Karnataka High Court
The Claim Manager vs Sri Kenchappa on 14 December, 2021
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5243/2015(MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3210/2016(MV-D)
IN MFA NO.5243/2015:
BETWEEN:
THE CLAIM MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL,
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR,MALNAD ARCADEA,
SHANKARAMATT CIRCLE,
B H ROAD, SHIMOGA
BY THE CLAIMS MANAGER,
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
UNIT NO.04,NINTH FLOOR (LEVEL-06)
"GOLDEN HEIGHTS" COMPLEX,
59TH "C" CROSS,
INDURSTRIAL SUBURB,
RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH "M" BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 010
BY ITS CLAIM MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SRI KENCHAPPA
AGE 52 YEARS
S/O RANGAPPA,
2. SRI RAMESH
AGE 30 YEARS
S/O KENCHAPPA,
3. SMT RATHNAMMA
AGE 28 YEARS
W/O NINGAPPA
4. SRI DRAKSHAYINI
AGE 26 YEARS
D/O BASAVARAJU
5. SMT BHAGYA
AGE 22 YEARS
W/O JAGADIAH
ALL ARE R/O AINAHALLI VILLAGE
GULLADA MANE, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALORE-577228.
6. SRI RAJU Y T
MAJOR,
S/O THIMAPPA,
R/AT NO.260,
YAGABI (V)(P)
KADUR TALUK-577548
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH M.LATHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5;
SRI. DAYANAND S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS HEAR THE
PARTIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
3
01.04.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ARSIKERE IN MVC NO.1188 OF 2013 WITH COSTS IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.3210/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KENCHAPPA
S/O SRI. RANGAPPA,
AGE 52 YEARS
2. SRI RAMESH
S/O SRI. KENCHAPPA,
AGE 30 YEARS
3. SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O SRI. NINGAPPA
AGE 28 YEARS
4. SRI DRAKSHAYINI
D/O BASAVARAJU
AGE 26 YEARS
5. SMT BHAGYA
W/O JAGADISH
AGE 22 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O AINAHALLI VILLAGE
GULLADA MANE, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577228.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SURESH M.LATHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RAJU Y T
S/O THIMMAPPA,
4
R/AT NO.260,
YAGABI (V)(P)
KADUR TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577548
2. THE MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL,
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR,MALNAD ARCADEA,
SHANKARAMATT CIRCLE,
B H ROAD, SHIMOGA-577201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DAYANANDA S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED
BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC M.A.C.T. MVC
NO.1188/2013 AT ARASIKERE DATED 01/04/2015 MAY
KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND
ENHANCE A COMPENSATION OF RS.16,00,000/-WITH
INTEREST OF 18% P.A. MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING
BEEN HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHYSICAL
HEARING AND RESERVED ON 28.10.2021, COMING ON
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHYSICAL HEARING FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, KRISHNA
BHAT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
These appeals are at the instance of the insurance company and the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 01.04.2015 in MVC No.1188/2013 passed by Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere.
2. One Mallamma is the deceased. Claimants are her husband and 4 children. The claim petition proceeds to state that on 26.02.2012 at about 9.45 a.m. when Mallamma was traveling in a maxi cab bearing registration No.KA-18-A-9337 near Laksmidevarahalli Gate on Arsikere Tiptur Road, the driver of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle against a tree situated by the side of the road and on account of impact injuries, Mallamma died while she was being shifted to hospital.
3. In the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 - the owner of the vehicle filed a written statement denying the material averments in the claim petition.
6
4. The insurance company though entered appearance through a learned counsel, has not filed any statement of objections as could be seen from para 3 of the impugned judgment.
5. Claimant No.2 examined himself as P.W.1 and 2 eye witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked.
6. For the respondents, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined. R.W.3 - Raju is the owner of the offending vehicle. Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked for the respondents.
7. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and examining the materials placed before it, learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
8. Sri.O.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company in support of his appeal contended that learned Tribunal was in error in holding that driver of the 7 offending vehicle was negligent and he further submitted that evidence clearly shows that it was an inevitable accident and there was no negligence on the part of driver of the vehicle in causing the accident. Further, he strenuously contended that there was clear pleading as well as admission by P.W.2 and P.W.3 that accident was caused on account of a flying stone hitting the driver of the offending vehicle and consequently, losing his control over the vehicle resulting in the accident. He, therefore, submitted that finding of the learned Tribunal in this behalf is erroneous and accordingly, prayed that appeal may be allowed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants in support of the their appeal, per contra, contended that finding of the learned Tribunal that driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and accident had resulted on account of his rash and negligent driving, is entirely supported by evidence placed before the learned Tribunal and therefore same is not liable to be interfered with. He further contended that learned Tribunal was in error in taking a 8 lower monthly income for the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month and he drew our attention to the fact that the Courts throughout the State have been uniformly taking the income for a person who has died in the year 2012 and whose income is not established at Rs.7,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He therefore submitted that the compensation awarded needs to be enhanced by applying the correct principles of law and his appeal may be allowed.
10. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides and carefully perused the records.
11. The fact that Mallamma had died in a road traffic accident on 26.02.2012 at about 9.45 a.m. on account of maxi cab in which she was traveling bearing registration No.KA-18-A-9337 dashing against a road side tree near Lakshmidevarahalli Road on Arsikere Tumkur Road is not in question. The only question that has been raised in the context of this case by the learned counsel for the insurance company is that there was no negligence on 9 the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident and it was in fact an inevitable accident. For the said purpose, he has submitted that P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are the eye witnesses to the accident have admitted to the same in their cross-examination. His precise submission is that on 26.02.2012 at about 9.45 a.m. when the deceased driver - Y.T.Madhu @ Madhu Kumar, S/o. Thimmappa was driving the maxi cab in question, a stone which was lying on the road flew off on account of a lorry running over the same and hit him and consequently he lost control over the vehicle resulting in the vehicle dashing against the road side tree. The question now is, whether the evidence placed on record justifies such conclusion as canvassed before us?
12. Records show that in this case only insured/ owner - Raju.Y.T, S/o.Thimmappa has filed written statement and insurance company has not filed any written statement. At para 4 of the written statement, the owner of the offending vehicle has pleaded as follows:
"4. This respondent submits that there is no negligence on the part of the 10 driver of the said vehicle in causing the accident. This respondent submits that the driver of the abovesaid vehicle No. KA-18/A-9337 Madhu alias Madhukumar was driving the said vehicle on 26.02.2012 in a slow manner on the left side of the road observing all the traffic rules and regulations. While going so near Lakshmidevarahalli gate on NH-206 road in Arsikere taluk, all of a sudden one lorry was came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed in the middle of NH-206 without leaving space to the opposite vehicle and during that process one stone was fell in the middle of the road and the driver and the said lorry was ran his lorry over the said stone and at that time, the said stone was came and hit to the head of the driver of the vehicle KA-18/A-9337 and due to that impact, the driver sustained grievous injures to head and lost his control over the vehicle and the vehicle No. KA-18/A- 9337 was dashed to the road side tree, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle, but the concerned police authorities have changed the nature of the accident and created the false story and fixed the case against the driver of the vehicle No. KA-18/A-9337 even though there is no negligence on the part of the deceased driver in causing the accident, hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner."
(underling by us) 11
13. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of P.W.2 - Revappa @ Revanna, who is the complainant before the police and C.W.1 in the charge sheet reads as follows:
"CgÀ¹ÃPÉgɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄÄPÁÌ®Ä QÀ«ÄÃ
C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è JzÀÄgÀUÀqÉ MAzÀÄ ¯Áj ¥ÀAZÀgÁV ¤AwvÀÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ªÁºÀ£À §gÀÄwÛvÄÀ Û JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqÉ §gÀwÛzÝÀ ¯Áj MAzÀÄ PÀ°è£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj PÀ®Äè £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ ZÁ®PÀ£À vÀ¯ÉUÉ ©zÀÝ PÁgÀt ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt vÀ¦à gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÌÀ zÀ°èzÝÀ ªÀÄgÀPÌÉ rQÌ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ZÁ®PÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀnÖgÄÀ vÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÝÀ ZÁ®PÀ ¸ÁzsÀgÀt ªÉÃUÀzÀ°è ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÝÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DPÀ¹äPÀªÁV C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ZÁ®PÀ£À vÀ¦à¤AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
