Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
M.F.A. No.4594/2017 (MV-I) C/W M.F.A.NOS.1348/2018(MV-D), 1665/2018(MV-I), 4595/2017(MV-I) IN M.F.A.NO.4594/2017:
BETWEEN:
LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, NO.28, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-56001.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE-THROUGH VC)
-: 2 :-
AND:
MEER MEHABOOB SAB S/O MEER SAB, NOW AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
SMT JAMEELA BANU W/O MEER SAB, NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
MEER ASHAVAKH S/O MEER SAB, NOW AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.1288/ABC/2, KALANAGARA, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, CHANNAPATNA-571418.
FAYAZ AHMMED S/O BUDAN KHAN, ABID PUR MOHALLA, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, CHANNAPATNA TALUK-571418.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3-THROUGH VC; SRI. K P BHUVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.204/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.41,84,456/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
-: 3 :-
IN M.F.A.NO.1348/2018:
BETWEEN:
MEER MEHABOOB SAB S/O MEER SAB AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SMT JAMEELA BANU W/O MEER SAB AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
MEER ASHVAKH S/O MEER SAB AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1288/ABC/2, KALANAGARA, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, CHANNAPATNA. …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S RAJU, ADVOCATE- THROUGH VC)
AND:
FAYAZ AHMMED, S/O BUDAN KHAN, ABID PUR MOHALLA, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, CHANNAPATNA TALUK 572159.
-: 4 :-
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTURY BUILDING, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2- THROUGH VC, R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.02.2017 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.204/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC & ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO.1665/2018:
BETWEEN:
SYED AKRAM, S/O S A ANWAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.718, SALAMULLA STREET, DIARA, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, CHANNAPATNA TAUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJU S, ADVOCATE- THROUGH VC)
-: 5 :-
AND:
FAYAZ AHAMMED S/O BUDAN KHAN, ABID PUR MOHALLA, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DIST-572159
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTURY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2-THROUGH VC; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.275/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC & ADDL. MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION, SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-: 6 :-
IN M.F.A.NO.4595/2017:
BETWEEN:
LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR,CENTENARY BUILDING, NO.28,M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE –THROUGH VC)
AND:
SYED AKRAM, S/O S A AKRAM, NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/A NO.718,SALAMULLA STREET, DIARA CHANNAPATNA TOWN, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 160.
FAYAZ AHMMED, S/O BUDAN KHAN, ABID PUR MOHALLA, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, CHANNAPATNA TALUK-562 160. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M RAVINDRANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-: 7 :-
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.02.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.275/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNPATTANA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR DICTATION OF JUDGMENT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both the sides, they are heard finally.
MFA No.4594/2017 and MFA No.4597/2018 have been filed by the Insurance Company, while, MFA No.1348/2018 and MFA No.1665/2018 have been filed by the claimants, all assailing the judgment and awards passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Additional Motor Accidents Claims
-: 8 :-
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal” for the sake of convenience), Channapatna, dated 23.02.2017.
At this stage, it may be mentioned that, MFA No.4594/2017 and MFA No.1348/2018 arise out of MVC No.204/2013 while MFA No.4597/2017 and MFA No.1665/2018 arise out of MVC No.275/2014.
For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Tribunal.
The legal representatives of deceased Meer Arfath and Syed Akram (injured claimant) filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for the sake of brevity) seeking compensation due to the death of Meer arfath and injury caused to Syed Akram in a road traffic accident that occurred on 12.05.2013 at
-: 9 :-
about 2.15 am. It is the case of the claimants that on the fateful night, Meer Arfath and his friend, Syed Akram were walking by the side of the footpath of Sadath Alikhan Road towards Sathanur Circle, on B.M. Road. At that time, the driver of a Canter lorry bearing No. KA-17-A-5316 came in a rash and negligent manner from Bengaluru towards Mysuru Road and dashed against Meer Arfath and Syed Akram. As a result, Meer Arfath sustained head injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Channapatna and inspite of providing treatment, succumbed to the injuries.
Contending that, Meer Arfath was aged 24 years, working as an Assistant Software Engineer earning Rs.38,500/- per month and the bread earner of the family, his death has caused misery and penury, his legal representatives filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of his
-: 10 :-
death. Syed Akram who was injured in the accident also filed the claim petition for the injuries sustained by him contending that he was aged about 27 years, working in a private company and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month and on account of the injuries sustained in the accident he had suffered disability and discomfort. Both the claim petitions were clubbed together by the Tribunal.
In response to the notices issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle, Canter lorry and respondent No.2 - insurer appeared through their respective counsel and field written statements denying the averments made in the claim petitions contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Canter lorry. Respondent No.2 further contended that it had issued insurance policy in respect of the vehicle and that any liability would be subject to terms and conditions of the policy.
-: 11 :-
Both the respondents sought for dismissal of the claim petitions. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the following issues in the respective cases: “ISSUES
MVC NO.204/2013
Whether the petitioners prove the alleged accident and the death?
Whether the respondents prove that the accident took place on account of negligence of the deceased?
Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective license as on the date of accident?
Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed?
What order or award?
MVC NO.275/2014
Whether the Petitioner proves accident and injuries?
Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the petitioner?
Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the driver of the offending vehicle was having no driving license as on the date of accident?
-: 12 :-
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation?
What order?”
In support of their case, the father of the deceased Meer Arfat, Meer Mehaboob Khan examined himself as PW1, Kishor Kumar was examined as PW2 and the injured Syed Akram was examined as PW3. They produced 27 documents which were got marked as Exs. P1 to P27. While, RW1 H B Guruprasad, Officer of the Insurance Company was examined and produced four documents which were marked as Exs. R1 to R4. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in both the cases in the affirmative, issue Nos. 2 and 3 in negative in both the cases and issue No.4 in the affirmative in both the cases and awarded compensation of Rs.41,84,546/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively in MVC No.204/2013 and in MVC No.275/2014 with interest at the rate of 6%
-: 13 :-
per annum from the date of claim petition till deposit. The Tribunal directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to satisfy the award by holding that the driver of the Canter lorry was negligent in causing the accident. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has field these appeals by contending that the lorry was not involved in the accident and the claim petitions were fraudulently filed against the owner and the insurer of the lorry. The claimants have sought enhancement of compensation in both the appeals.
We have heard the learned counsel for the insurer and learned counsel for the respondent- claimants and perused the material on record. The owner of the vehicle has been served and unrepresented.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the vehicle was not at all
-: 14 :-
involved in the accident inasmuch as, the accident had occurred on 12.05.2013 at about 2.15 AM. There is no material as such to establish that the Canter lorry bearing No. KA-17-A-5316 was driven in a rash and negligent manner on the fateful day and time and dashed against Meer Arfath and Syed Akram causing the death of the former and injury to the latter. He contended that the claimants colluded with the owner of the lorry and filed the claim petitions to seek compensation even though the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident. In this regard, he pointed out to the evidence on record and contended that there was no damage whatsoever caused to the Canter lorry and it is not established by the claimants that it was the insured vehicle which had caused the accident.
Learned counsel for the insurer further submitted that the owner of the lorry is a neighbor of
-: 15 :-
the claimants and they are well known to each other and therefore, there is collusion between the parties. Alternatively, he submitted that in the event, this Court is to hold against the insurance company on its liability to satisfy the award, then the quantum of compensation may be reduced as exorbitant compensation has been paid to the claimants. He contended that 50% of the salary towards future prospects could not have been awarded and over all compensation of Rs.41,84,546/- awarded in MVC No.204/2013 is on the higher side. Similarly in MVC No.274/2014, for simple abrasive injuries a global compensation of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded and therefore, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company may be allowed and the claim petitions may be dismissed as against the owner and the insurer or in the alternative, the compensation awarded in both the petitions/appeals may be reduced.
-: 16 :-
Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants in both the cases contended that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on negligence of the driver of the Canter lorry has been clearly established by the oral and documentary evidence. That the FIR, Complaint and Charge sheet, Sport Mahazar, Seizure Mahazar would clearly establish that Canter lorry bearing No. KA-17-A-5316 was involved in the accident and the accident resulted in the death of Meer Arfath and injuries to Syed Akram who were both walking on the side of the footpath when the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. He contended that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence would not call for any interference in these appeals stating that soon after the accident, the jurisdictional police had seized the vehicle. There afterwards a Charge Sheet was filed against Syed Fayaz, the driver
-: 17 :-
of the vehicle. The Tribunal considering the evidence on record had arrived at a correct and categorical finding that the driver of the Canter lorry was involved in the accident, there is no reason to interfere with the said finding.
In addition to the above, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the compensation awarded in both the cases is on the lower side and therefore the appeals filed by the claimants may be allowed. With regard to MFA No.1348/2018, learned counsel for the appellant-claimants contended that accident occurred on 12.05.2013 resulting in the death of Meer Arfath who was aged 25 years, he was a software engineer heaving completed MCA and who was working in a private concern called C.G.I. Information Systems and Management Consultants Private Ltd., Ex. P13 is the Appointment Letter and Ex.P14 is the salary slip which categorically states that
-: 18 :-
his annual salary was Rs.4,60,000/-. But the Tribunal has considered his total annual income at Rs.3,06,912/-. He submitted that only the Professional Tax at Rs.2,400/- could have been deducted. In addition, 50% of the salary has to be reckoned towards future prospects as he was a young and qualified software engineer who had a bright career before him which was snuffed out on account of his unfortunate death in the accident. He submitted that the compensation on the head of ‘Loss of Dependency’ would have to be enhanced and also the compensation on the other conventional heads has to be enhanced. If the compensation is re-assessed, the claimants would be entitled for additional compensation.
In so far as MFA No.1665/2018 is concerned, appellant’s counsel contended that the Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation of
-: 19 :-
Rs.10,000/- globally for the injuries sustained in the accident. The same would also call for enhancement.
By way of reply, learned counsel for the Insurance Company reiterated that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the claimants by contending that the award of compensation in fact, calls for reduction and not an enhancement and therefore, the appeals filed by the claimants may be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record as well as the Tribunal’s Records, the following points would arise for our consideration in these appeals: 1) “Whether the Tribunal was right in finding that the driver of the Canter lorry bearing No. KA-17-A-5316 was negligent in causing the accident on 12.05.2013 at about 2.15 am resulting in the death of Meer Arfath and injuries to Syed Akram?
-: 20 :-
2) If point No.1 is answered in the affirmative, whether the appellant- claimants are entitled to additional compensation?
3) What order?”
The fact that Meer Arfath died and Syed Akram sustained injuries on 12.05.2013 at about 2.15 AM has been established. However, the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the cause of the accident is not on account of the driver of the Canter lorry being negligent in driving the said vehicle. In that regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer is that the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and that there has been a collusion between the owner of the vehicle and the claimants so as to seek compensation from the Insurance Company by filing false and frivolous claim petitions and the Tribunal has not appreciated the contention of the Insurance Company in its proper perspective and has erroneously held that the driver
-: 21 :-
of the Canter lorry was involved in the accident resulting in the death of Meer Arfath and injuries to Syed Akram. However, learned counsel for the claimants has reiterated the said argument.
In order to consider the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, we have perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. The oral evidence has been let in by the father of the deceased Meer Mehaboob Khan as PW1 and the injured claimant Syed Akram as PW3 who is also the eye witness, they have produced Ex. P1 FIR, Ex.P2 copy of Complaint, Ex.P3 copy of Charge sheet, Ex.P4 copy of Spot Mahazar, Ex. P5 copy of Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P6 copy of copy of Inquest Mahazar, Ex.P7 copy of IMV Report and Ex.P8 copy of PM Report. On perusal of the same, it is noted the injured claimant Syed Akram filed the complaint before the jurisdictional police at 8.30 am
-: 22 :-
on 12.05.2013 and three days later the vehicle was seized. The vehicle bearing No. KA-17-A-5316 was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver resulting in the death of Meer Arfath and injuries to the complaint Syed Akram. The complaint was made on 12.03.2013 at about 8.20 am. Whereas the accident had occurred on the same day at about 2.15 AM. Ex.P2 is the copy of the complaint submitted by Syed Akram in which the number of the vehicle Canter lorry No. KA-17-A-5316 is clearly mentioned. This complaint was given about six hours after the accident. Ex.P3 is the Charge sheet filed in Crime No. 66/2013 in respect of Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC read with Section 187 of the Act. The Charge sheet has been filed against Syed Fayaz who is the driver of the lorry showing the owner as Fayaz Ahmed S/o Budan Khan who is respondent No.2. Ex.P4 is the Spot Mahazar which was conducted on 12.05.2013
-: 23 :-
from 11.45 AM to 12.30 PM noon on the date of the accident. Ex.P5 is the Seizure Mahazar and the vehicle in question was seized on 14.05.2013. Meer Arfath died on the same day i.e., on 12.05.2013 and an inquest was conducted and the mahazar was drawn up as per Ex. P6 wherein it has been shown that he died in the road accident. Ex.P7 is the copy of the IMV Report of the inspection conducted on 17.05.2013 near East Police Station Channapatna after the seizure of the vehicle. Ex. P8 is the copy of the Post Mortem examination report wherein it has been stated that his death was due to shock and hammerage as a result of injury to vital organs like thorax, liver and brain and the death had occurred eight to Sixteen hours prior to the conduct of the said examination.
Further, Ex.P20 which is the copy of the Wound Certificate of Syed Akram injured claimant, wherein it has been recorded that he was seen by the
-: 24 :-
doctor on 12.05.2013 at about 2.20 AM and that he was injured in a road traffic accident that had occurred around 2.10 AM when he was hit by a four wheeler and that he had sustained simple injuries. On a conspectus consideration of the aforesaid documents, it is clear that the claimants have established that Meer Arfath died and Syed Akram sustained injuries in the road traffic accident which involved the Canter lorry bearing No. KA-17-A-5316.
As against the aforesaid evidence, RW1 has produced Exs. R3 and R4 which are the witness statements of CW2 and CW3 in C.C.No.437/2013 namely Najeebulla Khan and Kaleemulla Khan who have deposed as PW1 and PW2. Merely because those witnesses have turned hostile in C.C. No.437/2013, it cannot be construed to be rebuttal evidence so as to disprove the fact or establish the fact that about the involvement or non-involvement of
-: 25 :-
the vehicle in question. The Charge sheet is at Ex. P3 and the same witnesses are stated to be the eyewitnesses for the accident. Therefore, they turning hostile in the criminal proceedings cannot be construed to be proof of the fact that the Canter lorry in question was not at all involved in the accident. It must be remembered that the criminal proceedings is to prove the guilt of the driver of the Canter lorry under the provisions of IPC whereas the accident proceedings are for seeking compensation on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question.
In view of the aforesaid evidence both oral and documentary, we find that the claimants have established that the vehicle, Canter lorry bearing No. KA-17-A-5316, was indeed involved in the accident.
-: 26 :-
On the other hand, the owner of the lorry did not step into the witness box to contend that the lorry was not at all involved in the accident. Merely because he did not let in evidence, it cannot be construed as collusion between owner of the vehicle (insured) and the claimants. In fact. RW1 has appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company but the only evidence let in is the statements/depositions of the witnesses in C.C. No.437/2013 namely, RW3 & RW4. By that it can not be concluded that since those witnesses had turned hostile in the criminal proceeding it had been established that the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. More significantly it is noted that the injured claimant is an eyewitness to the accident. He reiterated the fact of the accident before the doctor within a few minutes after the accident and the Wound Certificate at Ex.P20 records that his injuries were on account of the
-: 27 :-
accident which had been caused by a four wheeler. Therefore, his evidence as PW3 and Ex.P20 the Wound Certificate cannot be disbelieved. In the circumstances, we hold that the Tribunal has rightly found that the driver of the Canter lorry in question was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle and has caused the accident resulting in the death of Meer Arfath and injuries to Syed Akram. Point No.1 is accordingly answered against the Insurance Company.
This takes us to the next point with regard to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and as to, whether, they call for any enhancement in the appeals filed by the claimants?
The contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties would not call for reiteration. The fact is that the learned counsel for the claimants has sought for enhancement of compensation while,
-: 28 :-
learned counsel for the Insurance Company has asked for a reduction of the same.
In MFA No.1348/2018, the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased Meer Arfath. They have established that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of his death, he was qualified as a software engineer having completed MCA and he was working in C.G.I. Information Systems and Management Consultants Private Ltd and Exs. P18 and P14 are the documents with regard to his employment and salary. PW2 Kishor Kumar (Senior Specialist Human Resources) of the employer company was examined by the claimants in support of the fact that the deceased Meer Arfath was working in their company. Having regard to the documents namely Exhibits P9 which is a Pan Card copy, Ex. P10 SSLC Marks Card, Ex.P11-copy of Salary Statement, Ex. P12-Degree Certificate, Ex. P13-copy of
-: 29 :-
Appointment Letter, Ex. P14-Salary Slip, Ex. P15- Bank Statement, Ex.P16-copy of Company Registration, Ex. P15-copy of Registration Letter, Ex. P18-copy of Attendance Certificate, Ex. P19-copy of Identity Card, it is also established that Meer Arfath was an employee of the aforesaid company and his annual salary was Rs.4,60,000/-. However, the Tribunal considered his salary to be Rs.3,06,912/- per annum (Rs.25,576/- salary per month). But, on perusal of Exs. P14, his annual salary was Rs.6,62,626/- which we shall consider. Out of that a sum of Rs.2,400/- has to be deducted towards Professional Tax. It is further seen that the deceased Meer Arfath was only 25 years of age and was a qualified software engineer, at least, 50% of the said salary would have to be added towards future prospects in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE
-: 30 :-
COMPANY LTD., VS. PRANAY SETHY AND OTHERS, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Then it would work out to Rs.4,15,084/- which we have arrived at after deducting income tax of Rs.42,616/-. Thus, out of the said amount of Rs.6,22,626/- 50% would have to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor, it will be Rs.3,11,313/- which has to be multiplied by ‘18’ as the multiplier, bearing in mind age of the deceased as 25 years. Consequently, the compensation on the head of “Loss of Dependency” would be Rs.56,03,364/-.
In addition to the above, the parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.30,000/- each on the head “Loss of Filial consortium” and his brother is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards “Loss of filial Love and Affection”, having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “MAGMA
-: 31 :-
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. NANNU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS”, reported in 2018 ACJ 2782.
Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards Loss of Estate and another sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation would be Rs.57,23,634/- instead of Rs.41,84,456/- awarded by the Tribunal. The said compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from out of the claim petition till realization. Consequently enhanced compensation is Rs.15,39,178/-.
We are not awarding any compensation to the brother of the deceased since the Tribunal has already awarded/apportioned 20% of the compensation awarded by it to him. In the circumstances, the entire compensation now
-: 32 :-
reassessed/enhanced shall be apportioned between the father and mother of the deceased in the ratio of 30:70. Out of which, 50% of the compensation awarded to the father of the deceased shall be deposited in any post office or nationalized bank for an initial period of five years. He shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said compensation. The balance of compensation shall be released to him after due identification.
27A. Further, 75% out of the compensation awarded to the mother of the deceased shall be deposited in any post office or any nationalized bank deposit for an initial period of ten years. She shall be entitled to draw the periodical interest from the said deposit. The balance shall be released in her favour after due identification.
-: 33 :-
27B. Similarly, 50% of the compensation awarded to the brother of the deceased shall be deposited in any post office or any nationalized bank for an initial period of 5 years. He shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to him after due identification.
27C. The reassessed compensation shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization except for the period of delay in filing appeals by the claimants. Thus the appeals are accordingly disposed.
This takes us to MFA No.1665/2018 which has been field by the injured claimant, Syed Akram seeking enhancement of compensation. We have perused the Wound Certificate at Ex.P20 and on perusal of the same, we find that the injuries
-: 34 :-
sustained by him are mostly abrasions. The Wound Certificate itself records that the injures are simple in nature. However, we find as per Ex. P23 to Ex. P25 the injured appellant had taken treatment and has produced Ex. P23-Medical Report, Ex.P24- Prescriptions and Ex. P25-Medical Bills. The Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the injured claimant Syed Akram, a total compensation of Rs.25,000/- could be awarded. The said compensation shall also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. In the result, MFA No. 1348/2018 and MFA No.1665/2018 are allowed in part. MFA No. 4594/2017 and MFA No.4595/2017 filed by the insurance company are dismissed.
-: 35 :-
The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
The respondent – insurer is directed to deposit the balance compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.
The Registry is directed to transfer the original records to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv