THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RAMGOPAL MINERALS

SANA D/O SHARPUDDIN SHAIKH AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

- 3 -

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT.SHAINAJ W/O SHARPUDDIN SHAIKH MOTHER NATURAL MINOR GUARDIN

ALL ARE R/O. 50/2D TYPE AMBIKANAGAR, TALUK: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:18.11.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.46/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, YELLAPUR SITTING AT HALIYAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.46,88,464/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7% P.A. FROM 17.8.2013 TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION, ON WHICH DATE PETITION WAS FILED FROM RESPONDENTS.

IN MFA NO.103515 OF 2015 BETWEEN

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 732, FIRST FLOOR, RAMADEV GALLI, BELAGAVI. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

- 4 - AND 1. SRI.RAGHAVENDRA VENKATARAMAN BHAT AGE:26 YEARS OCC PRIEST AND KIRANA SHOP (NOW NIL) R/O:NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE, AMBIKA NAGAR, TQ:HALIYAL, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:08.07.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1685/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,57,640/- WITH CURRENT AND FUTURE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. ON RS.5,27,640/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

IN MFA NO.103516 OF 2015 BETWEEN

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 732, FIRST FLOOR, RAMADEV GALLI, BELAGAVI. NOW REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND 1. SRI.SUNDARAMA S/O ROSAIAH BIJJAM AGE:47 YEARS OCC:SECURITY GUARD (NOW NIL)

- 5 - R/O:II COLONY, AMBIKA NAGAR, TQ:HALIYAL, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:08.07.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1686/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,80,680/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

IN MFA NO.103517 OF 2015 BETWEEN

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 732, FIRST FLOOR, RAMADEV GALLI, BELAGAVI. NOW REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, ARIHANT PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR HUBBALLI-580023 …APPELLANT (BY SRI.S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND 1. SHRI.GOPAL HANUMANTH RAO KULKARNI AGE:52 YEARS OCC:SECURITY GUARD (NOW NIL) R/O:II COLONY, AMBIKA NAGAR, TQ:HALIYAL DIST:UTTAR KANNADA

- 6 - AMBIKA NAGAR, TQ:HALIYAL, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HANAMANT R LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI.MRUTYUNJAYA S HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1687/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.40,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

IN MFA NO.103568 OF 2015 BETWEEN

SHRI.MAHANTESH S/O KALLAPPA KONINNAVAR AGE:37 YEARS OCC:SECURITY GUARD, NOW NIL R/O:AMBIKA NAGAR, TQHALIYAL NOW RESIDING AT MURKIBHAVI TQ:BAILHOBNGAL DIST:BELAGAVI …APPELLANT (BY SRI.HANAMANT R LATUR, ADVOCATE)

AND 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED R/O:AMBIKA NAGAR TQ:HALIYAL, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:08.07.2015, PASSED IN

- 7 - MVC.NO.1684/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA NO.103569 OF 2015 BETWEEN

SHRI.RAGHAVENDRA S/O VENKATARAMAN BHAT AGE:26 YEARS OCC:PRIEST AND KIRANASHOP, NOW NIL R/O:NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE AMBIKA NAGAR, TQ:HALIYAL DIST:UTTAR KANNADA …APPELLANT (BY SRI.HANAMANT R LATUR, ADVOCATE)

AND 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED R/O:AMBIKA NAGAR, TQ:HALIYAL, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:08.07.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1685/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

IN MFA NO.103570 OF 2015 BETWEEN

SHRI.SUNDARAM S/O ROSAIAH BIJJAM

- 8 - AGE:47 YEARS OCC:SECURITY GUARD NOW NIL R/O:II COLONY, AMBIKA NAGAR TQ:HALIYAL, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA …APPELLANT (BY SRI.HANAMANT R LATUR, ADVOCATE)

AND 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED R/O:AMBIKA NAGAR, TQ:HALIYAL DIST:UTTAR KANNADA

THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.07.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1686/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

IN MFA NO.103571 OF 2015 BETWEEN

SHRI.GOPAL S/O HANUMANTH RAO KULKARNI AGE:52 YEARS OCC:SECURITY GUARD NOW NIL R/O:II COLONY, AMBIKA NAGAR TQ:HALIYAL, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA …APPELLANT (BY SRI.HANAMANT R LATUR, ADVOCATE)

- 9 - AND 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED R/O:AMBIKA NAGAR, TQ:HALIYAL DIST:UTTAR KANNADA

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:08.07.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1687/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA.CROB. NO.100139 OF 2015 BETWEEN

- 10 - TALUK: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA

AND 1. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER GUARAGE KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION AMBIKANAGAR, HALIYAL (UK)

- 11 - THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA.NO.100413/2015 IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W. SEC.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.11.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.46/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, YELLAPUR, SITTING AT HALIYAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

THESE APPEALS AND MFA CROSS OBJECTION OMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT Though these appeals and cross objection are listed for admission today, with the consent of both the parties, same are taken up for final disposal. 2. MFA Nos.103514/2015, 100413/2015, 103515/2015, 103516/2015 and 103517/2015 are by the Insurance Company questioning the liability as well as quantum of compensation and MFA Nos.103568/2015, 103569/2015, 103570/2015, 103571/2015 are by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation arising out of four claim petitions which were numbered as MVC Nos.1684/2013, 1685/2013, 1686/2013 and 1687/2013 questioning the common judgment and award passed in above MVC cases dated 08.07.2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short).

- 12 - 3. MFA Cross objection No.100139/2015 in MFA No.100413/2015 is by the claimants questioning the judgment and award passed in MVC No.46/2013 dated 18.11.2014 on the file of Additional MACT, Yellapur, sitting at Haliyal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) for seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. Since the facts and law to be decided in all these appeals and cross objection are common, the above appeals and cross objection are disposed of by this common judgment. 5. For convenient and easy reference, the parties in the appeals and cross objection are referred as claimants and Insurance Company. 6. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeals and cross objection are as under: Claim petitions came to be filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation. It is contended that the claimants in MVC Nos.1684/2013, 1685/2013, 1686/2013 and 1687/2013 and one Sharpuddin Shaikh (deceased in MVC No.46/2013) were the employees of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as

- 13 - ‘KPCL’ for short). It is stated that on 08.06.2013 at about 6.40 a.m. all these claimants and deceased were proceeding in Swaraj Mazda Passenger bus bearing No.KA-31/6927 from Ambikanagar to Power house to attend duty and at that juncture the driver of the said bus drove the same in a high speed and rash and negligent manner and lost control over the bus and dashed against the road side wall thereby the bus fell down from road to downwards and caused the accident. Due to the said accident the inmates i.e. the claimants in MVC Nos.1684/2013, 1685/2013, 1686/2013 and 1687/2013 sustained severe injuries and deceased in MVC No.46/2013 also sustained grievous injures and succumbed to injuries while he was shifting to hospital. It is further contended that the deceased and the claimants were the employees of KPCL and while traveling in Swaraj Mazda Passenger bus bearing No.KA-31/6927 from Ambikangar to power house to attend the duty, the accident had occurred. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased and other injured claimants have filed claim petitions and sought for awarding of suitable compensation. 7. The Tribunal on a cumulative consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petitions in

- 14 - part and awarded compensation of Rs.46,88,464/- with interest at 7% p.a. on account of death of Sharpuddin Shaikh in MVC No.46/2013 and for the injuries sustained by the claimants, Rs.6,36,000/- in MVC No.1684/2013, Rs.5,57,640/- in MVC No.1685/2013, Rs.1,80,680/- in MVC No.1686/2013 and Rs.40,000/- in MVC No.1687/2013 has been awarded with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 8. It is those judgments which are under challenge in these appeals by the Insurance Company and claimants respectively and cross objection by the claimants questioning the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, respectively in their respective appeals. The Insurance Company is questioning the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal respectively in the respective appeals, whereas, the claimants have preferred appeals seeking enhancement of compensation. The Insurance Company has also called in question the rate of interest awarded at 9% p.a. and 7% p.a. by contending that the interest at the rate of 6% ought to have been awarded.

- 15 - 9. Learned counsel, Sri.S.K.Kayakamath appearing for the Insurance Company in MFA Nos.103514/2015, 100413/2015, 103515/2015, 103516/2015 and 103517/2015 vehemently contended that there is violation of conditions of permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority as per Ex.P.10 and as per permit conditions the vehicle is required to be used for carrying staff of KPCL but the injured and deceased were working as private security guards and operator, thus they are not employees of KPCL and therefore in this regard there is violation of permit conditions. Hence, it is submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, requested the burden be saddled on the owner of the vehicle. Further, it is submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the claim petitions is on the higher side and the same is also liable to be modified. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants and cross objectors in MFA Nos.103568/2015, 103569/2015, 103570/2015, 103571/2015 and MFA Cross objection No.100139/2015 in MFA No.100413/2015 submitted that in the present case there is no violation of permit conditions for the reason that the bus is used for the purpose of carrying staff of

- 16 - KPCL and the deceased and injured persons were working as operator and private security guards under the employment of KPCL and therefore they are also employees and hence there is no violation of permit conditions. Further, it is submitted that even though the injured and deceased were working on contract basis as security guards and operator, but they were working under the employment of KPCL and just because they were working on contract basis, it cannot be said that they are not the employees of KPCL since they are working under the employment of KPCL. Therefore, the bus was being used for the purpose of carrying staff and staff does not only mean the permanent employees of KPCL. Therefore, in this regard it is submitted that there is no violation of permit conditions and there is no merit in the submission of counsel for the Insurance Company. Further, it is submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore prays for enhancement of compensation. 11. Ex.P.10 is the notarized copy of permit in respect of bus bearing No.KA-31/6927 issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Sirsi (U.K.) and employer is Executive Engineer, KPCL, Ambikanagar (U.K.). The permit is granted to the said bus for

- 17 - the purpose of carrying only staff of KPCL as reflected in Ex.P.10 permit. The seating capacity of the said bus is 20+1 and the period of permit is from 14.02.2011 to 13.02.2016. 12. In the present case, the injured were working as security guards in KPCL and the deceased was working as operator in KPCL. As per Ex.P.10-permit permission is given only for carrying staff of KPCL. The Insurance Company is trying to distinguish between the employees working in KPCL. In the present case, the security guards and operator even though were working on contract basis, but they are working under the employment of KPCL and thus they are also employees of KPCL. These security guards and operator were working on the premises of KPCL. Therefore, the only employees who are working on permanent basis alone cannot be categorized as employees but even the persons who are working on contract or temporary basis are also to be considered as employees. Therefore, Ex.P.10-permit would also cover employees like the security guards and operator. Therefore, in this regard, there is no merit in the contention urged by the Insurance Company that there is violation of conditions of permit.

- 18 - 13. The documentary evidence on record i.e. Ex.P.1- complaint, Ex.P.2-FIR, Ex.P.8-charge sheet, Ex.P.4-statement of one eyewitness prove that these injured persons and the deceased were working as security guards and operator under the employment of KPCL. Therefore, we do not find merit in the contention urged by the counsel for Insurance Company that there is violation of conditions of permit. 14. MFA No.103568/2015 is filed by the claimant and MFA No.103514/2015 is filed by the Insurance Company arising out of MVC No.1684/2013. In the present case, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.6,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs.6,06,000/- from the date of petition till realization. PW.5, who is the treated doctor has opined that the claimant had suffered the following injuries: 1. CLW over jaw and left cheek measuring 15 x 4 Cms. 2. Fracture of mandible with bleeding present. 3. Lower 4 teeth missing, swelling over right wrist, deformity present. 4.Tenderness present, fracture of lower end of radius.”

- 19 - 15. Exs.P.5 and 6 are the wound certificates issued by K.H.E.P. hospital, KPC Limited, Ambikanagar and Kshema Orthopedic and Trauma Centre, Hubli respectively. PW.5 is the treated doctor. The medical evidence both oral and documentary prove that the claimant had sustained fracture injuries above sated. Exs.P.16 and 17 are the disability certificates. PW.5 doctor had stated that the claimant had sustained 15% of permanent physical disability and the Tribunal has considered 15% of physical and functional disability considering the nature of injures as above discussed. The Tribunal has assessed monthly income at Rs.7,000/- as notional income and accordingly awarded Rs.1,89,000/- under the head loss of future earning, which is found to be correct. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,47,000/- under other conventional heads, such as, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and future unhappiness, medical expenses incurred, incidental expenses, loss of income during laid up and rest period and future medical expenses. Therefore, considering the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on various heads and upon considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is found to be correct, proper and just,

- 20 - which calls for no interference. Hence, the appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.103568/2015 is liable to be dismissed. 16. MFA No.103569/2015 is filed by the claimants and MFA No.103515/2015 is by the Insurance Company arising out of MVC No.1685/2013. In the claim petition, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.5,57,640/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs.5,27,640/- from the date of petition till realization. PW.7, who is the treated doctor has opined that the claimant had suffered the following injuries: “1. Pain around both shoulder with painful restricted movements of both shoulders and contusion in scapular area. 2. Creptus bilateral comminuted fractures of scapula with superscapular nerve. 3. Injury to left wrist with extensor tendon injury. 4.CLW over ear measuring 6 x 2 Cms posterior aspect with bleeding present.”

- 21 - that the claimant had sustained 30% of permanent physical disability and the Tribunal has considered 13% of physical and functional disability considering the nature of injures as above discussed. The Tribunal has assessed monthly income at Rs.7,000/- as notional income and accordingly awarded Rs.1,85,640/- under the head loss of future earning, which is found to be correct. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,72,000/- under other conventional heads, such as, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and future unhappiness, medical expenses incurred, incidental expenses, loss of income during laid up and rest period and future medical expenses. Therefore, considering the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on various heads and upon considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is found to be correct, proper and just, which calls for no interference. Hence, the appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.103569/2015 is liable to be dismissed. 18. MFA No.103570/2015 is filed by the claimants and MFA No.103516/2015 is by the Insurance Company arising out of MVC No.1686/2013. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,80,680/- with interest at the rate of 9%

- 22 - p.a. from the date of petition till realization. PW.8, who is the treated doctor has opined that the claimant had suffered the following injuries: “1. Injury over the chest, left leg thigh and right upper limb. 2. Pain and Tenderness over right side of the chest, low back and severe tenderness.. 3. Fracture of all ribs, spine, right shoulder and other injuries to all over the body.”

- 23 - other conventional heads, such as, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and future unhappiness, medical expenses incurred, incidental expenses, loss of income during laid up and rest period and future medical expenses. Therefore, considering the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on various heads and upon considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is found to be correct, proper and just, which calls for no interference. Hence, the appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.103570/2015 is liable to be dismissed. 20. MFA No.103571/2015 is by the claimant and MFA No.103517/2015 is by the Insurance Company arising out of MVC No.1687/2013. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimant in his evidence has stated that he had suffered the following injuries: “1. CLW over left temporal region of skull. 2.Injury over left ear. 3. Contusion over right lower region of chest on the lateral aspect 2 x 2 Cms. 4. Fracture of right 8th and 9th ribs, thorax, low backache injuries to head and other injures to all over the body.”

- 24 -

- 25 - Exs.P.9 to 13 in order to prove the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken average gross salary of five months which is Rs.58,619/- and has deducted 10% of the said amount towards income tax and professional tax which comes to Rs.52,758/-. The Tribunal has deducted 1/5th of the income towards personal and living expenses as there are seven dependants. Then the amount would be Rs.42,208/-. The Tribunal has adopted multiplier at 9 as the deceased was aged 58 years old and awarded a sum of Rs.45,58,464/- on the head loss of dependency. 23. Further, the Tribunal has not added income towards future prospects. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants are entitled for addition towards future prospects. The relevant portion of the said judgment is culled out hereunder: “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be

- 26 - 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”

- 27 - are entitled for total compensation of Rs.55,52,212/- (52,42,212 + 3,10,000). 26. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.8,63,748/- (55,52,212 – 46,88,464 awarded by Tribunal) with interest at 6% p.a. Hence, the appeal filed by the claimant in MFA CROB. No.100139/2015 in MFA No.100413/2015 is liable to be allowed in part. 27. Since the contention urged by the counsel for Insurance Company that there is violation of conditions of permit is rejected, the appeals of the Insurance Company in MFA Nos.103514/2015, 103515/2015, 103516/2015, 103517/2015 and 100413/2015 are liable to be dismissed both on the grounds of question of liability as well as quantum of compensation is concerned. 28. Insofar as awarding interest at the rate of 9% p.a. in MVC Nos.1684/2013, 1685/2013, 1686/2013 and 1687/2013 is concerned, it is on the higher side. Therefore, it is liable to be modified. Accordingly, the rate of interest at 6% p.a. is awarded instead of 9% p.a. To this extent, the appeals in MFA Nos.103514/2015, 103515/2015, 103516/2015 and

- 28 - 103517/2015 filed by the Insurance Company are liable to be allowed in part. 29. Insofar as awarding interest at the rate of 7% p.a. in MVC No.46/2013 is concerned, it is on the higher side. Therefore, it is liable to be modified. Accordingly, the rate of interest at 6% p.a. is awarded instead of 7% p.a. To this extent, the appeal in MFA No.100413/2015 filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be allowed in part. 30. Accordingly, the judgments and awards under challenge in all the appeals and cross objection are liable to be modified to the extent above stated. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeals filed by the claimants in MFA Nos.103568/2015, 103569/2015, 103570/2015 and 103571/2015 are hereby dismissed. Appeal filed by the claimants in MFA CROB. No.100139/2015 in MFA No.100413/2015 is hereby allowed in part. The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.8,63,748/-.

- 29 - Appeals filed by the Insurance Company in MFA Nos.103514/2015, 100413/2015, 103515/2015, 103516/2015 and 103517/2015 are hereby allowed in part. The judgment and award passed in MVC Nos.1684/2013, 1685/2013, 1686/2013 and 1687/2013 dated 08.07.2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal is modified so far as rate of interest is concerned. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.46/2013 dated 18.11.2014 on the file of Additional MACT, Yellapur, sitting at Haliyal is modified so far as quantum of compensation and rate of interest is concerned. The compensation amount determined in respect of all the claim petitions shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The compensation amount is ordered to be deposited by the Insurance Company within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal stands unaltered.

- 30 - No order as to costs. Office to draw modified award accordingly. In view of the above order, pending I.A’s do not survive for consideration.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE sh