MRS RATNABAI W/O LATE PRABHU SAGAR vs. MR NAVEEN S/O NAGANNA AND ORS

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL M.F.A.NO.200159/2015 (MV) C/W M.F.A.NO.200130/2015 (MV) In M.F.A.No.200159/2015 BETWEEN: Mrs. Ratnabai W/o Late Prabhu Sagar, Age : 52 Years, Occ : Household, R/o H.E/12/381, Shahabad, Tq. Chittapur, Dist. Gulbarga. …APPELLANT/S (By Sri Sharanabassappa K Babshetty, Advocate) AND: 1. Mr. Naveen S/o Naganna, Age : 48 Years, Occ : Business,

2 R/o H.B.Colony, behind Ambedkar Hostel, at Gulbarga city. 2. Mallikarjun S/o Shanker Rao Patil, Age : 61 Years, Occ : Business, R/o Village Kadganchi, Tq.Aland, Dist. Gulbarga. 3. The Divisional Manager of IFFCO-TOKIO, General Insurance Co., Ltd., Sardar Plaza, 3rd Floor, Opp:Laxmi Temple, Dajibanpath, Hubli. 4. Mrs.Chayadevi W/o Late Mallikarjun Sagar, Age : 29 Years, Occ : Household, R/o Teacher’s Colony, On Honkuni-Humnabad Road, in Humnabad Town Humnabad, Dist.Bidar. 5. Master Prabhu S/o Late Mallikarjun Sagar, Age : 4 Years, Minor under the Guardianship of His real mother Mrs. Chayadevi w/o Late Mallikarjun Sagar-the respondent No.4. …RESPONDENT/S (By Sri Sudarshan M, Advocate for respondent No.3) Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5 Notice to R-1 & R-2 D/W V.O.D 6.4.17)

3 This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against the judgment and award dated : 25.08.2014 passed in MVC No.16/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Humnabad, and seeking enhancement of compensation. **** In M.F.A.No.200130/2015 BETWEEN: 1. Mrs.Chayadevi W/o Late Mallikarjun Sagar, Age : 29 Years, Occ : Household, R/o Teacher’s Colony, On Halkuni-Humnabad Road, in Humnabad Town, Humnabad, Dist.Bidar - 585330. 2. Master Prabhu S/o Late Mallikarjun Sagar, Aged about : 4 Years, Minor under Guardianship of his natural mother Mrs. Chayadevi w/o Late Mallikarjun Sagar. …APPELLANT/S (By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate) AND: 1. Mr. Naveen S/o Naganna, Age : 48 Years, Occ : Business, R/o H.B.Colony, behind Ambedkar Hostel, Kalaburagi-585103.

4 2. Mallikarjun S/o Shanker Rao Patil, Age : 61 Years, Occ : Business, R/o Village Kadganchi, Tq.Aland, Dist. Kalaburagi-585311. 3. Mrs. Ratnabai W/o Late Prabhu Sagar, Age : 52 Years, Occ : Household, R/o H.E/12/381, Shahabad, Tq. Chittapur, Dist.Kalaburagi - 585222. 4. The Divisional Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co., Ltd., Sardar Plaza, 3rd Floor, Opp:Laxmi Temple, Dajibanpath, Hubli –5880299. …RESPONDENT/S (By Sri Sudarshan M, Advocate for respondent No.4) Notice to respondent Nos.1 to 3 is dispensed with V/o dated 27.01.2016) This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, praying to allow this appeal and modify the judgment and award dated 25.08.2014 passed in MVC No.16/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, at Humnabad and to pass any other appropriate order as may be necessary.

5 These appeals coming on for admission this day, Nagarathna J., delivered the following: J U D G M E N T MFA No.200159/2015, filed by appellant - mother of Mallikarjun and MFA No.200130/2015 is filed by claimant Nos.1 and 2 – wife and son of Mallikarjun, who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 17.08.2012, seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.16/2013, dated 25.08.2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’, for the sake of convenience), at Humnabad. As both these appeals assail the very same judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, they have been clubbed together and are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

6 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 3. The claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of Mallikarjun, husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant No.2 and son of respondent No.3, before the Tribunal (appellant in MFA No.200159/2015). According to the claimants, Mallikarjun boarded an auto rickshaw (tum tum) bearing Registration No.KA- 39/4419 on 17.08.2012 at Mahagaon cross, in order to proceed to Humnabad. When the vehicle was near police station house Mahagaon, the driver of a TATA Indica Car bearing Registration No.KA-02/C-0893, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against auto rickshaw. As a result, the passengers in the auto rickshaw sustained grievous injuries and while Mallikarjun was being taken to the

