Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:31005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2011 of 2018 1 - Smt. Mamta Verma W/o Late Kriten Verma, Aged About 30 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Bera, Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Sakhsi Verma D/o Late Kriten Verma, Aged About 15 Years Occupation Student, Minor Through Mother Mamta Verma / Father Kriten Verma, R/o Village Bera, Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rishbha Verma S/o Late Kriten Verma, Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Mother Mamta Verma / Father Kriten Verma, R/o Village Bera, Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nirmni W/o Late Tikam Singh Verma Aged About 60 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Bera, Police Station And District 2 Bemetara Chhattisgarh.............Claimant, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Upendra Yadav S/o Bhushan Yadav, Aged About 30 Years R/o Camp-1, Bhilai District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Present Address Village Baldiho, Post Kherwar, Police Station Kopa, District Saran (Bihar).............Driver, District : Saran, Bihar. 2 - Manpreet Singh S/o Late I. A. Bedi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Chuhan Town, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh............. (Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Nandni Road, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Divisional Office (451200) First Floor, Chuhan Station, G.E. Road, Supela Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh............Insurer, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Parmanand Building, Rajendra Park Square, Post Box No. 51, G.E. Road, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Branch Office Extension Office, In Front Of Post Office Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 3 For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : None. & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate. MAC No. 1762 of 2019 1 - Chitrarekha Verma W/o Late Hridaysingh Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Bera, Tahsil, Police Station And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Amit Kumar Verma S/o Late Hridaysingh Verma Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Bera, Tahsil, Police Station And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Swati Verma D/o Late Hridaysingh Verma Aged About 18 Years R/o Village - Bera, Tahsil, Police Station And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kamlabai W/o Baldausingh Aged About 66 Years R/o Village - Bera, Tahsil, Police Station And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Baldausingh S/o Daman Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Village - Bera, Tahsil, Police Station And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) 4 Versus 1 - Upendra Yadav S/o Bhushan Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o - Camp -1, Bhilai, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh Recent Address - Village Baldiho, Post Khairwar, Police Station - Kopa, District - Saran Bihar., District : Saran, Bihar. 2 - Manpreet Singh S/o Sardar I.A. Bedi Permanent Address - A.M. Road Nagaland Mokokchang, Nagaland , Present Address - Chouhan Town, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited Nandni Road, Bhiali District - Durg Chhattisgarh. Through - Divisional Office (451200) First Floor, Chouhan Station, G.E. Road, Supela Bhiali, District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mamta Verma Wd/o Late Kritendra Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bera, P.O. Kanhera, Tahsil And Distt. Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Sakshi Verma D/o Late Kritendra Verma Aged About 15 Years Through Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Mamta Verma Aged 32 Years Occupation - Student . R/o Village Bera, P.O. Kanhera, Tahsil And Distt. Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Rishab Verma S/o Late Kritendra Verma Aged About 12 Years Through Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Mamta Verma Aged 32 5 Years Occupation - Student . R/o Village Bera, P.O. Kanhera, Tahsil And Distt. Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Nirmali W/o Tikam Verma Aged About 60 Years Occupation House Wife R/o Village Bera, P.O. Kanhera, Tahsil And Distt. Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 8 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office Parmanand Bhawan, Rajendra Park Chowk, Post Box 51 G.E. Road, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Through Branch Officed- Extention Counter In Front Of Post Office, Bemetra Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & : None. 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. For Respondents No. 5 to : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. 7 For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate and Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate. MAC No. 25 of 2019 1 - Smt. Mamta Verma W/o Late Kritendra Verma Aged About 32 Years Occupation - Housewife, R/o Village - Bera, Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 2 - Ku. Sakhsi Verma D/o Late Kritendra Verma Aged About 15 Years (Minor) Through Mother Mamta Verma And Father Kriten Verma, Occupation - Student, R/o Village - Bera, Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rishbh Verma S/o Late Kritendra Verma Aged About 12 Years (Minor) Through Mother Mamta Verma And Father Kriten Verma, R/o Village - Bera, Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nirmli W/o Late Tikam Singh Verma Aged About 60 Years Occupation - Housewife, R/o Village - Bera, Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Upendra Yadav S/o Bhushan Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Camp -1, Bhilai District - Durg Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Village Bal Diho, Post - Kherwar, Police Station - Kopa, District Saran (Bihar). (Driver), District : Saran, Bihar. 2 - Manpreet Singh S/o Late I.A. Bedi Aged About 30 Years R/o Chuhan Town, Smriti Nagar Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Nandni Road, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Divisional Office (451200) First Floor, 7 Chuhan Station, G.E. Road, Supela Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chitrarekha Verma W/o Late Hirdaysingh Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Bera, Tahsil - Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Amit Kumar Verma S/o Late Hirdaysingh Verma Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Bera, Tahsil - Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ku. Swati Verma D/o Late Hirdaysingh Verma Aged About 18 Years R/o Village - Bera, Tahsil - Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Kamlabai W/o Baldausingh Aged About 66 Years R/o Village - Bera, Tahsil - Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Baldausingh S/o Daman Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Village - Bera, Tahsil - Police Station And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 9 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office Parmanand Bhavan Rajendra Park Chowk, Post Box No. 51, G.E. Road District Durg Chhattisgarh, Branch Office Extansion, In Front Of Post Office, Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. 