Karnataka High Court
Sri B K Raja vs The Manager on 1 December, 2020
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
Bench: Nataraj Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.11036 OF 2011 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.11038 OF 2011 (MV-I),
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.89 OF 2012 (MV) &
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.91 OF 2012 (MV)
IN MFA NO.11036/2011
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.K. RAJA
S/O KULLEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT BOOVALLI,
VIRUPAKSHAPURA HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR , ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
MISSION/LALBAGH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 027.
2
2. R. INAYATHULLA
S/O ABDUL RAHEMAN,
NO.7, 7TH STREET,
MARIYAMMA TEMPLE CROSS,
PARVATHIPURA,
BANGALORE-04.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 14.11.2013)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
05.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.6051/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER,
MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-18) PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.11038/2011
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVA
S/O CHODAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT BOOVALLI,
VIRUPAKSHAPURA HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
[BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR , ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]
3
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
MISSION/LALBAGH ROAD,
BANGALORE-560027.
2. R. INAYATHULLA
S/O ABDUL RAHEMAN,
NO.7, 7TH STREET,
MARIYAMMA TEMPLE CROSS,
PARVATHIPURA,
BANGALORE-04.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 14.11.2013)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
05.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.6052/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER
MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.89/2012
BETWEEN:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
NO.2B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
MISSION ROAD,
4
BANGALORE-560027.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. INAYATHULLA
S/O ABDUL REHMAN,
MAJOR,
NO.7, 7TH STREET,
MARIYAMMA TEMPLE CROSS,
PARVATHIPURA,
BANGALORE-560004.
2. SRI. B.K. RAJU
S/O KULLEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT BOOVAHALLI,
VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571505.
... RESPONDENTS
(SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.08.2014;
RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
05.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.6051/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,62,160/- WITH INTEREST @ 8%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
5
IN MFA NO.91/2012
BETWEEN:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
NO.2B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
MISSION ROAD,
BANGALORE-560027.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.JAIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. INAYATHULLA
S/O ABDUL REHMAN,
MAJOR,
NO.7, 7TH STREET,
MARIYAMMA TEMPLE CROSS,
PARVATHIPURA,
BANGALORE-560004.
2. SRI. SHIVA,
S/O CHOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT BOOVAHALLI,
VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571505.
... RESPONDENTS
(SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.08.2014;
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
6
1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
05.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.6052/2009 ON THE FILE
OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT,
BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,87,360/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. (FUTURE MEDICAL
EXPENSES DOES NOT CARRY INTEREST)
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
IN MFA No.11036/2011 C/W MFA No.89/2012 MFA No.11036/2011 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, (SCCH-18) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.6051/2009 while MFA No.89/2012 is filed by the insurer challenging the liability fastened upon it as well as the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal in MVC No.6051/2009.
2. The appellant in MFA No.11036/2011, who is respondent No.2 in MFA No.89/2012, will henceforth be 7 referred to as the 'claimant'. The appellant in MFA No.89/2012 and its Manager, who is arrayed as respondent No.1 in MFA No.11036/2011 will henceforth be referred to as the 'insurer' of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. Respondent No.2 in MFA No.11036/2011, who is respondent No.1 in MFA No.89/2012, will henceforth be referred to as the 'owner' of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
3. The claim petition discloses that on 16.03.2009 at about 8:45 a.m., when the claimant was riding a TVS XL motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-42-H-2866 (henceforth referred to as the 'moped') along with his friend on National Highway No.209, the rider of a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-W-2858 (henceforth referred to as 'the offending vehicle') came from the opposite direction and dashed against the moped ridden by the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell down and suffered fracture of both bones of left leg and injury to head and injuries all over his body. The claimant was 8 shifted to Kanakapura Government Hospital where he was administered first aid and he was shifted to NIMHANS hospital and thereafter to Victoria hospital where the claimant underwent multiple surgeries. The claimant contended that he was an inpatient at Victoria hospital for 65 days and thereafter, he had spent huge sum of money towards his treatment, food, conveyance etc. He also contended that he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as a Coolie and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was unable to generate income. Thus, he accused the driver of the offending vehicle of actionable negligence and filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. The owner though served with notice, remained absent and he was placed ex parte before the Tribunal.