7 Government hospital at Gulbarga, he died on the way. Contending that Mallikarjun was hale and healthy and was only 32 years and having lost the bread earner of the family, the appellant-claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation on various heads. They contended that Mallikarjun was working as an Assistant Manager in Reliance Company at Gulbarga and earning a monthly income of Rs.65,000/-. 4. In response to the claim petition, insurance company and other respondents before the Tribunal appeared through their respective advocates and filed separate written statements. Respondent No.3 before the Tribunal is the appellant herein who contended that she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the compensation amount and therefore, she sought that the claim petition be allowed. Respondent No.1 contended before the Tribunal that he is not the owner of the offending vehicle, as he had sold the vehicle to

8 respondent No.2 prior to the accident. He averred that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the auto rickshaw, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his Indica Car. That he was not in anyway concerned with the accident. Therefore, he sought for the dismissal of the claim petition. The insurance company filed written statement contending that the driver of the Indica Car was not at fault and therefore, there was no liability on the part of the insurer to indemnify the driver. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid rival pleadings and contentions, Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Does the claimants prove that deceased Mallikarjun died in the accident dated 17.08.2012 at about 9:30 p.m., in front of Mahagaon police station on NH-218 road

9 within the limits of Mahagaon Police Station due to the rash and negligent driving of Tata Indica bearing registration No.KA.02/C-0893 by its driver? 2. Does the claimants prove that the deceased was earning Rs.65,000/- per month from his occupation as Assistant Manager in Sales and Operation in Reliance Communication Ltd., Gulbarga and was having an age of 32 years at the time of accident? 3. Does the respondent Nos.1 to 3 proves that the amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant and excessive one? 4. Does the respondent Nos.2 and 3 proves that this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle bearing reg.No.KA.39/4490 for which they are not liable to pay any compensation? 6. In support of their case, claimant No.1 let in her evidence as PW.1, she produced twenty-six documents, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P26.

10 The respondents did not let in any evidence. On the basis of the said evidence, Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative; issue Nos.2 and 3 partly in the affirmative; and issue No.4 in the negative and allowed the claim petition in-part. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.23,24,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its complete realization. 7. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, mother of the deceased has preferred M.F.A. No.200159/2015, while the widow and son of the deceased have preferred M.F.A. No.200130/2015 seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. We have heard learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent- Insurance Company and perused the material on record as well as original record.

11 9. Appellants’ counsel have made a two fold submission. It is firstly contended by appellants’ counsel in M.F.A. No.200130/2015, that the award of compensation on the head of “loss of dependency” is meager. That the deceased was working as an Assistant Manager, in Sales and Operation, in Reliance Company, at Kalaburagi, his monthly income was Rs.65,000/-. In order to prove that fact Exs.P-12 to P-18 have been marked in evidence. On perusal of the said document it becomes clear that gross monthly income of the deceased was around Rs.40,000/-. That as per Ex.P-18 which is the pay slip for the month of August for a period of 25 working days till date of death of deceased, his income was Rs.25,431.72/-. That as per Ex.P-17 it is for the entire month of July-2012, the gross monthly income was Rs.37,121.32/-, but the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased only at

12 Rs.12,413.32/-, by excluding the allowances paid to the deceased. 10. Learned counsel contended that the concept of salary does not mean only the basic salary but it includes other perks and allowances, the same ought to have been taken into consideration. According to learned counsel, in the instant case the deceased was not only receiving basic salary of Rs.12,413.32/- but he received Conveyance Allowance of Rs.800/-, House Rent Allowance of Rs.6,206.50/-, Special Personal Allowance of Rs.14,743.50/-, Actual Reimbursement of Rs.239/- and Travel Reimbursement of Rs.2,719/-. Therefore, the gross salary was Rs.37,121.32/-. That only statutory deductions in the form of Professional Tax and Income Tax only had to be deducted from the monthly salary to arrive at the amount which would form the basis for calculating compensation on the head of “loss of

13 dependency”. He also contended that the principle of future prospects, had to be applied in the instant case on the net salary, the same has not been done in the instant case and therefore, the award of compensation on the head of “loss of dependency” is very meager. 11. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Indira Srivastava and Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 845, (Indira Srivastava), Kalpanaraj and Others vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 746, (Kalpanaraj), Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Ram Prasad Varma and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 712 (Ram Prasad Varma), Raghuvir Singh Matolya and Others vs. Hari Singh Malviya and Others reported in (2009) 15 SCC 363 (Raghuvir Singh

14 Matolya) and Sunil Sharma and Others vs. Bachitar Singh & Others reported in (2011) 11 SCC 425 (Sunil Sharma). He submitted that the compensation awarded on the head of “loss of dependency” would require re-assessment and the same may be done in these appeals. 12. Learned counsel for appellants in both the appeals submitted in unison that the award of compensation on the conventional head such as “loss of consortium”, “loss of estate”, “loss of love and affection”, “funeral and transportation expenses” are also on the meager side and compensation may be awarded on those heads. Consequently, the total compensation may be enhanced. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and contended

15 that the allowances that are payable to the deceased by the Company would not form part of the salary. That the salary will include only the basic salary and not the allowances and perks payable. He further submitted that the reimbursement that are made to the deceased cannot be considered as part of the salary. That the Provident Fund contribution should also not to be deducted from the gross salary to arrive at net salary. Further, the deceased being an income tax assessee, the payment of income tax cannot be as shown in the exhibits. It has to be on the rate, that is applicable to him which should be reckoned on the gross salary only. Therefore, while re-computing the quantum of compensation on the head of “loss of dependency”, the aforesaid aspects may be considered. He placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) and Others vs. Maharastra State

16 Road Transport Corporation and Another, reported in AIR 1998 SCC 3191 (Helen C. Rebello). 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration :- 1. Whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation on the head of “loss of dependency”? 2. Whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation on the other conventional heads? 3. What Order? 15. From the material on record, it is noted that the appellant-claimants have established that the deceased Mallikarjun died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 17.08.2012, he was 32 years of age at the time of his death. It has also been established that the deceased Mallikarjun was working as an Assistant Manager, Sales and Operation, Reliance

17 Company, at Kalaburagi. However, the controversy in these appeals, is firstly, with regard to the award of compensation on the head “loss of dependency”. Secondly, the award of compensation on the other conventional heads. 16. As far as the award of compensation on the head of “loss of dependency” is concerned, the Tribunal has noted Exs.P-12 to P-18, which are the salary slips pertaining to the deceased Mallikarjun Rs.12,413.12/- per month has been shown as the basic salary. That apart, deceased Mallikarjun was earning other allowances. The Tribunal however, has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Helen C. Rebello and came to the conclusion that the Travel Reimbursement, Actual Reimbursement, House Rent Allowance, Conveyance Allowance, Special Personal Allowance would not come within the periphery of pecuniary

18 advantage. Therefore, this payment cannot be considered for assessing the income of deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal considered only the basic salary of Rs.12,413.12/- per month to be the income of the deceased, for the purpose of computing compensation on the head of “loss of dependency”. Of course, 50% of that salary has been added towards future prospects of the deceased, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and Others vs. Rajbir Singh and Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54 (Rajesh). Thereafter, 1/3rd of that salary has been deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Multiplier 16 has been applied and compensation of Rs.23,04,000/- has been awarded on the head of “loss of dependency”. 17. We find that the approach of the Tribunal in excluding perks and allowances paid along with the basic salary to the deceased Mallikarjun for the

19 purpose of computation of compensation on the head of “loss of dependency” is incorrect. Though, we find that as far as future prospects are concerned, 50% must be added only with regard to the basic salary and not with regard to the perks. In saying so, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above in Indira Srivastava, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “8. The term ‘income’ has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetory terms.

20 9. Section 168 of the Act uses the word ‘just compensation’ which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. We cannot, in determining the issue involved in the matter, lose sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. Different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family. If some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined.”

21 While holding so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the decision of Asha and Another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2004 ACC 533, to be per incuriam. It is further held that, the amounts, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. From the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. Therefore, statutory deductions which are in the form of Income Tax and Professional Tax, as in the instant case would have to be deducted from the gross income, in order to arrive at the net income for the purpose of computation of compensation on the head of “loss of dependency”.

22 18. In the case of Ram Prasad Varma, after referring to several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is held that the amounts, which are required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should also be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have to be added to his monthly income by way of contribution. The same principle has been reiterated as stated in Indira Srivastava and Sunil Sharma. Once again reference has been made to Indira Srivastava and it has been held that deductions made from the gross salary on account of House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance and Medical Allowance are incorrect and same should be taken into consideration, for calculation of the income of the deceased. But deductions made towards General Provident Fund and Group Insurance Scheme are not included in calculating the income of the deceased.

23 19. In the case of Raghuvir Singh Matolya, it is held that Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance, payable to the deceased, should be included for determining the income of the deceased and consequently the amount of compensation. 20. In the case of Kalpanaraj, reference has been made to the judgment of the Madras High Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Padmavathy and Others, to hold that, “Income Tax and Professional Tax which are deducted from the salaried person goes to the coffers of the Government, under specific head and it is not returned. Whereas, contributions made to the General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, LIC are amounts paid on specific heads and the contribution is always repayable to an employee at the time of voluntary retirement, death or for any other

24 reason. Such contribution made by the salaried person are deferred payments and they are savings. However, the contribution made by the salaried persons are contractual and can be classified as savings, which would be included while calculating the compensation on the head of “loss of dependency”. 21. In the case of Vimal Kanwar and Others vs. Kishore Dan and others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants cannot offset, the compensation i.e., receivable by the heirs on account of death of the family member which is a statutory payment under the provision of the Act. Whereas the pecuniary advantages which is received by the heirs under contractual relationship is distinct and therefore, while calculating the compensation on the head of “loss of dependency”, those pecuniary advantage received by

25 the heirs on account of death of a family member cannot be taken note of. It was also held that salary receivable by the claimant on compassionate appointment, on account of death of the family member also cannot be deducted while determining compensation under the Act. Thirdly, the said judgment also states that the amount payable towards income tax is liable to be deducted while determining the compensation under the Act. It is further observed that where the annual income is in taxable range, the word “actual salary” should be read as “actual salary less tax”.

26 were only actual reimbursement TOT, Travel Reimbursement, Professional Tax and Income Tax, having regard to the slab in which the tax is payable. Therefore, we have to re-compute the compensation awarded on the head of “loss of income”. For that purpose it would be necessary to rely upon Ex.P-17, which is the salary slip for the month of July-2012. As the accident in the instant case occurred on 17.08.2012, it would be useful to extract the salary slip for July-2012 as under :- Reliance Company Limited Pay Slip for the Month of July 2012 Name : Mr.Mallikarjun Sagar Employee No.: 20043184 Designation : Assistant Manager Department: Field Operations State : Karnataka (RCL) Location : Gulbarga Pay Slip Location : Gulbarga Days in current month : 31 Working days in month : 24 Paid days in current month : 31.0 EMP PAN No. BLYPS0370R EMP PF No. MH/46459/ 20043184 E SIC No. --- Bank Name HDFC Bank Ltd., Bank A/c No. 00091 140121335 Earnings This month (Rs) Arrears (Rs) Deductions This month (Rs) Arrears (Rs)

27 Basic salary Conveyance Allow HRA Special Personal Allow Actual Reimbursement Tot Travel Reimbursement 12,413.32 800.00 6,206.50 14,743.50 239.00 2,719.00 PF Contribution Prof Tax-Full period Income Tax Recovery of round off amt. 1,490.00 200.00 948.00 0.68- 37,121.32 2,638.00 0.68- Rs. 37,121.32 Total Deductions Rs. 2,637.32 Gross earning Net pay Rs. 34,484.00 From the above, it is noted that the gross salary was Rs.37,121.32/- what has been deducted from that amount is Rs.2,638/-, the net pay has been shown as Rs.34,484/-. But as we have discussed above, components of the salary would be basic salary plus Conveyance Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Special Personal Allowance plus Provident Fund, which would mean that the Actual Reimbursement TOT, Travel reimbursement have to be excluded. Thus the gross Salary would be Rs.35,653.33/- rounded off to

