High Court
Legal Reasoning
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 2159 OF 20191.Archana W/o Vijaykumar RawateAged 26 years, Occu.: H.H.Student,2.Atharva S/o Vijaukumar RawateAged 4 years, Occu.: Nil,3.Ganesh S/o Vijaykumar Rawate,Age: 3 years, Occu.: Nil,(Appellants No.2 and 3 are the minors, they are U/g. Of their mother-in-law Archana W/o Vijaykumar Rawate i.e. Appellant No.1)4.Shankar S/o. Maroti Rawate,Age: 57 years, Occu.: Service5.Shobha W/o. Shankar Rawate,Age: 54 years Occu.: H.H.All R/o. Nandgaon, Tq. Chakur,Dist. Latur …. Appellants (Orig. Claimants) Versus1.Brijesh S/o. Shriram Ahirwar,Age : Major, Occu. : Driver,R/o. 517/4, Basant Nagar,Dhumma Seoni, Dist. Seoni(Madhya Pradesh)2.Shriram Halkeprasad Ahirwar,Age: Major, Occu.: Business,R/o. 517/4, Basant Nagar,Dhumma Seoni, Dist. Seoni(Madhya Pradesh)1 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)2 (Owner of Truck bearing No. MP-22/H-0220)3.The Branch Manager,IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,Behind Latur General Store, Latur,Tq. and Dist. Latur.4.Pandurang S/o. Dashrath Nagargoje,Age: Major, Occu. Agri. & Business,R/o. Dawangaon, Tq. Renapur,Dist. Latur(Owner of Jeep bearing Reg. No.MH-24/V-7639)5.The Manager,Cholamandalam M.S. General InsuranceCo. Ltd., Adalat Road, Aurangabad,Dist. Aurangabad.6.The Manager,Cholamandalam M.S. General InsuranceCo. Ltd. Opp. Shivneri, Adat Gate, Latur,Tq. and Dist. Latur. … RespondentsANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2160 OF 20191.Namdeo S/o Maruti ShelkeAged 54 years, Occu.: Agri,2.Sow. Usha W/o. Mandeo Shelke,Age: 48 years, Occu.: H.H.3.Shahubai D/o Namdeo Shelke,Age: 18 years, Occu.: Education,All R/o. Nandgaon, Tq. Chakur,Dist. Latur. …. Appellants (Orig. Claimants)2 of 23
Legal Reasoning
2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)3 Versus1.Brijesh S/o. Shriram Ahirwar,Age : Major, Occu. : Driver,R/o. 517/4, Basant Nagar,Dhumma Seoni, Dist. Seoni(Madhya Pradesh)2.Shriram Halkeprasad Ahirwar,Age: Major, Occu.: Business,R/o. 517/4, Basant Nagar,Dhumma Seoni, Dist. Seoni(Madhya Pradesh)(Owner of Truck bearing No. MP-22/H-0220)3.The Branch Manager,IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,Behind Latur General Store, Latur,Tq. and Dist. Latur.4.Pandurang S/o. Dashrath Nagargoje,Age: Major, Occu. Agri. & Business,R/o. Dawangaon, Tq. Renapur,Dist. Latur(Owner of Jeep bearing Reg. No.MH-24/V-7639)5.The Manager,Cholamandalam M.S. General InsuranceCo. Ltd., Adalat Road, Aurangabad,Dist. Aurangabad.6.The Manager,Cholamandalam M.S. General InsuranceCo. Ltd. Opp. Shivneri, Adat Gate, Latur,Tq. and Dist. Latur. … Respondents.3 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)4 ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2161 OF 20191.IFFCO Tokio General InsuranceCompany Limited, Through Brnach Manager,1st Floor, Inani Bilding,Above Latur Sadi Centre, old Cloth Lane, LaturThrough : The Branch Manager,A4, Suyash complex, Baba Nagar, Kalda Complex, Aurangabad-431 005.… Appellants (Orig. Resp. No.3)Versus1.Namdeo Maruti ShelkeAgeL 53 years, Occu.: Agriculture,2.Usha W/o. Namdeo Shelke,Age: 48 years, Occu.: Household3.Shahubai D/o. Namdeo Shelke,Age: 19 years, Occu.: Education,All R/o. Nandgaon, Tq. Chakur,Dist. Latur.4.Brijesh Shriram Ahirwar,Age: Major, Occu.: Driver,R/o. 517/04, Basant Nagar,Dhmma Seoni, Dist. Seoni,(Madhya Pradesh)5.Shriram Halkeprasad Ahirwar,Age: Major, Occu.: Business,R/o. 517/04, Basant Nagar,Dhmma Seoni, Dist. Seoni,(Madhya Pradesh)4 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)5 6.Pandurang S/o. Dashrath Nagargoje,Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture & Business,R/o. Dawangaon, Tq. Renapur,Dist. Latur.7.The Manager,Cholamandalam M.S. General InsuranceCo. Ltd., Adalat Road, Aurangabad,Dist. Aurangabad.6.The Manager,Cholamandalam M.S. General InsuranceCo. Ltd. Opp. Shivneri, Adat Gate, Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur. … Respondents(Resp. Nos.1 to 3 Orig Claimants, Resp Nos.4 & 5 Orig. Resp. Nos.1& 2 Resp. Nos. 6 to 8 Orig. Resp No.4 to 6)ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2162 OF 20191.IFFCO Tokio General InsuranceCompany Limited, Through Brnach Manager,1st Floor, Inani Bilding,Above Latur Sadi Centre, old Cloth Lane, LaturThrough : The Branch Manager,A4, Suyash complex, Baba Nagar, Kalda Complex, Aurangabad-431 005.