9
5. The insurer contested the claim petition and denied that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident alleged. It contended that it was the claimant who was riding his moped along with two other pillion riders and therefore, the claimant was negligent and was responsible for the accident. Thus, it contended that it was not liable to pay the compensation. It also claimed that the offending vehicle was not covered by a policy of insurance issued by it.
6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW.1 and he examined the Doctor, who treated him as PW.3 and marked Exs.P1 to P22 while an officer of the insurer was examined as RW.1 and he marked Ex.R1.
7. The Tribunal based on the available evidence, more particularly, Exs.P1 to P3 and P12 to P16, held that it was the rider of the offending vehicle, who was responsible for the accident. In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that PW.1 had not placed 10 any material on record to establish his monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. It, therefore, considered the notional income of the claimant at a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. In so far as the disability sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal considered the evidence of PW.3, who deposed that the claimant had suffered the following injuries:
(a) Head injury
(b) Fracture of left femur
(c) Compound fracture of both bones of left leg Fracture of superior Ramus of left pubic bone with fracture of body of left pubic bone.
8. It also considered the evidence of PW.3 - Doctor, who deposed that the claimant had suffered disability of: 44% in respect of the left lower limb of which about 22% to the whole body and 8% disability to the whole body due to pelvic fracture suffered by him and total disability to whole body at 30%. He further deposed that the fracture of femur bone was united while the fracture of pelvic bone was malunited. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence regarding the functional disability of the claimant, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 16% and 11 having regard to the income and age (35 years) of the claimant, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation:
Heads under which Amount
compensation is awarded (in Rupees)
Pain and suffering 60,000/-
Medical expenses Nil
Loss of earning during the laid-up 20,000/-
period
Loss of future earning due to 92,160/-
permanent disability at 16%
(Rs.3000x12x16x16%)
Loss of amenities 20,000/-
Attendant charges, diet and travel 30,000/-
expenses
Future medical expenses 15,000/-
Permanent disability 25,000/-
TOTAL 2,62,160/-
9. In so far as the liability to pay the
compensation is concerned, the Tribunal held that though the insurer was able to point out that there were two pillion riders on the moped which the claimant was riding yet, the Tribunal held that the Police had not mentioned in the charge sheet and in the statement of witnesses that 12 there were two pillion riders. Thus, it directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation of Rs.2,62,160/- along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit while holding that the compensation awarded towards future medical expenses did not carry interest.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, the claimant and insurer have preferred MFA Nos.11036/2011 and 89/2012 respectively.
11. The learned counsel for the claimant contends that the Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income of the claimant at a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and ought to have considered the disability at not less than 20% to the whole body. He also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded an additional compensation towards loss of amenities in view of the fact that the claimant was admitted in Victoria hospital as an inpatient from 16.03.2009 to 20.05.2009 as per Ex.P5 and thereafter, he took treatment in Mandya Institute of 13 Medical Sciences and Teaching Hospital, Mandya from 17.12.2009 till 19.12.2009 as per Ex.P6. He would contend that the wound certificate at Ex.P7 would show that the injuries sustained by the claimant would have exposed him to untold pain and suffering and seeks enhancement of compensation for the pain and suffering undergone by the claimant.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer contended that since the claimant was riding a moped along with two pillion riders, the negligence on the part of the claimant was evident and therefore, it was he who was responsible for the accident and the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the insurer further contended that the Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum while it must have been 6% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of realization.
13. I have considered the documents, records of the Tribunal as well as the contention of the learned 14 counsel for the respective appellant as well as the contesting respondent in both the appeals.
14. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged 35 years at the time of the accident. As rightly considered by the Tribunal, the injury sustained by the claimant more particularly the fracture of left femur, fracture of both the bones of left leg, fracture of left pelvic bone, must have left the claimant completely devastated and restricted to bed. The fact that he was inpatient in Victoria Hospital from 16.03.2009 to 20.05.2009 and again he underwent treatment in Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences and Teaching Hospital, Mandya, for the period from 17.12.2009 till 19.12.2009 is indicative of the extent of disability suffered by the claimant. The injuries have left the claimant completely devastated and he has been availing follow-up treatment which is evident from the evidence of PW.3. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in assessing disability suffered by the claimant at 16% though PW.3 deposed that the claimant must have suffered physical 15 disability of 44% to the left lower limb, of which 22% was assessed as disability to the whole body and further 8% disability to the whole body as a result of fracture of pelvic bone i.e., 30% disability to the whole body. In so far as the income of the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal has accepted a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. However, this Court has considered a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the notional income of persons who have expired or are injured in road traffic accidents that took place in the year 2009. Therefore, it is appropriate that in order to maintain uniformity, the notional income of the claimant is accepted at a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. If the disability of the claimant is considered at 16% and the notional income is considered at Rs.5,000/- per month and the age of the claimant as 35 years, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-determined and recalculated as follows:
Heads under which Amount
compensation is awarded (In Rupees)
Towards pain and suffering 60,000/-
Medical expenses 5,000/-
Loss of earning during laid-up 30,000/-
period at Rs.5,000/- for six
16
months
Loss of future income due to 1,53,600/-
permanent disability at 16%
(Rs.5000 x 12 x 16 x 16%)
Loss of amenities 40,000/-
Attendant charges, diet and 30,000/-
traveling expenses
Future medical expenses 20,000/-
TOTAL 3,38,600/-
15. In view of the above, the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced from Rs.2,62,160/- to Rs.3,38,600/-. In so far as the interest to be paid on the compensation, it is the consistent view and also the stipulation under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code that the claimants are entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. There is no palpable reason as to why the Tribunal had awarded interest at 8% per annum. Hence, the claimant is entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
17
16. In so far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has observed that RW.1, Senior Assistant of the insurer, had admitted coverage of insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle and that the Police had not mentioned in the charge sheet and in the statement of witnesses about the claimant riding along with two pillion riders on the moped. Except RW.1 stating that the claimant was riding along with two pillion riders, the Tribunal found that there was nothing incriminating that there were three people riding on the moped. Hence, the liability to pay the compensation is upon the insurer of the offending vehicle, who is respondent No.1 in MFA No.11036/2011. IN M.F.A. No.11038/2011 C/W M.F.A. No.91/2012
17. M.F.A. No.11038/2011 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, in MVC No.6052/2009 while M.F.A. 18 No.91/2012 is filed by the insurer challenging the liability imposed upon it to pay the compensation as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.6052/2009.
18. The appellant in MFA No.11038/2011, who is respondent No.2 in MFA No.91/2012, will henceforth be referred to as the 'claimant'. The appellant in MFA No.91/2012 and its Manager, who is arrayed as respondent No.1 in MFA No.11038/2011 will henceforth be referred to as the 'insurer' of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. Respondent No.2 in MFA No.11038/2011, who is respondent No.1 in MFA No.91/2012 will henceforth be referred to as the 'owner' of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
19. It is stated that the claimant was riding pillion on a TVS XL-moped bearing registration No.KA-42-H-2866 (henceforth referred to as the 'moped') on National Highway No.209 (mentioned as NH-219 in the claim petition) in Kanakapura town, opposite Kabbalamma 19 temple. At about 8:45 a.m., the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-W-2858 (henceforth referred to as 'the offending vehicle') rode it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the moped. As a result, the claimant and rider fell down on the ground and sustained serious injuries. The claimant suffered fracture of the femur of the left leg and was shifted to Government hospital, Kanakapura, and then to Victoria hospital, where he underwent surgery. He claimed that he had spent huge sums of money towards medical treatment, food and conveyance etc. He also contended that he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as a Coolie and the injuries had deprived him of his monthly income. He, therefore, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle.
20. The insurer disputed the liability as well as the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle. It 20 also disputed the injury suffered by the claimant and the age, avocation of the claimant. It further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and hence, it was not liable to indemnify the owner.
21. The owner of the offending vehicle though served with notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and he was placed ex parte.
