Judgment:
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR MFA NO.919/2019(MV-D) C/W MFA CROB NO.29/2019(MV-D) IN MFA NO.919/2019: BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18, 5TH AND6H FLOOR KRISHI BHAVAN OPP. TO HUDSON CIRCLE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. INDU SINGH W/O VIVEKANAND SINGH AGED ABOUT51YEARS2 SRI. VIVEKANANDA SINGH S/O PRABAL PRATAP SINGH AGED ABOUT55YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1/6B COSSIPUR ROAD, CHITPUR KOLKATA-700 002 WEST BENGAL STATE23. SRI. JAGADEESHA .D S/O DUGAPPA A.R. NO.528, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL NELALUR, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU (OWNER OF CAR BEARING REG. NO.KA-03/D-6841) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.P. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. K.T. MADHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 V/O DTD:25-1-2022, NOTICE TO R3-HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION1731) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED:03.09.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.7292/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIII ACMM., MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-5), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.42,64,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF9 P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. ************ IN MFA CROB NO.29/2019: BETWEEN:
1. SMT. INDU SINGH W/O VIVEKANAND SINGH AGED ABOUT51YEARS2 SRI. VIVEKANANDA SINGH S/O PRABAL PRATAP SINGH AGED ABOUT55EYARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1/6-B, COSSIPUR ROAD CHITPUR, KOLKATA-700 002 WEST BENGAL STATE ... CROSS-OBJECTORS (BY SRI. S.P. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. K.T. MADHU, ADVOCATE) 3 AND:
1. MR. JAGADEESHA .D S/O DUGAPPA A.R NO.528, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL NELALUR, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE NO.18, KRUSHI BHAVAN5H & 6TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE OPP. TO HUDSON CHURCH N.T. ROAD, BANGALORE-01 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2. (V/O DTD:
25. 6.2021- NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.919/2019 IS FILED UNDER ORDER
41RULE22OF CPC, R/W SECTION1731) FO MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED:
03. 09.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.7292/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SCJ & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THE ABOVE MFA AND MFA-CROB HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON2109.2022, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
These appeal and Cross-appeals are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 03.09.2018 passed by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and 4 MACT (SCCH-5) at Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in MVC No.7292/2016.
2. MFA No.919/2019 is filed by the Respondent No.2/United India Insurance Company Limited under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’) challenging the liability as well as quantum, while MFA CROB No.29/2019 is filed by the petitioners/claimants under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, on 31.05.2016 around 9.30 p.m., while the deceased-Vishal Singh was travelling as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-41-EC-7832 from Nice Road side towards Uttarahalli Main Road on left side of the Gaankal Main Road near Aditya Bakery, Kengeri, Bengaluru. At that time, a Tata Indica Car 5 bearing Registration No.KA.03.D6841driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from opposite direction by moving to extreme right side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle on which the deceased was travelling. Due to the said impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts of the body. Immediately he was shifted to BGS Global Hospital at Bengaluru, wherein he was in ICU for 05 days. However, he did not respond to the treatment and succumbed because of injuries in the hospital on 05.06.2016. The deceased Vishal Singh was aged about 24 years and was a BE Graduate working as a Software Engineer in a Private Company-Mind Tree Limited and was drawing salary of Rs.26,500/- per month with annual package of Rs.3,20,004/-. The petitioners/claimants being the dependents have lost their bread earning member and hence, they filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, claiming compensation of Rs.50.00 Lakhs. 6
5. Respondent No.1/owner of the offending car did not contest the matter, while respondent No.2/insurer (appellant herein) appeared and contested the matter before the Tribunal by filing objections statement. He admits coverage of risk by policy of offending vehicle. But, it is asserted that the accident is caused because of actionable negligence on the part of the deceased (pillion rider) as well as rider of the motor cycle. It is also asserted that, there is breach of policy conditions, as the rider of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective Driving Licence, as on the date of accident and hence, he disputes the liability.
6. The Tribunal after assessing oral as well as documentary evidence, has awarded total compensation of Rs.42,64,000/- from the date of petition till the date of realization with interest at 9% per annum. Further, the Tribunal has fastened liability on Respondent No.2/Insurer (appellant herein).
