Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Choudamma W/O Late. Linganna on 16 January, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
MFA NO.20695/2009
C/W
MFA NO.24077/2012
MFA NO.20422/2011
IN MFA NO.20695/2009
BETWEEN:
1. PALLEDA MALLESHAPPA
S/O PALLEDA GURUSIDDAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICLTURE,
2. PALLEDA PRAMEELA
W/O PALLEDA MALLESHAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
3. KUMARI PARVATI,
D/O PALLEDA MALLESHAPPA,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O KUDITHINI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: BELLARY.
...APPELLANTS
[BY SRI.T.HANUMAREDDY, ADV.]
AND:
1. B.L. TRANSPORT,
PROPRIETOR OF LOGANATHAN,
PLOT NO. 15, WARD NO.25, VADDA NAGAPPA
LAYOUT, CONTONMENT BELLARY.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
:2:
EDIGA COMPLEX, DOUBLE ROAD,
BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.LAXMAN B.MANNODDAR, ADV. FOR R2,
R2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1)
OF THE MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 28.08.2008 PASSED IN MVC
NO.558/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE VTH MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELLARY PARTLY
ALLWOING THE CLAIM PETITON FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.24077/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.NEELAVVA W/O SHEKAPPA MULIMANI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
2. SHEKHAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA MULIMANI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HAVANGI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.UMESH C.AINAPUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. NAGARAJ S/O GURUBASAPPA KARJAGI,
AGE: 28, OCC: PVT. DOCTOR AND OWNER
OF THE HERO HONDA MTORO BIKE
REG.NO.KA-27/R-3828
R/O HAVANGI, DIST: HAVERI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, MOKTALI BUILDING,
:3:
OPP. K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, HAVERI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.N.R.KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R2
R1 SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1)
OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 18.11.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.176/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, HANGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.20422/2011
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GEN.INS.CO. LTD.,
MAYOOR COMPLEX, OPP.OLD BUS STAND,
DOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY.
NOW REP.BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.NAGARAJ C.KOLLURI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.CHOUDAMMA W/O LATE.LINGANNA
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O CHELLAGURKI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST: BELLARY.
2. YEREMMA D/O LATE LINGANNA,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O CHELLAGURKI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST: BELLARY.
3. Y. RAMANA S/O Y.SUBBARAYADU,
:4:
AGE: MAMOR, R/O M.NASHIMAPURAM
VILLAGE, KUDERU MANDALAM,
PEDDALAPALLI POST, BUDDELU TALUKA
CHUDDAPAH DISTRICT.
4. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MAHINDRA TRANSPORT, MAIN ROAD,
BOLYAR PUTTUR, D.K.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANJUNATH G.PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 & R2,
R3 SERVED, R4 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1)
OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 05.10.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.1030/2009 ON
THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, NO.X, BELLARY,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,60,000/-
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING: -
JUDGMENT
These three appeals are filed by the claimants questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and awards passed in MVC No.558/2007, 176/2010 and 1030/2009 by respective tribunals contending inter alia that tribunals ought to have taken the age of the decased for the purposes of adopting the multiplier while assessing the loss of dependency and the :5: tribunals could not have taken into consideration the age of the younger parent. It is further contended that compensation awarded by the tribunal under the heads 'loss of dependency' and 'conventional heads' are on the lower side and it requires to be recomputed by assessing the income of the deceased as specifically contented in their respective appeal memorandums. On these grounds, appellants/claimants are seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuts Hanuma Reddy, Umesh C. Ainapur, Manjunath G. Patil appearing for the claimants and Laxman Mannoddar, N.R. Kuppelur, Nagaraj Kolluri and R.R.Mane appearing on behalf of the insurance company.
3. In all these appeals, the point for consideration that would arise is with regard to application of the multiplier. It is also to be noticed that in all these cases, the parents of the deceased are the claimants. On the one hand, the claimants are contending that appropriate multiplier that has to be :6: applied is by taking into consideration the age of the deceased and not the age of the younger parent. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the Insurance Companies would in chorus contend that by taking the age of the younger parent appropriate multiplier requires to be adopted and this exercise having been done by the tribunal requires to be affirmed. On this issue, arguments have been addressed by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
4. Similar issue had come up for consideration before this Court at the Principal Bench in MFA 7665/2008 and connected with MFA 491/2009. The contention raised by the learned advocates in the present appeals are similar and identical to the one raised in MFA 7665/2008 and connected matter. In the said appeal after hearing the arguments advanced by the respective learned advocates, Court had formulated points for determination and the point No.2 mentioned therein is the one which relates to the present issue in :7: question namely, as to whether the age of the deceased is to be taken or the age of the younger parent is to be taken for adopting the multiplier while awarding compensation towards 'loss of dependency'. The point formulated by this Court in MFA No.7665/2008 and connected matter MFA No.491/2009 reads as under:
"Whether the Tribunal was correct in adopting the multiplier of '13' by taking the age of the mother of deceased into consideration for computing compensation payable under 'loss of dependency' and if not what is the appropriate multiplier which is required to be adopted?"
5. After adverting to the decisions cited at the bar, it was held by this Court in the said judgment disposed of on 07.12.2012 to the following effect.
"19. While affirming the judgment of Susamma Thomas's case rendered by two Judges which was based on Davies method, the Lordships also took into consideration to decide upon the multiplicand and multiplier that deserves to be used by referring to its earlier judgment in the case of GOBALD :8: MOTOR SERVICE LTD vs R.M.K VELUSWAMY reported in AIR 1962 SC PAGE 1, wherein the Apex Court referred to Davies Vs Davies Vs Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Limited reported in 1942(1) All England Report 657 and quoted the following passage from the said judgment:
The damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or benefit reduceable to money value. In assessing the damages all circumstances which may be legitimately pleaded in diminution of the damages must be considered. The actual pecuniary loss of each individual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing, on the one hand, the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and, on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to him by the reason of the death."
Thus, the Apex Court in Trilok Chandra's case felt that there can be no departure from the multiplier method adopted in Susamma Thomas case on the ground that Section 110-B of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 :9: envisaged payment of "just compensation"
since the multiplier method is the accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation and is accepted and is expected to bring uniformity and certainty of the award made all over the country.
6. It has been further held by this Court at para 21, 22 and 23 to the following effect:
21. Three Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs SHANTI PATHAK & OTHERS reported in 2007 ACJ 2188 has also taken the age of the younger parent to select the suitable and appropriate multiplier while awarding compensation for 'loss of dependency' to the claimants. The reason assigned by the Apex Court is to chose the appropriate multiplier depending upon the age of the claimant which is higher. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the claim arising out of death of one Sri Hem Pathak who was aged about 25 years and claim petition was filed by the parents and Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 by taking into consideration the age of the deceased for : 10 : quantification of compensation. The High Court did not interfere in the appeal filed by the insurer and when the matter was taken by the Insurer to the Apex Court, it came to be held as under:
"It would be appropriate to take the multiplier of 5 considering the fact that the mother of the deceased is about 65 years at the time of the accident and the age of the father is more than 65 years.
Thus, in effect, the Three Judges Benches of the Apex Court in Shanthi Pathak's case has not chosen to adopt the multiplier by taking into consideration the age of the deceased but chose to take into consideration the age of the younger parent for adopting the appropriate multiplier and to quantify the compensation payable to the parents of the deceased.
22. In view of the same, it can be noticed that Susamma Thomas case came to be affirmed by a Larger Bench i.e., in Trilok Chandra's case and subsequently followed in Charlie's case, Syed Ibrahim's case and again by Three Judges Bench in the case of Shanthi Pathak. Thus, it emerges that while considering the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation is computed on the principles of 'just and reasonable compensation' namely, to : 11 : offset the pecuniary loss that would accrue to the dependents and to meet the said contingency in future the compensation is awarded. It is this pecuniary loss to the living dependents which requires to be offset by awarding 'just and reasonable compensation' taking into consideration the age of the dependents/claimants . An illustration on this issue would illuminate the factual matrix:
ILLUSTRATION:
In a given case, if parents namely, father and mother of deceased are aged about 76 years and 73 years respectively and on account of the demise of their son who was aged about 25 years on the date of the accident, were to file a claim petition and seek for award of compensation, in such situation, can the Tribunal or Court adopt the multiplier of 18 by taking into consideration age of the deceased as held in Sarala Verma's case would not amount to offsetting the pecuniary loss to the dependents inasmuch as, by taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 25 years would virtually amounts to adding the said age to the living parents to offset the loss and as such, the dependency of the parents would be 101 years and 98 years respectively which would not be the loss of dependency.: 12 :
As such, the age of the deceased was not taken into consideration by the Apex Court for adopting the appropriate multiplier when a petition is filed by the parents of the deceased in the case of Trilok Chandra, Charlie, Ramesh Singh and Shanthi Pathak.
23. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that Tribunal was justified in taking into consideration the age of the younger parent namely, the age of the mother (45 years) to apply the multiplier of 13 for assessing and computing the loss of dependency and award of compensation thereunder."
8. In conclusion, it is opined by this Court that tribunal was justified in taking into consideration the age of younger parents into consideration and adopting the multiplier accordingly for assessing and computing the loss of dependency.
9. As already noticed herein above, in the present appeals also similar issue having been raised, I am of the considered view that, principle laid down in above referred MFA No.7665/2008 and MFA No.491/2009 is squarely applicable to the facts on : 13 : hand. Hence, I am of the considered view that, tribunal was fully justified in adopting the multiplier by taking into consideration the age of younger parent in MFA 20695/2009 and 24077/2012. It is also to be held that tribunal committed a serious error in MFA 20422/2010 by adopting the multiplier of '18' by taking into consideration the age of the deceased and as such the judgment and award passed in MVC No1030/2009 requires to be modified accordingly.
10. In view of the contentions raised by the learned Advocates appearing for the claimants in MFA No.20695/2009 and MFA No.24077/2012 that compensation awarded by the tribunals are on the lower side and it has to be enhanced, said contentions are being considered herein below independently, since the facts differ.
11. Likewise, the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company in MFA No.20422/2010 that compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side on the ground that it has taken into consideration the age of deceased and : 14 : has deducted 1/3rd though it ought to have deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, since he was a bachelor the same is also independently considered herein below.
12. The facts namely, the accident and death of the claimants son (in MFA 20695/2009 and MFA 20477/2012) as also son of 1st respondent in MFA 20422/2010, issuance of policy to the offending vehicles and the validity of these policies are not in dispute. Facts relating to filing of the claim petitions are not discussed in these appeals, since, these facts have already been discussed by the tribunal itself and as it would be repetition of facts.
Reg: MFA20695/2009
13. In the instant case claimants contend that tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- and assessed the loss of dependency. Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has considered the income at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and has awarded a sum of : 15 : Rs.3,36,000 towards loss of dependency and under conventional heads, it has awarded a sum Rs.30,000/-. It is also contended that though claimants had produced the medical bills Ex.P7 to P10, and P16, together with prescriptions issued as per Ex.P17 to P23, the sum total of which is Rs.84,398/- tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.71,400/- only towards medical bills and the difference in amount has to be awarded.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the judgment and award passed by the tribunal.
15. The accident in question has occurred on 16.02.2007 and as on the said date the deceased was aged about 20 years. Though it was contended that he was working as supervisor in Praghathi Enterprises, the plea of P.W.1 has remained as such without proof and on the basis of guess work the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.3,000 p.m. Considering the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident, this Court is of : 16 : the considered view that income at Rs.3,000/- p.m. taken into consideration by the tribunal cannot to be accepted though no material was produced that deceased was working in the above said firm. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the deceased was a young man and as he was aged 20 years with bright prospect and his prospective future earning ought to have been taken into consideration by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others reported in 2012 ACJ 1428.
"Para 14: Though in some cases the deduction to be made for personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra's case, 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one- third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth(1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of the dependent family members exceeds six.": 17 :
16. By taking into consideration the age of the deceased being 20 years on the date of accident and the year of accident being 2007, the income taken is on the lower side which requires to be enhanced by taking monthly income at Rs.3,900/- or Rs.130 per day and 30% requires to be added to the said income. Thus, gross monthly income would be Rs.5,070/-. Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased which is contrary to the dicta laid down in Sarla Verma's case and as such deduction of 50% is made out of the income of the deceased and thereby the net income would be Rs.2,535/-. Tribunal having taken into consideration the age of the mother as 42 years and adopted multiplier of '14' and as per Sarla Verma's case the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 36-40 being '15' and in the instant case age of the mother being 40 years, the appropriate multiplier to be adopted is '15' and by adopting the same, compensation towards loss of dependency is recomputed herein below.
: 18 :
Rs.2535 x 12 x 15 = 4,56,300/-
17. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under conventional heads being just and reasonable, same is not interfered, except enhancing compensation towards funeral expenses by adding Rs.5,000/-.
18. Tribunal having noticed that deceased was hospitalized for two days and was being treated for injuries as per Exs.P-7 to P-10 and P-17 to P-23 it has awarded a sum of Rs.71,400/- towards medical expenses. Since the medial bills is for a sum of Rs.84,398/- and giving deduction to what has been awarded by the tribunal the additional amount of Rs.11,998 rounded off to Rs.12,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses which has been ignored by the tribunal.
19. Thus claimants would be entitled for compensation by way of modification of the judgment and award passed by the tribunal as under:
i) Loss of dependency Rs 4,56,300
ii) Loss of estate Rs.10,000
: 19 :
iii) Loss of love and affection Rs.15,000
iv) Funeral expenses Rs.10,000
v) Transpiration of dead body Rs.12,000
vi) Medical expense Rs.83,398
Total Rs.5,86,698
Reg: MFA 24077/2012
20. Claimants being the parents of the deceased have sought for enhancement of compensation by contending that the tribunal erred in not noticing that deceased was working as a technician since he had specialized in practical training for repair of colour television sets and was working with Javali Electrical and Electronics who had issued the certificate stating they were paying salary of Rs.2,500 p.m. and deceased was also earning Rs.1,000/- in addition to the salary and his average income was Rs.3,000 to 4000 p.m. It was also contended that, deceased was also doing milk vending business and carrying on agricultural operations in the lands as per RTC extract produced at Ex.P9 and P10 and this material having been overlooked : 20 : by the tribunal, compensation towards loss of dependency has to be substantially enhanced and it is prayed that income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. It also contended that, tribunal has awarded very less compensation under conventional heads and seeks for awarding additional compensation under conventional heads.
21. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would support the award passed by the tribunal.
22. Perusal of the award would indicate that mother of the deceased has entered the witness box and apart from pleading that deceased was employed with Javali Electrical and Electronics, she has also produced the certificate issued by them which was marked as Ex.P14 and to evidence the fact that deceased was carrying on agriculture in the land belonging to the family, she has produced RTC extracts which are marked as Ex.P9 and P10. The certificate Ex.P13 would establish that deceased had undergone special practical : 21 : training in colour television engineering. Though these materials were available on record, tribunal has proceeded to fix Rs.100 per day or Rs.3,000 p.m. as income of the deceased. Since accident in question occurred on 25.01.2010 and age of the deceased was 21 years, I am of the considered view that the income determined by the tribunal requires to be recomputed by taking all these facts into consideration namely, the fact that deceased was working in Javali Electricals and carrying agricultural operation in the land belonging to the family as evident from Ex.P9 and P10 RTC extract and he was also doing milk vending business as contended by his mother P.W.1, the reasonable income of the deceased that could be taken or considered would be Rs.5,000/- p.m. It is to be noted that deceased was aged about 20 years and the proportionate future earning that he would have earned cannot be lost sight off. In view of dicta laid down by the Apex Court in Santosh Devi's case wherein it has been held that 30% of the income requires to be added even in respect of : 22 : persons being self-employed and the said principle is applied to the instant case, the income of the deceased would be Rs.6500/- p.m. Accordingly, same is taken for computation of loss of dependency by determining the monthly income at Rs.6,500/- and after deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses, the net income would be Rs.3,250/-. By taking into consideration the age of the mother as 46 years and as held in Sarla Verma's case, the appropriate muiltiplier to be adopted for age group of 46-60 being '13', same being adopted and compensation towards loss of dependency is recomputed as under:
3250 x 12 x 13 = 5,07,000
23. Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate and funeral expenses i.e., under conventional heads and claimant would be entitled to Rs.10,000/- each and as such the short fall that has occasioned is being awarded in this appeal namely sum of 20,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the tribunal.