(underling by us)
14. Similarly the relevant portion of cross examination of P.W.3 - Sidappa @ Siddaiah, who is C.W.30 in the charge sheet reads as follows:
"C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ ¢£À ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è gÉêÀtÚ£ÀªÀgÄÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄt ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÄÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¢£À D¢ZÀÄAZÀ£ÀVj ªÀÄoÀPÌÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÝÉ ªÅÀ . C¥ÀWÁvÀ CgÀ¹ÃPÉgÉAiÀÄ PÉgÉ Kj §½ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqɬÄAzÀ MAzÀÄ ªÁºÀ£À §gÀÄwÛvÄÀ Û JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. UÁrAiÀÄÄ PÀ°è£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆÃzÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj PÀ°è£À ZÀÆgÀÄ 12 £ÁªÀÅ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÝÀ UÁrAiÀÄ UÁfUÉ ©¢ÝgÄÀ vÀÛzÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀªÀÄä ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ZÁ®PÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ vÀ¦à¸À®Ä ªÀÄgÀPÉÌ rQÌ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁåQìPÁå¨ï ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ZÁ®PÀ UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. C¥ÀWÁvÀ DPÀ¹äPÀªÁV ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ZÁ®PÀ¤UÉ r.J¯ï. EzÀÝ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ªÀiÁåQ ìPÁå¨ï ZÁ®PÀ£À vÀ¦à¤AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ªÀÄÈvÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ßÀ ¸ÀA§A¢üAiÀiÁzÀ PÁgÀt DPÉUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀÄwÛzÝÉ Ã£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
(underling by us)
15. Respondent No.1 - the owner of offending vehicle was examined as R.W.3 before the learned Tribunal. He has stated in the examination-in-chief by way of affidavit as follows:
"2. The entire averments in the petition is here denied as false. The deceased driver was experience in the driving the said type of vehicles and slowly going on the left side of the road and suddenly on the said day the lorry came from the opposite direction and the stone which was on the road due to the effect of lorry tire on the said tip of the stone the stone fell randamously hit on the deceased driver vehicle of the front glass all of a sudden the driver lost control over the said vehicle hit against the road side tree and this incident took place. The driver of the said vehicle was having valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle since many years the insurance policy in inforce at the time of accident 13 as such the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in view of supreme court verdict in civil appeal 4834/2013 in Iyyappan case. I am responsible for the accident and I am not liable to pay compensation".
(underling by us)
16. The standard of proof in this class of cases is one of preponderance of probabilities. It is necessary to examine the entire evidence both oral as well as documentary before coming to a conclusion as to the probabilities of the case. Immediately after the accident, P.W.2 - Revanna had lodged the complaint before the police. The complaint - Ex.P-2 clearly states as follows:
"£Á£ÀÄ FUÀ ºÉýgÀĪÀ xxxx ªÀÄzsÀÄPÀĪÀiÁgï £ÀqɸÄÀ wÛzÝÀ gÄÀ . ¨É½îUÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 9.45 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÁºÀ£ÀªÅÀ CgÀ¹ÃPÉgÉ w¥ÀlÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÛÉAiÀÄ°è ®QëöäÃzÉêÀgÀºÀ½î UÉÃmï ºÀwÛgÀ ªÉÃUÀªÁV ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ ZÁ®PÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤®ðPÀåvɬÄAzÀ gÀ¸ÛÉè JqÀ¨ÁUÀPÌÉ £Àqɹ gÀ¸ÛÉ ¥ÀPÁÌzÀ ªÀÄgÀPÉÌ rQÌ ªÀiÁrzÀ. EzÀjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ §® ºÀtUÉ, ªÉÄÊ, PÉÊUÉ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁAiÀÄÄÛ. ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°èzÝÀ J®èjUÀÆ vÀÄA¨Á UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁAiÀÄÄÛ. vÀÄA¨Á UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArzÀÝ £ÀªÄÀ äUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀÞ¼ÀPÌÉ §AzÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÄÀ DA§Ä¯É£ïì ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è CgÀ¹ÃPÉgÉ ¸ÀPÁðj C¸ÀàvæU É É PÀ½¹PÉÆlÖgÄÀ . zÁjAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀĮ讪ÀÄä ¸ÀvÄÀ Û ºÉÆÃzÀgÄÀ . ZÁ®PÀ ªÀÄzsÀÄPÀĪÀiÁgï xxx dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÁV ¥ÁæxÀð£É" 14
17. After investigation, police filed charge sheet as per Ex.P-3 against the driver of the vehicle namely, Madhu Y.T. @ Madhu Kumar, S/o.Thimmappa on the allegation that he had driven the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle against a road side tree and consequently, Mallamma had suffered fatal injuries. The name of the father and other details of the driver reasonably suggest that the driver of the offending vehicle who died due to the impact injuries is the brother of respondent No.1 before the Tribunal namely, the owner of the vehicle. The only pleading filed from the side of respondent is by the insured and insurer has refrained from filing its written statement. It is in the written statement of owner for the first time this 'flying stone' theory has been advanced. P.W.2 - the complainant before the police and P.W.3, who was cited as C.W.30 in the charge sheet having filed an affidavit fully supporting the case of the claimants, have on the subsequent occasion when they were cross examined have made a volte-face and answered to the suggestions put on behalf of the respondents in the affirmative thereby contradicting themselves before the 15 Court. It needs to be remembered that PW.2 had lodged the complaint-Ex.P1 on 26.02.2012 itself.
18. Spot panchanama - Ex.P-4 and the sketch map
- Ex.P-5 clearly show that if the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the same slowly and carefully, as was pleaded by the owner of the offending vehicle, the vehicle would not have strayed off from the road across the footpath and thereafter dashed against a tree with such an impact as to cause the death of the driver as well as a passenger like Mallamma. In other words, nature and manner of the accident itself shows that driver was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. Further there is no consistency in the stand of the respondents regarding the manner of happening of the accident. As could be seen from the extracted portions of the cross examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also the affidavit evidence of R.W.3 and the pleadings of the owner, there is varying stand taken at various stages namely, that at some stage it was alleged that a flying missile like stone had hit the head of the deceased driver and at some other 16 stage it has been alleged that stone had hit the glass and insofar as the affidavit of R.W.3 is concerned, it suggests that the stone had hit both the wind shield glass of the vehicle as well as the head of the driver. This clearly probabalises that owner of the vehicle, who apparently is the brother of the driver did not want the negligence to be fastened on his brother and therefore inconsistent and false stands were taken at various stages before the learned Tribunal. Surprisingly, the insurance company has abstained from filing its written statement for reasons best known to it.
19. On a proper appreciation of the evidence, which includes the oral evidence placed before the Tribunal, Ex.P.2-complaint, Ex.P.3-charge sheet, Ex.P.4-spot panchanama and Ex.P-5 sketch map, it can be reasonably concluded that the accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and under such circumstances, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that it was an inevitable accident and accordingly, 17 M.F.A.No.5243/2015 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
20. The deceased Mallamma was aged 53 years at the time of her death. Therefore, appropriate multiplier applicable to her age is 11. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, monthly income of a person whose income is not established is required to be taken at Rs.7,000/- per month for the year 2012. Since she has left behind her husband and 4 children, 1/4 of her income is required to be deducted towards her personal expenses. It is no doubt contended by learned counsel for the insurance company that since the children of the deceased namely, claimant Nos.2 to 5 are majors, they cannot be regarded as dependents. The matter is now concluded by the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. BIRENDER AND OTHERS (2020 ACJ 759) and therefore, such contention cannot be entertained. Since deceased was aged 53 years, 10% of her income is required to be added towards loss of future 18 prospects. Therefore, 'loss of dependency' is required to be recomputed as follows:
Rs.7,000+10% (i.e., Rs.7,000/-+Rs.700/-)= Rs.7,700/- Less:- Rs.7,700/- x ¼ (i.e. Rs.1,925/-) = Rs.5,775/-
Rs.5,775/- x 12 x 11 =Rs.7,62,300/-
21. Since she has left behind her husband and 4 children, Rs.2,00,000/- is required to be awarded towards 'loss of consortium' (Rs.40,000/- x 5). Another sum of Rs.30,000/- is required to be added towards conventional heads like 'funeral expenses' and 'loss of estate'.
22. Thus, the total compensation works out as follows:
Heads Amount
in Rs.
Loss of dependency 7,62,300/-
Loss of consortium
(Rs.40,000x5) 2,00,000/-
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
TOTAL 9,92,300/-
23. Learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Therefore, enhanced compensation works 19 out to Rs.5,92,300/-. On the enhanced compensation, interest @ 6% p.a. is liable to be paid by the insurance company to the claimants.
24. In view of the above, the MFA No.3210/2016 is allowed in part. The award passed by the learned Tribunal in MVC No.1188/2013 dated 01.04.2015 is modified by awarding an enhanced compensation of Rs.5,92,300/- with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment.
Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit before this Court to the learned Tribunal along with records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE DR