28 Rs.35,654/-. The reason as to why Provident Fund amount is also added is because the said amount is part of the gross salary out of which deduction would have been made, had the deceased-Mallikarjun been alive. Professional Tax, and Income Tax have to be excluded. Thus, gross salary would be Rs.35,654/-. It would be Rs.35,454/-, after deducting Rs.200/- towards Professional Tax from Rs.35,654/-. 50% of the basic salary of Rs.12,413/- would have to be added on the principle of future prospects which would be Rs.6,206/-. Thus the total pay to be reckoned is Rs.41,660/- which would be the monthly salary, and the annual salary would be Rs.4,99,920/-, 10% of that amount would have to be deducted towards income tax. Thus, the net salary would be Rs.4,49,928/-. 1/3rd of the said amount would have to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. The amount after deduction would be

29 Rs.2,99,952/- and multiplier ‘16’ has to be applied to the said amount. As a result, compensation on the head of “loss of dependency” would be Rs.47,99,232/- , which would be rounded off to Rs.47,99,235/-. Thus the compensation on the head of “loss of dependency” is reassessed at the aforesaid amount and accordingly point No.1 is answered in favour of the appellants. 23. Learned counsel for insurance company has also brought to our notice a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Shashi Sharma and others reported in (2016) 7 SCC 35, wherein it has been observed that in the matter of determination of compensation under the Act, two cardinal principles must be borne in mind: firstly, the measure of compensation must be just and adequate; and secondly, the word “just” means-fair, adequate and reasonable and not arbitrary or inequitable. The

30 compensation for the death of a member of family to be payable to the dependants, is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also stated that the computation on the head of “loss of dependency” has to depend upon facts and circumstances of each case, as to what amount would be just compensation. 24. Keeping in mind the aforesaid dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we have considered only the basic salary for the purpose of applying the principle of future prospects and not the gross salary. We have to keep in mind only the basic salary as the assured amount payable to the deceased under the terms of his employment and hence, the allowances or perks are not taken into consideration while doubling the basic salary towards future prospects. We are also conscious of the fact that the appellant insurance company being a public sector organization is dealing

31 with public funds. Thus while awarding compensation, there should not be in any windfall from a misfortune arising from the sudden death of a member of the family. Therefore, the interest of dependents of the deceased as well as the insurance company have to be balanced in such matters. 25. As far as point No.2 is concerned the appellants particularly, the mother of the deceased has filed an independent appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the head of “loss of love and affection”, “loss of estate”, and “funeral and transportation expenses”. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards “transportation and funeral expenses” and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of “love and affection”. No compensation has been awarded on the head of “loss of estate” and “loss of consortium”. We find that the claimants are entitled to compensation on the aforesaid heads as

32 well as the enhanced compensation on the other two heads. Hence, the award of compensation on the head of “loss of consortium” is Rs.1,00,000/- as the widow of the claimant was only 27 years of age, at the time of accident. On the head of “loss of love and affection” a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-; towards “loss of estate” Rs.50,000/-, towards “transportation of dead body and funeral expenses” Rs.25,000/- are awarded. Thus the re-assessed compensation is as under:- Loss of dependency Rs.47,99,235/- Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 50,000/- Transportation and funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- ____________ Total Rs. 50,74,235/- After deducting the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.23,24,000/-, the enhanced compensation is of Rs.27,50,235/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in favour of the appellant.

33 26. We find that the enhanced compensation has to be apportioned in the following manner : a) 40% of the enhanced compensation shall be payable to appellant No.1- Mrs.Chayadevi, in MFA No.200130/2015. b) Similarly 40% of the enhanced compensation shall be apportioned to appellant No.2-Master Prabhu- minor child in the said appeal; c) Balance 20% of the enhanced compensation shall be apportioned to appellant in MFA No.200159/2015. The directions for deposit are as under: (a) Out of the compensation and interest awarded to claimant No.1, 75% shall be deposited in a fixed deposit for an initial period of ten years either in any nationalized bank or in any Government deposit, such as post office saving scheme

34 etc. She shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said deposit. (b) The entire enhanced compensation and interest payable to the minor child shall be deposited in any nationalized or in any Government deposit till he attains the age of majority. We however, make it clear that should there be need for funds for the purpose of higher education of the child- or any other valid reason an application may be made to this Court by citing the reasons for withdrawal of any amount deposited in the name of the child. 70% of the compensation plus interest awarded to the appellant in MFA No.200159/2015 (mother of the deceased) shall be deposited in any nationalized Bank or in any Government deposit for an initial period of seven years. She shall be entitled to draw periodical interest on the said compensation.

Balance

35 compensation to be release to the mother of the deceased after due identification. Appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. No cost. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sdu/RSP