: 23 :
24. Thus the judgment and award is modified and it is held that, claimant would be entitled for the following compensation which is in substitution to the award passed by Tribunal:
i. Loss of dependency Rs.5,07,000
ii. Loss of estate Rs.10,000
iii. loss of love & affection Rs.10,000 iv. funeral expenses Rs.10,000 v. Transportation of dead body Rs.10,000 Total Rs.5,47,000 Reg: MFA.20422/2011
25. This appeal is by the insurance company seeking reduction of compensation. The contention is two fold.
i) The age of the deceased had been taken for adopting multiplier and tribunal ought to have taken age of the mother for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency.
ii) Deceased being a bachelor 50% towards personal and living expenses ought to be deducted instead of 1/3rd.
26. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant would contend that compensation awarded by : 24 : the tribunal itself is on the lower side and this Court in exercise of power under Order 41 rule 33 of CPC should enhance the compensation.
27. Having heard the learned advocates and on perusal of the judgment and award passed by the tribunal, it is noticed that, tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- p.m. and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and adopted the multiplier of '18' by taking age of the deceased to award compensation towards 'loss of dependency'.
28. Insofar as the appropriate multiplier to be adopted, I have already answered herein above that, age of younger parent has to be taken into consideration. Hence, I am of the considered view that contention raised by Mr.N.R.Kuppelur in this regard deserves to be accepted and as such the multiplier of '11' is to be adopted by taking into consideration the age of the mother of deceased being 55 years and for the age group of 51-55 years as held in Sarla Verma's case, : 25 : appropriate multiplier would be '11' as such, same is adopted.
29. Now turning my attention to the income considered by the tribunal, it is noticed that tribunal has taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- p.m. According to the P.W.1 namely the mother of the deceased, he was carrying on avocation of an agriculturist and also doing welding business, except this self serving testimony, there was no material evidence available on record to establish the income of the deceased. Accident in question occurred in the year 2009 and deceased was aged 25 years as on the date of accident. The income of the deceased can be taken by adopting the minimum wages notification issued under Minimum Wages Act and it can be safely construed that a daily wager was being paid Rs.150 per day or Rs.4,500/- per month during 2009. This income would be just and reasonable income which the claimant would have earned had he been alive on the date of accident. Deceased was resident of Challgurki : 26 : village and it cannot be expected of villager to possess any documentary evidence to establish the income earned. In that view of the matter, the guess work made by tribunal is further expanded by taking recourse to the notification issued by Government of Karnataka from time to time specifying the Minimum Wages payable to different class of workman. Hence, I am of the considered view that a sum of Rs.150/- per day if taken which was the prevailing wages that being paid even for worker doing coolie work under the MNERGA scheme in year 2009 and as such Rs.150/- per day is taken as income of the deceased or monthly income taken is Rs.4,500/- p.m. In view of the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in Santosh Devi's case 30% is required to be added and when Rs.1,350 is added to the said income thereby the gross income of the deceased would be Rs.5,850/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor 50% is required to be deducted and the net income to be taken would be Rs.2,925/-. Thus, claimants would be entitled to compensation for loss of : 27 : dependency in a sum of Rs.3,86,100/-. Further the claimants would also be entitled to compensation Rs.40,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, in all, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.4,26,000/- and as such the compensation awarded by the tribunal requires to be reduced by Rs.34,000/-
30. For the aforesaid reasons, following order is passed.
ORDER
1. MFA 20695/ 2009 is hereby allowed in part.
Compensation of Rs.5,86,698/- is hereby awarded in substitution to the award passed by the tribunal in MVC No.558/2007 and claimants would be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. from date petition till the date of realisation.
2. MFA 24077/2012 is hereny allowed in part and compensation of Rs.5,47,000/- is awarded in substitution to the award passed by the tribunal in MVC No.176/2010 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. : 28 :
3. MFA 20442/2011 is hereby allowed in part. Compensation awarded by the tribunal in MVC.No.1030/2009 is hereby modified and reduced by holding that claimant would entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,26,000/- as against Rs.4,60,000 awarded by the tribunal. Interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization awarded by tribunal is affirmed.
4. The amount in deposit made by appellant- insurance company in MFA No.20422/2011 is ordered to be transmitted to the jurisdictional tribunal by the registry forthwith.
5. The insurance company may make an application for refund of excess amount deposited by it and tribunal is at liberty to consider the same and pass suitable orders thereon.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-