Prakash Tatia, J.
1. Out of eight appeals, four appeals have been preferred by the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'the insurance company'), whereas four have been preferred by the to claimants to challenge the award dated 10.4.2002 by which the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pali in six claim cases iled by the claimants, decided the claim petitions by a common award.
2. Brief facts of the case are that six sets lided with a trailer which was lying in theof the claimants submitted claim petitions left side of the road. It is said that Chhotu as a number of persons were travelling in the truck No. RJ 19-C 0334 in the night of 9/10.6.1994 which met with an accident with a truck-trailer resulting in death of Lumba Ram and Dhagala Ram and injuries Bhanwar Lal, Laxman Nath, Dalpat Ram and Pyari Bai. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these appeals are that at the relevant time, respondent Pema Ram was driving the above-mentioned truck and because of rash and negligent driving of the said Pema Ram, truck collided with a trailer which was lying in the left side of the road. It is said that Chhotu Lal, respondent, was the owner of the truck and Pema Ram was the driver in the employment of Chhotu Lal. It has come in evidence of the witnesses produced by the claimants that there was one more driver and that was treated as main driver of the truck by the claimants and according to the claimants when the main driver was sleeping, Pema Ram took the vehicle and drove it rashly and negligently and caused the accident. It is submitted that all the persons who were in the truck at the time of the accident, were the labourers of the owner of the truck.
3. Due to the said accident, one F.I.R. No. 61 of 1994 was lodged in the Police Station, Guda Aindla and the challan was filed against the alleged driver Pema Ram. The truck was insured with appellant insurance company and, therefore, the claims were filed against the appellant insurance company, owner of the vehicle Chhotu Lal and the driver of the vehicle Pema Ram. The claimants in their claim petitions, on the plea of lack of knowledge about the main driver of the vehicle mentioned in the cause title that he will be impleaded upon getting the full knowledge and details about the main driver but no such driver was impleaded.
4. The appellant insurance company submitted reply to the claim petitions and admitted that the truck was insured with the appellant insurance company. According to the appellant insurance company, the truck was carrying passengers and their risk was not covered by the appellant insurance company. It is also pleaded that no person other than labourers should have been permitted to travel in the truck as per the conditions of the policy, therefore, the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. It is also submitted that the respondent Pema Ram was not holding valid licence to drive the vehicle which was involved in the accident.
5. No replies to the claim petitions were filed by the owner of the vehicle, therefore, his right to submit reply was closed and, ultimately, the Tribunal passed the order to proceed ex pane against the owner of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle did not appear despite notice, therefore, the Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the driver.
6. Issues were framed in all the 6 claim petitions and the evidence was recorded. The claimants have produced/appeared as witnesses AW 1 Sita (applicant), witnesses AW 2 Dalpat Ram in Claim Case No. 50 of 2001; in Claim Case No. 49 of 2001, AW 1 Parki and AW 2 Dalpat Ram; in Claim Case No. 51 of 2001 AW 1 Bhan- war Lal (applicant), in Claim Case No. 52 of 2001, AW 1 Laxman Nath and AW 2 Dalpat Ram; in Claim Case No. 53 of 200l'AW 1 Pyari Bai and AW 2 Dalpat Ram; in Claim Case No. 62 of 2001 AW 1 Dalpat Ram (applicant) were examined. Non-applicant produced witnesses NAW 1 M.B. Mandarvalia and other witnesses NAW 2 Chhotu Lal, owner of the vehicle, NAW 3 Subhash Singh Dabi and NAW 4 Riyaj Anwar and NAW 5 Sanjay Kumar. Both the parties produced their documents and exhibited them.
7. The Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1, considering the evidence in detail of these witnesses and, thereafter, held that on 9/10.6.1994, in the early morning at about 4.30 a.m., Pema Ram in the employment of Chhotu Lal, was driving the truck No. RJ 19-C 0334 and while driving the truck rashly and negligently, he hit the trailer which was lying on the left side of the road resulting into death of Dhagala Ram and Lumba Ram and injuries to Bhan- war Lal and Laxman Nath, Pyari Bai and Dalpat Ram. The Tribunal, while deciding issue No. 2, held that there is no breach of conditions by the insured and further held that the insurance company failed to prove that the driver Pema Ram had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle so as to claim exoneration from payment of the compensation.
