Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Bramh Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja v. 1
Case Details
Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.03.01 10:37:33 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:9493 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1030 of 2015 Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Bramh Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Pin- 497001 --- Appellant/Non-applicant No.3 versus 1 - Smt. Fudo Devi W/o Late Banuwa Ram Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Housewife, 2 - Rajesh Ram S/o Late Banuwa Ram Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Student, 3 - Mulchand Lakda S/o Late Banuwa Ram Aged About 23 Years Occupation- Student, R/o Village And Post Baskepi, Thana Balrampur, Tahsil Samri Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 4 - Ashok Yadav S/o Ramuchit Yadav Aged About 24 Years Occupation- Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Mahnai, Post Sulesa, Police Station Sanna, Tahsil Bagicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.1) 5 - Ramsevak Yadav S/o Late Pardeshi Yadav Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Mahnai Jamun Toli, Post Sulesha, Police Station Sanna, Tahsil Bagicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.2) 6 - Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Rameshwar Sao Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Post Baskepi, Police Station Balrampur, Tahsil Samri Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.4) 7 - Janak Prasad S/o Late Bhulath Sao Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Vehicle Owner, R/o Village, Post And Police Station Satbarwa, Via Daltanganj Jharkhand Pin 822126 (Non-Applicant No.5), 8 - Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited 504, Mahavir Towers, Infront Of Church Complex, Main Road, Ranchi Jharkhand Pin- 834001 (Non-Applicant No.6) --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1038 of 2015 Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Bramh Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Pin 497001 (Non-Applicant No.3), ---Appellant 2 Versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Rojliya Minj Wd/o Late Dashrath Minj Aged About 32 Years Occupation- Housewife, 2 - Smt. Somariya Wd/o Late Nanka Aged About 57 Years Both R/o Village Santoshi Nagar, Post Bardar, Police Station And Tahsil Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh Claimants, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashok Yadav S/o Ramuchit Yadav Aged About 24 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Mahnai, Post Sulesa, Police Station Sanna, Tahsil Bagicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.1) 4 - Ramsevak Yadav S/o Late Pardeshi Yadav Aged About 42 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Mahnai Jamun Toli, Post Sulesha, Police Station Sanna, Tahsil Bagicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.2) 5 - Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Rameshwar Sao Aged About 48 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Post Baskepi, Police Station Balrampur, Tahsil Samri Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.4) 6 - Janak Prasad S/o Late Bhulath Sao Aged About 50 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village, Post And Police Station Satbarwa Via Daltanganj Jharkhand Pin 822126 (Non-Applicant No.5) 7 - Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited 504, Mahavi Towers, Infront Of Church Complex, Main Road, Ranchi Jharkhand Pin- 834001 Non-Applicant No.6, --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1043 of 2015 Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Bramh Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Pin- 497001 (Non-Applicant No.3), ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Charko Kachhap Wd/o Rajmani Ram Aged About 47 Years Occupation- Housewife, 2 - Mukesh Kumar Kacchap S/o Late Rajmani Ram Aged About 27 Years Occupation Student, 3 - Pankaj Kumar Kacchap S/o Late Rajmani Ram Aged About 24 Years Occupation Student, 4 - Vipin Kumar Kacchap S/o Late Rajmani Ram Aged About 21 Years Occupation Student, 5 - Smt. Ratni Wd/o Chetan Ram Aged About 76 Years All are R/o Village Chando Ginjaipara Post And Police Station Chando, Tahsil Samri Kusmi District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 3 6 - Ashok Yadav S/o Ramuchit Yadav Aged About 24 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Mahnai, Post Sulesa, Police Station Sanna, Tahsil Bagicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.1), 7 - Ramsevak Yadav S/o Late Pardeshi Yadav Aged About 42 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Mahnai Jamun Toli, Post Sulesha, Police Station Sanna, Tahsil Bagicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.2), 8 - Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Rameshwar Sao Aged About 48 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Post Baskepi, Police Station Balrampur, Tahsil Samri Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.4), 9 - Janak Prasad S/o Late Bhulath Sao Aged About 50 