22. The claimant was examined as PW.2 and the Doctor, who treated the claimant was examined as PW.3 and they marked Exs.P1 to P22 in MVC NOs.6051 and 6052 of 2009 while the insurer examined its officer as RW.1 and marked Ex.R1.
23. The Tribunal held issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and declared that it was the rider of the offending vehicle, who was responsible for the accident. In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the claimant at a sum of 21 Rs.3,000/- per month and considering the evidence of PW.3 - Doctor, it assessed the disability to the whole body of the claimant at 11% and awarded the following compensation:
Heads under which Amount
compensation is awarded (In Rupees)
Pain and suffering 35,000/-
Medical expenses 4,000/-
Loss of earning during laid-up 15,000/-
period
Loss of future earning on 63,360/-
account of permanent disability
(Rs.3000 x 12 x 16 x 11%)
Loss of amenities and future 15,000/-
unhappiness
Attendant charges, diet and 25,000/-
traveling expenses
Future medical expenses 15,000/-
Compensation towards 15,000/-
permanent disability
TOTAL 1,87,360/-
24. It directed the insurer to pay the compensation along with interest at 8% per annum excluding interest on the future medical expenses of Rs.15,000/- from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. Feeling 22 aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Award, the claimant has filed MFA No.11038/2011 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the insurer has preferred MFA No.91/2012 challenging the quantum of compensation as well as the liability fastened on it by the Tribunal.
25. The claimant contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month and ought to have considered the disability at not less than 15% having regard to the fact that the claimant had suffered fracture of shaft of left femur which has resulted in functional disability of more than 11%. He, therefore, contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation to the claimant.
26. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer contended that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation as two pillion riders were riding on the moped and therefore, the insurer was exonerated of its 23 liability to pay the compensation. It also contended that it was the rider of the moped, who was responsible for the accident. It also contended that the Tribunal could not have awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the compensation.
27. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the claimant was riding his moped as a pillion rider. The insurer generally disputed the avocation of the claimant and the income of the claimant. The Tribunal in the absence of any proof of the income, could not have considered the income of the claimant at a sum of Rs.3,000/- as this Court in similar matters has considered the notional income of Rs.5,000/- per month. Having regard to the injury sustained by the claimant, namely, fracture of the left femur, the Tribunal was justified in accepting the disability at 11% to the whole body. Having regard to the age of the claimant, the compensation 24 awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be recalculated as follows:
Heads under which Amount
compensation is awarded (In Rupees)
Pain and suffering 33,000/-
Medical expenses 3,978/-
Loss of income due to disability 1,05,600/-
(Rs.5000 x 12 x 16 x 11%)
Loss of income due to laid-up 15,000/-
period for three months
Loss of amenities 15,000/-
Attendant charges, diet and travel 23,000/-
expenses
Future medical expenses 15,000/-
TOTAL 2,10,578/-
Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.2,10,578/-.
28. In so far as the liability to pay the
compensation is concerned, except RW.1 stating that the claimant was riding along with two pillion riders, the Tribunal found that there was nothing incriminating that there were three people riding on the moped. The Tribunal noticed that the Police documents also did not state 25 anything regarding three persons riding on the moped. Thus, except the self-serving statement of RW.1 on behalf of the insurer, there is nothing on record to prove that there were two pillion riders on the moped. Thus the insurer cannot contend that it was not liable to pay the compensation. In so far as interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% per annum, it is necessary to note that this Court has consistently awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum having regard to the stipulation under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Hence, M.F.A. No.11036/2011 and MFA No.89/2012 are allowed in part and interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to 6% per annum.
(ii) The impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.6051/2009 is modified and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,62,160/- to Rs.3,38,600/-, which is payable by the 26 insurer along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
(iii) The insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.
(iv) MFA No.11038/2011 filed by the claimant and MFA No.91/2012 filed by the insurer are allowed in part and the interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to 6% per annum.
(v) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.6052/2009 is modified and compensation of Rs.1,87,360/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to a sum of Rs.2,10,578/-, which is payable by the insurer to the claimant along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.27
(vi) The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
(vii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for necessary orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma