Partly allowed

The Managing Director v. Smt. N. Sujatha

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2020MFA/856/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of five Motor Accidents Appeals. The High Court upheld negligence findings in three cases, enhanced compensation by 50% in one based on notional income and consortium losses, and dismissed insurer appeals in another two.

What did the court decide?

Compensation in MVC No.2429/2011 enhanced to Rs.10,60,000/- and apportioned 20:50:30. Interest fixed at 6% p.a. Other cases disposed as prayed.

The Managing Director Vs Smt. N. Sujatha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

M.F.A.No.8404/2013 c/w M.F.A.No.750/2014, M.F.A.No.855/2014, M.F.A.No.856/2014 & M.F.A.No.857/2014 (MV)

¶8

IN M.F.A.No.8404/2013:

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

1 . SMT.SUJATHA W/O LATE C.HARISH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶11

2 . MASTER H.PREMA S/O LATE C.HARISH, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS

¶12

APPELLANT No.2 IS MINOR, REP BY HIS MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1

¶13

ALL ARE PERMANENT R/O OLD SBM ROAD, MALUR TOWN, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT

¶14

NOW R/AT AKSHATHA NILAYA, 2^ND CROSS, TOPPAIAH LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-36.

¶15

...APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI H.V.MANJUNATHA, ADV.)

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

AND :

¶19

1 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CBE) LIMITED, NO.37, METTUPALYAM ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 043, TAMILNADU.

¶20

2 . C.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶21

3 . SMT.SHARADAMMA W/O C.CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶22

R-2 & R-3 ARE R/AT OLD SBM ROAD, MALUR TOWN, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI BOPANNA B., ADV. FOR R-1;

¶24

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 27.03.2014 NOTICE TO R-2 & R-3 ARE DISPENSED WITH.)

¶25

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC No.2429/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

IN M.F.A.No.750/2014:

¶27

BETWEEN :

¶28

1 . C.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶29

2 . SMT.SHARADAMMA W/O C.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶30

¶31

BOTH ARE R/AT OLD SBM ROAD MALUR TOWN-563103

¶32

...APPELLANTS

¶33

(BY SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADV.)

¶34

AND :

¶35

1 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CBE) LIMITED NO. 37, METTUPALYAM ROAD COIMBATORE-641043

¶36

2 . MASTER H.PREM S/O LATE C.HARISH AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.N.SUJATHA ALLEGED W/O LATE C.HARISH

¶37

3 . SMT.N.SUJATHA W/O LATE C.HARISH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESPONDENT No.2 & 3 ARE R/AT AKSHATA NILAYA, 2^ND CROSS, THIPPAH LAYOUT, KRISHNA NAGAR, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560036. …RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI BOPANNA B., ADV. FOR R-1; SRI H.V.MANJUNATHA, ADV. FOR R-3; R-2 IS MINOR REP. BY R-3.)

¶39

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC No.2429/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 7^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT3, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶40

¶41

IN M.F.A.No.855/2014:

¶42

BETWEEN :

¶43

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CBE) LTD., NO.37, METTUPALYAM ROAD COIMBOTORE-641043 TAMILNADU STATE ...APPELLANT

¶44

(BY SRI BOPANNA B., ADV.)

¶45

AND :

¶46

1 . SMT.MANJULA W/O LATE B.UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶47

2 . MASTER U.MANOJ S/O LATE B.UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

¶48

3 . SMT.HIRIYAMMA W/O LATE B.BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶49

RESPONDENT No.2 IS MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1

¶50

ALL ARE R/AT NO.114/4 NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE GOVT. SCHOOL ROAD OLD BYAPPANAHALLI BANGALORE-560033 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPALA KRISHNA N., ADV. FOR R-1 & R-3; R-2 IS MINOR REP. BY R-1.)

¶51

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC No.2319/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA (SCCH-3), BANGALORE, AWARDING

¶52

¶53

A COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,17,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION OR DEPOSIT.