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village, Post And Police Station Satbarwa Via Daltanganj Jharkhand Pin 822126 (Non-Applicant No.5) 10 - Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited 504, Mahavir Towers, Infront Of Church Complex, Main Road, Ranchi Jharkhand Pin- 834001 (Non-Applicant No.6) --- Respondents MAC No. 924 of 2018 Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Pvt. Limited Branch Office, Bramha Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. JH-05 B-3498, Policy No. 1916013112p179140061, Validity From 05.12.2015 To 04.12.2013, (Non-applicant No.3) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Shashikala Wd/o Late Bhagan Ram Aged About 26 Years Caste Uraon, 2 - Sujan Lakda S/o Late Bhagan Ram Aged About 8 Years Minor 3 - Nemedita S/o Late Bhagan Ram Aged About 6 Years Minor 2 & 3 are minors Through Natural Guardian Mother Shashikala, Caste Uraon 4 - Dukha S/o Sukhu Aged About 60 Years Caste Uraon, 5 - Khuliya W/o Dukha Aged About 55 Years Caste Uraon, All are R/o Village Baskepi, Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), 6 - Ashok Yadav S/o Uliya Yadav Occupation Driver, R/o Village Sanna (Manhaie), Police Station Sanna, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle No. JH-08-B-3498/non-Applicant No.1), 7 - Ramsevak Yadav S/o Pardeshi Yadav Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Mahnei (Jamuntoli), Post Sulesa, Police Station And Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle No. JH-08-B-3498/non- Applicant No.2) 8 - Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Rameshwar Sao Aged About 47 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Baskepi, Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur- 4 Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bolero JH-01-AB- 6649/non-Applicant No.4), 9 - Janak Prasad Gupta S/o Bhulat Sao Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Satbarwa, Police Station Daltenganj, District Falamu (Jharkhand) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bolero JH-01-Ab-6649/non-Applicant No.5), 10 - Branch Manager Bajaj Alliance, General Insurance Company, 504 Mahabir Towers, Church Complex, Main Road Ranchi, Jharkhand (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bolero JH-01-Ab-6649), --- Respondent(s) For Appellant/insurer : Shri Pankaj Agrawal and Smt. Swati Agrawal, Advocates in all the appeals. For Respondents 1 to 3 in MAC No.1030/2015 For Respondents1 & 2 in MAC No.1038/2015 For Respondents 1 to 5 in MAC No.1043/2015 For Respondents 6 & 7 in MAC No.1030/2015 For Respondents 5 & 6 in MAC No.1038/2015 For Respondents 8 & 9 in MAC No.1043/2015 For Respondents 4 & 5 in MAC No.1030/2015 For Respondents 3 & 4 in MAC No.1038/2015 For Respondents 6 & 7 in MAC No.1043/2015 For Respondents 8 & 9 No.924/2018 in : Ms. Akaknsha Vishwakarma appears on behalf of Shri A.N.Pandey, Advocate. : Ms. Manisha Yadav appears on behalf of Shri Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate : None appears, though served. 8 Respondent Respondent For No.1030/2015 For No.1038/2015 For No.1043/2015 & MAC No.924/2018 respondent 10 7 in MAC in MAC in MAC : Shri Arvind Panda, Advocate For Respondents 6 & 7 in MAC No.924/2018 : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) 24/02/2025 Judgment on Board 1. Since all the above captioned appeals arise out of the same accident that occurred on 22.04.2013, therefore, they are being heard together along with cross-
Decision
appeals and disposed of by this common judgment. 5 2. These are the appeals of United India Insurance Company Limited seeking exoneration from liability to pay compensation of Rs.4,18,600/- in Claim Case No.84/2013 (MAC No.1030/2015), Rs.6,55,000/- in Claim Case No. 85/2013 (MAC No.1038/2015), Rs.36,11,500/- in Claim Case No.86/2013 (MAC No.1043/2015) and Rs.8,70,000/- in Claim Case No.3/2013 (MAC No.924/2018) passed vide awards dated 13.05.2015 and 11.04.2017 respectively by the 4th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur and the Court of 2nd Additional Judge, Ramanujganj to the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj, District Surguja. 3. As per averments in respective claim petitions, on the fateful day of 22.04.2013 at 7:30 pm, on account of head on collision between Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.JH-1-AB-6649 (for short, ‘offending vehicle Bolero Jeep’) and Pick-up vehicle registration No.JH-08-B-3498 (for brevity, offending vehicle ‘Pick-up vehicle), the deceased persons, namely Banuwa Ram, Dashrath Minj, Rajmani Ram and Bhagan Ram, who were travelling in Bolero Jeep, have died owing to grievous injuries sustained by them. It is not disputed that at the time of accident, Non-applicant No.1 – Ashok Yadav was driver, Non-applicant No.2 Ramsewak was the owner and the appellant/insurance company was the insurer of the Pick-up vehicle. It is also not in dispute that Non-applicant No.4 – Ashok Kumar Gupta was the driver, Non-applicant No.5 – Janak Prasad was the driver and Non- applicant No.6-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company was the insurer of Bolero Jeep. 4. Owing to death of Banuwa Ram, a claim petition seeking total compensation of Rs.17,34,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating that at the time of accident, he was aged about 52 years and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by working as labourer and for doing agricultural field works. Similarly, legal heirs of the deceased Dashrath Minj preferred a claim petition seeking total compensation to the tune of Rs.25,78,000/- on various heads stating, inter alia, that at the time of accident, he was aged about 34 years and was earning Rs.18,000/- by working as Mason and by doing agricultural works. 6 Likewise, legal representatives of deceased Rajmani Ram filed a claim petition seeking total compensation of Rs.49,14,388/- on various heads stating therein that at the time of accident, he was aged about 51 years years and was earning Rs.33,479/- per month by working as Headmaster in Government Middle School, Barwahi, Block Kusumi. Similar claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of deceased Bhagan Ram Lakda seeking compensation of Rs.63,28311/-, pleading inter alia, that at the time of accident, he was 32 years and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- by doing agricultural and labour works. 5. After appreciating the evidence, oral as well as documentary, brought on record, the learned Claims Tribunal held Non-applicant No.1/driver of Pick-up vehicle Ashok Yadav and Non-applicant No.4/driver of Bolero Jeep Ashok Kumar Gupta liable for cause of accident as the respective vehicles were being driven by them in a rash and negligent manner; on account of such accident all the deceased persons have died owing to grievous injuries sustained by them and the offending vehicles were not being driven in violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded total compensation, as mentioned in para 2 of this judgment, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation while fastening the liability primarily upon both the insurance companies i.e., United India Insurance Company and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company in equal ratio of 50:50 as they could not prove the violation of policy conditions. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited in all the appeals submit that the appellant is the insurer of Pick-up vehicle and on the date of accident the Pick-up vehicle was stationed and it was Bolero Jeep, which had dashed the stationed vehicle and thus caused the accident and not the driver of Pick-up vehicle, but learned Claims Tribunal has committed an illegality in arriving at a finding that both the drivers of the offending vehicles were equally responsible for the accident, therefore, primarily both the insurance companies shall pay the compensation in equal ratio whereas the learned Tribunal ought to 7 have apportioned the compensation in the ratio of 90:10, i.e., 90% for Bolero Jeep and remaining 10% for Pick-up vehicle, between the both the insurance companies. They further submit that future prospects as awarded by the Tribunal in Claim Case Nos.84/2013 (MAC No.1030/2015) and 3/2013 (MAC No.924/2018) are on higher side and not in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Lastly, they submit that interest as awarded by the Tribunal is also on higher side. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants in MAC Nos.1030/2015, 1038/205 and 1043/2015, submits that the compensation amounts awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal are on lower side. She further submits that claimants in the said appeals also preferred cross-appeals, which may be considered and compensation amounts may be enhanced suitably. 8. Learned counsel for respondents 6 & 7 in MAC No. 924/2018, i.e., driver and owner of Pick-up vehicle, submits that they have not preferred any appeal against the impugned order, but since the Pick-up vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company, therefore, the appellant/insurance company was rightly held liable by the Claims Tribunal for payment of compensation, which does not call for interference, while learned counsel for Ashok Kumar Yadav and Janak Prasad Gupta, i.e., driver and owner of Bolero Jeep in MAC Nos.1030/2015, 1038/2015 and 1043/2015 submits that no separate appeals have been preferred against the impugned award, however, she submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after due appreciation of the evidence and material documents, has rightly passed the impugned orders, which do not call for interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company in all the appeals that the Tribunal ought to have held the driver of Bolero Jeep liable and ought to have apportioned the compensation amounts between both the insurance companies in the ratio of 90:10 as the driver 8 of Pick-up had not caused the accident, is concerned, statement of A.W.2 Chewamis Lakda is relevant. A.W.2 in his statement has stated that when the deceased persons, who were travelling in the said Bolero Jeep, were coming from village Lavu to village Bakepi and the Bolero Jeep was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, at the same time, on the main way at Kusmi-Rajpur road near village Sewari, the Pick-up vehicle was also found driving in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, resulting into, head on collision between the two vehicles, meaning thereby that both the drivers of the offending vehicles were negligent and thus equally responsible for accident. This apart, final report Ex.P.1 would also show that both the offending vehicles were seized. Furthermore, Final Report Ex.P.1 and F.I.R. Ex.P.2 would also show that offence under Section 279, 337 and 304-A was also registered against both the drivers of the Pick-up and Bolero Jeep, i.e., Ashok Yadav and Ashok Kumar Gupta in Rajpur Police Station under Crime Nos.68/2013 and 67/2013. The learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the statement of A.W.2 Chewamis Lakda and taking into account the F.I.R. and Final Report, has rightly come to the conclusion that at the time of accident, both the drivers of the offending vehicle are equally responsible for the accident and since both the vehicles were insured at the time of accident, therefore, both the insurance companies, i.e., Non-applicants 3 & 6 were equally held liable for payment of compensation in the ratio of 50:50. The said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is a finding of fact being based on evidence and material available on record, which cannot be faulted with. Therefore, the first contention is rejected. 11. As regards compensation worked out by the Tribunal in Claim Case No. 84/2013 (MAC No. 1030/2015), monthly income of the deceased Banuwa Ram was assessed at Rs.3,000/- by the Tribunal on notional basis and thereafter added 15% towards future prospects. The approach of the Tribunal in assessing Rs.3,000/- towards monthly income of the deceased and in adding 15% towards future prospects is not sustainable. Although there being no evidence to show the 9 exact income of the deceased, but considering the fact that deceased was working as labourer and doing in agricultural fields and even if the provisions of minimum wages would apply on the date of accident, then his monthly income could be assessed at Rs.4,943/- per month. I, therefore, propose to re-assess the compensation by taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,943/-. The deceased was 54 years as held by the Tribunal, therefore, according to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), the applicable multiplier would be 11 for the age group between 51 to 55. Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Description Amount in Rs. 59,316/- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Income of the deceased @ Rs.4,943/- per month (Rs.4,943/- x 12) 10% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects 5,931/- Total annual income of the deceased. Multiplier of 11 applied to assess total loss of dependency (65,247 x 11) Applicable deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses (7,17,717 – 2,39,239) Total loss of income of the deceased. Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate Loss of spousal and parental consortium to wife and children. Total compensation Award of the learned Tribunal. (-) Enhanced amount by this Court 65,247/- 7,17,717/- 4,78,478/- 4,78,478/- 15,000/- 15,000/- 1,20,000/- 6,28,478/- 4,18,600/- 2,09,878/- In the light of above, the claimants in this appeal are entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.2,09,878/-. 12. As far as compensation made by the Tribunal in Claim Case No.85/2013 10 (MAC No.1038/2015) is concerned, in this case also the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased – Dashrath Minj, aged about 37 years, at Rs.3,000/- on notional basis and included 50% towards future prospects in the income. The approach of the Tribunal in fixing the meagre monthly income is not sustainable and applicable future prospects is also required to be modified. The accident occurred in 2013 and even if the provisions of Minimum Wages Act are applied, then an unskilled labourer could have easily earned Rs.4,943/-. I, therefore, propose to re-assess the compensation by taking the monthly income of the injured as Rs.4,943/- and Rs.59,316/- per annum. Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Description Amount in Rs. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Income of the deceased @ Rs.4,943/- per month (Rs.4,943/- x 12) 40% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects Total annual income of the deceased. Multiplier of 15 applied to assess total loss of dependency (83,042 x 15) Applicable deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses (12,45,630 – 4,15,210) Total loss of income of the deceased. Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate Loss of spousal and filial consortium to wife and mother. Total compensation Award of the learned Tribunal. (-) Enhanced amount by this Court 59,316/- 23,726/- 83,042/- 12,45,630/- 8,30,420/- 8,30,420/- 15,000/- 15,000/- 80,000/- 9,40,420/- 6,55,000/- 2,85,420/- Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.2,85,420/-. 13. In so far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Claim Case No. 86/2013 (MAC No.1043/2015) is concerned, indisputably, in the said accident, the 11 deceased - Rajmani, who was working as Headmaster in Government School, also succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal, considering the statements and material available on record, has rightly fixed the deceased’s annual income at Rs.4,14,600/-, future prospects, multiplier and deduction, however, has erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation on other conventional heads. Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra) this Court computes the compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Description Annual Income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal Amount in Rs. 4,14,600/- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 15% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects 62,190/- Total annual income of the deceased. Multiplier of 11 applied to assess total loss of dependency (4,76,790 x 11)) 4,76,790/- 52,44,690/- Applicable deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses (152,44,690 – 17,48,230) 34,96,460/- Total loss of income of the deceased. Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate Loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium to claimants No.1 to 5, being wife, children and mother. Total compensation Award of the learned Tribunal. (-) Enhanced amount by this Court 34,96,460/- 15,000/- 15,000/- 2,00,000/- 37,26,460/- 36,11,500/- 1,14,960/- In view of above, the claimants are entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.1,14,960/-. 14. Lastly, in Claim Case No.03/2013 (MAC No. 924/2018), there was no cross- appeal filed by the claimants nor there is any representation on behalf of the claimants. The Tribunal, despite there being no evidence to show the exact income of the deceased Bhagan Ram Lakda, fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, however, looking to the age of the deceased being 35 years at the time of accident, 12 it erred in adding 50% towards loss of future prospects, which is not in accordance with the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra). Since the age of the deceased – Bhagan Ram Lakda was determined to be 35 years by the Tribunal, therefore, as per decision of Pranay Sethi, the applicable percentage would be 40% in place of 50% as made by the Tribunal. For rest of the features, i.e., multiplier of 16 and deduction 1/4th, the Tribunal was right. The monthly income of the deceased, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, was fixed at Rs.3,000/- and Rs.36,000/- per annum. If 40% (Rs.14,400/-) towards future prospects is added in the annual income, then total annual income would be worked out to Rs.50,400/- and if total annual income is multiplied by 16, then total loss of income would come to Rs.8,06,400/-. The Tribunal thereafter deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and after deduction as such, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,04,800/- and if the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards other conventional heads, then total amount of compensation payable to the claimants would be worked out to Rs.8,24,800/-. In view of above, the claimants in MAC No.924/2018 are held entitled to Rs.8,24,800/-, therefore, the amount of compensation of Rs8,70.000/- as awarded by the Tribunal, is reduced to Rs.8,24,800/- and if the insurance company has already paid part of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the same shall be adjusted. 15. As regards contention that the interest @ 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side, the said contention is rejected since the Tribunal, considering the accident occurred in the year 2013, rate of inflation and prevailing of rate of interest at the relevant time, has suitably awarded 9% per annum on the amounts of compensation. Therefore, the rate of interest as made by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The enhanced amounts of compensation as made in MAC No. 1030/2015, MAC No.1038/2015 and MAC No.1043/2015 along with interest as given by the Tribunal shall be paid by the appellant/insurance company, i.e., United India 13 Insurance Company Limited as well as by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited to the respective claimants in the said appeals in equal ratio of 50:50 from the date of filing of claim petitions till its realisation, as early as possible. 16. In the result, MAC No.1030/2015, MAC No.1038/2015 and MAC No.924/2018 filed by the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited are allowed in part and cross-appeals filed in MAC No.1030/2015, MAC No.1038/2015 and MAC No.1043/2015 are also allowed in part with the modification in the impugned awards dated 13.05.2015 & 11.04.2017 to the above extent and MAC No.1043/2015 filed by the said insurer is dismissed to the extent that the amount of compensation of Rs.36,11,500/- as awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.37,26,460/-. However, rest of the conditions of the respective impugned awards shall remain in tact. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani