve his version. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the appellant-Insurance Companies that there is setting of the driver cannot be explained.
18. As regards the contention of the appellant-the Oriental Insurance Company of non-involvement of the trailer is concerned, it is to be seen in the policy that the policy had been issued in the name of Vaman Ramchandra Saklunke who is respondent No.1 and owner of tractor as well as trailers, merely because the registration number of
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 the trailer was not mentioned in the policy and only reference "as new" is mentioned, the same cannot be a ground to accept the contention. Besides, the accident is stated to have been taken place at 9:00 p.m., on 29.04.2004 involving the tractor and two trailers, preponderance of probabilities suggests that both the tractor and trailers were involved in the accident. Even as PW2 in his statement has stated that they were about 15 feet away from the place of accident and it was dark, it could not be said clearly that the trailers never involved in the accident in whatsoever as the said contention also be rejected. The point No.2 for consideration raised above is answered accordingly.
19. Adverting to the claim of the claimants for enhancement of the compensation is concerned, deceased was aged 45 years and though he claimed to have been earning Rs.15,000/- per month, no material evidence has been produced. Accident is of the year 2015. In terms of the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 Authority the notional income of the victims of road traffic accident of the year 2015 is to be determined at Rs.8,000/- per month. The same is taken in this case.
20. Considering the age of the deceased 25% future prospects is to be awarded and multiplier of '14' is to be applied. Since there are three dependents, 1/3 of income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
21. Calculated as above, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.11,20,000/- towards loss of dependency as under:
Rs.8,000 + 25% = Rs.10,000 x 12 x 14 x 2/3 = Rs.11,20,000/-
22. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others - (2018) 18 SCC 130, the appellants- claimants being son, daughter and mother of the deceased
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium, in total Rs.1,20,000/-. Besides, the appellants-claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
23. That apart, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, there shall be increment of 10% on the compensation awarded under conventional heads.
24. Thus appellants-claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,85,000/-instead of Rs.7,32,000/- under different heads as under:
Heads By the Tribunal By this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Loss of dependency 6,72,000/- 11,20,000/-
Loss of consortium -- 1,20,000/-
Funeral Expenses 10,000/- 15,000/-
Loss of estate 10,000/- 15,000/-
Transportation of dead body 10,000/- --
Loss of love & affection 30,000/- --
10% increment -- 15,000/-
TOTAL 7,32,000/- 12,85,000/-
Enhancement will be enhancement of Rs.5,53,000/-
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732 MFA No. 202385 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018 MFA No. 200993 of 2018
25. Further, as submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Companies the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is not tenable and it is reduced to 6% per annum on entire compensation from the date of petition till realization.
26. The Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation in the ratio of 50:50 on both the Insurance Companies, the same is sustained.
27. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER i. The appeals filed by the Insurance Companies in MFA No.200902/2018 and MFA No.200993/2018 are dismissed.
ii. The appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.202385/2019 is partly allowed.
iii. The impugned judgment and award
dated 29.01.2018 passed in MVC
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8732
MFA No. 202385 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 200902 of 2018
MFA No. 200993 of 2018
No.696/2015 by the Member, MACT-
XII, Vijayapura, is modified.
iv. Both the Insurance Companies are
directed to pay the enhanced
compensation in the ratio of 50:50 with interest at 6% per annum, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG/SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16