¶54

IN M.F.A.No.856/2014:

¶55

BETWEEN :

¶56

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CBE) LTD., NO.37, METTUPALYAM ROAD COIMBATORE-641043, TAMILNADU. ...APPELLANT

¶57

(BY SRI BOPANNA B., ADV.)

¶58

AND :

¶59

1 . SMT.N.SUJATHA W/O LATE C.HARISH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶60

2 . MASTER H.PREM S/O LATE C.HARISH AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶61

RESPONDENT No.2 IS MINOR, REP BY HIS MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1

¶62

BOTH ARE PERMANENT R/O OLD SBM ROAD, MALUR TOWN MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT

¶63

NOW R/AT AKSHATHE NILAYA 2^ND CROSS, TIPPAIAH LAYOUT KRISHNA NAGAR, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560036

¶64

3 . C.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶65

¶66

4 . SMT.SHARADAMMA W/O C.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶67

RESPONDENT No.3 & 4 ARE R/AT OLD SBM ROAD MALUR TOWN, MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT-563101 …RESPONDENTS

¶68

(BY SRI H.V.MANJUNATHA, ADV. FOR R-1; SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-4; R-2 IS MINOR REP. BY R-1.)

¶69

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC No.2429/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-3, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,07,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION OR DEPOSIT.

¶70

IN M.F.A.No.857/2014:

¶71

BETWEEN :

¶72

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CBE) LTD., NO.37, METTUPALYAM ROAD COIMBATORE-641043, TAMILNADU. ...APPELLANT

¶73

(BY SRI BOPANNA B., ADV.)

¶74

AND :

¶75

1 . M.S.VIDYASHREE W/O LATE K.VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶76

2 . MASTER V.DHANUSH S/O LATE K.VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS

¶77

¶78

3 . V.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS

¶79

4 . SMT.CHANDRAMMA W/O V.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶80

RESPONDENT No.2 IS MINOR, REP BY HIS MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1

¶81

ALL ARE R/AT SRI MANJUNATHSWAMY NILAYA, PIPELINE BHAGYALAKSHMI TEMPLE ROAD, KALYANAGAR, T.DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-57.

¶82

PERMANENT ADDRESS: NO.200, B.KUMBARPET, MALUR, KOLAR-563100. …RESPONDENTS

¶83

(BY SRI C.V.MUNIREDDY, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 IS MINOR REP. BY R-1;

¶84

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 27.11.2018 R-1 & R-2 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF DECEASED R-3 & R-4.)

¶85

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.05.2013 PASSED IN MVC No.2430/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-3, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,13,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION OR DEPOSIT.

¶86

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶87

¶88

J U D G M E N T

¶89

Since common and akin issues are involved as the

¶90

matters arise out of the same accident, the matters are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶91

These appeals emanate from the common judgment and award dated 09.05.2013 passed in MVC Nos.2319, 2429 and 2430/2011 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, Court of Small Causes [SCCH-3] [Tribunal for short].

¶92

Claim petitions were filed by the respective claimants claiming compensation for the death of S.Harish, Umashankar, K.Venkatesh in the road traffic accident which occurred on 14.03.2011.

¶93

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶94

- 9 -

¶95

Succinctly stated the facts as per the claim

¶96

petitions instituted by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['Act' for short] are that on 14.03.2011 at about 3.00 a.m., the deceased C.Harish, deceased B.Umashankar, deceased K.Venkatesh and Sri.Swamy Dorai while proceeding in a Toyota Qualis bearing registration No.KA-22-M-6181 from Kollegala to Bengaluru on NH-209, near Rottikatte, met with the road traffic accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tamilnadu State Government bus bearing registration No.TN-33-N-2394 [offending vehicle] which came from opposite direction. Due to the said accident, C.Harish, B.Umashankar and K.Venkatesh died on the spot and Sri.Swamy Dorai sustained grievous injuries.