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance Company has filed MFA7No.919/2019 disputing the liability and quantum, while MFA-CROB No.29/2019 is filed by the petitioners/ claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Heard the arguments advanced by Sri. Lakshminarasappa, Advocate for Sri. A.M. Venkatesh appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company and Sri. S.P. Shankar learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/claimants.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the Insurance Company is challenging the quantum as well as liability. He would contend that the compensation as well as rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side, as it was awarded at 9%. He would also contend that the Tribunal has taken income on higher side and future prospects were taken at 50% instead of 40%. He would also specifically assert that Rs.15.00 Lakhs was paid by New India Insurance Co. Ltd., on the basis of the policy taken by the employer and the said amount was not ordered to be deducted, from compensation. He would 8 also invite the attention of the Court to Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 and contend that, there is no material evidence to show that the deceased has contributed any amount towards Group Insurance taken by the employer and Rs.15,000/- is being paid to him. Hence, he would seek for deduction of Rs.15.00 Lakhs received by the petitioners/claimants under the Group Insurance Policy pertaining to Accident Claim and sought for reducing the quantum.
10. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.P.Shankar, appearing for Cross-objectors/ claimants would contend that, PW.3 is an officer of employer-M/s. Mind Tree Company of the deceased and he states that, he do not know as to whether the deceased has paid premium for Group Insurance Policy and no suggestion was made to PW.3, regarding premium being paid by the deceased. He would also invite the attention of the Court to Ex.P14 and Annexures A1 and A2 and asserts that there is scope for payment of 4.00 Lakhs and it can be enhanced to 9 Rs.15,00 Lakhs, if excess premium is paid by the employee and the same is applicable to the case in hand. He would also invite the attention of the Court to order of this Court dated 31.01.2019 and contended that now, Insurance Company is precluded from raising an issue, as it is hit by principles of res-judicata. He would further submit that the entire claim excluding 15.00 Lakhs, is already deposited and disbursed, and as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. He would further submit that the claimants have filed cross-appeal seeking enhancement, as monthly income was taken on lower side and he seeks to reconsider this aspect.
11. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the Insurance Company is challenging the quantum. Though number of grounds are urged during oral arguments, but the grounds urged in the appeal memo are restricted to non-deduction of Rs.15.00 Lakhs and interest portion only. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Insurance 10 Company is that, Rs.15.00 Lakhs is paid to the petitioners/claimants under the Group Insurance Scheme and that is required to be deducted from compensation. But, the records as well as the evidence of PW.3 clearly disclose that premium was paid by the employer and no evidence is placed to show that the deceased has contributed to the Group Insurance Scheme or any premium amount was deducted from his salary.
12. Ex.P14 is the appointment letter, which is not under serious challenge. From Ex.P14 it is evident that, appointment date is 11.10.2015. Annexure-1 of Ex.P14 discloses that premium for Insurance is Rs.385/-p.m. It also discloses that Group Medical Coverage is there for deceased and his family members and standard coverage under Group Medical Coverage (GMC) is Rs.4,00,000/- per annum, per family and Group Term Life (GRL)) coverage is up to Rs.12,50,000/- and Group Personal Accident (GPA) coverage is for Rs.12,50,000/-. Annexure-2 discloses that the deceased being a C1 11 Designated Engineer with annual package of Rs.3,20,400/- having following components. “The total offer is INR320004 and consists of the following components: Component Amount Cost to Company (CTC) per 290,004 annum Retention Bonus 30,000 Total Offer 3,20,004 Detailed break-up of your CTC components is given below (all figures are in INR and per annum) Basic 78,000 Flexible Expenditure Plan(FEP) 158,280 Provident Fund 9,360 Gratuity 3,744 Insurance2 4,620 Emergency Medical Fund 1,200 Gross 255,204 Performance bonus3 34,800 Cost to Company 290,004 13. Further, additional coverage was offered to enhance GMC from Rs.4.00 Lakhs to Rs.10.00 Lakhs by deducting additional top-up of Rs.2.00 Lakhs, 4.00 Lakhs, Rs.6.00 Lakhs, Rs.8.00 Lakhs, Rs.11.00 Lakhs 12 and Rs.16.00 Lakhs. It is further evident that, if the employee opts for this top-up coverage, an additional premium for the increased coverage will have to be deducted from salary on pro-rata basis. Annexures- 1 & 2 does not speak regarding Group Insurance Scheme. The Package Policy is only for Rs.3,20,004/- and on perusal of Anneuxre-2, it is evident that, no deduction towards premium is shown in Annexure-2.
14. Ex.P18 is the salary slip of the deceased for the month of February 2016 to May 2016. The total income is shown to be Rs.22,590/- per month and total deduction is Rs.980/-, i.e., Rs.780/- towards PF Contribution and Rs.200/- towards Professional Tax. This salary slip does not disclose regarding deduction of any premium towards Top-up Insurance Coverage like Personal Insurance or Group Insurance coverage. Ex.P18 is completely silent in this regard and does not show that the deceased has paid any premium towards Group Insurance Scheme or Top-up of GMC claim. 13
15. The evidence of PW.1 further discloses that, they have received Rs.4,00,000/- under GMC and it is evident that it was pertaining to Group Medical Coverage as per Anneuxre-1. There is no evidence to show that the deceased has opted for enhanced coverage under GMC by paying additional premium. Further, the Insurance Company is not challenging payment of Rs.4,00,000/- and never sought to be deducted and therefore, the claim is only regarding Rs.15.00 Lakhs paid under the Group Insurance Scheme.
16. PW.3 is the Officer of the employer of deceased i.e., Mindtree Company, wherein the deceased was working. His evidence discloses that, in their Company, 17000 persons are working and the Company has insured them. He has also admitted that, Group Insurance was also done and in this regard, the Company has taken the policy from M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Though he denied that, entire premium was paid by the Company, he claims that, 14 they requested the employees to pay premium and it is the discretion of the employees. He further admits that in Ex.P18, there is no reference regarding deduction of premium from the salary of the deceased. Further, it is not the case of the petitioners/claimants that the deceased contributed any premium towards coverage of Group Insurance. The evidence of PW.3 discloses that, the standard coverage under GMC package is for Rs.4.00 Lakhs. But, his evidence was recorded on 24.10.2017, while the accident has occurred in 2016. He Admits that they have got detailed records regarding premium being paid and admittedly in Ex.P18 (pay slips), there is no reference of deduction of premium from the salary of the deceased towards Group Insurance.
17. Ex.R1 is the letter issued by the employer of the deceased-Mindtree Company regarding payment of Rs.15.00 Lakhs. It further discloses that Rs.15.00 Lakhs payment has reached the company and there is no serious dispute of the fact that the same has been 15 paid to petitioners/claimants. The only issue is regarding deduction of Rs.15.00 Lakhs from compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which was received by the petitioners/claimants under Group Insurance Policy. In this context, learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has placed reliance on the decision reported in (1999) 1 SCC90[Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another]., wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the “pecuniary advantages” for the purpose of MV Act and the Legislative Intent of beneficial character of the Legislation taken into account and thereby the provisions were interpreted. It is held that, Provident Fund, Family Pension, Cash Balance, Shares, Fixed Deposits, etc., cannot be termed as “Pecuniary Advantages” for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act. In Paras-33 and 34, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with this issue further and observed a under:- 16 33. “Thus, it would not include that which claimant receives on account of other forms of deaths, which he would have received even apart from accidental death. Thus, such pecuniary advantage would have no correlation to the accidental death for which compensation is computed. Any amount received or receivable not only on account of the accidental death but that which would have come to the claimant even otherwise, could not be construed to be the "pecuniary advantage", liable for deduction. However, where the employer insures his employee, as against injury or death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance on the happening of such incidence may be an amount liable for deduction. However, our legislature has taken note of such contingency, through the proviso of Section 95. Under it the liability of the insurer is excluded in respect of injury or death, arising out of, in the course of employment of an employee.
34. This is based on the principle that the claimant for the happening of the same incidence may not gain twice from two sources. This, it is excluded thus, either through the wisdom of legislature or through 17 the principle of loss and gain through deduction not to give gain to the claimant twice arising from the same transaction, viz., same accident. It is significant to record here in both the sources, viz., either under the Motor Vehicles Act or from the employer, the compensation receivable by the claimant is either statutory or through the security of the employer securing for his employee but in both cases he receives the amount without his contribution. How thus an amount earned out of one's labour or contribution towards one's wealth, savings, etc. either for himself or for his family, which such person knows, under the law, has to go to his heirs after his death either by succession or under a will could be said to be the 'pecuniary gain' only on account of one's accidental death. This, of course, is pecuniary gain but how this is equitable or could be balanced out of the amount to be received as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no co-relation between the two amounts. Not even remotely. How can an amount of loss and gain of one contract be made applicable to the loss and gain of another contract. Similarly, how an amount receivable under a statute has any co-relation with an amount earned by an individual. 18 Principle of loss and gain has to be on the same plane within the same sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary or any provisions of law.
