B.Pulla Reddy Vs C.L.Sree Harinath & Anr.

[i] The claimant in O.P.No.339 of 2000 on the file of Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ananthapur at Gooty [ for short “MACT”], preferred the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.844 of 2006 and the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company in the said O.P., preferred the appeal in MACMA No.3018 of 2012.

¶41

[ii] The 1^st respondent before the learned MACT is the owner of the Matador Van bearing No.AP 02 T 2325 and remained ex parte.

¶42

[iii] Both the appeals are arising out of the judgment dated 30.09.2005 in O.P.No.339 of 2000 and the case is arising out of an accident that occurred on 20.06.1999.

¶43

For the sake of convenience, parties will be herein after referred to as the claimant and the respondents, with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

¶44

Case of the claimant :-

¶45

[i] On the fateful day i.e., on 20.06.1999, the petitioner was travelling in Matador Van bearing No.AP 02 T 2325 [for short ‘the offending vehicle’] from Hindupur to Anantapur, at about 7.30 p.m., while the offending vehicle was near Gollpalli in the process of overtaking R.T.C. bus, it dashed against the lorry bearing No.AP 10 T 9513 coming in opposite

¶46

4

¶47

direction, with the result, accident has occurred. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Got admitted in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Anantapur, and was subsequently shifted to St.John’s Hospital, Banglore and treated as in patient for a period of one month by spending huge amounts for medical and other incidental expenses. He has lost tooth and took treatment under the supervision of Dr.U.Prem Kumar Reddy, Dentist, Kurnool. Some others travelling in the offending vehicle died instantaneously, while some sustained injuries.

¶48

[ii] Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. A case was registered against the driver vide Crime No.68 of 1999 under Sections 337, 338, 304-A IPC.

¶49

[iii] The 1^st respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle and the 2^nd respondent being the insurer, are liable to pay just and reasonable compensation.

¶50

[iv] Further the claimant/petitioner claimed that he was hale and healthy, aged about ‘29’ years, working as Commercial Trainee in L & T limited, Tadipatri and getting a sum of Rs.2700/- per month towards salary. He is the sole bread winner of the family and due to the accident, life of himself and his family became dark. Hence, entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

¶51

5

¶52

Case of the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company:-

¶53

[i] Claimant/petitioner shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation, income, injuries suffered as well as nature and effect of injuries, valid and effective driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle and compliance of the Insurance Policy conditions.

¶54

[ii] The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

¶55

On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues for trial:

¶56

1. Whether the accident occurred on 20.06.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the van bearing No. AP 02 T 2325 by its driver, dashed against the lorry bearing No.AP 10 T 9513 and caused injuries to the petitioner?

¶57

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

¶58

To what relief?

¶59

Evidence before the learned MACT:

¶60

6 (i). Documentary evidence:-

¶61

Sl.No.	Marked	Description	Remarks
	as
1	Ex.A1	Certified copy of the F.I.R. in Cr.No.68 of 1999
2	Ex.A2	Wound Certificate of the petitioner issued by the Government Hospital.	For the
3.	Ex.A3	Wound Certificate of the petitioner issued by St.John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore.	Claimant/ petitioner
4.	Ex.A4	Certificate issued by Dr.Premakuma Reddy, Dentist.
5.	Ex.A5	Copy of the Final report issued by Inspector of

¶62

6

¶63

		Police, Raptadu Police Station.
6.	Ex.A6	Salary Certificate of the claimant/petitioner
7.	Ex.A7	Bunch of Medical Bills. (41 in No.)
8	Ex.X1	Case Sheet
9.	Ex.X2	X-ray reports, four X-rays
10.	Ex.X3	C.T. Scan

¶64

(ii) ORAL EVIDENCE:

¶65

The claimant was examined as PW.1 and one C.Rajagopal Reddy, Doctor, who treated the claimant, is examined as PW.2.

¶66

[iii] No oral or documentary evidence is adduced for the respondents.

¶67

Findings of the learned MACT:-

¶68

[i] The petitioner is an eye witness examined as PW.1, stated about his travel, occurrence of accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, injuries suffered.

¶69

[ii] In view of the evidence of PW.1 and crime record, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is believed, wound certificate is reflecting injuries, and Doctor opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. 40% disability to brain, 30% disability to chest, total disability at 25% to whole body was stated by the Doctor. However, no disability certificate is issued. Ex.A4 is the certificate is issued by the Dentist, but the same is not proved. In the light of the evidence, the claimant is entitled for Rs.12,000/- towards grievous injuries. Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenditure and in all the

¶70

7

¶71

claimant is entitled for Rs.44,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit or realization.

¶72

[iii] Aggrieved by the quantification of compensation done at only Rs.44,000/-, the claimant has filed the appeal vide MACMA No.844 of 2006 and the Insurance Company/2^nd respondent has preferred the appeal vide MACMA No.3018 of 2012 questioning the liability and quantification of compensation.

¶73

Arguments/Grounds urged in the appeal:-

¶74

For the Claimant/petitioner:-

¶75

[i] The compensation ought to have been awarded under all heads.

¶76

[ii] Disability should have been considered.

¶77

[iii] Evidence of PW.2 ought to have given weight in accepting the

¶78

disability.

¶79

[iv] The compensation awarded is very low and the learned MACT ought to have awarded more compensation than what claimed.

¶80

[v] Medical expenditure claimed and record placed has been erroneously ignored.

¶81

For the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company:-

¶82

[i] Non-Joinder necessary parties, viz., owner, driver and the Insurance Company of the lorry, is ignored erroneously.

¶83

8

¶84

[ii] It is the case of the composite negligence but the same has been ignored erroneously.

¶85

[iii] Liability ought to have fastened at 50% on the respondents and 50% on the driver of the lorry, who was coming in opposite direction, who is not made as a party.

¶86

Heard both sides extensively.

¶87

Perused the record carefully and thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advanced by the both sides.

¶88

Now, the points that arise for determination in these appeals are -

¶89

1) Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder? And whether the negligence ought to have apportioned between the offending vehicle and the lorry which was coming in opposite direction?

¶90

2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, compensation of Rs.44,000/- awarded by the learned MACT is just and reasonable or require any modification? By way of enhancement or reduction? If so, at what tune?

¶91

1. What is the result of the appeal in MACMA No.844 of 2006?

¶92

1. What is the result of the appeal in MACMA No.3018 of 2012?

¶93

Point No.1 :-

¶94

A. Statutory Guidance:-

¶95

Section 176 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that for the purpose

¶96

of implementation of provisions of Section 165 to 174 of the Act, the State

¶97

9

¶98

Government may make Rules, on various aspects, provided thereunder.

¶99

For better appreciation, Section 176 of the M.V. Act, reads as under:-

¶100

“176. Power of State Government to make rules. - A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of sections 165 to 174, and in particular, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:

¶101

(a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect of such applications;

¶102

(b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an inquiry under this Chapter;

¶103

(c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a Claims Tribunal;

¶104

(d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a Claims Tribunal; and(e)any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.

¶105

In terms of provisions of Section 176 of M.V. Act, the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 are framed. Chapter XI of the Rules deals with the claims Tribunal and the examination, consideration and disposal of the claim applications, covered under Rule 455 to 476-A. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 476, provides that the claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claims on

¶106

the basis of material contemplated under the said provisions.

¶107

Rule 476 sub-Rule(7) reads as under :-

¶108

“476. (7) Basis to award the claim :- The Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of;-

¶109

10

¶110

(i) Registration Certificate of the Motor Vehicle involved in the

¶111

accident;

¶112

(ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance of

¶113

the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk;

¶114

(iii) Copy of First Information Report;

¶115

(iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the Medical Officer; and

¶116

(v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer who has examined the victim.

¶117

B. Precedential Guidance:-

¶118

It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of legislation, the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to this extent is settled and consistent.

¶119

This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation¹ , which reads as under:

¶120

“ 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular

¶121

1 2009 (13) SCC 530

¶122

11

¶123

manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties..”

¶124

In a case between New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Kethavarapu Sathyavathi and Ors.² , the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has referred to Section 168, 169 of M.V. Act and Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and also catena of decisions. The point for consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench was that in holding an inquiry in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, what is the procedure to be followed and whether the F.I.R. can be basis for considering the claim. Observations in para 5 to 7 are as follows:

¶125

“5. Point:

¶126

Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), the Claims Tribunal shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining just compensation, etc. In holding any such inquiry, Section 169 of the Act mandates the Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit subject to rules. The Tribunal was conferred with the powers of a civil Court for the specified purposes and under Rule 476 of the Rules, the Claims Tribunal was directed to follow the procedure of summary trial as contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Tribunal was cautioned not to reject any application on the ground of any technical flaw and was also obligated to obtain whatever information necessary from the police, medical and other authorities. It is true that sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules states that the Claims

¶127

2 2009 Supreme (AP) 136=2010(2) ALD 403=2009(3) ALT 260

¶128

12

¶129

Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of registration certificate of the motor vehicle, insurance certificate or Policy, copy of first information report, post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the medical officer and the nature of treatment given by the medical Officer.

¶130

6. The said sub-rule obviously refers to the relevant dependable criteria for assessment of the compensation, which is patently illustrative and can never be considered to be exhaustive. This Sub-rule stating the basis to award the claim, is obviously subject to the prohibition against depending on any technical flaw and the procedure for summary trial to be followed by the Tribunal. The said sub-rule cannot travel beyond the statutory obligation imposed on the Tribunal to determine the just compensation after an inquiry, in which an opportunity of being heard is given to the parties. The judicial determination of the questions in controversy before the Tribunal in terms of Sections 168 and 169 of the Act cannot be confined to consideration of the five documents referred to in sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules alone and exclude any other oral or documentary evidence. The procedure of summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure which the Tribunal shall follow under Rule 476 of the Rules itself mandates taking all such evidence as may be produced by both sides in support of their respective versions, apart from the evidence which the Court, of its own motion, causes to be produced as per Section 262 read with Sections 254 and 255 of the said Code. Sub-rule (7) to be understood in the light of the object and scheme of the Act, is a directory provision referring to some of the documents which can offer guidance to the Tribunal in discharge of its statutory duty and the word "shall" used in the said: subrule has to be necessarily understood as "may".

¶131

7. That apart, to say that the, first information report alone should be the conclusive basis for determining the manner of the accident, even in spite of the availability of other dependable evidence on record on that aspect, will be offending the plain language of the statute and if that were the purport of subrule (7), it cannot be considered valid, as any such delegated legislation cannot travel beyond the legislation itself .”

¶132

13

¶133

Evidence and Analysis:-

¶134

The claimant as PW.1, who is none other than the eye witness stated about the occurrence of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, registration of crime by the Police against the driver etc.. No evidence is placed on the respondent side. During the cross-examination of PW.1, nothing is elicited to show that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle except suggestion that there was no negligence. What happened to criminal case, why the evidence of any other eye witnesses is placed on record is not even whispered by the respondent-Insurance Company. Ex.A5, a copy of final report shows that the case was dropped as abated, in view of the death of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶135

Even according to the grounds of the appeal filed by the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company vide MACMA No.3018 of 2012, the allegation is that it is a case of composite negligence. Claimant is a third party. In a case of composite negligence, every tort feaser is liable jointly and severally for the whole claim. Therefore, the defence pressed into service is not fortified either on facts or under law. Accordingly, it is found that the defence is not tenable and findings of as to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle arrived by the learned MACT are fit to be concurred and confirmed.

¶136

14

¶137

For the aforesaid reasons, point framed is answered against the Insurance Company and in favour of the claimant concluding the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident. There is no material to accept the negligence on the part of the lorry etc., and to accept the contention that the petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties.

¶138

Point No.2:-

¶139

[i] Claimant suffered injuries in the accident. [ii] Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause

¶140

for the accident.

¶141

[iii] The 1^st respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, remained

¶142

ex parte.

¶143

[iv] Admittedly, the 2^nd respondent is authorized insurer, with whom the vehicle was insured.

¶144

[v] Violation of conditions of the Insurance Policy is not proved.

¶145

[vi] No evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company. Therefore, the entitlement of the claimant for compensation and liability of the respondents to pay are clear. Therefore, the only point remains for determination is, what is the just and reasonable compensation to which the claimant/petitioner is entitled?

¶146

15

¶147

Precedential Guidance:-

¶148

A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled.

¶149

(i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.³ , arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations

¶150

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors .⁴ , referred to various heads under which, compensation can be

¶151

awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:-

¶152

S. N	o. Head		Amount (In ₹)
1.	Medicines and Medical Treatment		xxxxx
2.	Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability		xxxxx
3.	Pain and Suffering		xxxxx
4.	Future Treatment		xxxxx
5.	Attendant Charges		xxxxx
6.	Loss of Amenities of Life		xxxxx
7.	Loss of Future Prospect		xxxxx
8.	Special Education Expenditure		xxxxx
9.	Conveyance and Special Diet		xxxxx
10.	Loss of Marriage Prospects		xxxxxx
	Total	Rs.	…xxxxxx

¶153

32025 AIAR (Civil) 1

¶154

4 2020 (04) SCC 413

¶155

16

¶156

(ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,⁵ vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud⁶ , as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future earnings, in para 16 referring to Hardeo Kaur Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation⁷ , as to fixing of quantum of compensation with liberal approach, valuing the life and limb of individual in generous scale, in para 17 observed that :-

¶157

“The High Court and the Tribunal must realize that there is a distinction between compensation and damage. The expression compensation may include a claim for damage but compensation is more comprehensive. Normally damages are given for an injury which is suffered, whereas compensation stands on a slightly higher footing. It is given for the atonement of injury caused and the intention behind grant of compensation is to put back the injured party as far as possible in the same position, as if the injury has not taken place, by way of grant of pecuniary relief. Thus, in the matter of computation of compensation, the approach will be slightly more broad based than what is done in the matter of assessment of damages. At the same time it is true that there cannot be any rigid or mathematical precision in the matter of determination of compensation.”

¶158

(iii). In Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another⁸ vide para No.19,

¶159

the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized principles to be followed in the process of quantifying the compensation after referring to socio economic and practical aspects from which, the claimants come and the practical difficulties, the parties may face in the process of getting disability assessed

¶160

5 2010(10)SCC 341

¶161

6 2007 (14) SCC 61

¶162

7 1992(2) SCC 567

¶163

8 2011 (1) SCC 343

¶164

17

¶165

and getting all certificates from either the Doctors, who treated, or from the

¶166

medical boards etc., it is observed that :-

¶167

“…We may now summarise the principles discussed above :

¶168

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

¶169

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

¶170

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

¶171

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors…”

¶172

(iv) In Sidram vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and

¶173

Anr .⁹ vide para No.40, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and assessment of future

¶174

loss of earning due to permanent disability by referring to Rajkumar’s case,

¶175

and also various heads under which compensation can be awarded to a victim of a motor vehicle accident.

¶176

(v) In Sidram’s case, reference is made to a case in R.D. Hattangadi V. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd .¹⁰ . From the observations

¶177

9 2023 (3) SCC 439

¶178

10 1995 (1) SCC 551

¶179

18

¶180

made therein, it can be understood that while fixing amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But, all these elements have to be viewed with objective standards. In assessing damages, the Court must exclude all considerations of matter which rest in awarding speculation or fancy, though conjecture to some extent is inevitable.

¶181

Analysis of Evidence :-

¶182

Claimant as PW.1 deposed that he suffered accident and was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Anantapur, from there to St.John’s Medical College, Hospital, Bangalore and he undergone operation at Bangalo re. Thereafter, took treatment Dr.U.Prem Kumar Reddy, Dentist, Kurnool spent Rs.80,000/- towards medical and other expenses suffered disability. He was in hospital for (11) days and thereafter treated as outpatient. Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are the wound certificates and Ex.A4 is the certificate issued by Dr.Prem Kumar Reddy, Dentist, Kurnool. Ex.A6 is the Salary Certificate and the Ex.A7 is the bunch of Medical Bills(Nos.41) standing for Rs.24,031/-.

