Partly allowed

Bando Orain Alias Bando Devi v. the Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Jharkhand HC5 Jul 2023MA/49/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation awarded in two motor accident cases against United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Recognizing settled principles on loss of consortium, the Court increased the award for spousal and parental consortium while affirming the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income in the absence of documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed in part; Insurance Company directed to pay Rs. 9,34,000 and Rs. 9,46,000 to respective claimants with interest at 7.5% p.a. within three months.

Bando Orain Alias Bando Devi Vs the Divisional… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2023)

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

With

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.48 of 2021

¶6

Gunjari Orain @ Gunjari Devi aged about 53 years, w/o late Pancham Oraon

¶7

Birsai Orain, aged about 23 years, daughter of late Pancham Oraon

¶8

Punam Orain aged about 20 years, daughter of late Pancham Oraon

¶9

Surajmuni Orain, aged about 19 years, daughter of late Pancham Oraon

¶10

Mangleshwar Orain aged about 16 years, son of late Pancham Oraon

¶11

Ritu Orain aged about 14 years, daughter of late Pancham Oraon

¶12

Sivani Orain aged about 13 years, daughter of late Pancham Oraon All resident of Village- Chundri Nawatoli, P.O. Icha, P.S. Ghaghra, Dist. Gumla, At present R/o Laxmi Nagar, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist. Ranchi

¶13

Appellant No.1 is the wife of the deceased and applicants No. 5 to 7 are minor son and daughters of the deceased, hence, applicant no.5 to 7 are under the custody and natural guardianship and represented by their mother i.e. applicant no.1 who have no adverse interest against them.

¶14

.... .... …. Appellants

¶15

Versus

¶16

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Lalji Hirji Road, Main Road Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Kothwali, Dist. Ranchi

¶17

Anil Sahu @ Anil Kumar Sahu @ Anil Kumar Gupta, s/o Thakur Saw, R/o Chandwa, P.O. & P.S. Chandwa, Dist. Latehar

¶18

.... .... .... Respondents

¶19

With

¶20

M.A. No.49 of 2021

¶21

Bando Orain @ Bando Devi aged about 43 years, w/o late Budhdeo Oraon

¶22

Ghansari Orain aged about 23 years, daughter of late Budhdeo Oraon

¶23

Munsari Orain aged about 21 years, daughter of late Budhdeo Oraon

¶24

Suleshwar Oraon aged about 15 years, son of late Budhdeo Oraon All resident of Village- Chundri Nawatoli, P.O. Icha, P.S. Ghaghra, Dist. Gumla, At present R/o Laxmi Nagar, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist. Ranchi

¶25

Appellant No.1 is the wife of the deceased and applicants No. 4 is minor son of the deceased, hence, applicant no.4 is under the custody and natural guardianship and represented by her mother i.e. applicant no.1 who has no adverse interest against him.

¶26

.... .... …. Appellants

¶27

Versus

¶28

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Lalji Hirji Road, Main Road Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Kothwali, Dist. Ranchi

¶29

Anil Sahu @ Anil Kumar Sahu @ Anil Kumar Gupta, s/o Thakur Saw, R/o Chandwa, P.O. & P.S. Chandwa, Dist. Latehar

With

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

.... .... .... Respondents

¶35

------

¶36

For the Appellants : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Uday Choudhary, Advocate

¶37

P R E S E N T

¶38

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶39

------

¶40

By the Court:-

¶41

Heard the parties.

¶42

Since both the appeals have been directed against the judgment and award dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90 of 2013 by which the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,94,000/- to the claimants-appellants of M.A. No. 48 of 2021 and in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 91 of 2013, in which the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,42,000/- to the claimants-appellants of M.A. No. 49 of 2021, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application to till the date of realization in both the claim cases. Hence, both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶43

The brief facts of the case is that on 07.02.2013 at about 11:45 am when the deceased- Pancham Oraon in connection of death of whom Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90 of 2013, corresponding to M.A. No.48 of 2021 has been instituted and the deceased- Budhdeo Oraon in connection of death of

With

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

whom Motor Accident Claim Case No. 91 of 2013, corresponding to M.A. No.49 of 2021 has been instituted were travelling in the truck as members of barat party. The said truck being rashly and negligently driven by its driver under the influence of liquor met with an accident by which the deceased- Pancham Oraon and Budhdeo Oraon sustained grievous injuries.

¶49

In connection with the said case, police registered Ghagara P.S. Case No. 10 of 2013 on 07.02.2013. The said Pancham Oraon and Budhdeo Oraon succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident during the course of their treatment.

¶50

After investigation of the case, police submitted charge sheet against the driver of the said truck namely Bal Kishun Verma for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code.

¶51

The opposite party no.2 – Anil Sahu is the registered owner of the offending truck bearing registration no. JH-11B7535 and he did not appear before the learned Tribunal and the opposite party no.2- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in its written statement challenged the maintainability of the claim application on various technical grounds. Further, it was pleaded that the deceased persons were gratuitous passengers hence; the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount as the truck was not supposed to

With

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

carry passengers which is in violation of the insurance policy

¶57

of carrying the passengers.

¶58

On the basis of the rival pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following six issues:-

¶59

(I) Whether the claim application as filed is maintainable?

¶60

(II) Whether applicants have valid cause of action for the case?

¶61

(III) Whether the death of the deceased persons namely Pancham Oraon, Budhdeo Oraon, Biswa Oraon and Sushil Oraon resulted from the alleged vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. JH-11B-7535?

¶62

(IV) Whether the insured owner of the alleged offending vehicle Truck registration No. JH-11B7535 has violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy?

¶63

(V) Whether applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed? If yes, from whom and to what extent?

¶64

(VI) To what reliefs applicants are entitled for?

¶65

In support of their case, the claimants examined five witnesses and proved documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to 7.

¶66

¶67

M.A. No. 48 of 2021 With M.A. No. 49 of 2021

¶68

¶69

The learned Tribunal first took up issue nos. (I), (II) and (III) together and after considering the materials in the record came to the conclusion that the claim application is maintainable. There is valid cause of action for the claim application and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck and decided the issue nos. (I), (II) and (III) in favour of the claimants. The learned Tribunal next took up issue no. (IV) and considering the evidence in the record held that the deceased- Pancham Oraon and Budhan Oraon were travelling as gratuitous passengers. Hence, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation and decided the issue no. (IV) in favour of the opposite party no.2 and against the opposite party no.1 but relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Binod Kumar Lamba & Ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 2018 and also in the case of Manuwara Khatun & Ors. vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. reported in ( 2017) 4 SCC 796 , observed that it would be proper that the insurer to satisfy the award with liberty to recover the same from the insured. The learned Tribunal next took up issue nos. (V) and (VI) and in respect of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90 of 2013 relating to the death of Pancham Oraon, the learned Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased to be 50 years though it was claimed by the claimants that the deceased was earning

With

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

Rs.5,000/- per month but in the absence of any document, the learned Tribunal considered the notional income and assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- per month and applied the multiplier 12 and added 25% of the income towards future prospects and deducted 1/5^th of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and awarded Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head including the loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- and arrived at a total compensation amount of Rs.6,94,000/-. In respect of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 91 of 2013 relating to the death Budhdeo Oraon, the learned Tribunal assessed the age to be 40 years and though it was also claimed that Budhdeo Oraon was earning Rs.5,000/- per month but for the same reason as that of the Pancham Oraon, the learned Tribunal assessed his income to be Rs.4,000/- and applied the multiplier 12 and enhanced 40% of the income towards his future prospects and after deducting 1/3^rd of his income towards personal expenses and applying the multiplier 15, calculated the amount of compensation to be Rs.7,42,000/-. After adding Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head and out of that Rs.40,000/- was towards loss of consortium.

¶75

In M.A. No. 48 of 2021, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a gross illegality in not accepting the income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/- and erroneously assessed his income to be

¶76

¶77

M.A. No. 48 of 2021 With M.A. No. 49 of 2021

¶78

Rs.4,000/- per month. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that under the loss of consortium, the learned Tribunal erred by not awarding Rs.2,80,000/and only awarded Rs.40,000/- It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Gunjari Orain is the wife of the deceased and she is entitled to spousal consortium and claimants nos.2 to 7 are all daughters and sons of the deceased and they are entitled to filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each thus in total the compensation under the conventional head under the subheading loss of consortium, compensation ought to have been Rs.2,80,000/-.

