Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
M.F.A. NO.1075 OF 2017 (MV-D) C/W M.F.A. NO.1076 OF 2017 (MV-D), M.F.A. NO.1077 OF 2017 (MV-I), M.F.A. NO.3657 OF 2016 (MV-D) & M.F.A. NO.3658 OF 2016 (MV-D),
IN MFA NO.1075/2017:
BETWEEN:
M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX, CHITRADURGA, NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, THILUVALLI COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, DAVANAGERE-577 002, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
2 AND:
K.J. PRASHANTHKUMAR S/O UPPINAKAI THIPPAMMA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
DAKSHA PRASHANTHKUMAR S/O K.J. PRASHANTHKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR, REP. BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN,
BOTH ARE R/AT GOPALAPURA ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.
THE PARTNER M/S. SATI ENTERPRISES, OWNER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-19/B-5631, R/AT D.NO.4.3.406/10, BEHIND SDM LAW COLLEGE, M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE-575001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. T.H.NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.231/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-V, CHITRADURGA AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.43,55,000/- WITH INTEREST AT
3 7.5% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.1076/2017:
BETWEEN:
M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX, CHITRADURGA, NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, THILUVALLI COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, DAVANAGERE-577 002, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Y.A. CHANDRANNA S/O. Y.S. AJJANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
Y.C. MANOJ S/O. Y.A. CHANDRANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 13TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT, NOW RESIDING AT GOPALPURA, CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.
THE PARTNER
4 M/S. SATI ENTERPRISES, OWNER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-19/B-5631, R/AT D.NO.4.3.406/10, BEHIND SDM LAW COLLEGE, M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE-575001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2; SRI. T.H.NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.230/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-V, CHITRADURGA AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,95,100/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO.1077/2017:
BETWEEN:
M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX, CHITRADURGA, NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, THILUVALLI COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, DAVANAGERE-577 002, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C.SHIVANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
5 AND:
Y.A. CHANDRANNA S/O. Y.S. AJJANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT, NOW RESIDING AT GOPALPURA, CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.
THE PARTNER M/S. SATI ENTERPRISES, OWNER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-19/B-5631, R/AT D.NO.4.3.406/10, BEHIND SDM LAW COLLEGE, M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE-575001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. T.H.NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.232/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-V, CHITRADURGA AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO.3657/2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.J. PRASHANTHKUMAR
6 S/O UPPINAKAI THIPPAMMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
SRI. DAKSHA PRASHANTHKUMAR S/O K.J.PRASHANTHKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 04 YEARS,
THE APPELLANT NO.2 IS SINCE MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN/ FATHER/ APPELLANT NO.1
THE APPELLANT NOs.1 AND 2 ARE R/O. GOPALAPURA ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE PARTNER M/S. SATI ENTERPRISES, OWNER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-19/B-5631, D.NO.4.3.406/10, BEHIND SDM LAW COLLEGE, M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE-583257.
THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SRI SHARADA COMPLEX, OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND, CHITRADURGA-577501. …RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
7 SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.231/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-V, CHITRADURGA PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.3658/2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI. Y.A.CHANDRANNA S/O Y.S.AJJANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
SRI. Y.C.MANOJ S/O Y.A.CHANDRANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
THE APPELLANT NOs.1 AND 2 ARE R/O 13TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT, NOW AT GOPALAPURA, CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE PARTNER M/S. SATI ENTERPRISES,
8 OWNER OF TANKER LORRY BEARING REG. NO.KA-19/B-5631, D.NO.4.3.406/10, BEHIND SDM LAW COLLEGE, M.G. ROAD, MANGALORE-583257.
THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SRI SHARADA COMPLEX, OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND, CHITRADURGA-577501. …RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.230/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-V, CHITRADURGA PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed today for orders, it is seen that MFA Nos.3657 and 3658 of 2016 are already admitted and all these appeals are taken up for final
9 disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The respective appellant in MFA Nos.1075/2017, 1076/2017, 1077/2017 is the insurer of a Heavy Transport vehicle bearing registration number KA- 19/B-5631 (henceforth referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’). The appellants in the above appeals will henceforth be referred to as the ‘insurer’. The appellants in MFA Nos.3657/2016 and 3658/2016 are the claimants in MVC Nos.231/2015, and 230/2015 respectively. The appellants in the above appeals shall henceforth be referred to as the claimants.
The claim petitions in MVC Nos.231/2015 and 230/2015 discloses that the claimants were the legal representatives of Smt.Shwetha and Smt.Padma respectively. It is stated that on 14-03-2014, the aforesaid persons along with the claimant in MVC No.232/2015 were travelling with their family members in a Innova car bearing registration number KA-02-MJ-1419
10 from Horanadu to Bengaluru via Belur to Hassan. At about 5:15 pm, the driver of the offending vehicle drove it from the opposite direction and dashed against the left side portion of the Innova car. Due to the impact, Smt.Shwetha and her mother Smt.Padma sustained severe head injuries and they died at the spot. Mr.Chandranna, the claimant in MVC No.232/2015 sustained injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Belur where he was treated. A case in Crime No.86/2014 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The claimants filed respective claim petitions in MVC Nos.230/2015, 231/2015 and 232/2015 claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- Rs.8,30,80,000/-, and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively.
It is claimed that deceased Smt.Shwetha was employed as a Senior System Engineer in a Multinational Company and was drawing an annual salary of Rs.10,00,000/- while the deceased Smt.Padma was a
11 home maker and her notional income was claimed at Rs.5,000/- per month. The injured Mr. Chandranna was employed with BESCOM drawing a monthly salary of Rs.50,000/-. All of them alleged that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.
The claim petitions were contested by the insurer of the offending vehicle, who denied the assertions made in the claim petitions. It contended that the driver of the offending lorry was not negligent and accused the driver of the car of contributing to the accident by moving the car to the opposite lane and dashing against the offending vehicle. It also contended that the compensation claimed was excessive.
With these rival contentions, the claim petitions were set down for trial. The claim petition in MVC No.231/2015 was treated as the lead case and common evidence was recorded in it. The Claimants were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and they marked documents Ex-P1 to P13.
12 The insurer of the offending vehicle examined its officer as RW.1, who marked documents as Exs.R1 to R3.
The Tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation to: Claimants in MVC No.230/2015: Sl. No. Heads of compensation Amount in Rupees 1 Towards Loss of dependency 5,20,100/- 2 Towards Loss of consortium of petitioner No.1 1,00,000/- 3 Towards loss of love and affection 1,00,000/- 4 Towards loss of expectation 50,000/- 5 Towards transportation of dead body, cremation and obsequies ceremonies 25,000/-
TOTAL 7,95,100/-
Claimants in MVC No.231/2015: Sl. No. Heads of compensation Amount in Rupees 1 Towards Loss of dependency 40,80,000/-
13 2 Towards Loss of consortium of petitioner No.1 1,00,000/- 3 Towards loss of love and affection 1,00,000/- 4 Towards loss of expectation 50,000/- 5 Towards transportation of dead body, cremation and obsequies ceremonies 25,000/-
TOTAL 43,55,000/-
In so far as the claimant in MVC No.232/2015 is concerned, in the absence of medical records, the Tribunal considering the nature of injuries sustained by him, awarded the global compensation of Rs.8,000/-.
The Tribunal directed the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation determined by it to the respective claimant/s along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation.
The insurer, feeling aggrieved by the liability saddled upon it to pay the compensation as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has
14 filed appeals, MFA Nos.1075, 1076 and 1077 of 2017. The claimants in MVC 231/15 and MVC 230/15 have also filed appeals, MFA Nos.3657/2016 and 3658/2016 respectively for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the insurer contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car as is evident from Ex-R1 (sketch of the spot of the accident). The learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to the deposition of PW.3, who stated that the car was moving on the left side of the road from Belur to Hassan and on seeing the offending lorry coming from the opposite side, the car driver moved the car to the opposite lane and dashed against the offending vehicle. Thus, he contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the car was negligent and had contributed to the accident. He also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive more particularly towards loss of love and affection and the
15 interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum was unjustified.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants brought to our attention Ex-R1 and contended that the road width at the place of the accident was 25 feet and curved towards Hassan. He claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle who was dangerously negotiating the curve from the opposite direction, came onto the right lane. Thus, the driver of the car to avoid the offending vehicle went onto the right lane but the driver of the offending vehicle ended up dashing against the car. The learned counsel contended that if the driver of the car had not done that then there would have been more casualties. He therefore contended that the driver of the car was not negligent and the driver of the offending vehicle was solely responsible for the accident. He contended that the jurisdictional police after conducting their investigation had filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending
16 vehicle. Thus, there was no doubt that the driver of the offending vehicle was guilty of negligence.
In so far as the claim for enhancement of compensation is concerned, they claimed that the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased Smt.Shwetha had completed bachelor of Engineering as per her provisional Degree certificate (Ex.P11) and that she was a Director of M/s.Shirdi Pharmaceutical Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. as per Ex- P12. He also contended that the Tribunal did not accept the income tax returns filed for the assessment year 2014- 15 filed on 04-11-2014 which indicated her gross income at Rs.10,00,000/- per annum. He also contended that the Tribunal failed to award loss of future prospects in respect of the deceased Smt.Padma.
We have thoughtfully considered the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the records of the Tribunal as well as its Judgment and award.
17 15. It is seen from the records that the offending vehicle was moving from Hassan to Belur while the car was moving from Belur to Hassan. It is seen from Ex.P3 and Ex.R1 that the width of the road was 25 feet and the road curved towards Hassan. The accident occurred at 5:15 p.m. The offending vehicle is a ten wheeler transport vehicle which was negotiating the curve and gives an impression that due to its length, the driver came onto the right lane and the driver of the car attempted to avert an accident by straying away from his lane onto the right lane. This is also the evidence of PW.3. However, the offending lorry still dashed against the car which resulted in the accident. It is the rule of the road that a driver negotiating a curve should do so cautiously and should try to be within his lane by cutting down the speed. However, having regard to the type of the offending vehicle, it is quite probable that the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurer who alleged actionable negligence ought to have examined the driver of the offending
18 vehicle, since the burden to prove the alleged contributory negligence was upon the insurer as held by the Apex Court in the case of MANGLA RAM vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [2018(5) SCC 656]. Further, the documents prepared by the police, more particularly the sketch cannot be relied upon to determine the question of contributory negligence as the vehicles could have moved either due to impact or by the parties themselves, as held by the Apex Court in the cases of MINUROUT vs. SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA, [(2013) 10 SCC 695] AND SARALA DEVI VS. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., [(2014) 15 SCC 450]. Thus, in the absence of any material proof of contributory negligence alleged by the insurer, this contention is liable to be rejected.
In so far as the claim for compensation is concerned, the deceased Smt.Shwetha was a software engineer which is evident from Ex.P11. It is also found that she was a Director in a Private Limited Company. However,
19 except the income tax returns that was filed on 04-11-2014 which was subsequent to the accident, no material is placed on record to prove the income of the deceased. PW.3 deposed that the deceased was a software Engineer at M/s.Tata Consultancy Services but he failed to produce any evidence in that regard. Though, this Court has all the sympathy for the claimants, yet this Court cannot fancifully award compensation without the claimants furnishing proof of income. It is not that it is impossible for the claimants to furnish proof of income of the deceased. They could have placed on record the bank statement to show the salary received by the deceased from M/s.Tata Consultancy Services or they could have placed on record her income tax returns filed for the assessment year prior to 2014-15. The Tribunal thus considered the notional income of the deceased at a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and factored 50% of her income as the loss of future prospects and after deducting 1/3rd towards her living expenses, had awarded the compensation. However, the Tribunal ought to have
20 considered that the deceased had completed her Engineering degree in the year 2006 and therefore, the deceased must have gained experience in the field. The notional income prescribed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in respect of persons who do not have any proof of income and who died or who were injured in the year 2014 is a sum of Rs.8,500/-. Thus taking into account the educational qualification and the work experience that the deceased possessed as well as her status as a Director of a Company, the notional income of the deceased can be considered at a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Since she was less than 30 years of age, the loss of future prospects could be considered at 40% (Rs.30,000/- + Rs.12,000/-) of her actual income and after deducting 1/3rd (Rs.42,000/- - Rs.14,000/-) towards her personal expenses, which would amount to a sum of Rs.28,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants in MVC No.231/2015 are entitled to the following compensation including the loss of spousal consortium and loss of parental consortium as held by the Apex Court in the case
21 of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram [2018 (18) SCC 130] and in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others [2020 SCC OnLine SC 410]. Heads of compensation in MVC No.231 of 2015/ MFA 3657of 2016 Amount in Rupees Loss of dependency Rs.28,000/-x 12 x 17 57,12,000/- Loss of spousal consortium in respect of claimant no.1 40,000/- Loss of parental love and affection in respect of claimant no.2 40,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Funeral and obsequies 15,000/- Total 58,22,000/-
In so far as the claimants in MVC No.230/15 – appellants in MFA No.3658/2016 are concerned, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of future prospects at 10% of the notional income of the deceased Smt.Padma and must have awarded compensation towards loss of consortium and loss of parental love and affection as per the judgments of the Apex Court in cases of Magma General Insurance
22 Company Limited and Satvinder Kaur referred supra. However, the Tribunal erred in awarding excess compensation towards loss of love and affection. Hence these claimants are entitled to the following compensation:
Heads of compensation in MVC No.230 of 2015 / MFA No.3658 of 2016 Amount in Rupees Loss of dependency Rs.5000/-+10% of Rs.5000/- = Rs.5500/-and after deducting 1/3rd of the same Rs.3667/-x 12 x 13 5,72,052/- Loss of spousal consortium in respect of claimant no.1 40,000/- Loss of parental love and affection in respect of claimant no.2 40,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Funeral and obsequies 15,000/- Total 6,82,052/-
The Tribunal had awarded interest on the compensation awarded to claimant/s at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of claim petition/s till realisation. However, it is noticed that the rates of interest offered by nationalized banks on fixed deposits during the year 2014 was 7% and this Court as well as the Apex Court has awarded interest at 7% per annum. Hence it is appropriate
23 that in this case too, the interest of awarded at 7% per annum.
In view of our findings recorded herein above, the appeal filed by the claimants in MFA No.3657/2016 is allowed in part and the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.231/2015 is modified and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to a sum of Rs.58,22,000/- (Fifty Eight Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Rupees only) which is payable by the insurer of the offending vehicle to the claimants along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation.
MFA No.1076/2017 filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle is allowed in part and the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.230/2015 is modified and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to a sum of Rs.6,82,052/- (Six Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand and Fifty Two Rupees only) which is payable by the insurer of the offending vehicle to
24 the claimants along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation. Consequently, MFA No.3658/2016 filed by the claimants in MVC No.230/2015 is dismissed.
MFA Nos.1075/2017 and 1077/2017 filed by the insurer are dismissed.
In vie w of the finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent and was responsible for the accident, the compensation of a sum of Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.232/2015 which is questioned in MFA No.1077/2017 does not survive for consideration and is also not maintainable in view of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Hence MFA No.1077/2017 is dismissed.
The insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest as ordered by this Court in MFA No.3657/2016, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment. On such
25 deposit, the enhanced compensation shall be apportioned amongst the claimants in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal in MVC No.231/2015.
The amount in deposit by the insurer in MFA Nos.1075/2017, 1076/2017 and 1077/2017 shall be transferred to the Tribunal for necessary orders.
In view of disposal of these appeals, pending applications do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
sma