8 For Respondent(s) No. 1 & : None. 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. For Respondents No. 4 to : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. 8 For Respondent No. 9 : Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. All the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 28.09.2018 has been passed. MAC Nos. 2011 of 2018, 25 of 2019 and 1762 of 2019 are claimants’ appeal against the award dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District- Bemetar (C.G.) in MACT No. 101/2016, MACT No. 103/2016 & MACT No. 103/2016 respectively. MAC No. 2011/2018 2. Brief facts of the case, is that claimants herein has filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, pleading inter alia that on 18.06.2016 deceased Kriten Verma had come to Bemetra along with another deceased, Hiday Verma on a Bajaj City 100 motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-06 1812 at around 11:00 PM. While returning to their village Bers and upon reaching near Rajput Dhaba, their motorcycle collided with the 9 offending vehicle, which was standing in the middle of the road without any precautions or adherence to traffic rules. As a result of the accident, both Kriten Verma and Hiday Verma sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. An FIR was lodged by Kousal Verma at Police Station Bemetra, which was registered as Crime No. 323/2016 for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39/92 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and a final report was filed against respondent No. 1. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased Kriten Verma was aged about 38 years and was engaged in farming and a tent business and earning Rs. 83,000/- per month and claimed a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 31,00,000/- under various heads from the owner, driver and the insurance company jointly and severally. Respondents No. 1 and 2 who are the owner and driver in their written statement denied the claims, contending that the claimed amount was excessive, but admitted the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident, hence the insurance company was liable to indemnify. However, the insurance company i.e. respondent No. 3 denied that the vehicle was insured by them. The learned Claims Tribunal vide its impugned award dated 28.09.2018 partly allowed the application holding that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased and respondent No. 10 1 that the death of the deceased was proved and that there was a breach of the insurance policy. The tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,07,750 with 9% interest from the date of filing the claim petition. The appellants/claimants have challenged the award on the ground that it is shockingly low and deserves to be enhanced. 3. The tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 84,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 21,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 63,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be 36 to 40 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 15 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 9,45,000/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 40,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate has been awarded and Rs. 10,15,000/- has been awarded and after deduction and assuming the negligence of the deceased to be equally responsible for 50% of the total compensation an amount of Rs. 5,07,750/- + Rs. 1,00,000/-= 6,07,750/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,07,750/- in favour of appellants of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 11 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,07,750/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that he has paid the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the 12 given facts and circumstances of the case. 11. As regards the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month which appears to be proper on the date of accident. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 7,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 84,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after assessing 40% future prospects i.e. Rs. 33,600/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,17,600/-. 12. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 36 to 40 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 29,400/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual income comes to Rs. 88,200/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 13,23,000/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and 13 Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each (40,000x4+10%+10%) for loss of parental consortium totaling Rs. 1,92,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, children and mother of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 15,51,000/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of Rs. 13,23,000/- dependency 02 Towards loss of Rs. Rs. 1,92,000/- (40,000X4+10%+10%/ with an increase of 10% in every three years. 03 Towards loss of estate along Rs. 18,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. Total Rs. 15,51,000/- 13. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 15,51,000/-. After deducting Rs. 6,07,750/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 9,43,250/-. MAC No. 25/2019 14. Brief facts of the case, is that, claimants have filed a claim under 14 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that on 18.06.2016, deceased Kritendra Verma and Hirday Verma were returning to their village Bera on a motorcycle when it collided with a vehicle parked negligently in the middle of the road near Rajput Dhaba, resulting in their death on the spot. An FIR was registered against respondent No. 1 under relevant Sections of IPC and Motor Vehicle Act. The claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15,40,000/- alleging that deceased was aged about 48 years old and earning Rs. 300/- per day. While the owner and driver denied the claim as exaggerated but admitted the vehicle was insured, the Insurance Company denied coverage. The appellants (legal heirs) submitted relevant documents, but they were not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its award dated 28.09.2018 partly allowed the claim, holding that the accident to be a result of contributory negligence of both the deceased and respondent No. 1 and awarded Rs. 8,89,000/- with @ 9% interest directing 50% liability on the appellant due to contributory negligence. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and suffers from grave legal error in disbelieving the documents submitted by the claimant in support of his pleadings. It is argued 15 that the findings of the Tribunal are perverse, arbitrary, and not based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. The Tribunal wrongly exonerated the insurance company despite the fact that the vehicle was duly insured on the date of the accident, and failed to consider vital documents such as the registration certificate, driving license, and insurance policy. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Tribunal did not correctly assess the income of the deceased and that the award is liable to be set aside in view of the legal and factual errors committed. 16. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 17. On the other hand remaining learned counsel for the respondents opposes the same. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 19. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant has challenged the impugned award dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal on the ground that the findings recorded are contrary to the documents and evidence available on record. However, this Court finds that the Claims Tribunal has considered the evidence in detail and has assigned cogent reasons for its findings. Mere disagreement with the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, without demonstrating any perversity or 16 illegality, is not sufficient ground to interfere in appeal. The appellant has failed to establish that the Tribunal has committed any grave legal error or misappreciated the material evidence. The insurance policy and documents relied upon by the appellant were duly examined by the Tribunal, and its findings regarding liability and compensation are supported by the record. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. MAC No. 1762/2019 20. Brief facts of the case, is that on 18.06.2016, while returning from Bemetara to Village Bere, Hriday Verma and Kritendra Verma met with a fatal accident around 11:00 PM when their motorcycle (Bajaj CT 100, CG-00-0-1812) collided with a trailer (NL-02-N- 1029) negligently parked in the dark without indicators or safety measures. Both died in the accident. The claimants being dependents of deceased Hriday Verma has filed a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Rs. 15,40,000/-. Upon notices, all concerned parties including owners, drivers, and insurers were made respondents. After hearing, the Claims Tribunal awarded to the tune of Rs. 8,89,000/- with @ 9% interest holding composite negligence on both the trailer driver and motorcyclist, apportioning liability 50:50 between them. The insurers were exonerated on the grounds 17 that the trailer had no valid insurance and the motorcycle was insured under an "Act" policy, which did not cover the risk of the pillion rider. 21. After considering the evidence and documents brought on record, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 84,000/- per annum. After deduction of 1/4 of the income i.e. Rs. 21,000/- for personal expenses, the amount would be Rs. 63,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be 46 to 50 years, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and calculated the total loss of dependency as Rs. 8,19,000/-. Further Rs. 15,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 40,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate has been awarded and Rs. 8,89,000/- has been awarded. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 8,89,000/- in favour of appellants of the deceased with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,89,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to 18 be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 23. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 24. On the other hand remaining learned counsel for the respondents opposes the same. 25. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 26. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 27. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 28. As regards the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- per month which appears to be proper on the date of accident. Hence, accepting the income of the deceased Rs. 7,000/- per month, the annual income comes to Rs. 84,000/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after assessing 25% future 19 prospects i.e. Rs. 21,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,05,000/-. 29. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 46 to 50 years and the appellant/claimants are the wife, son, daughter and parents of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 (Rs. 26,250/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual income comes to Rs. 78,750/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 10,23,750/-. The claimants are further entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of estate (increase of 10% in every three years) and Rs. 18,000/- for funeral expenses (increase of 10% in every three years). As per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each (40,000x5+10%+10%) for loss of parental consortium totaling Rs. 2,40,000/-. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants i.e. wife, son, daughter and parents of the deceased would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 12,99,750/- in the following manner:- 20 S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of Rs. 10,23,750/- dependency 02 Towards loss of Rs. Rs. 2,40,000/- (40,000X5+10%+10%/ with an increase of 10% in every three years. 03 Towards loss of estate Rs. 18,000/- along with increase of 10% in every three years. 04 Towards Funeral Rs. 18,000/- Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. 30. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 12,99,750/-. Total Rs. 12,99,750/- After deducting Rs. 8,89,000/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 4,10,750/-. 31. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants in MAC No. 2011/2018 and MAC No. 1762/2019 are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the claimants in MAC No. 25/2019 is hereby dismissed. The claimants/appellants of the deceased shall be entitled to Rs. 9,43,250 /- (MAC No. 2011/2018) and Rs. 4,10,750 /- (MAC No. 1762/2019) in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above 21 extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 32. Record of the tribunal be sent back along with copy of this order forthwith for necessary information and action. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat