SMT.SUNITHA vs. SRI LAXMAN B KUNDAR

-: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

M.F.A. Nos.5327/2016 C/W 2732/2016, 2727/2016, 2728/2016, 2731/2016, 2735/2016, 2734/2016, 2733/2016, 2726/2016, 5309/2016, 2725/2016, 2306/2016, 5308/2016, 5114/2016, 5307/2016, 5111/2016, 5112/2016, 5113/2016, 5110/2016, 2836/2016, 2835/2016, 2307/2016, 2305/2016 (MV-I)

IN M.F.A. No.5327/2016

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUNITHA W/O. MANJU MARAKALA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. VIHARA ACHALADI VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 576 101. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

-: 2 :-

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; V/O. DATED 09/01/2018 NOTICE TO R-1 IS D/W V/O. DATED 06/09/2019 R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED)

***** THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.554/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A. No.2732/2016

BETWEEN:

RELIANCE GIC LTD., 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALORE, NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

-: 3 :-

NOW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT KUMARGODU POST AND VILLAGE,. UDUPI TALUK – 576 201.

3(A) SRI. VIMALESH SHET, S/O. LATE VISHWANATH SHET, R/O. EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA KASABA, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201.

(R-2 & R-3 ARE DELETED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2019

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-3(A) - SERVED)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.319/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,19,690/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN TRIBUNAL.

IN M.F.A. No.2727/2016

BETWEEN:

RALIANCE GIC LTD., 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALORE NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,

-: 4 :-

CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

UDUPI TALUK – 576 201.

3(A) SRI VIMALESH SHET AGED MAJOR, S/O. LATE VISHWANTH SHET, R/O. EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA KASABA, KUNDAPURA TALUK.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-1 – SERVED; NOTICE TO 3(A) & DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 06/09/2019)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.554/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN M.F.A. No.2728/2016

BETWEEN:

RELIANCE GIC LTD., 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD,

-: 5 :-

HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALORE NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

(R-2 IS DELETED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2019

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.555/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.70,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL DEPOSIT.

-: 6 :-

IN M.F.A. No.2731/2016

BETWEEN:

RELIANCE GIC LTD., 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALORE NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

3(A) SRI VIMALESH SHET, S/O. LATE VISHWANATH SHET R/O. EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA KASABA, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-3(A) - SERVED)

*****

-: 7 :-

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.318/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,88,670/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. EXCLUDING MEDICAL EXPENSES, FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN TRIBUNAL.

IN M.F.A. No.2735/2016

BETWEEN:

RELIANCE GIC LTD., 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALORE, NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

ALL ARE R/AT H. NO.171/1, FERRY ROAD, KUNDAPUR TALUK – 576 201.

2ND RESPONDENT IS SINCE MINOR

REP. BY HIS MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT

AS NATURAL GUARDIAN.

-: 8 :-

6(A) SRI VIMALESH SHET, S/O. LATE VISHWANATH SHET, R/O. EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA KASABA, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201.

(R-5 & R-6 ARE DELETED AS PER

THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2019

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-7; SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2, R-3, R-4, R-6(A) – SERVED)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.456/13 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN M.F.A. No.2734/2016

BETWEEN:

RELIANCE GIC LTD., 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALORE NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

-: 9 :-

REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

3(A) SRI VIMALESH SHET

S/O. LATE VISHWANATH SHET

R/O. EAST BLOCK ROAD,

KUNDAPURA KASABA,

KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201.

(R-2 & R-3 ARE DELETED AS PER

THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2019

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-3(A) - SERVED)

*****

-: 10 :-

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.321/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.11,64,100/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. EXCLUDING MEDICAL EXPENSES, FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN TRIBUNAL.

IN M.F.A. No.2733/2016

BETWEEN:

RELIANCE GIC LTD., 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALORE NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANALORE – 560 001.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

#401/2, EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201.

3(A) SRI VIMALESH SHET S/O. LATE VISHWANATH SHET R/O. EAST BLOCK ROAD,

-: 11 :-

KUNDAPURA KASABA KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201.

(R-2 & R-3 ARE DELETED AS PER

THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2019

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-3(A) - SERVED)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.320/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,40,124/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. EXCLUDING MEDICAL EXPENSES FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN TRIBUNAL.

IN M.F.A. No.2726/2016

BETWEEN:

RALIANCE GIC LTD., 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALORE NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

-: 12 :-

NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER AKSHAYA SHETTY, S/O. PRABHAKAR SHETTY, NOW AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

3(A) SRI VIMALESH SHET AGED MAJOR, S/O. LATE VISHWANTH SHET, R/O. EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA KASABA, KUNDAPURA TALUK.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-3(A) - SERVED)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.553/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.67,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL DEPOSIT.

IN M.F.A. No.5309/2016

BETWEEN:

KUM. ANJALI D/O. AKSHAYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, R/O. ACHALADIMAKKI MANE, ACHALADI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 576 101.

REP. BY HER GUARDIAN FATHER AKSHAYA SHETTY,

-: 13 :-

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARA SHETTY.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEDGE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

HAMPANAKATTA, MANGALORE, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER – 575 001.

PASSED BY THIS COURT ON 06/09/2019

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

UDUPI – 576 101 REP. BY ITS DIVISION MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; V/O. DATED 06/09/2019 R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED) *****

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.553/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A. No.2725/2016

BETWEEN:

RALIANCE GIC LTD., 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD,

-: 14 :-

HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALORE NOW REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

UDUPI TALUK – 576 201.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-1 IS SERVED)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.546/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI, & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,10,800/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL DEPOSIT.

IN M.F.A. No.2306/2016

BETWEEN:

SRI VARADARAJ KHARVI S/O. SHEENA KHARVI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

-: 15 :-

R/O. KHARVIKERI, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

UDUPI TALUK – 576 101.