¶97

MFA No.8404/2013 is filed by the wife and child, MFA No.750/2014 is filed by the parents of the deceased C.Harish and MFA No.856/2014 is filed by the

¶98

- 10 -

¶99

Corporation against the judgment and award of MVC No.2429/2011. In MVC No.2429/2011, claimants contended that the deceased C.Harish was aged about 42 years at the time of the accident. He was the proprietor of M/s. Krishna Bricks Works at Narasapura, Kolar and was engaged in transporting business i.e., supplying of mud clay to various bricks and tiles factories at Kolar by owning a JCB machine and a tractor, earning Rs.40,000/- per month. The claimants were dependents on the income of the deceased C.Harish. Due to the untimely demise of the said earning member of the family, the claimants are suffering from hardship and loss.

¶100

In MVC No.2319/2011, it was averred in the claim petition that the deceased Umashankar was aged about 39 years and earning Rs.10,000/from agriculture. The claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased Umashankar. Due to untimely

¶101

11 -

¶102

death of the earning member of the family, the claimants are suffering from hardship and loss.

¶103

In MVC No.2430/2011, it was averred in the claim petition that the deceased K.Venkatesh was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident. The deceased was a proprietor of Shashi Tiles Sand Bricks Works at Malur. He was earning Rs.25,000/p.m., by manufacturing and selling quality bricks and tiles. The claimants were dependents on the income of the deceased K.Venkatesh. Due to the untimely death of the earning member of the family, the claimants are suffering from hardship and loss.

¶104

Accordingly, the claimants sought for

¶105

compensation.

¶106

In response to the service of summons by the Tribunal, the respondents appeared through their

¶107

12 -

¶108

respective counsel and filed separate written

¶109

statements.

¶110

The respondent – owner in all the cases has contended that the driver of the car did not possess valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident and hence, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

¶111

The defence taken in common by the respondent No.1 – Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation [CBE] Limited [Corporation for short] – appellants in MFA Nos.855, 856 and 857/2014 is that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle by observing traffic rules and regulations with the moderate speed. When the bus was near Malavalli [Rottikatte], it was driven by the driver of the offending vehicle with care and caution since there was an excavation work going on for laying pipelines and the heap of soil was laid down on the left side of the road. At

¶112

13 -

¶113

that time, the Qualis car bearing registration No.KA-22M-6181 came in the opposite by overtaking a lorry in a rash and negligent manner without considering the road condition, has dashed against the right side body of the bus. There is no culpable negligence on the part of the Corporation bus driver. Hence, the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants even under “no fault liability”. It was further contended that the compensation and the rate of interest claimed by the claimants is excessive is highly excessive, exorbitant and imaginary much against the provisions of the Act.

¶114

The respondent Nos.2 and 3 [parents of the deceased C.Harish] in MVC No.2429/2011 had contended that the Krishna Bricks Works belongs to their deceased son C.Harish. It was specifically averred that Smt.Venkatarathna was married to C.Harish and subsequently deceased C.Harish filed divorce petition in M.C.No.21/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior

¶115

14 -

¶116

Division at Malur. A decree of divorce was passed on 18.07.2009; Claimant No.1 Smt.N.Sujatha was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased C.Harish. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 being the parents alone are entitled for compensation.

¶117

On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal

¶118

framed the issues and answered in terms of the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, partly allowing the petitions. The claimants were awarded with the compensation as under with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization:

¶119

In MVC No.2319/2011 – Rs.7,17,000/-; In MVC No.2430/2011 – Rs.8,13,000/-; In MVC No.2429/2011 – Rs.7,07,000/-.

¶120

Being aggrieved, the Corporation as well as the claimants are in appeal.

¶121

The Corporation has preferred the appeals primarily challenging the negligence attributed on the driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation vehemently argued that the accident has occurred solely due to the negligent and careless act of the driver of the car. The driver of the offending vehicle when he reached Rotikatte of Malavalli on 14.03.2011 at about 3.00 a.m., has driven the vehicle slowly and cautiously since there was excavation work under progress for laying the pipeline and heap of soil was laid down on the left side of the road. Having regard to the material evidence placed on record to substantiate the defence of the Corporation, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the negligence on the driver of the Qualis car, failure in this regard has resulted in injustice. It was further argued that the rate of interest awarded at 8% p.a., on the compensation amount awarded is on the higher side.

¶122

16 -

¶123

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the just compensation requires to be awarded by this Court substantially enhancing the compensation. It was further argued that the Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly attributed the negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle for causing the accident and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶124

We have carefully considered the rival

¶125

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the original records.

¶126

MFA No.8404/2013 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation; MFA No.750/2014 is preferred by the parents; MFA 856/2014 is preferred by the Corporation. All the three

¶127

17 -

¶128

appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 09.05.2013 passed in MVC No.2429/2011.

¶129

As regards the negligence, it is depicted from the photographs produced by the respondent – Corporation at Annexures-R4 to R6 that the excavation work was under progress at the spot of the accident. Heap of soil was laid down on the left side of the road in the direction of the offending vehicle moving from Bengaluru to Coimbatore. The accident has occurred in the wee hours at 3.00 a.m., on 14.03.2011. This is the very specific defence taken by the Corporation in the written statement as well as the evidence to deny the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was specifically contended that the rash and negligent driving of the Qualis car was the cause for the accident. Looking at the scene of the accident as per the police records and the photographs, it could be inferred that the bus has come to the right side portion of the road

¶130

- 18 -

¶131

owing to the heap of mud laid down on the left side of the road and the excavation work under progress. The Tribunal having analyzed the material evidence on record, has observed that except the self-serving statement of RW2 – driver of the offending vehicle, no independent corroborative evidence was let in by the Corporation to substantiate the contention of the respondent.

¶132

On re-appreciation of the evidence, we are of the firm view that no substantial evidence has been placed by the Corporation to rebut the case of the claimants. Police records, the defence and the evidence of RW2 would indeed support the claim of the claimants that the offending vehicle has moved to the right portion of the road having regard to the heap of soil laid down on the left portion of the road.

¶133

In the circumstances, we do not find any perversity or irregularity in the finding of the Tribunal

¶134

19 -

¶135

attributing negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle who indeed ought to have taken more care and caution being the driver of the heavier vehicle looking at the topography of the spot and the vehicles coming from the opposite direction.

¶136

The parents of the deceased C.Harish claimed that Smt.N.Sujatha is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased C.Harish as on the date of the accident. Referring to Ex.R2 – copy of the compromise decree in MC.No.21/2004 and Ex.R3 certified copy of deposition of C.Harish in the said proceedings it was argued that the marriage of C.Harish with his first wife Smt.Venkatarathna was dissolved on 16.07.2009 whereas the accident in question occurred on 01.06.2005. The contention of Smt.N.Sujatha that her marriage with C.Harish had taken place on 02.06.2005 is not in accordance with law. The said marriage being

¶137

- 20 -

¶138

void, there exists no matrimonial relationship. The

¶139

parents alone are entitled to claim compensation.

¶140

Learned counsel for the claimants in MVC.No.8404/2013 inviting the attention of the Court to the judgment in MFA Nos.24051 and 24165/2012 and MFA No.24186/2012 [Lalita V/s. M.R.Sunilkumar and Others] dated 25.02.2014 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court submitted that even if Smt.N.Sujatha is considered as a second wife, she is entitled to maintain the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act and further entitled to compensation.

¶141

We have perused the said judgment. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the context of, where the marriage of the deceased with the second wife is void in law, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel and Another V/s. United India Insurance and Another

¶142

21 -

¶143

reported in [2014] 3 SCC 314 vis-à-vis Section 168 of the Act has held that, “To be called a legal representative’, it is not necessary that a person should have some interest or right in the estate of the deceased. An intermeddler having right or interest in the estate of the deceased would fall within the definition of legal representative, as it is an inclusive definition. Seen from that angle, if a second wife though her marriage is void, is living with her husband, given birth to a child and is in possession of all his belongings on the date of death of the deceased, she would fall within the definition of intermeddler and, as an intermeddler, also she would be a legal representative and therefore can maintain a petition for compensation.” Even if the deceased was living with the second wife; the second wife and children were depending solely on the income of the deceased. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 168 of the Act, it cannot be said that the second wife is not entitled to any maintenance or that she has to be

¶144

22 -

¶145

excluded from the compensation payable by the Tribunal. Therefore, having regard to the intention of the legislature as reflected in Section 168 of the Act, where it is legal representative of the deceased and not a legal heir, who is entitled to maintain a petition and when the definition of the term ‘legal representative’ includes intermiddler, the second wife, as she would be intermeddling with the estate of the deceased by virtue of the fact that she was living with him at the time of his death would be entitled to maintain a petition, she would be entitled to compensation, as a dependent, as she was depending on him for her living and sustained loss on account of his death.

¶146

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the

¶147

second wife Smt.N.Sujatha being the dependent of the deceased C.Harish is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 166 of the Act. Hence, the claimant No.1 Smt.N.Sujatha in MVC No.2429/2011 cannot be denied

¶148

23 -

¶149

with the compensation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to apportion the quantum of compensation in the ratio of 20:50:30 to the claimant No.1 – Smt. N. Sujatha, claimant No.2 – Master H. Prem and respondent No.3 [mother] - Smt. Sharadamma respectively since the father of the deceased C.Harish died during the appeal proceedings.

¶150

Reverting to the arguments advanced on the quantum of compensation awarded, though the claimants asserted in their respective petitions that the deceased were earning good income, no cogent and corroborative evidence was placed to substantiate the same. In the absence of material evidence, income has to be determined notionally. The chart prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority would be the safe guide in this regard. In terms of the same, monthly income of the deceased can be determined at Rs.6,500/in all the cases.

¶151

24 -

¶152

Considering the monthly income of the

¶153

deceased at Rs.6,500/-, 25% future prospects requires to be added. Applying the multiplier of 14, deducting

¶154

1/3^rd of income, loss of dependency would be Rs.9,10,000/- [8125 X 12 X 14 X 2/3].

¶155

In terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others ((2017)16 SCC 680) and New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Somwati and Others reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 720 , the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/towards loss of spousal consortium; Rs.40,000/towards loss of parental consortium; Rs.40,000/towards loss of filial consortium; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/towards funeral

¶156

expenses.

¶157

25 -

¶158

For the reasons aforesaid, the total

¶159

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-assessed as under:

¶160

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount [in Rs.]
1.	Loss ofdependency	9,10,000/-
2.	Loss of Spousal Consortium	40,000/-
3.	Loss of Estate	15,000/-
4.	Towards Funeral expenses	15,000/-
5.	Loss of parental consortium	40,000/-
6.	Loss of filialconsortium	40,000/-
	Total	10,60,000/-

¶161

Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.10,60,000/-. Having regard to the trend of fall in the rate of interest of the Nationalized Bank and the interest awarded by this Court at 6% p.a., consistently in line, interest is awarded at 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶162

MFA No.855/2014 and MFA No.857/2014

¶163

are preferred by the Corporation against the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2319/2011 and MVC

¶164

- 26 -

¶165

No.2430/2011 respectively. The challenge made by the insurer solely on the negligence aspect being rejected, these appeals deserve to be dismissed.

¶166

We are conscious of the rate of interest at 8% p.a., awarded by the Tribunal even in these matters

¶167

but we maintain the same for the reason that the monthly income of the deceased obviously has to be enhanced to Rs.6,500/- as determined in the connected MVC No.2429/2011, supra but we have not ventured to re-asses the compensation in the absence of the appeal preferred by the claimants.

¶168

Hence, the following:

¶169

ORDER

¶170

i] MFA No.8404/2013, MFA No.750/2014 and MFA No.856/2014 are allowed in part; MFA No.855/2014 and MFA No.857/2014 are dismissed.

¶171

27 -

¶172

ii] The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.2429/2011 is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,60,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) as against Rs.7,07,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization.

¶173

iii] The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability remains intact.

¶174

iv] The Corporation shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order.

¶175

v] The modified compensation amount in MVC No.2429/2011 shall be apportioned and disbursed in the ratio of 20:50:30 to the claimant No.1, claimant No.2 and respondent No.3 [mother] respectively.

¶176