United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kawlthangpuii and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 4,000 (rupees four thousand). 7. the learned tribunal also on the basis of the evidence on record has held that lalrinzuala was the driver and petea and thantluanga were the employees of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident who were traveling in the said vehicle and since there was a insurance policy issued by insurance company appellant covering the risk of the driver and also covering the risk of 2(two) employees apart from the driver and handyman by accepting extra premium, the amount of compensation awarded by it was the directed to be satisfied by the insurance company. reported in (2003) 3 scc148, the learned counsel has submitted that the payment of compensation on the basis of the structure as provided for under the second schedule should not ordinarily be..... b.p. katakey, j.1. this three appeals by the insurance company are against 3(three) judgments and awards passed by the learned motor accident claims tribunal in mact case no. 36/04, 41/04 and 58/04, arising out of the same motor accident occurred on 25/4/03 involving the motor vehicle no. mz-01/a-5405(truck) belonging to the opposite party no. 2 and as such are taken up together for disposal.2. the facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid claim cases before the learned tribunals is that a motor accident was occurred on 25.4.2003 involving motor vehicle bearing registration no. mz-01-a/5405 (truck) belonging to the respondent no. 2 in all the appeals. the said vehicle was driven by mr. lalrinzuala, who was the son of the claimant in mact case no. 38/04 and as a result of said accident.....

Judgment:

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. This three appeals by the insurance company are against 3(three) judgments and awards passed by the learned Motor accident claims tribunal in MACT Case No. 36/04, 41/04 and 58/04, arising out of the same motor accident occurred on 25/4/03 involving the Motor Vehicle No. MZ-01/A-5405(Truck) belonging to the opposite party No. 2 and as such are taken up together for disposal.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the aforesaid claim cases before the learned tribunals is that a motor accident was occurred on 25.4.2003 involving motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MZ-01-A/5405 (Truck) belonging to the respondent No. 2 in all the appeals. The said vehicle was driven by Mr. Lalrinzuala, who was the son of the claimant in MACT case No. 38/04 and as a result of said accident Lalrinzuala died. In the said vehicle Petea son of the claimant in MACT case No. 41/04 and Thantluanga, father of the claimant in MACT Case No. 58/04 were traveling also died. The dependents of the deceased filed the aforesaid claim petitions before the learned tribunal for compensation for the death of Lalrinzuala, Petea and Thantluanga. The learned tribunal upon consideration of the evidences on record awards sum of Rs. 5,17,000 in MACT Case No. 36/04, Rs. 5,81,000 in MACT Case No. 41/04 and Rs. 5,18,000 in MACT Case No. 58/04 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition by separate -judgments and orders dated 12.7.2004, 12.7.2004 and 2.8.2004 respectively. Hence the present appeals before this Court by the insurance company.

3. I have heard Mr. M.M, AH, the learned-counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Thanga, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in all the appeals. The respondent No. 2 who is the owner of the vehicle, involved in the accident, has not appear in spite of service of notice.

4. The case of the claimant in MAC Appeal No. 24/04, arising out of MACT 36/04 is that Lalrinzuala who was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident died on 25.4.2003 when the said vehicle driven by him met with an accident. The claimant respondent No. 1 being the Aunt and the legal heir of the deceased filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of Lalrinzuala. The learned tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the claimant and on the basis of the birth certificate and the certificate of the income of the deceased came to the finding that the deceased was 35 years of age and his monthly income was Rs. 4,000 (Rupees four thousand).

5. The claimant, who is father of Petea and was an employee of the owner of the vehicle who died in the said motor accident filed the MACT Case No. 41/04 claiming compensation for the death of his son. The learned tribunal on the basis of evidence on record, both oral and documentary, came to the finding that the age of the deceased was 26 years and the monthly income was Rs. 4,000 (Rupees four- thousand).

6. In MACT case No. 58/04 the claimant, who is daughter of Thantluanga, who died in the said motor accident, filed a claim petition praying for awarding compensation for the death her father. The leaned tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, has come to the finding that the deceased was 38 years old at the time of accident and has monthly income was Rs. 4,000 (Rupees four thousand).

7. The learned tribunal also on the basis of the evidence on record has held that Lalrinzuala was the driver and Petea and Thantluanga were the employees of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident who were traveling in the said vehicle and since there was a insurance policy issued by insurance company appellant covering the risk of the driver and also covering the risk of 2(two) employees apart from the driver and handyman by accepting extra premium, the amount of compensation awarded by it was the directed to be satisfied by the insurance company. The learned tribunal has also held that Petea and Thantluanga were the employees of the owner of the vehicle, the respondent No. 2 herein . It may also be mentioned here that in all the 3(three) cases the learned tribunal has granted permission to the insurance company under Section 170 of the M.V. Act 1988 to contest the claim of the claimants on any of the ground that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made, without prejudice to the provision contain in Sub-section 2 of Section 149 of the Act.

8. Mr. M.M. Ali, the learned Counsel for the insurance company appellants has submitted that the learned tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier while calculating the compensation payable to the claimants in respect of the death of the deceased. The leaned counsel has submitted that in so far as MAC Appeal Nos. 24 and 25 are concerned, the claimants were admittedly 65 years and 70 years respectively and the learned tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation awardable has fixed the multiplier by taking into account the age of the deceased only and without taking into consideration the age of the claimant and hence the award of the learned tribunal is required to be interfered with as the same is highly excessive and cannot be termed as just, proper and reasonable. Insofar as MAC Appeal Nos. 25 and 38 are concerned the further submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the deceased being the gratuitous passenger in respect of the goods carrying vehicle involved in the accident and there being no policy of insurance issued by the insurance company covering the risk of such gratuitous passenger and the insurance policy issued by the insurance company being the policy covering the risk of the driver and handy man and 2(two) employees, the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award passed by the learned tribunal in respect of MACT Case No. 41/04 and 58/04. According to the learned Counsel, the claimants in the said claim cases could not prove that the deceased were the employees of the respondent No. 2 and thereby is covered by the insurance policy. Mr. M.M. Ali learned Counsel relying on the police report exhibited as exhibit-2 has submitted that the deceased involved in MACT Case Nos. 41/04 and 58/04 were the passenger and not the employees. Hence the learned Counsel submits that the direction of the learned tribunal to satisfy the award in so far as it concerns MACT Case No. 41 and 58 of 2004 is liable to be interfered with as the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the said award.

9. Mr. M.M Ali, learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. reported in : AIR1994SC1631 and in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. ShriLaxman Iyer and Anr. reported in 2004 (1) T.A.C. 3 (SC).

10. Mr. R.C. Thanga, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in all the appeals, has submitted that the learned tribunal has rightly fixed the amount of compensation payable to the dependents for the death of the deceased by fixing the multiplier on the basis of age of the deceased as stipulated in the Second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act framed under Section 163A of the said Act. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Abati Bezbarukah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India and Anr. reported in (2003) 3 SCC148, the learned Counsel has submitted that the payment of compensation on the basis of the structure as provided for under the second schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from and such deviation from the structured formula can be resorted to in exceptional cases only. The present cases being not the exceptional case, the learned tribunal has rightly applied the structured formula provided under the Second Schedule and fixed the amount of compensation payable for the death of the deceased arising out of Motor Vehicular Accident. Countering argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Petea and Thantluanga were not the employees of the owner of the vehicle but was the gratuitous passenger in respect of the said goods carrying vehicle, the learned Counsel for the respondent/claimants in MAC. Appl. No. 25/04 and 38/04 has submitted that there is unrebutted evidence on record that they were employees under the owner of the vehicle. According to the learned Counsel the claimants have categorically stated in their evidence that the deceased were the employees under the owner of the vehicle and such statement has been corroborated by the documentary evidence being the employment certificate issued by the owner which were exhibited as exhibit C-6 and C-V respectively in the said MACT Cases. The learned Counsel for the respondents claimants, referring to the police report, on which much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants, has submitted that in the said police report it has not been stated that Petea and Thantlunga were the passenger in respect of the said vehicle but mentioned that 2(two) other persons, namely, Khunanliana and F. Lalmama were the passengers of the said vehicle. Admittedly there being a insurance policy issued by the appellant insurance company covering the risk of 2(two) employees apart from the driver and handyman of the vehicle on payment of extra premium, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the award passed by the leaned Tribunal.

11. We have considered the submissions put forward by the learned Counsel for the parties and also peruse the records of MACT Case Nos. 36/04, 41/04 and 58/04. MACT Appeal No. 24/04 and 25/04 arising out of MACT Case No. 36/04 and 41/04 the point which arose for consideration is whether the age of the deceased alone is the relevant factor for the purpose of ascertaining the multiplier or the age of the claimant as well is relevant factor for such ascertainment, for the purpose of arriving the just, proper and reasonable quantum of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The next question to be decided, in so far as MAC Appeal Nos. 25 and 38 are concerned, is whether the deceased in respect of the said claim cases were the employees of the owner or were the gratuitous passenger in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident. Let us now take the second question first.

12. The claimants in both the appeals have adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, to prove that they were employees under the owner of the vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 2. The claimant in MAC 25/04 who is the father of Petea examined himself as witness, who has categorically stated in his evidence that his son was an employee under the respondent No. 2 and paid Rs. 4,000 as monthly wages. This witness has also exhibited the certificate issued by the owner to the effect that his son was the employee and was getting Rs. 4,000 as wages as exhibit C-6. The claimant has also exhibited the insurance policy being as exhibit-3 and also the police report as exhibit C-2. The claimant during the cross examination by the insurance company has also categorically stated that his son boarded the truck accompanied by Thantluanga. This witness has stated that he did not obtain any certificate from the owner of the truck proving the fact of engagement of his son as a labour in the truck. But it is evident from the exhibit C-6 that the owner has issued the certificate about the employment of the claimant's son and therefore the suggestion was in all probability not recorded by the learned tribunal properly and the claimant who hails from the interior place of the State of Mizoram must have but his signature in the deposition believing that what was written there, were correct. The said suggestion can not take away the proof of the employment of the son of the claimant under the owner of the vehicle.

13. The insurance company has examined one. witness namely B.U. Hazari in support of their contention that the son of the claimant was not an employee. This witness in course of his deposition has admitted the issuance of the insurance policy which was exhibited as exhibit-3. The said witness relying on the police report, i.e., exhibit-2 has deposed that the deceased was a passenger in respect of the vehicle and not an employee under the respondent No. 2., i.e., owner of the truck. During cross examination the witness has admitted that he has no reasonable basis to say that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger.

14. In MAC 38/04 the claimant has examined herself as witness, who during her deposition has clearly stated that her father was a mechanic and was working as an employee of the owner of the vehicle, who was a class one contractor. This witness has also exhibited the employment certificate issued by the owner of the vehicle as exhibit C-V apart from the insurance policy as exhibit C-III, police report as exhibit C-II. During cross examination a suggestion was put by the insurance company to the effect that her father was a passenger on the truck to which she denied. The insurance company not even put a suggestion about the employment of the father of the claimant under the owner of the vehicle. The insurance company also examined one witness namely B. Hazari, who was also examine in connection with MAC Appeal No. 25/04, and has admitted the issuance of the policy by the appellant company. This witness relying on the police report, i.e., exhibit C-II has also stated that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle as the gratuitous passenger. This witness however, did not deny the employment certificate issued by the owner of the truck in respect of the father of the claimant.

15. From the evidence of the claimants, in both the cases, i.e., MAC. 25/04 and 38/04, it is clear that the claimants could prove that the deceased were the employees under the owner of the vehicle and were travelling in the vehicle for collecting the bolder for the owner who is a class one contractor. The claimants have in fact produced the employment certificate issued by the owner of the vehicle, which have not been challenged by the insurance company. It is also evident from police report, i.e., C-II in both the cases that it does not show that deceased were travelling on the said vehicle as a passenger. The police report has clearly stated that the driver Lalrinzuala, (connected in MAC Appeal No. 24/04) and both the deceased were boarding on the vehicle and died at the spot of the accident. The police report also reveals that 2 other persons, namely, Khuanglina and F. Lalmama were travelling in the said vehicle as passengers who sustained injuries, The said police report therefore, does not support the stand of the insurance company that the deceased were passenger in respect of the said vehicle and on the other hand the said document has supported the version of the claimant. Therefore, the deceased were rightly held to be the employees under the respondent No. 2, i.e., the owner of the vehicle.

16. The insurance policy which was exhibited as exhibit C-3, covers the risk of the driver and handyman and also the risk of 2 employees, as additional premium was paid by the owner to the insurance company covering their risk, which is apparent from the Schedule of premium attached to the said insurance policy. Since the deceased were held to be the employees under the respondent No. 2, i.e., owner of the vehicle, the insurance company is bound to pay the amount of compensation in respect of the death of the deceased arising out of the accident involving the motor vehicle No. MZ 01A 5405 belonging to the respondent No. 2.

17. The first question which arose for decision in this case is whether the age of the deceased is the only factor to be taken into consideration while fixing the multiplier and whether the age of the claimant is also relevant factor for deciding the multiplier to be applied in calculating the quantum of compensation payable in respect of the death or bodily injury.

18. The claim application in all the 3(three) cases were filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act with a prayer for payment of no fault liability under Section 140 of the said Act. The tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000 each as no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act which has been satisfied by the insurance company appellant.

19. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for filing of the application for compensation. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act has provided that the tribunal has to make an award determining the award of compensation which appears it to be the just.

20. The object of payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to compensate the dependents of the deceased for the loss of dependency due to the death of the earning member. The court has to a assess the quantum of compensation payable to the dependents, which is just, proper and reasonable. The amount of compensation is to be fixed in such a manner so that it does not amount to undue enrichment the amount of compensation to be awarded should also not be niggardly and at the same time not a profit making venture though the tribunals or court.

21. The Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19S8 has provided the structured formula for ascertaining the amount of compensation payable in case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. Column 1 of the said Second Schedule gives the age of the victim, Column 2 stipulates the multiplier applicable depending on the age of the victim and the Column 3 works out the compensation payable depending on the monthly income of the deceased ranging from 3,000 to 40,000.

22. Under the Motor Vehicles Act the object of granting compensation being to compensate the dependents of the deceased for the loss of dependency, the court, therefore, naturally has to take into consideration the age of the claimant in applying the appropriate multiplier so that a just amount of the compensation can be arrived that, otherwise it would be undue enrichment of the claimant which is not allowed under the Motor Vehicles Act.

23. The Apex Court in U.P State Road Transport v. Trilok Chandra reported in : (1996)4SCC362 has held that the compensation to be awarded has two elements one is the pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased resulting from the accident and the other is pecuniary loss sustain by the members of his family for his death. Affirming the decision in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors., the Apex Court has held that the age of the dependents is also a relevant factor for the purpose of ascertaining the appropriate multiplier, as the court is to assess the loss caused to the dependents.

24. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) the Apex Court has also reiterated the said position to the effect that it is not the age of the deceased alone but the age of the claimant as well, is the relevant factor in case parents and other dependents are claimants. In Trilok Chandra case the Apex Court has held that since the Second Schedule suffers from several defects it can only be used as guide and the selection of multiplier can not in all cases be solely depended on the age of the deceased. The Apex Court in paragraph 15 of the said judgment has laid down the method of working out the just compensation which reads as follows:

We thought it necessary to reiterate the method of working out just compensation because, of late we have notice from the awards made by tribunals and courts that the principal on which the multiplier method was developed has been lost sight of one and once again a hybrid method on based the subjectivity of the Tribunal/Court has surfaced, introducing uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in the matter of determination of compensation. It must be realized that the Tribunal/Court has to determine a fair amount of compensation awardable to the victim of an accident which must he proportionate to the injury caused The two English decisions to winch we have referred earlier provide the guidelines for assessing the loss occasioned to the victims. Under the formula advocated by Lord Wright in Davies 2 the loss has to be ascertained by first determining the normally income of the deceased, then deducting therefrom the amount spent on the deceased, and, thus, assessing the loss to the dependents of the deceased. The annual dependency assessed in this manner is men to be multiplied by the use of the appropriate multiplier. Let us illustrate: X, Male, aged about 35 years, died in an accident. He leaves behind his widow and three minor children. His monthly income was Rs. 3500. First, Deduct the amount spent on X every month. The rough and ready method hitherto adopted where no definite evidence was forthcoming, was to break up the family into units, taking two units for an adult and one unit for a minor. Thus, X and his wife make 2+2=4 units and each minor one unit, i.e., 3 units in all, totalling 7 units. Thus the share per unit works out to Rs. 3,500/7 = Rs. 500 per month. It can, thus, be assumed that Rs. 1,000 was spent on X. Since he was a working member some provision for his transport and out-of-pocket expenses at Rs. 250.'Thus, amount spent, on the deceased X works out of Rs. 1,250 per month leaving a balance of Rs. 3,500 x 1,250 = Rs. 2,200 per month. This amount can be taken as the monthly loss to X's dependents. The annual dependency comes to Rs. 2,250 x 12 = Rs. 27,000. This annual dependency has to be multiplied by the use of an appropriate multiplier to assess the compensation under the head of loss to the dependents. Take the multiplier to be 45. The compensation comes to Rs. 2,000 x 15 = Rs, 4,05,000. To this may be added a conventional amount by way of loss of expectation of life. Earlier this conventional amount was pegged down to Rs. 3000 but now having regard to the fall in the value of the rupee, it can be raised to a figure of not more than Rs. 10,000. Thus, the total comes to Rs. 4,05,000 + 10,000 = Rs. 4,15,000.

25. In Abati Bezbaruah (supra) the Apex Court has held that the payment of the compensation on the basis of structured formula, as provided for under the second schedule, should not ordinarily be deviated from and such deviation from the structured formula, however, may be resorted to in any exceptional cases. The Apex Court has not completely ruled out the deviation of the structured formula, in case such deviation is necessary, depending on the fact of each case. In the instant case, i.e., in MAC Appl. Nos. 24/04 and 25/04 the claimants were aged 65 to 70 years old respectively and the deceased were 35 to 36 years respectively. As stated earlier the object of Motor Vehicles Act is to compensate the claimants dependents for loss of dependency. If the amount of compensation payable is fixed by selecting the multiplier solely on the basis of the age of the victim, without taking into consideration age of the claimant/dependent it would not be the just compensation payable, as the claimants who were 65 to 70 years respectively at the relevant point of time may be not survive for more than 10 years by taking into account the normal life expectancy of a person.

26. Relying on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court, let us now see whether the just compensation has been awarded by the learned tribunal in the aforesaid claim cases.

27. The learned tribunal in MACT Case Nos. 36/04 (MAC Appeal No. 24/04) has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,12,000 as loss of income. Similarly in MACT Case No. 41/04 (MAC No. 21/04) the tribunal as awarded a sum of Rs. 5,76,000 as a loss of income and in MACT Case No. 58/04 (MAC Appeal No. 38/04) has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,12,000 as loss of income. In all the cases the actual income of the deceased were found to be 48,000 which is more than the highest slab of the Second Schedule.

28. The Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala and Ors. reported in : [2001]2SCR999 has held that the benefit under the structured formula, given in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, can be availed of by the claimant only by restructuring his claim on the basis of the income at a slab of Rs. 40,000, as the Legislature wanted to give benefit of no fault liability to certain level only. As observed above the claimant in all the claim cases have claimed benefit as loss of income by claiming that the monthly income of the deceased were Rs. 48,000, That being the position the learned tribunal can not apply the structured formula while ascertaining the amount of compensation payable to the dependents. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. reported in : [2002]3SCR1176 , the Apex Court has held that the structured formula under Section 163A as given in the Second Schedule is applicable to a victim whose income is up to a sum of Rs, 40,000 p.a. Similar view has also been taken by the Apex Court in Deepal Girish v. United India Insurance Co Ltd. reported in : AIR2004SC2107 .

29. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act covers cases of all kinds of bodily injuries or damages to the property of the 3rd party or both. The explanation of Sub-section 1 of Section 165 indicates that the expression 'claims for compensation in respect of accident involving the death or bodily injury to the person arising out of the use of the motor vehicles' includes claim for compensation under Sections 140 and 163A, but it is nowhere provided that the amount of compensation is to be assessed or calculated according to the second schedule when the claim of the claimant is under Section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal while deciding the application under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair compensation.

30. That being the position the assessment of compensation by the learned tribunal on the basis of the structured formula given in the second schedule to the Act is contrary to provisions of the said Act since the claim of the claimants is based on the claim that the actual income of the deceased were Rs. 48,000.

31. In view of the above finding let us now see what would be the just, proper and adequate compensation awardable for the death of the bread winner of the claimants. As stated above the claimants in claim case Nos. 36/04 and 41/04 were 65 years and 70 years old and the claimant in claim case No. 58/04 was about 17 years. Therefore, in ascertaining the multiplier by applying the decision on Trilok Chandra case, the age of the claimants in so far as MACT Case Nos. 38/04 and 41/04 are concerned, are relevant factors and the age of the deceased can not be the sole factor for deciding the multiplier. In Trilok Chandra case the hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the method for working out the just compensation. On applying the said principle of adopting the multiplier method, which involves the ascertainment of the loss of dependency or the multiplicand, having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier and by calculation as to what capital sum if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. In the present cases the monthly income of the deceased were Rs. 48,000, out of which if 1/3 is deducted as the amount which the deceased would have spent had he been alive, the monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 32,000 (Rs. 48,000 - Rs, 16,000 = 32,000). The claimants in MACT Nos. 36/04 and 41/04 being in the age group of 65 to 70 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 8 by taking into account the rate of interest given in a fixed deposit scheme by the bank at the time of occurrence. Therefore, the amount of compensation in respect of MAC Appeal No. 24/04 (MACT Case No. 36/04) shall be Rs. 2,56,000 to which the conventional amount of Rs. 10,000 is to be added which will come to Rs. 2,66,000, similarly in so far as it relates to the MAC Appeal No. 25/04 (MACT Case No. 41/04) the same would also be Rs. 2,66,000. Insofar as MACT Appeal No. 38/04 (MACT Case No. 58/04), the age of the claimant was less than the age of the deceased. The age of the deceased being 38 years and that of the claimant being 17 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 12 to which the conventional amount of Rs. 10,000 to be added and the total amount of compensation would be Rs. 3,84,000 by taking into account the monthly loss of dependency at Rs. 32,000. The claimants are also entitle to interest under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization.

32. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal is modified to the following extent:

Sl. No. Case No. Amount of Compensation

1. MACT Case No. 36/04

(MAC. App. 24/2004) Rs. 2,66,000

2. MACT Case No. 41/04

(MAC. App. 25/2004) Rs. 2,66,000

3. MACT Case No. 58/04

(MAC. App. 38/2004) Rs. 3.84,000

The above amount shall also carry interest at the rate of Rs. 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded along with the interest before the learned tribunal after deducting the amount already deposited, including the amount deposited as statutory deposit under Section 173 of the Act, within a period of 3 months from today. The appeals are partly allowed indicated above.