MANGALORE – 575 001.

SRI VIMALESH SHET, S/O. LATE. VISHWANATH SHET, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA KASABA, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101.

(R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED AS PER THE ORDER

DATED 06/09/2019 BY THIS COURT

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; V/O. DATED 06/09/2019 R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.318/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

-: 16 :-

IN M.F.A. No.5308/2016

BETWEEN:

SRI ESHWARA POOJARY S/O. LATE ITHA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. KUMBARABETTU, VADDARSE VILLAGE, BANNADI POST, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 576 101. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MANGALORE – 575 001. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

(R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED AS PER THE ORDER

DATED 06/09/2019 BY THIS COURT

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

UDUPI – 576 101. REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC

-: 17 :-

NO.555/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A. No.5114/2016

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: KUNDAPURA, MUNICIPAL ROAD, KUNDAPURA – 578 201. BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 BY IT’S MANAGER.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

COMPANY LIMITED, 4TH FLOOR,

LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANAKATTE,

MANGALORE – 575 001.

VISHWANATH SHET, MAJOR, S/O. LATE PURUSHOTHAM SHET, NO.401/2, EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA – 576 201.

-: 18 :-

(SINCE DECEADED) BY HIS LR’s.

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-4 - SERVED)

******

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.321/13 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,64,100/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN M.F.A. No.5307/2016

BETWEEN:

SMT. LEELAVATHI W/O. RAMESH ACHARY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O MADHUVANA ACHALADI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 576 101. ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

-: 19 :-

(R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED AS PER THE ORDER

DATED 06/09/2019 BY THIS COURT

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

UDUPI – 576 101. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; V/O. DATED 06/09/2019 R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.546/13 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI & ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A. No.5111/2016

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: KUNDAPURA, MUNICIPAL ROAD, KUNDAPURA – 578 201. BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD., BANGALORE – 560 001 BY ITS MANAGER.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

-: 20 :-

R/O. KHARVIKERI, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201.

MANGALORE – 575 001.

(SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LR’s.

VIMALESH SHET, MAJOR, S/O. LATE VISHWANATH SHET, R/O. EAST BLOCK, ROAD, KUNADPURA KASABA, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-4 - SERVED)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.318/13 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,88,670/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN M.F.A. No.5112/2016

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

-: 21 :-

BRANCH OFFICE, KUNDAPURA, MUNICIPAL ROAD, KUNDAPURA – 578 201. BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 BY ITS MANAGER.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

GENREAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANAKATTE,

MANGALORE – 575 001.

VISHWANATH SHET MAJOR S/O. LATE PURUSHOTHAM SHET, NO.401/2, EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA – 576 201. (SINCE DECEASED)

BY HIS LR’s

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-4 - SERVED)

*****

-: 22 :-

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.319/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,19,690/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. EXCLUDING MEDICAL EXPENSES FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN TRIBUNAL.

IN M.F.A. No.5113/2016

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: KUNDAPURA, MUNICIPAL ROAD, KUNDAPURA – 578 201 BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001 BY ITS MANAGER.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MANGALORE – 575 001.

-: 23 :-

VISHWANATH SHET MAJOR, S/O. LATE PURUSHOTHAM SHET, NO.401/2, EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNADPURA – 576 201. (SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LR’s.

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-4 - SERVED)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.320/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.8,40,124/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. EXCLUDING MEDICAL EXPENSES FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN TRIBUNAL.

IN M.F.A. No.5110/2016

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: KUNDAPURA, MUNICIPAL ROAD, KUNDAPURA – 578 201 BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001 BY ITS MANAGER.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

-: 24 :-

2ND RESPONDENT IS MINOR

BY M/G RESPONDENT NO.1.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT H.NO.171/1, FERRY ROAD, KUNDAPURA TALUK – 576 201.

MANGALORE – 575 001

SRI VISHWANATH SHET (MAJOR) (SINCE DECEASED) S/O. LATE PURUSHOTHAM SHET, #401/2, EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA – 576 201 BY HIS LR’s.

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-6; R-2, R-3, R-4 & R-7 - SERVED)

*****

-: 25 :-

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.456/13 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,88,670/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN M.F.A. No.2836/2016

BETWEEN:

APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR REP. BY

GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: H.NO.171/1, FERRY ROAD, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201.

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

-: 26 :-

HAMPANAKATTE, MANGALORE.

(R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2019

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; V/O. DATED 06/09/2019 R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.456/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A. No.2835/2016

BETWEEN:

SRI VIMLESH SHET S/O. VEISHWANATH SHET, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O ANANTHA NILAYA, EAST BLOCK ROAD, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

-: 27 :-

AND:

UDUPI TALUK – 576 101.

SRI VISHWANATH SHET SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

KUNDAPURA KASABA & TALUK,

UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101.

(R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2019

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

MUNICIPAL ROAD, KUNDAPURA – 576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-3 – SERVED; R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED V/O DATED 06/09/2019)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.321/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

-: 28 :-

IN M.F.A. No.2307/2016

BETWEEN:

SRI MANOHAR JOGI S/O. LATE BABU JOGI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. SHIVANUGRAHA, NEAR KONI SCHOOL, KONI POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

UDUPI TALUK – 576 101.

HAMPANAKATTE,

MANGALORE – 575 001.

(R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2019

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

MUNICIPAL ROAD, KUNDAPURA – 576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; V/O. DATED 06/09/2019 R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED) *****

-: 29 :-

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.320/13 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A. No.2305/2016

BETWEEN:

SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR .K.U S/O. UPENDRA KHARVI .K AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. CHURCH ROAD, NEAR ANJANEYA GAS AGENCY, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED AS PER THE ORDER

DATED 06/09/2019 BY THIS COURT

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT ON 17/09/2019)

-: 30 :-

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; V/O. DATED 06/09/2019 R-1 & R-3 ARE DELETED)

*****

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.319/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

J U D G M E N T

These appeals have been filed by the claimants as well as both the Insurance Companies assailing the judgments and awards passed in MVC.Nos.546, 553, 554 and 555 of 2013 dated 11/01/2016 by learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi (hereinafter, referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”, for the sake of brevity) and MVC.Nos.318, 319, 320, 321, 456 of 2013 dated 19/01/2016 by learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional

-: 31 :-

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura. The details of the cases are as under:- MACT, Udupi

Sl. No. MVC No. Appeal by Claimants

MFA No. Appeal by Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No.2) (100% negligence) MFA No. Appeal by National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No.4)

MFA No. 1 546 of 2013 (Injury case) MACT, Udupi 5307 of 2016 2725 of 2016 2 553 of 2013 (Injury case) MACT, Udupi 5309 of 2016 2726 of 2016 3 554 of 2013 (Injury case) MACT, Udupi 5327 of 2016 2727 of 2016 4 555 of 2013 (Injury case) MACT, Udupi 5308 of 2016 2728 of 2016 Case against Respondent No.4 is dismissed.

MACT, Kundapura

Sl. No. MVC No. Appeal by Claimants

MFA No. Appeal by Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent No.2 in MVC (60% Contributory negligence fastened against respondent No.2) MFA No. Appeal by National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent No.4 in MVC (40% Contributory negligence fastened against respondent No.4) MFA No. 1 318 of 2013 (Injury case) MACT, Kundapura 2306 of 2016 2731 of 2016 5111 of 2016 2 319 of 2013 (Injury case) MACT, Kundapura 2305 of 2016 2732 of 2016 5112 of 2016 3 320 of 2013 (Injury case) MACT, Kundapura 2307 of 2016 2733 of 2016 5113 of 2016 4 321 of 2013 (Injury case) MACT, Kundapura 2835 of 2016 2734 of 2016 5114 of 2016 5 456 of 2013 (Death case) MACT, Kundapura 2836 of 2016 2735 of 2016 5110 of 2016

-: 32 :-

-: 33 :-

Kalavinakatte, Irody village, at National Highway No.66 (N.H.66) at Udupi Taluk, the bus bearing Regn.No.KA-20- B-0552 came from Udupi to Kundapura side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Maruti Omni van. As a result, the inmates of the Maruti Omni car sustained injuries and Naveen Chandra died on account of the serious injuries sustained by him.

-: 34 :-

claimants contended that on account of the injuries sustained by them, they took treatment and therefore, they filed their claim petitions before the Tribunal at Udupi, seeking compensation on various heads.

-: 35 :-

on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Omni car bearing Regn.No.KA-20-P-2048. The Insurance Company contended that the satisfaction of the award shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy also and therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.

-: 36 :-

and exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.

-: 37 :-

Addl. Issue No.1:

Whether respondent No.4 proves that driver of the Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-20-B-2048 had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident?

In MVC.No.319/2013:

-: 38 :-

effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident?

Addl. Issue No.1:

Whether respondent No.4 proves that driver of the Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-20- B-2048 had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident?

In MVC.No.320/2013:

-: 39 :-

Addl. Issue No.1:

Whether respondent No.4 proves that driver of the Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-20- B-2048 had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident?

In MVC.No.321/2013:

-: 40 :-

driver of Maruthi Omni bearing Reg. No.KA-20-P-2048 the accident occurred?

Addl. Issue No.1:

Whether respondent No.4 proves that driver of the Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-20-B-2048 had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident?

In MVC.No.456/2013:

-: 41 :-

the rider of the Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-20- B-522?

Addl. Issue No.1:

Whether respondent No.4 proves that driver of the Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-20-B-2048 had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident?”

-: 42 :-

Ex.P.1 - FIR with complaint Ex.P.2 - Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3 - Wound certificate Ex.P.4 - Accident Report Ex.P.5 - Medical Bills (6 Nos) Ex.P.6 - Medical prescription (17 Nos) Ex.P.7 & Ex.P.8 - Discharge Summary

In MVC 319/2013:

Ex.P.9 - Wound certificate Ex.P.10 - Medical Bills (25 Nos) Ex.P.11 - Medical prescription (11 Nos) Ex.P.12 - Ordered for earned leave Ex.P.13 - Salary certificate

In MVC 320/2013:

Ex.P.14 - Wound certificate Ex.P.15 - Medical Bills (63 Nos) Ex.P.16 - Medical prescriptions (20 Nos) Ex.P.17 - Notarized copy of driving licence Ex.P.18 - Notarized copy of Passport

In MVC 321/2013:

Ex.P.19 - Wound certificate Ex.P.20 - Medical Bills (69 Nos)

-: 43 :-

Ex.P.21 - Treatment certificate Ex.P.22 - Photos (2 Nos) Ex.P.22(a) - CDs Ex.P.23 - Income Tax returns – 2011- 2012 Ex.P.24 - Income Tax returns – 2012- 2013

In MVC 456/2013:

Ex.P.25 - Postmortem report Ex.P.26 - Postmortem report Ex.P.27 - SSLC Marks Card Ex.P.28 - Salary Cretificate Ex.P.28(a) - Signature of Witness

In MVC 318/2013:

Ex.P.29 - Leave certificate Ex.P.30 - Salary certificate Ex.P.31 &

Ex.P.32 - Certificate of Manipal University Ex.P.33 - Disability certificate Ex.P.34 - Treatment certificate Ex.P.35 & Ex.P.36 - In-patient records Ex.P.37 - Outpatient records Ex.P.38 - X-rays (6 Nos)

In MVC 319/2013:

Ex.P.39 - Disability certificate Ex.P.40 - Treatment certificate Ex.P.41 &

Ex.P.42 - In-patient records

-: 44 :-

Ex.P.43 - Outpatient records Ex.P.44 - X-rays (2 Nos)

In MVC 320/2013:

Ex.P.45 - Disability certificate Ex.P.46 - Treatment certificate Ex.P.47 - In-patient records Ex.P.48 - Outpatient records Ex.P.49 - X-rays (11 in Nos)

In MVC 321/2013:

Ex.P.50 - Disability certificate Ex.P.51 &

Ex.P.52 - In-patient records Ex.P.53 - Outpatient records Ex.P.54 - X-rays (6 in Nos) Ex.P.55 - Copy of driving licence”

The respondents examined four witnesses and produced twelve documents as under and closed their case:- “RW1 - Geetha M RW2 - Pradeepkumar RW3 - Prakash Mogaveera RW4 - Karthik M

Ex.R.1 - Eye Sketch Ex.R.2 - Submission of in-patient bills pertaining to Mr. Varadaraj Kharvi

Ex.R.3 - Salary register of Santhoshkumar

-: 45 :-

Ex.R.4 - Medical certificate issued by KMC hospital Ex.R.5 - Permission letter to leave the head quarter (Santhoshkumar)

Ex.R.6 - Leave sanction letter of Santhoshkumar

Ex.R.7 -

Ex.R.8 - Notarized copy of driving licence

Ex.R.9 - Notice under RTI

Ex.R-9(a) - Postal order

Ex.R-10 - Notice under RTI- letter issued by TMC, Kundapura

Ex.R-11 - Letter issue to Public Information Officer, TMC, Kundapura

Ex.R-11(a) - Postal order

Ex.R.12 - Letter given by the public information officer, TMC, Kundapura.”

Issue No.1: In the affirmative. Issue No.2: In the Negative. Issue No.3: In the Negative. Issue No.4: In the Partly affirmative. Addl.Issue No.1: In the negative Issue No.5: As per final order,

for the following:

-: 46 :-

In MVC 319/2013:

Issue No.1: In the affirmative. Issue No.2: In the Negative. Issue No.3: In the Negative. Issue No.4: In the partly affirmative. Addl.Issue No.1: In the negative Issue No.5: As per final order,

for the following:

In MVC 320/2013:

Issue No.1: In the affirmative. Issue No.2: In the Negative. Issue No.3: In the Negative. Issue No.4: In the partly affirmative. Addl.Issue No.1: In the negative Issue No.5: As per final order,

for the following: In MVC 321/2013:

Issue No.1: In the partly affirmative. Issue No.2: In the partly affirmative. Issue No.3: In the Negative. Issue No.4: In the partly affirmative. Addl.Issue No.1: In the negative Issue No.5: As per final order,

for the following: In MVC 456/2013:

Issue No.1: In the affirmative. Issue No.2: In the Negative. Issue No.3: In the Negative. Issue No.4: In the negative.

-: 47 :-

Issue No.5: In the partly affirmative. Addl.Issue No.1: In the negative Issue No.6: As per final order,

for the following:”

-: 48 :-

respondent No.2 – Insurer appeared and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petitions and contended that the claim petitions were false and not maintainable. It was also contended that the accident had occurred on account of the contributory negligence of the driver of the Maruthi Omni car. Therefore, the owner and insurer of the Maruthi Omni car are also necessary parties. It was contended that the driver of the bus was not holding the valid driving licence at the time of the accident and that the insurer may be absolved of its liability and hence, the Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.

-: 49 :-

Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.

“1. Whether the petitioners prove that they sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 20.01.2013 at about 03.10 p.m. at Kalavinakatte, Irodi Village of Udupi Taluk, N.H.66, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus, bearing Reg.No.KA-20-B-0552, as alleged in the petition?

-: 50 :-

Issue in the negative, Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and allowed the claim petitions in part by granting respective compensation with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal namely, the owner and insurer of the bus were jointly and severally directed to pay the award amount. While the claim petitions as against respondent Nos.3 and 4 namely, owner and insurer of the Maruthi Omni car were dismissed.

-: 51 :-

Kundapura and Udupi and contended that the award of compensation in each of the cases is meager and very less and therefore, the appellant – claimants have filed the claim petitions seeking enhancement of compensation. He drew our attention to the cases of each of the appellants and contended that the compensation on various heads may be enhanced. The contentions of learned counsel for appellant – claimants are noted and the appeals pertaining to each of the claim petitions shall be considered.

-: 52 :-

been filed by the said Insurance Company as against the judgments and awards passed by both the Tribunals. He contended that the Tribunal at Kundapura has apportioned 60% negligence on the driver of the bus whereas, the Tribunal at Udupi has apportioned 100% of negligence on the driver of the bus. He submitted that the driver of the bus was not at all negligent in causing the accident, that the entire fault and negligence was on the driver of the Maruthi Omni car and hence, this Court may re-appreciate the evidence on record and set aside the judgments of both the Tribunals at Kundapura and Udupi and hold 100% negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Omni car. He also submitted that the compensation awarded in certain claim petitions are exorbitant. The contentions in that regard shall be considered as and when the appeals are considered individually.

-: 53 :-

judgment and awards passed by the Tribunal at Udupi even as regards the quantum of compensation awarded therein. However, the Tribunal at Kundapura has apportioned the negligence at 60% on the driver of the bus and 40% on the driver of the Maruthi Omni car on the basis of the documents, which are marked before the Tribunals. It is clear that the driver of the bus had proceeded on the wrong side and dashed against the Maruthi Omni car. He contended that Maruthi Omni car was proceeding within the limits of its space, but the accident occurred on account of the bus hitting the Maruthi Omni car. He contended that the Tribunal at Kundapura was not right in appreciating 40% negligence on the part of the Maruthi Omni car. He submitted that 100% negligence may be apportioned on the driver of the bus and negligence on the part of the owner and insurer of the Maruthi Omni car may be exonerated by confirming the judgment of the Tribunal at Udupi.

-: 54 :-

The aforesaid points shall be in seriatim.

-: 55 :-

cases of injuries in the said accident. The deceased was an inmate of the car and there were four passengers in the bus, who were injured in the accident and four other inmates in the car were also injured. However, the first controversy in these appeals is with regard to question of negligence which has been determined by the respective Tribunals.

-: 56 :-

-: 57 :-

Shetty. The said complaint is against the driver of the bus.

-: 58 :-

proceeding from Kota to Bramhavar, from North to South direction by leaving an extent of 12 feet to the left side of the road. However, it is sought to be explained that the bus was proceeding from South to North direction i.e., from Bramhavar to Kota by leaving an extent of 13 feet on the left side of the road, as there was some construction or formation of road on the left side and therefore, 13 feet road was left aside to the left of the bus and the bus proceeded to the centre of the road. It is also to be observed from the sketch that both the vehicles were proceeding on the centre of the road by leaving sufficient extent of the road on their left side respectively. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the entire negligence could not have been fastened on the driver of the bus and thereby, exonerating the driver of the Maruthi Omni car. There is no explanation given by the owner and insurer of the Maruthi Omni car as to why the driver of the said vehicle proceeded by leaving an extent of 12 feet on the left side of the road, so as to come on to the centre of the road. Same reasoning would also apply to the driver of the bus as to why it was plying beyond the middle of the road. The driver of Maruthi Omni car was saddled with 40%

-: 59 :-

whereas, the Tribunal at Udupi on the same set of facts and findings has apportioned 100% negligence on the driver of the bus.

-: 60 :-

60% on the driver of the bus and 40% on the driver of the Maruthi Omni car. We find that the said finding is justified particularly, bearing in mind the spot sketch, which has been produced by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, marked as Ex.R-1 before the Tribunal at Kundapura.

-: 61 :-

Appeals arising from the Tribunal at Udupi:

MFA.No.5307/2016 = MVC.No.546/2013

Rs. 01. Pain and Sufferings 40,000-00 02. Medical expenses 5,300-00 03. Attendant expenses, Nourishment, Conveyance, (4,000+2,000+1,500) 7,500-00 04. Loss of income 18,000-00 05. Future medical expenses 15,000-00 06. Loss of amenities 25,000-00

TOTAL 1,10,800-00

-: 62 :-

He submitted that the said compensation carries interest at 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till deposit. That compensation on the head of Pain and Suffering, Incidental Charges, Loss of Income and loss of amenities, are on the lower side and that the same may be enhanced.

-: 63 :-

expenses and loss of amenities” is just and proper. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards “loss of future earning capacity” as it is found that there would be no real loss as such. That the fractures are united with implant in situ and the decision for removal of implants could be taken later and claimant could continue her work as earlier and there is no restriction of movement of limb and hence, no compensation on the head of “loss of future earning capacity” is awarded. We find that the reasoning of the Tribunal at Udupi in this regard is just and proper. The award of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Therefore, MFA.No.5307/2016 filed by the appellant – claimant is dismissed, while MFA.No.2725/2016 is allowed in part.

MFA.No.5327/2016 = MVC.No.554/2013

-: 64 :-

interest at 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.

However, learned counsel for Reliance General Insurance Company has supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and on the other hand have contented that the award of 8% interest per annum on the compensation of Rs.17,500/- is on the higher side.

We have considered the rival submissions in this case in light of evidence on record and find that since the injuries are simple in nature, global compensation of Rs.40,000/- can be awarded instead of Rs.17,500/-, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization.

In the circumstances, MFA.No.5327/2016 filed by the appellant - claimant is allowed in part and

-: 65 :-

MFA.No.2727/2016 filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is also partly allowed as the contentions of the Insurance Company with regard to the rate of interest to be reduced to 6% is accepted.

MFA.No.5308/2016 = MVC.No.555/2013

This is also a case of the injury. Ex.P.21 is the Wound Certificate. The injured person was aged about 55 years when he sustained the injuries namely, laceration of the lower hip, dislocation and teeth injury. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- on the following heads:-

Rs. 01. Pain and Sufferings 35,000-00 02. Medical expenses 3,000-00 03. Nourishment, Conveyance, (5,000+ 1,000) 6,000-00 04. Loss of income 16,000-00 05. Loss of amenities 10,000-00

TOTAL 70,000-00

The said compensation carries interest at 8% p.a.

Learned counsel for appellant – claimant contended that the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, incidental charges, loss of amenities are on the lower side and the same may be enhanced.

-: 66 :-

Whereas, learned counsel for Reliance General Insurance Company Limited contended that the award of compensation is just and proper and this Court may not enhance the same rather than the rate of interest on the said compensation may be reduced to 6% p.a.

On perusal of the evidence on record, we find that the claimant was eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work. But there is no permanent disability on account of the nature of the injuries sustained by him. In the circumstances, Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/- on the aforesaid heads, which we find is just and proper.

However, the said compensation of Rs.70,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization and not 8% as ordered by the Tribunal at Udupi.

Hence, MFA.No.5308/2016, filed by the appellant - claimant is dismissed. While MFA.No.2728/2016 filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is allowed in part.

-: 67 :-

MFA.No.5309/2016 = MVC.No.553/2013

This is also a case of injury. Ex.P.16 is the Wound Certificate and the age of the appellant – claimant was 13 years at the time of the accident. He sustained fracture of lower end of radius of left wrist and was an in-patient at Mahesh Hospital from 20/01/2013 to 22/01/2013. The Tribunal awarded Rs.67,500/- under the following heads:-

Rs. 01. Pain and Sufferings 25,000-00 02. Medical expenses 9,500-00 03. Attendant expenses, Nourishment, Conveyance, (5,000+ 3,000) 8,000-00 04. Loss of amenities 25,000-00

TOTAL 67,500-00

The said compensation carries 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

Learned counsel for appellant contended that the award of compensation on the head of pain and suffering, medical expenses, incidental charges, loss of amenities are on the lower side. That the claimant was a minor at the

-: 68 :-

time of the accident and therefore, the compensation awarded may be enhanced.

Learned counsel for Reliance General Insurance Company Limited supported the award of compensation in the instant case and contended that the award at the rate of interest at 8% p.a. may be reduced to 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.

We have examined the documentary evidence placed on record in this case and find that the minor claimant had sustained fracture injury to the left wrist. Bearing in mind that a total award of compensation of Rs.67,500/- only has been awarded on various heads. We find that this is a case where the compensation ought to be enhanced. Hence, we award a global compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- to the appellant in this case. The said compensation shall not carry any interest.

In the circumstances, MFA.No.5309/2016 filed by the appellant – claimant is allowed in part, while MFA.No.2726/2016 filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is accordingly disposed.

-: 69 :-

Appeals arising from the Tribunal at Kundapura:

MFA No.2305/2016 = MVC.No.319/2013

The claimant was aged 36 years at the time of the accident and he was working as a Police Constable. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,19,690/-, with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realization under the following heads:-

Rs. 01. Pain and Sufferings 50,000-00 02. Medical expenses 11,379-00 03. Food and Nourishment, Conveyance and attendant charges 19,000-00 04. Loss of earning during the laid up period 64,312-00 05. Under the head disability 50,000-00 06. Loss of amenities 25,000-00

TOTAL 2,19,691-00

Rounded off to 2,19,690-00

-: 70 :-

Learned counsel for appellant contended that the award of compensation on the head of pain and suffering, medical expenses, incidental charges, loss of earning during the laid up period and loss of amenities, are on the lower side and the same would call for enhancement. Whereas, learned counsel for respective Insurance Companies contended that it is a case where the compensation amount ought to be reduced.

It is contended that the injured was working as a Police Constable and there was no permanent disability and he continued to work in his designation. That there was no loss of future earning capacity and neither loss of earning during the laid up period as it has not been established that the claimant neither availed leave nor loss of pay. Therefore, the award of compensation of Rs.64,312/- towards loss of earning during the laid up period is on the higher side. Similarly, award of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering is exorbitant and further, Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards disability and a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities, which is a duplication in award of compensation.

-: 71 :-

Therefore, they contended that a realistic award may be made in this case by reducing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

We have considered the rival submissions in light of the documentary and oral evidence of the parties and we find that the appellant, who was working as a Police Constable, continued to do so, despite the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Further, the injuries have not resulted in any permanent disability to the body. Neither has the appellant lost any income on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident as he continued to draw his salary even during the period when he was on leave while continuing the treatment nor during the period he took rest. However, there is a fracture of pubic rami and discomfort during discharging his duties and also in his daily routine. Hence, we reassess the compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and confirm the amount of Rs.11,379/- awarded towards medical expenses. The award for incidental expenses including food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges is Rs.25,000/- is awarded and towards “disability and loss of amenities”, Rs.50,000/- is awarded. Totally

-: 72 :-

the amount of compensation is reduced to Rs.1,26,379/- instead of Rs.2,19,690/-. The said compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization.

In the circumstances, MFA.No.2305/2016, which is the appeal filed by the appellant – claimant is dismissed, while MFA.No.2732/2016 and MFA.No.5112/2016, the appeals filed by respondent – Insurance Companies are allowed in part.

MFA.No.2306/2016 = MVC.No.318/2013

-: 73 :-

wound over right foot and dislocation of right hip. He was an in-patient for 21 days. P.W.8 is the Orthopedic Surgeon of KMC Hospital, who has deposed that there was 16% disability to the left lower limb and 11% to the right lower limb, which is as per Exs.P-33 to P-38. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.3,88,670/- on various heads as under:-

Rs. 01. Pain and Sufferings 80,000-00 02. Medical expenses 57,670-00 03. Physiotherapy, Food and Nourishment, Conveyance and attendant charges 49,000-00 04. Loss of earning during the laid up period 72,000-00 05. Under the head disability 80,000-00 06. Loss of amenities 30,000-00 07. Future medical expenses 20,000-00

TOTAL 3,88,670-00

Learned counsel for appellant contended that the award of compensation on the head of pain and suffering, medical expenses, incidental charges, loss of earning during laid up period, on the head of disability and loss of amenities are on the lower side. He further contended that amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards future

-: 74 :-

medical expenses is also on the lower side. That the claimant was working as a Manager at M/s.Karvy Stock Broking Company and that on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, there was permanent disability. That the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that P.W.8 has assessed 16% disability to the left lower limb and has awarded very meager compensation on all the heads and therefore, the same may be enhanced.

Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Companies contended that the award of compensation in this case is also on the higher side and the same may be reduced. They contended that the award of Rs.80,000/- towards pain and sufferings and the award of Rs.72,000/- towards loss of earning during the laid up period are exorbitant and therefore, the same may be reduced.

We have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and though we find that the award of compensation on the head of pain and suffering, loss of earning during the laid up period and total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- on the heads of disability and loss of amenities and compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards future

-: 75 :-

medical expenses, are without any reason.

We nevertheless find that the award of compensation towards physiotherapy, food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges is on the lower side. It is stated that a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid towards physiotherapy charges and that the appellant was an in-patient for a period of 161 days, therefore, the compensation on the head of incidental charges has to be enhanced. But, correspondingly, the amount of compensation awarded on the head of pain and suffering, loss of income during the laid up period, on the head of disability and loss of amenities being a duplication would call for reduction. Further, there is no reason to award compensation on the head of future medical expenses. Hence, we find that neither would there be real reduction in the compensation as sought for by the respondent – insurers nor there is any increase in the compensation as contended by the appellant’s counsel.

In the circumstances, we confirm the award of compensation awarded by the Tribunal being Rs.3,88,670/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.

-: 76 :-

Consequently, MFA.No.2306/2016 filed by the appellant claimant is dismissed and MFA.No.2731/2016 and MFA.No.5111/2016 filed by the Insurance Companies are allowed in part on the aspect of award of compensation.

MFA.No.2307/2016 = MVC.No.320/2013

-: 77 :-

Rs. 01. Pain and Sufferings 90,000-00 02. Medical expenses 2,08,924-00 03. Food and Nourishment, Conveyance and attendant charges 22,000-00 04. Loss of earning during the laid up period 56,000-00 05. Loss of future earning capacity 4,03,200-00 06. Loss of amenities 40,000-00 07. Future medical expenses 20,000-00

TOTAL 8,40,124-00

Learned counsel for appellant contended that on account of the serious injuries sustained in the accident, there was permanent disability. He was working as a Driver and is unable to carryout his duties as a Driver. That the award of compensation on the head of pain and suffering, medical expenses, incidental charges, loss of earning during laid up period, loss of future earning capacity, loss of amenities and future medical expenses is on the lower side and hence, the same may be reassessed and enhanced.

Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Companies contended that the award of compensation of Rs.8,40,124/- in the instant case is on the higher side and the same may be reduced. They contended that award of

-: 78 :-

Rs.90,000/- on the head of pain and sufferings, Rs.56,000/- towards “loss of earning during the laid up period”, Rs.4,03,200/- towards “loss of future earning capacity”, are on the higher side and hence, compensation on the aforesaid heads may be reduced.

We note that the claimant was aged 34 years at the time of the accident. He was eking out his livelihood as a driver. According to the claimant, he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, but there is no corroboration of the said evidence. In the circumstances, we assess his monthly income notionally at Rs.10,000/- p.m. The Doctor, who has assessed permanent disability having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by him, has assessed the whole body disability at 30%, which we confirm.

In the circumstances, we reassess the compensation as under:-

Rs.90,000/- towards “pain and suffering”; Rs.2,08,924/- towards “medical expenses”; Rs.30,000/- towards “Incidental Charges including food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges”; Rs.40,000/- towards “loss of earning during the laid up

-: 79 :-

period i.e., for a period of four months at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month; Rs.5,76,000/- towards “loss of future earning capacity (i.e., 30% of Rs.10,000/- = 3,000 x 12 x 16 = 5,76,000); Rs.40,000/- towards “loss of amenities; Rs.40,000/- towards “future medical expenses”. The total re-assessed compensation would be Rs.10,24,924/- instead of Rs.8,40,124/-. The said compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

MFA.No.2307/2016 filed by the appellant - claimant is allowed in part, while MFA.No.2733/2016 and MFA.No.5113/2019 filed by the Insurance Companies are dismissed.

MFA.No.2835/2016 = MVC.No.321/2013

-: 80 :-

and underwent surgery and was discharged with advice to take up follow up treatment and bed rest.

Ex.P.19 is the Wound Certificate. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record and awarded compensation of Rs.11,64,100/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization under the following heads:-

Rs. 01. Pain and Sufferings 60,000-00 02. Medical expenses 1,91,000-00 03. Food and Nourishment, Conveyance and attendant charges 28,000-00 04. Loss of earning during the laid up period 1,20,000-00 05. Loss of earning capacity works 7,20,000-00 06. Loss of amenities 25,000-00 07. Future medical expenses 20,000-00

TOTAL 11,64,100-00

Learned counsel for appellant contended that having regard to the serious injuries sustained by the appellant – claimant, the award of compensation on the head of pain and suffering, incidental charges, loss of earning during the treatment period, loss of earning capacity, loss of amenities, as well as “loss of future medical expenses”, are on the lower side and that the same may be enhanced.

-: 81 :-

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Companies contended that the award of compensation on the heads particularly, loss of earning capacity and loss of earning during the laid up period, are on the higher side and the same may be reduced.

We have considered the rival submission and find that having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by him in the accident resulting in fracture injuries, the award of compensation on the head of “pain and suffering” being Rs.60,000/- is just and proper. Further, a sum of Rs.1,91,100/- awarded towards “medical expenses”, is also justified. However, we find that a meager amount of Rs.28,000/- only, is awarded towards “food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges”. Considering the fact that claimant was an in-patient for a period of 24 days, we award a sum of Rs.40,000/- on the head of “incidental charges”

including food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. A sum of Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded towards loss of earning during the laid up period at Rs.15,000/- per month, for a period of six months. We find that the same is too exorbitant and

-: 82 :-

that compensation for a period of four months would be just and proper.

Learned counsel for appellant contended that the Tribunal has assessed the notional income to the claimant at Rs.15,000/- per month, which is too meager. But having regard to Exs.P.23 and 24, which are the Income- tax returns filed by the appellant for the years 2011-12, 2012-13, we find that a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. could be the notional income. Hence, for a period of four months, the award of compensation on the head of “loss of income during the laid up period” is Rs.60,000/-. The Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability at 25%. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the same may be enhanced, but learned counsel for Insurance Companies state that it is on the higher side and may be reduced to 20%. But, keeping in mind nature of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability as assessed by the Tribunal at 25% is retained. The notional income being Rs.15,000/- per month, compensation on the head of “loss of future earning capacity” is 25% of Rs.15,000/- = Rs.3,750/- (i.e., 3,750 x 12 x 16 = 7,20,000/-), which amount awarded by the Tribunal is retained.

-: 83 :-

Towards “loss of amenities”, we find that the award of compensation being Rs.25,000/- is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Further, towards “future medical expenses”, compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded instead of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the total compensation re-assessed by us is Rs.11,61,100/-.

However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,64,100/-. The difference between the two being a sum of Rs.3,000/- only, we do not propose to interfere with the award of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

In the circumstances, MFA.No.2835/2016 filed by the claimant is dismissed and MFA.No.2734/2016 and MFA.No.5114/2016 filed by the Insurance Companies on this aspect of the matter are allowed in part.

This is because, the Tribunal has not deducted 40% of the said compensation towards the contributory negligence of the injured claimant while driving the Maruthi Omni car. Consequently, compensation shall be 60% of Rs.11,64,100/- i.e., Rs.6,98,460/- *with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. The said

*Corrected V.C.O. dated 07/02/2020

-: 84 :-

compensation shall be paid by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. National Insurance Company Limited is exonerated of its liability to satisfy the award in this case.

MFA.No.2836/2016 = MVC.No.456/2013

Rs. 01. Loss of dependency 16,20,000-00 02. Consortium 25,000-00 03. Love and affection 20,000-00 04. Loss of estate 20,000-00 05. Conveyance and funeral expenses 15,000-00

TOTAL 17,00,000-00

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the award of compensation on the head of loss of dependency

-: 85 :-

as well as on the conventional heads is on the lower side. He contended that the Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas, he was earning a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day as bata. He contended that Naveen Chandra was working as a Manager in a factory. That the Tribunal has not believed the evidence of PW-7, as he is not the owner of the factory. Therefore, the Tribunal has assessed a very meager notional monthly income of the deceased. The same may be enhanced and consequently, the compensation on the head of “loss of dependency” be also enhanced. He further submitted that the total compensation may be reassessed and the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – insurers contended that the compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, as the Tribunal has considered 50% of the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects, whereas it ought to have been only 40% in terms of the recent dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay

-: 86 :-

Sethi reported in [(2017) 16 SCC 780]. They also submitted that on a reassessment of the compensation, the quantum may be reduced and the appeal filed by the Insurance Companies may be allowed.

We have perused the oral and documentary evidence on record as well as the material on record. The accident occurred on 20/01/2013. Even for an unskilled labourer when a notional income has to be assessed keeping in mind the date of the accident, this Court would normally assess the notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month but, in the instant case, the deceased was stated to be a Manager of the Snuff Factory. Hence, the monthly income cannot be assessed at only Rs.8,000/-. In the circumstances, the notional income is assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, the deceased Naveen Chandra was not in a permanent employment, as such, 40% of the said amount shall be added towards future prospects. Thus, the total amount would now be Rs.14,000/-, one fourth of the said amount would have to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as there are four dependents. Thus, the balance amount would be

-: 87 :-

Rs.10,500/-. The same would have to be annualized and the appropriate multiplier of ‘15’ has to be applied. Thus, the total compensation on the head of “loss of dependency” would be Rs.18,90,000/- (i.e., Rs.10,500 x ‘15’ x 12 = 18,90,000/-). In addition, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the widow of the deceased towards “loss of spousal consortium”. A sum of Rs.30,000/- each, is awarded to the parents of the deceased towards loss of filial consortium and Rs.30,000/- is awarded to the daughter of the deceased towards “loss of parental consortium”. Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards “funeral expenses”. Thus, the total compensation is Rs.20,20,000/-. The said compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

The compensation now assessed shall be apportioned between the claimants in the ratio of 40 : 30 : 15 : 15. 75% of the compensation awarded to the widow of the deceased shall be deposited in any Post Office or nationalized or scheduled Bank, for an initial period of ten years. She shall also be entitled to draw periodical interest

-: 88 :-

on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to her after due identification. The entire compensation awarded to the minor – daughter shall be deposited in any Post Office or nationalized or scheduled Bank until she attains the age of majority. 50% of the compensation awarded to each of the parents of the deceased shall be deposited likewise, for an initial period of five years. They shall also be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposits. The balance compensation shall be released to them after due identification.

In the circumstances, MFA.No.2836/2016 filed by the appellant - claimants is allowed in part. While MFA.No.2735/2016 and MFA.No.5110/2016 filed by the Insurance Companies on this aspect of the matter stand dismissed.

Allowed in part MFA No.2727/2016 In MVC No.554/2013

Allowed in part

- 02. MFA No.5307/2016 In MVC No.546/2013

Dismissed MFA No.2725/2016 In MVC No.546/2013

Allowed in part

-: 89 :-

Dismissed

MFA No.2728/2016 In MVC No.555/2013

Allowed in part

- 04. MFA No.5309/2016 In MVC No.553/2013

Allowed in part

MFA No.2726/2016 In MVC No.553/2013

Disposed

- 05. MFA No.2305/2016 In MVC No.319/2013

Dismissed

MFA No.2732/2016 In MVC No.319/2013

Allowed in part MFA No.5112/2016 in MVC No.319/2013

Allowed in part 06. MFA No.2306/2016 In MVC No.318/2013

Dismissed

MFA No.2731/2016 In MVC No.318/2013

Allowed in part MFA No.5111/2016 in MVC No.318/2013

Allowed in part 07. MFA No.2307/2016 In MVC No.320/2013

Allowed in part

MFA No.2733/2016 In MVC No.320/2013

Dismissed MFA No.5113/2016 in MVC No.320/2013

Dismissed 08. MFA No.2835/2016 In MVC No.321/2013

Dismissed

MFA No.2734/2016 In MVC No.321/2013

Allowed in part MFA No.5114/2016 in MVC No.321/2013

Allowed in part 09. MFA No.2836/2016 In MVC No.456/2013

Allowed in part MFA No.2735/2016 In MVC No.456/2013

Dismissed MFA No.5110/2016 in MVC No.456/2013

Dismissed

The respondent – insurers to deposit balance compensation in the ratio of 60 : 40 respectively, as per our finding on Point No.1, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

Parties to bear their respective costs.

-: 90 :-

The directions of the Tribunal with regard to deposit and release of the amount in the cases pertaining to injuries of the claimants are confirmed.

Office to transmit the original records to the concerned Tribunals forthwith.

In view of the disposal of the appeals, all pending applications stand disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

*mvs