¶79

¶80

In M.A. No. 49 of 2021, besides submitting that the learned Tribunal committed a gross illegality and assessed the income of the deceased to be less than Rs.5,000/-, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in that case, since there were four dependents upon the deceased, the learned Tribunal erred by deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses instead of 1/4^th as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.37 of the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in ( 2017) 16 SCC 680 . It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that since there are four dependents, the claimant-appellant no.1 being the wife and the claimant appellant nos.2 to 4 being the sons and daughters of the deceased Budhdeo Oraon, the

With

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

learned Tribunal ought to have allowed Rs. 1,60,000/- under the subheading loss of consortium under the conventional head but the learned Tribunal having awarded only Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of consortium, the appellants are entitled to further amount of Rs.1,20,000/- Hence, it is submitted that the compensation granted to the claimantsappellants of M.A. No. 48 of 2021 and M.A. No. 49 of 2021 be enhanced.

¶86

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2- insurance company fairly submits that in view of the settled principle of law that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.2,80,000/- under the subheading loss of consortium in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90 of 2013 and Rs.1,60,000/in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 91 of 2013. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that in view of the settled principle of law in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 which has been referred to in paragraph no. 37 of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (supra), the learned Tribunal certainly erred by deducting 1/3^rd of the income of the deceased in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 91 of 2013 towards the personal income of the deceased.

¶87

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

With

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

points for consideration that cropped up in this appeal is :-

¶93

(i) “Whether the amount of compensation awarded by

¶94

the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90 of 2013 and Motor Accident Claim Case No. 91 of 2013 be enhanced and if yes, to what extent?

¶95

So far as the sole point for determination is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited in Civil Appeal No.6451 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.14558 of 2019], decided on 25.10.2021 : 2021 SCC

¶96

OnLine 967 , paragraph no.34 and 35 of which reads as under :-

¶97

“34. A three Judge Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. 12 (2020) SCC Online SC 410 : AIR 2020 SC 3076 , after considering Pranay Sethi, has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/ (Rupees forty thousand only) and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs.40,000/ (Rupees forty thousand only). The compensation under these heads also needs to be increased by 10%. Thus, the spousal consortium is awarded at Rs.44,000/ (Forty four thousand only), and towards parental consortium at the rate of Rs.44,000/ each (Total Rs.88,000/) is awarded to the two children.

¶98

35. Thus, the appellants are entitled to compensation as under:

¶99

(i) Towards Loss of Rs.84,16,815/ dependency
(ii) Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/
(iii) Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/
(iv) Spousal Consortium Rs.44,000/
(v) Parental Consortium Rs.88,000/
Total Rs.85,81,815/”

¶100

¶101

M.A. No. 48 of 2021 With M.A. No. 49 of 2021

¶102

and also in the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

¶103

India in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , paragraph nos.19 to 25 of which reads as under:-

¶104

19. The Insurance Company has contended that the High Court had wrongly awarded Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection, and Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses. The judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] has set out the various amounts to be awarded as compensation under the conventional heads in case of death. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein below : (SCC p. 711, para 52)

¶105

“52. … Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be @ 10% in a span of three years.”

¶106

(emphasis supplied)

¶107

As per the aforesaid judgment, the compensation of Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses is decreased to Rs 15,000. The amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and affection is, however, maintained.

¶108

20. MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation with respect to loss of consortium and loss of estate, which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognised by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant. In exercise of our power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs 15,000 towards loss of estate to Respondents 1 and 2.

¶109

21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt

¶110

¶111

M.A. No. 48 of 2021 With M.A. No. 49 of 2021

¶112

with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse : [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149]

¶113

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”.

¶114

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

¶115

22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

¶116

23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.

¶117

24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium

With

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.

¶123

25. In light of the abovementioned discussion, Respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to the following amounts:

¶124

Head Compensation awarded Income Rs 6000 Future prospects Rs 2400 (i.e. 40% of the income) Deduction towards personal Rs 2800 i.e. ⅓rd of (Rs 6000 + Rs 2400) expenditure Total income Rs 5600 i.e. ⅔rd of (Rs 6000 + Rs 2400) Multiplier 18 Loss of future income Rs 12,09,600 (Rs 5600 × 12 × 18) Loss of love and affection Rs 1,00,000 (Rs 50,000 each) Funeral expenses Rs 15,000 Loss of estate Rs 15,000 Loss of filial consortium Rs 80,000 (Rs 40,000 payable to each of Respondents 1 and 2) Total compensation awarded Rs 14,25,600

¶125

along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment.

¶126

Out of the amount awarded, Respondent 1 is entitled to 60% while Respondent 2 shall be granted 40% along with interest as specified above.

¶127

has held that the dependents of the deceased persons

¶128

in an motor vehicle accident are entitled to get loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- each under the filial consortium, spousal consortium and parental consortium as is applicable to the case concerned.

¶129

So far as the contention of the appellants regarding the income of the deceased Pancham Oraon and Budhdeo Oraon is concerned, their incomes have been assessed as Rs.4,000/- each by the learned Tribunal. Perusal of the record reveals that no document of income has been

With

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

produced by the claimants. Further, the claimants could not file any document to show the financial condition of the deceased like their bank accounts or any other documents which could have given some idea about the financial condition of the deceased. A.W.1-Gunjari Orain though in her examination-in-chief has stated that Pancham Oraon was earning Rs.5,000/- per month but in her crossexamination, she has stated that she is illiterate and she does not know who is giving Rs.5,000/- per month to her husband. Similarly, A.W.4- Bando Orain though in her examination-in-chief has stated that the deceased Budhdeo Oraon was earning Rs.5,000/- per month but in her crossexamination besides stating that she is an illiterate person, she has stated that whenever her husband was doing the work, he used to be paid but whenever he was not doing work, no payment was made to her husband.

¶135

Under such circumstances, in the absence of any document regarding the financial status of the deceased persons or any asset possessed by them, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality by assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.4,000/- each but in view of settled principle of law in the case of N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu

With

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

Ram @ Chuhru (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the relationship between the claimants and the deceased- Pancham Oraon and Budhdeo Oraon having remained unchallenged, the claimants of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90 of 2013 are entitled to get total compensation under the subheading loss of consortium under the conventional head of Rs.2,80,000/- but only Rs.40,000/- having been paid, this Court is of the considered view that the claimants of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90 of 2013, corresponding to M.A. No. 48 of 2021 are entitled to get further amount of Rs.2,40,000/- under the conventional head under the subheading loss of consortium. So, the compensation amount of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90 of 2013 be enhanced to Rs.9,34,000/- with simple interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application to till the date of actual payment.

¶141

So far as Motor Accident Claim Case No. 91 of 2013 is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal erred by deducting 1/3^rd towards the income of the deceased when he has already four dependents and for the same reason as mentioned in respect of Pancham Oraon of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90 of 2013, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Tribunal has not committed any

With

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased Budhdeo Oraon to be Rs.4,000/-.

¶147

Considering the annual income of the deceased Budhdeo Oraon of Rs.48,000/- and enhancing the same to 40% towards future prospects of the income of the deceased, the total annual income comes to Rs.67,200/-. Deducting 1/4^th of the same towards his personal income, the amount comes to Rs.50,400/-. Multiplying the same with the multiplier 15, the amount comes to Rs.7,56,000/-. Adding Rs.1,90,000/under the conventional head including Rs.1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium, the total compensation comes to Rs.9,46,000/-.

¶148

Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 91 of 2013, corresponding to M.A. No. 49 of 2021, the appellants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.9,46,000/- besides interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

¶149

Accordingly, the sole point for determination is answered by holding that the claimants of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90 of 2013 are entitled to get Rs.9,34,000/with simple interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application to till the date of actual payment from the opposite party no.1-respondent no.1 and the claimants of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 91

With

M.A. No. 48 of 2021

M.A. No. 49 of 2021

of 2013, corresponding to M.A. No. 49 of 2021 are entitled

¶155

to get Rs.9,46,000/- with simple interest there on at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application to till the date of actual payment by the opposite party no.1respondent no.1 and the liberty of right to recovery of the claimed amount paid by the opposite party no.1-respondent no.1-insurance company from the owner of the truck as ordered by the learned Tribunal is not interfered with.

¶156

In view of the discussions made above, both these appeals are allowed in part and the judgment and award is modified by directing the opposite party no.1-respondent no.1- United India Insurance Company to pay Rs.9,34,000/to the claimants of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90 of 2013, corresponding to M.A. No. 48 of 2021 and Rs.9,46,000/- to the claimants of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 91 of 2013, corresponding to M.A. No. 49 of 2021 with simple interest there on at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application to till the date of actual payment within three months from the date of copy of this Judgment.

¶157