¶183

PW.2- Doctor, who treated the petitioner, deposed that he is working

¶184

as senior Causality Medical Officer, St.Johm Medical College Hospital, Bangalore; he examined the claimant/petitioner and found the following injuries:

¶185

19

¶186

Lacerated wound on left frontal region, sutured at Anantapur Hospital. Head injury. C.T. Scan was done with showed frontal lobe contusion fracture of the orbit and zygoma bone.

¶187

Pain and tenderness over left side of chest. X-ray showed hemopnuemo thorax left side. The petitioner was admitted in neuro surgery from 20.06.199 to 06.07.1999. First injury was treated conservatively. Injury No.2 was treated with inter costal drainage tube. Both the injuries are grievous in nature.

¶188

He has also deposed that the petitioner/claimant complained about the pain on left side of the chest and right side of the chest on deep breathing. X-ray discloses plural adhesions on both sides of the chest. Physiology test done on 02.06.2005 reveals disturbances in front temporal lobes in terms of disturbance of both verbal and visual working memory and visual integration functions. He assessed the permanent disability of the chest at 30% and 10% for whole body and brain at 40% and 15% of whole body. Totally 25% for the whole body.

¶189

No doubt the disability certificate from Medical Board is not produced but the disability stated cannot be totally ignored. The income of the deceased/claimant is shown around Rs.2600/- as per Ex.A6, the possibility of progress in the income at least 30% can be taken, whereby the income can be accepted at Rs.3000/- and the disability if taken at Rs.20%, the loss of income can be accepted at Rs.600/- per month and the same comes to

¶190

20

¶191

Rs.7200/- p.a.. For the age group of ‘30’ the multiplier applicable is ‘17’, whereby the entitlement of the claimant for the income under the head of loss of earnings due to disability comes to [Rs.7200 x 17] = 1,22,400/-. Medical expenditure is shown around Rs.24,000/-, considering the bills under Ex.A7, Rs.30,000/- can be awarded as compensation under the head of medical expenditure. Towards Transportation and attendant charges Rs.20,000/- under each head can be awarded to the claimant. Towards pain and suffering for the two injuries suffered, Rs.25,000/- each can be awarded.

¶192

Thus, the entitlement of the claimant for reasonable compensation under all the heads, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the precedential guidance mentioned above, in comparison to compensation awarded by the learned MACT is concluded as follows:

¶193

S.No.	Head	Granted by the learned MACT	Fixed by this Appellate Court
1.	Medicines and Medical Treatment_[Medical Expenditure]_	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.30,000/-
2.	Loss of earning capacity due to disability [loss of future earnings]	-Nil	Rs.1,22,400/-
3.	Pain and suffering [for the two injuries suffered]	Rs.10,000/- Rs.24,000/- [Rs.12,000/- each x 2]	Rs.50,000/- [Rs.25,000/- eachx 2]
4.	Future medical needs	-Nil-	-Nil
5.	Attendant Charges	-Nil	Rs.20,000/-
6.	Loss of amenities	-Nil-	-Nil-
7.	Travelling and extra nourishment etc.	-Nil	Rs.20,000/-
	Total	Rs.44,000/-	Rs. 2,42,400/-

¶194

21

¶195

For the aforestated reasons and discussions made, it is found that the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs . 2,42,400/- . Therefore, the impugned award and decree dated 30.09.2005 requires modification to that effect, and the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is enhanced to Rs . 2,42,400/-. However, considering the long pendency of the case, interest component is restricted to @7.5% p.a. Point No.2 framed is answered accordingly.

¶196

Points No.4 and 5:

¶197

29 . In the result, MACMA No.3018 of 2012 filed by the 2^nd respondentInsurance Company is dismissed and MACMA No. 844 of 2006 filed by the claimant is partly allowed as follows:-

¶198

[i] The compensation of Rs.44,000/- with interest @9% p.a. awarded under the impugned decree and order dated 30.09.2005 is modified and enhanced to Rs . 2,42,400/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶199

[ii] The claimant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount at once, on deposit.

¶200

[iii] Time for depositing the balance compensation amount is two (02) months.

¶201

22

¶202

[iv] No costs in the facts and circumstances.

¶203

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal

¶204

shall stand closed.