8. The Tribunal passed the award of compensation as under:
--------------------------------------Claim Case AmountNumber awarded--------------------------------------(1) 49 of 2001 Rs. 2,00,000(2) 50 of 2001 Rs. 2,00,000 (3) 51 of 2001 Rs. 24,347(4) 52 of 2001 Rs. 5,000 (5) 53 of 2001 Rs. 15,000 (6) 62 of 2001 Rs. 5,854 --------------------------------------
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company vehemently submitted that it cannot be believed that as many as 23 persons can be labourers in a truck and since under the policy, the risk of only six persons was covered by the insurance company and more persons were travelling in the vehicle, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation amount to the insured. It is also submitted that the accident occurred on 10.6.1994 prior to coming into force of amendment of 1994, therefore, the law as it was on the date of the accident is applicable and in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), the insurance company is not liable to pay for the liability of passengers risk. The learned Counsel for appellant further relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy 2003 ACJ 468 (SC), wherein it has been held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount of the gratuitous passengers and for the passengers who were travelling unauthorisedly in the goods vehicle. The Apex Court further held that the Act (Motor Vehicles Act) does not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage. In substance, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant, so far as persons travelling in the truck was twofold. One is that the persons travelling in the vehicle were gratuitous passengers or they were travelling unauthorisedly, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. Secondly, the case set up by the claimants is false so far as they pleaded that as many as 23 persons travelling in the truck were the labourers engaged for loading and unloading of fodder from the truck. The learned Counsel for the appellant feebly submitted that the Tribunal's decision, not to exonerate the insurance company as Pema Ram had no valid driving licence is wrong, but found difficulty in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh 2004 ACJ 1 (SC).
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant also tried to submit that according to the claimants themselves the driver of the truck was not Pema Ram but someone else and Pema Ram took the vehicle unauthorisedly and since the owner of the vehicle admitted that Pema Ram was only driver engaged by him and he did not engage any other driver in the truck in question, therefore, the entire claim of claimants deserves to be dismissed. It is also submitted that claimants failed to prove that the victims were the labourers of Chhotu Lal, owner of the vehicle, which is clear from their evidence.
11. Learned Counsel for the claimants vehemently submitted that the appeal of the appellant insurance company deserves to be dismissed as no ground is made out for interference by this Court by appellant insurance company. The learned Counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that the insurance company's witness Dr. M.B. Mandarvaliya, admitted the policy Exh. 1 and also produced the copy of the policy which was marked as Exh. Dl and he admitted that extra premium of Rs. 90 was charged from the owner of the vehicle which according to learned Counsel for the respondents was charged for the persons employed in connection with the operation, maintaining and unloading of the truck and since the victims who filed the claim petitions were the persons engaged for loading/unloading of the fodder from the truck in question by the owner of the vehicle, therefore, the policy fully covered the risk of all the victims. It is also pointed out that the insurance company's witness admitted that there is no mention in the policy that by this policy, the insurance company has covered the risk of only driver and cleaner plus four labourers. However, the witness stated that in the cover note, Exh. 9, in the column 'passengers' 4 + 2 is written. In view of the documentary evidence of the appellant insurance company, supported by the clear oral statement of the witness of the appellant company, the risk of all the six victims was covered by the policy. The learned Counsel for claimants-respondents vehemently submitted that all the witnesses produced by the claimants proved specific fact that they were travelling in the truck and they were engaged for loading and unloading of the fodder. It is also submitted that it was month of June when accident took place and in Rajasthan, transport of fodder in the month of June is the most hectic activity because of the scarcity of fodder in the period of summer in desert area of Rajasthan.
12. Learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that the insurance company covered the risk of driver, khalasi and four labourers even then if more persons travelled in the truck then the travelling of more persons in the truck was not the cause of accident and also it had no nexus with the accident, therefore, claimants who proved themselves to be the labourers of the owner of the truck, are entitled to recover the claim amount from the insurer of the vehicle of the insured. For this, learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC) and one Division Bench judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Puni Devi 1995 ACJ 486 (HP). The learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants also submitted that the insurance company cannot be permitted to raise the grounds which they have not raised in reply to the claim petitions.
13. In the other set of appeals, filed by claimants, learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that in the case of death of young persons Lumba Ram and Dhagala Ram, claim amount of only Rs. 2,00,000 in each case has been awarded by Claims Tribunal despite the fact that the Tribunal assessed the income of both the dead persons as Rs. 1,500 per month and deducted Rs. 500 and applied the multiplier of 15 only and determined the compensation which is too low in view of the decisions which are given by this Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in large number of cases. Learned Counsel for the claimants also submitted that in the case of injuries to Bhanwar Lal and Pyari Bai, the claim amount is too low.
