MEA.No.4577 of 2016,C/W MFA No.4578 of 2016,C/W MFA No.4774 of 2016

26th April, 2017.

Petitioner Counsel: Sri. O. MAHESH
Respondent Counsel: Sri. S.K.VENKATA REDDV, Sri. H.V. RAGHAVENDRA, Sri. B.V. MALLAREDDY, SRL.RAVISH BENNI, Sri. H.V. RAGHAVENDRA

Cases Cited:
Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2014 ALL SCR 2434=2013 ACJ 1403 [Para 11]
Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Associations of Victim of Upahar Tragedy, AIR 2012 SC 100 [Para 11]
Bimla Devi And Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation And Others, 2009 ALL SCR 1771=(2009) 13 SCC 530 [Para 18]
Sarla Verma And Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another, 2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)=2009 6 SCC 121 [Para 21]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- M/s. Shrirarn General Insurance Company as well as the claimants have preferred these appeals, challenging the judgment and award dated 6th April 2016 made in M.V.C. Nos.383 and 384 Of 2015 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribuizal for short).

2. M/s.Shriram General Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fastening liability on them to compensate the claimants has ûled M.F.A.Nos.4-577 and 4578 of 2016. Whereas, the claimants in M.V.C.No.384/2015 being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal had filed M.F.A.No.4774/2016, seeking enhancement of the compensation. Hence, all the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The parties are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for convenience.

4. The respondents l to 4 in M.F.A.No.4-577 of 2016 and 1st respondent in M.F.A.No.4748 of 2016 ûled the claim petitions contending that on l0-7-20l4, at about 11.15 a.m., the claimant in M.V.C.No.383/2015 along with deceased Ramanjineyulu, was proceeding in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-5l / MB-277 towards Ananthapur in Andhra Pradesh, when they reached near Kanaganapalli village, on Kanaganapalli-Mamillapalli, while the Car was passing through a blind curve, all of a sudden, the driver of Eicher vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-02/U-8114came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the front side of the said Car. In order to avoid the heavy impact, driver of the said Car, took the vehicle to the left side, and dashed against the road side rock, as a result of which, the driver lost control and the vehicle got turned turtle to the right side. Due to the said accident. the inmate of the car Ramanjineyulu and the driver of the said car sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the injured persons were taken to Kranthi Super Specialty Hospital, Ananthpur. After the first aid treatment, the claimant in MVC No.383 / 2015 was shifted to BGS Hospital. He had spent more than Rs.l,00,000/- towards hospitalization and medical expenses. He is an Advocate by Profession and earning Rs.l,50,000/- per month. Due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Eiche: vehicle, the accident occurred and sought for compensation of Rs.8.00 Lakhs. However, Ramanjinctyulu succumbed to the injuries while he was taking treatment in the hospital. Post Mortem was conducted at Victoria Hospital and thereafter, his body was shifted to his native place at Balasamudram Village. The legal representatives of Ramanjineyulu in their claim petition have contended that at the time of death, deceased was aged about 52 years. He was a progressive agriculturist and was also giving technical advise to the farmers and earning three to four thousand rupees per month. He owns more than 55 acres of agricultural land. By using drip irrigation, he was rising different verities of commercial crops in an extent of 40 acres of land and earning two lakhs. rupees per month. In addition to that, he was rearing hybrid cows and earning five thousand rupees by doing milk vending business. In view of his death, the family has lost their bread earner. Therefore, they sought for compensation of Rs.77.00 lakhs.

5. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal in both the cases, the first respondent who is the owner of the offending vehicle filed the Written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petitions and contended that, she is the owner of Eicher vehicle and one R.V.Vijayakumar was the diiver of the said vehicle and he had valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. The compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. The Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence. the Insurance Company is liable to compensate the claimants. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the first respondent.

6. Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the entire averrnents made in the claim petition and also contended that, occurrence of the accident and the injury sustained by the claimant in MVC No.383/2015 and death of the deceased in MVC No.384/2015 was not made known to the Insurance Company. Owner of the Vehicle has not complied with the statutory provision under Section l34cc) and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Only after the receipt of notice of the claim petition they came to know about the occurrence of the accident. The insured vehicle has been falsely implicated in order to get compensation from the Insurance Company in collusion with the jurisdictional police. While lodging the complaint, it was clearly mentioned that an unknown four wheeler came from opposite direction and dashed against the mirror of the car. Whereas, the Eicher vehicle is a six wheeler, but the vehicle involved in the accident is a four wheeler, While admitting in the hospital, history of injury was mentioned as hit and run case. In order to get compensation from the Insurance Company, the insured vehicle has been falsely implicated and sought for dismissal of both the claim petitions.

7. Respondent No.3 ûled statement of objections, contending that the claim petition filed by the claimant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the Eicher vehicle. Hence, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the third respondent.

8. Respondent No.4, Insurance Company in the written statement admitted that the car was insured with it. The occurrence of the accident was not made known to the Insurance Company. The mandatory provisions under Section 134-(c) and 158(6) had not been complied with. Further, the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of Eicher vehicle. Due to the negligence on the part of the Eicher vehicle the accident had occurred. Hence, the insurer of the Eicher lorry has to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against respondent No.4.

9. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

ISSUES in MVC.No.383/2015

1) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 10.7.2014 at about 12.25 a.m. on Thogarakunta-Mamilla Palli Road, near NH-7, after Kanaganapalli cross, Ananthapura District, Andhra Pradesh, within the jurisdiction of Kanaganapalli Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the Goods Carriage Eicher bearing registration No.AP-02/U-8714 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so how much and from whom?

3) What Order?

ISSUES in MVC,No.384 2015

1) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to the injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 10.7.2014 at about 12.25 noon on Thogarakunta-Mamilla Palli Road, near NH-7, after Kanaganapalli Cross, Ananthapura District, Andhra Pradesh, within the jurisdiction of Kanaganapalli police station on account of rash and negligent driving of the Goods Carriage Eicher bearing registration No.AP.02/U.81 14 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so how much and from whom?

3) What Order?

10. The claimants in order to prove their case, son of the deceased Ramanjineyulu has been examined as PWl and two witnesses were examined as PW.2 and PW.5 and the claimant in MVC No.383/2015 has been examined as PW.4 and got marked the documents as Ex.Pl to Ex.P33. On behalf of the respondents, the officials of both the Insurance Company are examined as RW-l and RW-2 and got marked the documents as EXRI and R2.

11. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration IMV report, copy of the complaint as Well as the charge-sheet held that, due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the Eicher lorry, accident occurred. The driver as Well as the inmate of the Car sustained grievous injuries and inmate of the car died due to the injuries sustained. Hence, the claimants are entitled for the compensation. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the injuries sustained and the sufferings undergone, awarded compensation of Rs.65,000/- in respect of claimant in M.V.C.No.383/2015. So far as the death of Ramanjineyulu is concerned, though the claimants claimed that deceased was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per month, no documents are produced to substantiate the same. The agricultural lands are taken care by the major sons of the deceased. Hence, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month, adding 15% towards future prospects relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 : [2014 ALL SCR 2434] (Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others), the Tribunal had taken the loss of dependency at Rs.l0,350/- per month. As the major son and married daughter are not the dependants of the deceased and wife is the only dependent, deducted 50% thereof and taken the loss of income at Rs.5, l75/- per month, as the deceased was aged about 55 years, applying the multiplier of 'll', awarded a sum of Rs.6,83, l00/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.l,00,000/- towards deprivation of protection, social security, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife; Rs.43,766/- towards the medical expenditure and Rs.l0,000/- towards funeral expenditure. In all, awarded a sum of Rs.8,86,866/- with 9% interest relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 100 (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Associations of Victim of Upahar Tragedy). Since the insurance policy of Eicher vehicle was in force as on the date of accident, liability was fastened on the insurer of the Eicher vehicle to pay the compensation. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability on them to compensate the claimants has filed two appeals. Whereas, the claimants in MVC No.384/ 2015 being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation have filed MFA No.4774/- 2016.

12. Sri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company, contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and evidence on record. The insured vehicle was falsely implicated in order to claim the compensation from the Insurance Company. Immediately, after the accident on 11.7.2014, the complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police stating that the unknown vehicle dashed against the car. The vehicle number was also not mentioned. While admitting in the hospital, the history of injury has been stated that, 'the unknown vehicle dashed against the car and ran away'. The factum of the accident was not made known to the Insurance Company as required under Section 134(c) and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the complaint lodged before the jurisdictional police, it was stated that the offending vehicle dashed against the mirror of the car in a blind curve and without stopping the vehicle they ran way. However, in IMV report marked as EX.P4, there is no damage to the said Vehicle. No spot mahazar or sketch of the accident are produced before the Tribunal. The seizure of the unknown vehicle was made on 01.10.2014. However, no material has been produced to show that on what basis the unknown vehicle was seized on 01.10.2014. The Investigating Officer was also not examined in the said case to prove the seizure of the vehicle The documents produced clearly disclose that in order to claim compensation from the Insurance Company, the insured vehicle was falsely implicated. The criminal complaint lodged against the said vehicle ended with an acquittal. The Tribunal has not framed necessary issues. The driver of the offending vehicle was also not made as a party. The Tribunal, without taking into consideration the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder and on the basis of assumptions and preswnptions held that, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Eicher vehicle, the accident had occurred even though there is no damage to the said vehicle. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in this regard is contrary to law. Further the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also on the higher side and sought for setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

13. Sri. S.K.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are appellants in MFA No.4774/2016 argued in support of the judgment and award with regard to the liability is concerned. As per Section 125 of the Evidence Act, the sources for seizure of the vehicle need not be disclosed. Due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Eicher vehicle, the accident occurred. There is a composite negligence by both the vehicles. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, deceased Ramanjineyulu was owning more than 55 acres of land, he was an expert agriculturist, giving advise to the villagers he was earning three to four thousand rupees by consultation. He owned tractor and trailer and earning money by giving the same on rental basis. Out of 55 acres of land, drip irrigation was installed to 40 acres of land and 30 acres of land being used for plantation purpose, growing Sweet Lemon, Mango, Papaya, Banana and other commercial crops, like Watermelon, Curbooza, Cucumber, Tamato, Onion and etc. He was earning more than Rs.2.00 lakhs per month. The monthly income of Rs.9,000/- taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Even for the daily wage employees working in various departments, the monthly income is being taken as Rs.9,000/- in the year 2014, but the deceased cannot be treated as an agricultural labour. The records have been produced before the Tribunal to show that he was owning 55 acres of land. The Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/-. Further, deduction of 50% is contrary to law, since one of the son of the deceased is still studying. Though the daughter is married and another son is major and taking, care of the agricultural properties, the Tribunal ought to have deducted l/3rd towards personal expenditure and awarded the compensation. Hence, sought for enhancernent of compensation.

14. Sri. B.V.Mallareddy, the party-in-person, respondent No.l in M.F.A.No.4578/2016 argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that, due to negligence on the part of driver of the Eicher vehicle, the accident occurred. The insurance policy of the car is a package policy. While the car was passing through the blind curve, the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and in order to avoid the heavy impact, he steered the car to the left side. In the bargain, the car dashed against the road side rock and turned turtle. Since the accident occurred in the curve, he could not see the vehicle number and the type of the vehicle. However, it was four wheeler. In the complaint, he has clearly mentioned that the four wheeler vehicle dashed against his car. On the complaint lodged by the claimant, the police, after investigating the matter with the help of the mediator of the said village, seized the vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle has not challenged the cahrgesheet filed against him. Owner of the vehicle has also not disputed the occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, fastened the liability on the insurance company. In the motor vehicle cases, strict rule of evidence is not applicable. The Tribunal has to pass orders on the basis of preponderance of probability. Hence sought for dismissal of the appeals filed by the insurance company.

15. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Peruscd the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

16. The main contention of the insurance company is that the insured Vehicle has been falsely implicated to claim the compensation. while lodging the complaint before the jurisdictional police, it was stated that an unknown four wheeler dashed against the Car. The vehicle number and type of the vehicle was also not mentioned. Whereas the insured Vehicle is a six wheeler. Further, while admitting the deceased to the hospital, it was clearly mentioned that an unknown Vehicle dashed against the Car and without stopping the Vehicle ran away from the spot. However, only on 01-10-2014, the vehicle was seized. The basis on which the insured Vehicle has been seized is not made known and the enquiry officer has not been examined. On the other hand, the third claimant who was examined as P.W. 1, in his evidence has clearly mentioned that on 01-10-2007, while the father of P.W.l proceeding in a Car driven by the claimant in MVC No.383/2014 near Kanaganapalli village, in a sharp curve, the four Wheeler came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the front side of the vehicle. The driver of the car took the Car to the left side in order to avoid heavy impact, in the bargain, the vehicle turned turtle and tumbled and dashed against the roadside rock. Further, the driver of the car was examined as P,W.4, who is the eye-witness to the accident. wherein he has clearly stated that, on 10-07-2014, while he was driving the car along with the deceased on Kanaganapalli -M amillapalli road in a sharp curve, the four wheeler came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the front side of the Car. In order to avoid heavy impact, he took the Car to the left side and lost control. The Car turned turtle and dashed against the roadside rock. Due to that, inmate of the car as Well as the driver of the car sustained grievous injuries. After first aid treatment at Kranthi Super Specialty Hospital, they were shifted to BGS hospital, however, during the course of treatment, the inmate of the Car died. The evidence on record clearly disclose that the accident occurred on 10-07-2009 and the inmate of the Car died and driver who is the claimant in MVC No.383/2014 sustained injuries and he had taken treatment.

17. The dispute is with regard to involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident P.W.4 in his evidence has clearly stated that he could not be able to see the opposite vehicle since he was proceeding in upgradient road in a curve, however, he recognized it as a four wheeler. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the son of driver of the Car, the police investigated the matter with the help of the villagers. The offending vehicle was traced on 01-10-2014 and chargesheet was filed against the said vehicle. Though the insurance company disputed the involvement of the insured vehicle, they have not examined the driver of the insured vehicle. The owner of the insured vehicle has also not disputed the occurrence of the accident. The Police have ûled the charge sheet against the driver of the insured vehicle. In the written statement she has stated that as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving license All these documents clearly disclose that due to the accident occurred on l0-07-20l4, the inmate of the Car died and the driver sustained grievous injuries. Except P.W.4, there are no other eye-witnesses to the accident. The accident occurred in a village road, the movement of vehicle is limited, there is no difficulty for the police to investigate and trace the offending vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has held that strict proof of the accident caused by the particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. In the instant case, P.W.4 in his evidence has clearly stated that while he was proceeding in a steep curve, the four wheeler suddenly came and dashed front side of the Car. To avoid the accident, he swerved his Car to the left side, lost control and turned turtle and dashed to the roadside rock. Though the insurance company cross- examined P.W.4, nothing contrary has been elicited. The evidence of P.W.4 is believable since there is no exaggeration and unnatural facts. He is a Practicing Advocate of the repute. If he wants to make any unlawful gain, he could have set up the case in some other way which is beneficial to him. However, in his evidence, he has clearly stated the true facts regarding occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter accepted the case of the claimants and awarded compensation.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 : [2009 ALL SCR 1771] in the case of BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS v/s HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS in paragraph 1 1, l4 and 15 held as under:

"11. While dealing with a claim petition. in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Tribunal stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties; its function being to determine the amount of fair compensation in the event an accident has taken, place by reason of negligence of that driver of a motor vehicle. It is true that occurrence of an accident having regard to the provisions contained in Section 1 66 of the Act is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim petition but that would not mean that despite evidence to the effect that death of the claimant's predecessor had taken place by reason, of an accident caused by a motor vehicle, the same would ignored only on the basis of a post-mortem report vis-a-vis the arrerrnerits made in a claim petition.

14 Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents 2 and 3.

15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter, It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments while deciding the accident cases, observed that the Tribunal or the Courts shall bear in mind the caution struck by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the claim before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case, in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence. But in the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the standard of proof is much below than what is required in criminal cases as Well as civil cases. The enquiry before the Tribunal is a summary enquiry and therefore, does not require strict proof of evidence.

20. In the instant case, though the claimants while lodging the complaint had not mentioned the vehicle number or type of vehicle which caused the accident, they have stated that a four Wheeler dashed against the Car. However, the insurance company had taken the hyper technical objection stating that the insured vehicle is having six wheels, whereas the vehicle involved in the accident is a four wheeler cannot be accepted. Even the buses, trucks, lorry and tempo-traveler are also called as four wheelers. To explain the nature of vehicle involved in the accident, in the complaint it was stated that a four Wheeler dashed against the Car. The non-compliance of provisions of Section l34(c) and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner or the Police Investigating Officer, non-compliance of Rule 235 of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 cannot be a ground to absolve the liability of the insurance company in respect of third party claim. Such defense is not available under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act and the rules framed there under. Though the appellant-insurance company had taken the contention with regard to contributory negligence of the driver of the car, the same has not been proved by leading evidence in accordance with law. Though the issue framed by the Tribunal is not properly worded, While awarding compensation and fastening liability to compensate the claimant, some minor technicalities has to be over-ruled since the Motor Vehicles Act being the social piece of legislation. Though the Investigating Officer has not been examined to prove the seizure of the vehicle, the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the occurrence of the accident, injury sustained by the claimant due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is purely a question of fact and the same is not liable to be interfered by this Court.

21. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the dependants of the deceased had filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The main contention of the claimants is that the deceased was a progressive agriculturist and was an expert in the agricultural field, giving advise to the farmers to cultivate the agricultural crops on the basis of nature of the soil. He owns more than 50 acres of land and growing various commercial crops and earning Rs.2,50,000/- p.m. In addition that he was rearing the hybrid cows and earning Rs.5,000/- p.m., by vending milk. The accident occurred in the year 2014, taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- and deducting 50% towards personal expenditure by the Tribunal is contrary to law. There is some substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants. The records produced by the claimants clearly disclose that the deceased owned more than 50 acres of land, by using drip irrigation he was cultivating various commercial crops in 40 acres of land and he was expert in the agricultural ûeld. A sum of Rs.9,000/- taken by the Tribunal as monthly income cf the deceased and adding 15% to the future prospects is lower side. Even though, his son is cultivating the land, the family has lost the expert agriculturist and also his services for the progressive cultivation of the agricultural land. Though the married daughter and major son who is taking care of the agricultural lands are not dependants of the deceased, one of his sons is still studying, Hence, deduction of 50% towards his personal expenditure is contrary to law. The Tribunal ought to have deducted l/3rd towards his personal expenditure as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v/s DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in 2009 6 SCC 121 : [2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)],. The issue regarding future prospects is pending before the larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the major son of the deceased is taking care of the agricultural land and the cows, there is no loss of income in respect of agricultural income is concerned, only the family has lost the supervision. Hence, taking into consideration income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- p.n.., deducting l/3rd towards his personal expenditure, as he was aged about 55 years, applying the multiplier 11, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.8,80,000/- towards loss of dependency as against Rs.6,83,l00/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.l,00,000/- towards deprivation of protection, social security; Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium to the wife; Rs.43,766/- towards medical expenditure; and Rs.l0,000/- towards funeral expenses, as awarded by the Tribunal. In all the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.l0,83,766/- as against Rs.8,86,866/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., thereby the claimants are entitled for enhanced compervsation of Rs. l,96,900/- which is rounded of to Rs.1,97,000/- Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

MFA Nos.4577 and 4578 of 2016 filed by the insurance company are dismissed. MFA No.4774/2016 filed by the claimants is allowed in part The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.l,97,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

The amount in deposit before this court in MFA.Nos.4577 and 4578/2016 be transfer to MACT, Bengaluru.

Ordered accordingly.