18. It is evident that, the Hon’ble Apex Court has made it very clear that “Pecuniary Advantages” would not include the beneficial amount received in other forms on death, which the claimants/legal heirs would have received even apart from the accidental death. It is further held that, any amount received or receivable not only on account of accidental death, but that, which would have come to the claimant even otherwise, could not be construed to be a “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction. It is further held that where the employer insures the employee as against injury or death arising out of an accident, any amount received out of such insurance, on the happening of such incident may be an amount liable for deduction. It is further held that, it is based on the principle that the claimant for the happening of some incidence may not gain twice from two sources. It is an admitted fact that, this decision 19 referred above in Helen Rebello’s case is still holding the field and again it is followed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in LAWS (BOM)-2013-12-177 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Meena Tukaram Jadhav), which is based on the decision in Helen Rebello’s case only. In the said case, the deceased was a beneficiary of Insurance Policy taken by the Company for its Employees and admittedly, the premium was paid by the Company in the said case. In the present case also, if the deceased had contributed to Insurance Package by way of payment of premium, things would have been different. But that was not the case in the present case on hand.
19. Learned Counsel for respondents/claimants in this context, has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2021 ACJ2248(New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Veena Sinha and Others) But, on perusal of the facts, it is evident that, in the said case, the deceased has paid premium for policy of Life Insurance Coverage and 20 hence, it is held that, the Insurance amount would have accrued to the estate of the deceased on expiry of the policy or on his death. But, in the instant case, admittedly, there is no evidence about the deceased paying any premium towards Group Insurance and the claimants also never asserted this aspect. Hence, the principles enunciated in the above cited decision will not come to the aid of the claimants in any way.
20. Learned Counsel for the respondents/ claimants has further placed reliance on decision reported in 2022 ACJ749(Satya Prakash Dwivedi Vs. Munna and others) and argued that, in appeal, the Appellate Court cannot reduce the quantum of compensation under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC. But, the facts of the said case are entirely different and in the instant case, there is no question of reduction of compensation under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, as the quantum is challenged by filing of appeal itself.
21. Learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has placed reliance on a decision reported in 21 2019 ACJ34(Sebasiani Lakra and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another). In the said case, the facts and circumstances are entirely different, wherein the claimants were receiving certain amount per month under the employees family benefit scheme till the date of retirement and since the claimants were getting advantage, it is held that the claimants are not entitled for additional percentage of future prospects. Even in the said decision, it is held that the amount paid under Employees Family Benefit Scheme cannot be deducted. But, there is no doubt that the decision in Helen Rebello’s case referred supra, is holding the field as on today.
22. The Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in 2022 ACJ1156(Geetha Kumari B.N. and Others Vs. Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.) had an occasion to deal with this issue again. In the said decision, the Division Bench has laid down the law as under:
22. “Quantum-Deductions-Group life insurance policy-Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs.38,69,198 but deducted Rs.17,82,336 received by claimants on account of life insurance availed by employer of the deceased on the ground that deceased did not contribute any amount towards insurance premium-Whether Tribunal erred in deducting the insurance amount-Held: yes: such amount cannot be termed as pecuniary advantage liable for deduction.
23. The Division Bench in the said decision has specifically held that the payment made under GIS Life Insurance Policy, on account of Life Insurance availed by the employer of the deceased on the ground that the deceased did not contribute any amount towards Insurance Premium cannot be deducted, while awarding quantum. This issue is directly covered by the Division Bench referred above in Geetha Kumari’s case and in the said case also, no contribution is made by the deceased, but the Court has held that, deduction is not permissible. The said principle is directly on this point. In the decision of Helen Rebello’s case referred above, 23 issue regarding payment of premium was not considered and only the pecuniary advantages were considered. But, the Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that, even if no premium was paid by the employee, while employer has taken insurance policy, then such insurance claim amount on account of death of concerned employee, cannot be deducted from the award. Under these circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for appellants/Insurance Company in this regard, holds no water.