14. I considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is true that the witnesses Bhanwar Lal, Laxman Nath, Pyari Bai and Dalpat Ram stated that Pema Ram started the truck without the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita permission of the main driver of the vehicle and caused the accident. It is also true that the witness Bhanwar Lal stated that Pema Ram had driven the vehicle without taking permission of the main driver and the witness Laxman Nath stated that despite objection, Pema Ram had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and that too, without permission of the main driver. It is also true that it is also stated that one Mahomedan Thekedar took them on wages but at the same time it is clear that all these persons stated that they had no knowledge about the identity and the whereabouts of the alleged main driver. It is clear that the claimants submitted the claim petitions with a blank S. No. 4 in anticipation that in case they will find out the main driver, they will implead him as a party in the claim petitions. It is also a fact that the alleged main driver was not impleaded in the claim petition obviously because of the reason that the claimants even after lapse of long time in trial could not find out the alleged main driver. It appears that the claimants and the witnesses were under wrong impression that Pema Ram was not the driver of the vehicle and someone who might have driven the truck for any period prior to driving of vehicle by Pema Ram, was the main driver and gave statements before the Tribunal that main driver was someone else.Looking to the entire evidence of all the witnesses, it is clear that they had no specific knowledge about the driver engaged by the owner but it is admitted case of all the witnesses that at the time of accident, Pema Ram was driving the vehicle. Assuming for the sake of argument that there were two drivers in the truck, this fact is not of much relevance as it is not the case that the other driver was responsible for the accident in any manner. Contrary to it, the owner of the vehicle himself gave his statement on oath and stated that Pema Ram was the driver appointed by him for the truck in question. He also stated that he always used to keep 5 to 7 labourers for loading/ unloading. He further stated that Pema Ram was authorised to bring the labourers and in the cross-examination, he further admitted that his truck was engaged on contract and, therefore, the labourers were engaged through Hanif Khan and Babu Lal and the labourers used to travel in the truck. The owner of the vehicle Chhotu Lal stated that he engaged Pema Ram after seeing his driving licence. He further stated that in the truck, for fodder, at least 15-20 persons are needed, whereas 5-7 labourers used to remain with the truck. When the persons, who were travelling in the truck are labourers and they had no knowledge about the driver of the vehicle, therefore, if the claimants under wrong impression stated that there was one main driver and Pema Ram was the second driver, their testimony so far as having any main driver is neither relevant nor can be believed. The evidence on record clearly reveals that Pema Ram was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding Pema Ram as driver of the vehicle appears to be fully based on evidence produced by the parties.
15. At this stage, it will be relevant to mention here that appellant insurance company, in their reply to the claim petitions, though raised objection that non-applicant Pema Ram was not in employment of the owner of the vehicle nor he was working for the benefit of the owner of the vehicle, but for this, nothing has been said by the witness Dr. M.B. Mandarvaliya in his examination-in-chief, rather he specifically denied the suggestion given by the learned Counsel for the claimants that Pema Ram was not the main driver, meaning thereby he admitted that Pema Ram was the main driver of the vehicle. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 1.
16. Now the question arises, in what capacity the victims were travelling and whether because there were more persons travelling in truck at the time of accident, whether the insurance company can claim any exemption from their liability to reimburse the claim. All the witnesses clearly stated that they were travelling in the truck, as they were engaged to load/unload the fodder. When there is positive statement on oath of all the witnesses produced by the claimants, then there is no scope for rejecting their statement on oath only on the basis of assumption as suggested by the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company that there cannot be such number of persons as labourers for loading and unloading of fodder. Contrary to it, we can take note of the fact that in the month of June in Rajasthan and particularly in western Rajasthan because of scarcity of the rain, fodder transport activity increases manifold and for which, the owner of the truck engages more labourers so that they may take benefit of their vehicle more to earn by transporting the fodder. The time of accident also suggests that the fodder was transported in the truck even in the night which also supports the view that at the relevant time, there was need of more labourers for loading and unloading of the fodder. In view of the above reasons, it is held that the passengers travelling in the truck were labourers and neither they were gratuitous persons nor they were unauthorised persons.
17. The next question arises, whether by permitting more persons to travel in the truck by the owner of the truck, he violated any condition of the policy so as to deny reimbursement of the claim from the insurance company. The learned Tribunal considered the facts in detail. This Court also perused the documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties. In the policy, copy of which is placed on the record as Exh. Dl, it is clearly mentioned that extra premium of Rs. 90 is charged for the 'persons employed in connection with the operation and/or maintaining and/or unloading of motor vehicle, IMT 17'.
18. It is clear from the said policy that the risk of the persons (without any limit) engaged for loading and unloading goods from the vehicle was covered and, for that purpose, premium of Rs. 90 was charged from the insured. In the policy Exh. Dl, it is nowhere stated that there shall be limit of the liability of any particular number of labourers. Even in Exh. A9, which was relied upon by the appellant insurance company, there is mention of 4 + 2 in the column of passengers but without saying that it includes driver and cleaner or any of figure, represents driver and cleaner or both nor it says that it covers risk of only six labourers. In view of Exh. Dl, the insurance company, in its policy, specifically undertook to reimburse the liability of the person in employment in connection with or operation of loading and unloading of the goods from the vehicle.
19. It is relevant to mention here that in this accident the claim petitions have been filed by six set of persons only. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. V. Nagaraju 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC), in a case where total nine persons were travelling in the goods vehicle and where term of policy provided carriage of six workmen excluding the driver, held that by clause of excluding more persons from travelling in the goods vehicle cannot be a ground to exonerate the insurance company. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the said exclusion clause should be laid down so as to serve the main purpose or object of the policy of the insurance company to indemnify the damages caused to the vehicle (in that case claim was for the damages caused to the vehicle). The following observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is relevant:
If those 6 workmen when travelling in the vehicle are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the insurance company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the poser, keeping apart the load it was carrying.
And the Hon'ble Apex Court further held:
The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident.
20. In the instant case, also it is not the case of appellant insurance company, that the more number of persons in the truck contributed to causing of the accident.
21. Therefore, in view of the above legal position even if the more number of persons were travelling in the truck then it has no adverse affect on the claim of the claimants and upon the claim of the insured to claim reimbursement from the insurance company. The judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellant which was delivered in the cases of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy 2003 ACJ 468 (SC), have no application to the facts of this case in view of the fact that the insurance company itself specifically undertook liability of the persons engaged in the work of unloading of the fodder in this case, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant can take plea of limit of liability at this stage on the plea that the insurance company can be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants only up to the extent of the amount which can be awarded to the employees under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Neither it was pleaded by the insurance company in the reply nor it was argued before the Tribunal and nor it has been raised as ground in the memo of appeal.
22. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any force in the appeals preferred by the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and, therefore, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 89, 117, 135 and 166 of 2003 are dismissed.
23. Four appeals have been filed by the claimants, the two appeals are against the award passed in the Claim Case Nos. 49 and 50 of 2001. Those two claims were filed by the claimants due to the death of Lumba Ram and Dhagala Ram. Lumba Ram was of the age of 23 years whereas Dhagala Ram of the age of 21 years. In both the claim cases the claimants submitted that Lumba Ram and Dhagala Ram were earning Rs. 1,500 per month. The statements of the witnesses in these claim cases so far as income of the deceased Lumba Ram and Dhagala Ram is concerned, remained unrebutted. The Tribunal, therefore, assessed the income of Lumba Ram and Dhagala Ram as Rs. 1,500 per month. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the said amount from the income of deceased on account of the expenses which in the opinion of the Tribunal would have been incurred by the deceased for themselves. In view of the above, the Tribunal held loss of Rs. 1,000 per month to the claimants and applied multiplier of 15 and assessed the compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 only in each case for the claimants.
24. The learned Counsel for the claimants relied upon the various judgments in support of his argument that in the case of death of young persons of the age of 21 and 23 years, multiplier of 17 should have been applied which will be in consonance of the multiplier provided in the Second Schedule framed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also submitted that even without there being any help of the said new Act, the multiplier is required to be increased at least 17 in view of the various decisions. It is also submitted that Claims Tribunal committed serious illegality as the Tribunal has not considered the future prospects of income of these young victims.
25. I need not to refer those authorities cited by learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants which he cited in support of their case for seeking increase of compensation, as the law on the point is settled that future prospects of income of persons is required to be added while assessing the actual compensation which is likely to be suffered by the claimants in the case of death of the victims. It is clear from the award that the Tribunal though assessed the income of the deceased Lumba Ram and Dhagala Ram as Rs. 1,500 per month but did not add any amount on account of income which they would have earned in future on the basis of the increase in their ability to earn more. 50 per cent of the income can be safely added which will be sufficient compensation to claimants on account of the future prospects of earning of the deceased Lumba Ram and Dhagala Ram, therefore, after adding 50 per cent (Rs. 750) in the assessed income of the deceased (Rs. 1,500) and after deducting '/3rd (Rs. 750), the income loss to the claimants would be Rs. 1,500 per month. In the case of death of young persons of the age of 21 and 23 years, the multiplier of 17 is the appropriate multiplier. Therefore, in view of the above cal culation, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 3,06,000 (in place of Rs. 1,80,000 as awarded by the Tribunal in Claim Case Nos. 49 and 50 of 2001).
26. Therefore, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 70 and 71 of 2003 are partly allowed as mentioned above.
27. In the appeal preferred by injured Bhanwar Lal, the learned Counsel for the appellant Bhanwar Lal submitted that the victim suffered permanent disability to the extent of 7.5 per cent. It is also submitted that the appellant suffered fractures in his both hands and there were injuries near the eyes and because of the fractures, the appellant is not in a position to do the manual work, as after the fracture, his left hand is not working properly and, therefore, he cannot lift any weight by his left hand. It was also submitted that in view of the 7.5 per cent disablement the claim amount is required to be enhanced proportionately.
28. I perused the reasons given in the award and also perused the evidence produced by the appellant. It is not in dispute that appellant suffered fractures in his both hands but, at the same time, they appear to be simple fractures and the doctor certified that the appellant suffered disablement of 7.5 per cent. The Tribunal observed that by this, the appellant did not suffer any disability in his working, however, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 21,000 to appellant Bhanwar Lal for his pain and suffering due to the fractures in both hands. The Tribunal did not award any compensation which is claimed by the appellant due to the reduction in his working capacity. The Tribunal has committed mistake in doing so because of the reason that the appellant suffered fractures in both hands and he stated on oath that after the fractures, the bone was not fixed properly and, therefore, he is not in a position to lift weight by left hand. He also stated that because of fractures in his right hand also, he is not in a position to lift weight. In view of the above, the claimant is entitled for compensation because of reduction in his working capacity due to fractures in both hands. It is also submitted that there was one more fracture, i.e., the fracture of collar bone which also causes trouble to the appellant. In view of the three fractures, the appellant is held to be entitled to compensation of Rs. 30,000 and, therefore, the compensation of appellant Bhanwar Lal is enhanced by Rs. 30,000 and it is held that appellant Bhanwar Lal is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 54,347 in place of Rs. 24,347. Appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition over the enhanced amount.
29. Hence the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2003 of the appellant Bhanwar Lal is partly allowed as mentioned above.
30. In the appeal preferred by Pyari Bai, appellant submitted that she suffered a fracture in her right hand. She suffered number of injuries on her nose, head and in the back. She also stated that she was operated upon and a steel rod was fixed in her hand. Because of injuries on her face, her face was disfigured. This unrebutted evidence could not persuade the Tribunal to award any amount for treatment of the appellant on the ground that the appellant did not produce any bills evidencing the expenses for her treatment. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000 to the claimant on account of the injuries of fracture in the right hand of the appellant and because of the injuries which she suffered on various parts of her body including the face. The Tribunal was wrong in not awarding any amount against the treatment of the appellant in a case where it is found by the Claims Tribunal that the victim suffered fracture. It is true that the appellant did not produce any bill for the medicines and for the expenses which she incurred for her treatment but since she stated that she remained in hospital because of the fracture and a steel rod was fixed in her hand and she claimed compensation of Rs. 5,000 only for medicines, X-ray and operation including transportation, therefore, I do not think that the claimant has exaggerated her claim.
Therefore, it is held that the claimant is entitled for the claim of Rs. 5,000 for the expenses which she incurred for medicines, operation, etc. The claimant also stated that she remained in hospital for six months but she did not produce any discharge ticket nor she produced any bills to prove that she, in fact, remained in the hospital for six months. Therefore, if the Tribunal did not award any compensation for keeping attendant for her, the Tribunal has not committed any wrong and rightly disallowed that claim. The Tribunal further committed illegality in not awarding any specific sum of compensation for disfiguration of the appellant Pyari Bai which is assessed as Rs. 25,000. The Tribunal also committed illegality in not awarding any amount of compensation against the reduction in the working capacity of the appellant who was working as manual labourer in view of the fact that appellant's loss of future income can be assessed without there being any evidence directly on record, therefore, she is entitled for compensation on amount of reduction in her earning capacity. This Court deems Rs. 20,000 as just compensation for the said disability of the appellant Pyari Bai. Therefore, the appellant's claim deserves to be enhanced by Rs. 50,000 which may be added to Rs. 15,000 which were awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant Pyari Bai is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 65,000 in place of Rs. 15,000.
31. In view of the above, the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 25 of 2003 is partly allowed as indicated above. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition over the en hanced amount.