24. Even in the decision reported in AIR2018SC5304 (2019) 17 SCC465ie., in Sebastini Lakra’s case (referred supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the amount received by the claimant/legal heirs of deceased under Employees Family Pension Scheme, cannot be deducted, while calculating compensation under the head ‘Loss of Income’. On this point, learned Counsel for respondents/claimants has placed reliance on a decision 24 reported in 2016(9) SCC627(Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shashi Sharma). He has also invited the attention of the Court to Para No.12 of said case ie., in Shashi Sharma’s case, wherein the observations made in Helen Rebello’s case in Para Nos. 32 to 35 are referred. He has further placed reliance on a decision reported in (2013) 7 SCC476(Vimal Kanwar and Others Vs. Kishore Dan and Others) wherein it is held that, amounts such as Provident Fund, Pension, Life Insurance receivable by the claimants on account of death of victim do not fall within the periphery of MV Act, as it cannot be termed a “Pecuniary Advantages” and as such, it is not liable for deduction. He has further placed reliance on the decision reported in 2022 ACJ749(Sathya Prakash Dwivedi Vs. Munna and others) and 2020 ACJ1855(R.M. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. H.C. Nagabhushan). This Court again in the decision reported in 2022 ACJ1174(Raju and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.), has observed that, 25 the Monetary Death Benefit on account of Group Insurance availed by the employer of the deceased and pensionary benefit are not deductible, while assessing compensation. It is further held that, these amounts accrue to the claimants on account of contractual relation which deceased would have entered with his employer and in the instant case, such monetary benefit is based on Ex.P14. Hence, both the Division Bench of this Court have laid down the law on this point and consistently held that the amount paid under Group Insurance even if the premium is not paid by the deceased, it cannot be deductible while computing compensation. The said principles are also binding on this Court. In this regard, the learned Counsel has further placed reliance on an un-reported decisions of this Court rendered in MFA No.4783/2015 (MV) [Smt. Manjula and others Vs. The Managing Director, BMTC, Bengluru]. dated 18.08.2020 and MFA No.532/2019 (MV-D) [Smt. Javeria Banu and 26 others Vs. M/s. Lakshmi Cargo Movers and Another]. dated 22.09.2021.
25. On assessing the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the premium amount was paid to Group Insurance Coverage Policy by the employer of the deceased Vishal Singh. Further, from the decisions referred supra it is also clear that, whether premium for Life Insurance Coverage Policy was paid either by the employer or by the employee has no relevancy as it is based on contractual liability between the deceased and his employer and hence, such monetary benefit accrued from Life Insurance Policy/Scheme cannot be deductible, while assessing compensation. As such, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that, the monetary benefit of Rs.15,00,000/- received by the petitioners/claimants/cross-objectors on account of death of deceased-Vishal Singh, out of Group Insurance Policy, is to be deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is not sustainable and the grounds urged in this regard cannot be accepted. 27
26. The other contention regarding ‘salary taken is on higher side’ is not substantiated by material evidence and the same is also not made as one of the grounds in the appeal memo. Further, the Tribunal has already considered all the aspects in this regard including income-tax and professional tax deductions and hence, no illegality is found in the impugned judgment. The other grounds urged by the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company are not relevant, except interest portion. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 9% per annum. Considering prevailing rate of interest on Fixed Deposits, this Court is consistently granting interest at 6% per annum. Hence, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on higher side and it requires to be reduced. To this extent only, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company needs to be allowed. The other contentions raised by the appellant/Insurance Company are without any merit and does not survive for consideration. 28
27. At the same time, the petitioners/claimants have also filed Cross-Appeal in MFA CROB No.29/2019 for enhancement of compensation. Since the Tribunal has taken the income based on material evidence, their contention regarding enhancement of compensation is also not sustainable. Under these circumstances, the said Cross-appeal seeking enhancement of compensation does not survive for consideration. MFA No.919/2019 though does not survive on quantum, but it needs to be allowed so far it relates to interest portion only. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER
i) MFA No.919/2019 filed by Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is allowed-in- part, so far as it relates to interest portion. ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 03.09.2018 passed by VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT (SCCH-5), Bengaluru, in MVC No.7292/2016 is modified only to a limited extent of reduction in rate of interest from 9% to 6%. 29 iii) The impugned judgment and award, granting compensation of Rs.42,64,000/- stands confirmed. iv) The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is modified by awarding interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. v) MFA CROB No.29/2019 filed by the petitioners/claimants/Cross-objectors stands dismissed. The statutory deposit made by the Appellant/Insurance Company in MFA No.919/2019 shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- JUDGE KGR* CT:NR