… Appellants (Orig. Resp. No.3)Versus1.Archana W/o Vijaykumar RawateAged 26 years, Occu.: Household5 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)6 2.Atharva S/o Vijaukumar RawateAged 5 years, Occu.: Education,3.Ganesh S/o Vijaykumar Rawate,Age: 4 years, Occu.: Nil,(Respondent No.2 & 3 being minorunder guardianship of their motheri.e. Respondent No.1)4.Shankar S/o. Maroti Rawate,Age: 58 years, Occu.: Service5.Shobha W/o. Shankar Rawate,Age: 55 years Occu.: Household6.Brijesh Shriram Ahirwar,Age: Major, Occu.: Driver,R/o. 517/04, Basant Nagar,Dhmma Seoni, Dist. Seoni,(Madhya Pradesh)7.Shriram Halkeprasad Ahirwar,Age: Major, Occu.: Business,R/o. 517/04, Basant Nagar,Dhmma Seoni, Dist. Seoni,(Madhya Pradesh)8.Pandurang S/o. Dashrath Nagargoje,Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture & Business,R/o. Dawangaon, Tq. Renapur,Dist. Latur.9.The Manager,Cholamandalam M.S. General InsuranceCo. Ltd., Adalat Road, Aurangabad,Dist. Aurangabad.6 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)7 10.The Manager,Cholamandalam M.S. General InsuranceCo. Ltd. Opp. Shivneri, Adat Gate, Latur,Tq. and Dist. Latur.… Respondents.(Resp. Nos.1 to 5 Orig Claimants, Resp Nos.6 & 7 Orig. Resp. Nos.1 and 2 Resp Nos. 8 to 10 Orig. Resp No.4 to 6)...…Mr. N.D. Kendre, Advocate for Appellants in FA/2159/2019 andFA/2160/2019 and for Respondents No.1 to 3 in FA/2161/2019and for Respondents No.1 to 5 in FA/2162/2019Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for Respondent No.3 inFA/2159/2019 and FA/2160/2019 and for Appellant inFA/2161/2019 and FA/2162/2019Mr. Abhijit G. Choudhari, Advocate for Respondents No.5 and 6 inFA/2159/2019 and FA/2160/2019 and for Respondent No.7 inFA/2161/2019 and for Respondent No.9 in FA/2162/2019Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate forRespondent No.4 in FA/2159/2019 and FA/2160/2019 and forRespondent No.6 in FA/2161/2019 and for Respondent No.8 inFA/2162/2019. ..…. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 09 JULY, 2025 Pronounced on : 29 JULY, 2025JUDGMENT :- 1.In all four First Appeals are offshoots of one and the sameaccident, but are arising out of distinct claim petitions bearingNos.247 of 2015 and 248 of 2015, which are at the instance of7 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)8 original claimants, who are heirs of deceased, who died in roadtraffic accident. In nutshell, two First Appeals bearing no. 2159 of2019 and 2160 of 20119 (at the instance of claimants; whereastwo First Appeal Nos. 2161 of 2019 and 2162 of 2019 ( at theinstance of Insurance Company) are hereby taking exception totwo different judgments and awards passed by the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal, Latur on account of one accident between truckand jeep dated 24.07.2015. Hence, these four appeals are beingdisposed of by common judgment. FACTS GIVING RISE TO APPEAL NO.2159/2019 (M.A.C.P.NO.247/2015) ARE AS UNDER:2.The accident claim petition bearing No. 247 of 2015 hasbeen filed by the wife and sons of the deceased Vijaykumar, alongwith his parents. The claim is directed against the driver andowner of the offending truck bearing No. MP-22/H-0220, theirinsurer (respondent No. 3), as well as the owner of the jeepbearing No. MH-24/V-7638 and its insurer (respondents No. 5 and6).8 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)9 3.The case set up by the claimants is that, on 24.07.2015,deceased Vijaykumar was travelling in the above-referred jeep togo to his destination at Chakur. When the jeep was in the vicinityof village Algarwadi, Tq. Chakur, a truck bearing No. MP-22/H-0220, which is allegedly coming from the opposite direction at anexcessively high speed and being driven in a rash and negligentmanner, came onto the wrong side and collided with the jeep,causing the accident. As a result, Vijaykumar died on the spot, andthe other occupants sustained injuries. 4.According to claimants, the driver of the truck was solelyresponsible for the accident. The said truck being owned byrespondent No.2 and being insured by respondent No.3, it is a caseof claimants that respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are jointly andseverally liable to pay compensation. 5.Except for respondent No. 2, all the respondents appearedin the claim petition. However, respondents No. 1 and 4 did notfile their written statements. Hence, the claim petition proceededwithout their written statements.9 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)10 6.According to the claimants, at the time of the accident, thedeceased Vijaykumar was 28 years old. He was employed as adriver by one Syed Maheboob Yasinsab and was earning a salary ofRs. 12,000/- per month. That, he was the sole bread earner andthe only source of income for the claimants' family. Under variousheads, the claimants set up the claim by invoking Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, to the tune of Rs.42,41,000/-, which,according to them, should be paid jointly and severally byrespondents No. 1 to 3.7.The main contenting respondent seems to be respondentNo.3/Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. and it is the caseat their end firstly on the ground that the truck driver was notholding valid and effective driving licence, therefore, there isbreach of policy; and secondly, the truck driver was not solelynegligent. They also contested and objected to the age and incomeof deceased Vijaykumar for want of proof. In the alternative, theplea set up by the insurance company is that, if the case ofclaimants is accepted, then composite negligence can be attributedto drivers of both vehicles i.e. truck driver as well as jeep driver, onaccount of the accident to be as a result of head-on collision.10 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)11 Respondents No. 5 and 6 also contested the claim on theground that there was no negligence on the part of the jeep driver,and according to them, the truck driver was solely responsible forthe accident.8.In light of the above controversies raised by each of theparties, the Tribunal framed issues and, after appreciating bothoral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that theclaimants proved that the accident occurred due to the rash andnegligent driving of the truck driver and no case is made out tohold driver of the jeep to be also equally responsible to bring intoplay contributory negligence. The Tribunal held that the claimantsare entitled for compensation, that too only from the driver andowner of the truck and insurer of the truck. Accordingly,compensation of Rs. 12,94,000 was awarded along with interest atthe rate of 7.5% per annum.9.Now, by the present appeal, i.e. First Appeal No.2159 of2019, the claimants have taken exception to the judgment andaward passed by the Tribunal on the ground of insufficientcompensation, and have accordingly sought enhancement of thecompensation. 11 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)12 10.Whereas, the insurance company has also challenged theaward on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in holding the truckdriver solely responsible by absolving the driver of the jeep and notaccepting the case set up by them in the Tribunal. FACTS GIVING RISE TO APPEAL NO.2160/2019 (M.A.C.P.NO.247/2015) ARE AS UNDER:11The accident claim petition bearing No. 248 of 2015 hasbeen filed by the parents and sister of the deceased Dhondiram.The claim is directed against the driver and owner of the offendingtruck bearing No. MP-22/H-0220, their insurer (respondent No. 3),as well as the owner of the jeep bearing No. MH-24/V-7638 and itsinsurer (respondents No. 5 and 6).12.The case set up by the claimants is that, deceasedDondiram was an occupant of jeep and travelling towards Chakuron 24.07.2015, having died in a road traffic accident on account ofdash given by the truck bearing No. MP-22/H-0220. They st up theclaim by invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seekingcompensation to the tune of Rs. 30,53,000/- with interest at therate of 12% per annum. According to claimants, the truck camefrom the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and after12 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)13 coming from the wrong side, gave a dash to the jeep in whichDhondiram died on the spot. Therefore, they sought compensationnot only from the driver and owner of the truck and the insurer ofthe truck, but also from the owner of the jeep and its insurer. 13.According to the claimants, the deceased Dhondiram was18 years old and working as a cleaner on the vehicle of SayyedMaheboob Yasinsab and was earning Rs.8,000 per month. Theclaimants were solely dependent on his income, and hence, theclaim was filed.14.The Tribunal issued notices to all the respondents. ThoughRespondent No. 1 was duly served, he failed to appear. Hence, theclaim petition proceeded ex parte against him. However,respondents No.2 and 4, though caused appearance, failed to filewritten statement, and therefore, the Tribunal passed an order toproceed with the claim without their written statements. 15.The main contenting respondent seems to be respondentNo.3/Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. and again it isthe case at their end, firstly on the ground that the truck driverwas not holding valid and effective driving licence, therefore, thereis breach of policy; and secondly, the truck driver was not solely13 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)14 negligent. They also contested and objected to the age and incomeof deceased Dhondiram for want of proof. In the alternative, theplea set up by the insurance company is that, if the case ofclaimants is accepted, then composite negligence can be attributedto drivers of both vehicles i.e. truck driver as well as jeep driver, onaccount of the accident to be as a result of head-on collision.16.In view of the above controversies raised by the parties, theTribunal framed issues and, after appreciating both oral anddocumentary evidence, reached the finding that the claimantsproved that the deceased, Dhondiram, was an occupant of thejeep, which was collided with due to the rash and negligent drivingof the truck bearing No. MP-22/H-0220. The Tribunal also rejectedthe claim of the insurance company as well as Respondents No. 3,5, and 6 regarding breach of condition and absolving the driver ofthe jeep from negligence, and finally granted compensation of Rs.4,98,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, to bepaid jointly and severally by Respondents No. 1 and 2.17.Now, by the present appeal, i.e., First Appeal No. 2160 of2019, the claimants have taken exception to the judgment andaward passed by the Tribunal on the ground of insufficient14 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)15 compensation and have accordingly sought enhancement thereof.Whereas, the insurance company has also challenged the award onthe grounds that the Tribunal erred in holding the truck driversolely responsible by absolving the driver of the jeep and notaccepting the case set up by them in the Tribunal. 18.Heard. Perused the record and impugned judgments &awards dated 30.11.2017 in M.A.C.P. Nos.247/2015 and 248/2015respectively.19.After re-appreciating the FIR, spot panchanama, inquestpanchanama, and other evidence, this Court has no doubt that thetruck driver left his correct side and moved onto the wrong side,where the jeep was proceeding, and thereby collided with the jeep,causing the death of the deceased Vijaykumar and Dhondiram.On going through the judgment of the Tribunal, this Court is morethan convinced about the reasons assigned for holding truck driversolely responsible and absolving driver of jeep from negligence.Though the insurance company in both cases has pleaded breachof policy, it has failed to discharge this burden by adducing anydistinct evidence to that effect. Therefore, the only question thatarises for consideration is whether the Tribunal, in the above cases,15 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)16 has granted appropriate and just compensation, or whether thesame is inadequate so as to enhance the same.20.Though the insurance company has asserted that there wascontributory negligence on the part of both drivers and fault isfound in the judgment of the Tribunal for failing to consider thesame, this Court finds no merit in the same, because as statedabove, from the spot panchanama (Exhibit-48), when both vehicleswere approaching each other and proceeding towards the oppositedirection, each vehicle is expected to maintain lane discipline.However, the spot panchanama shows that the truck left its correctside and entered the zone of the road meant for vehiclesproceeding in the opposite direction. Therefore, considering thesame, this Court too is convinced that reasons assigned by theTribunal in paragraphs No.19 to 23, fixing responsibility only onthe truck driver cannot be faulted at. Similarly, though the pleawas taken about breach of policy before the Tribunal, theinsurance company has not led distinct evidence about breach ofpolicy. On the contrary, the offending truck had valid and effectivepolicy on the date of accident. 16 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)17 21.On complete re-appreciation of the analysis of theevidence, in the considered opinion of this Court that, thoughclaimants in First Appeal No.2159 of 2019 (M.A.C.P. No.247/2015)has set up a case that deceased Vijaykumar was the employed asdriver on the truck owned by Mr. Sayyed Yasinsab. Though effortshave been taken to examine him, on going through his evidence, itis emerging that deceased Vijaukumar was not in permanentemployment as a driver and no evidence is lead to believe it.22.As regards to computation of compensation in M.A.C.P.No.247/2015 is concerned, claimants have adduced evidence ofSayyed Yasinsab to show employment of Vijaykumar. In histestimony, Mr. Sayyed Yasinsab deposed that he had obtained thesignatures of the deceased, Vijaykumar, in his diary. However, hehas failed to produce the diary itself. Therefore, there is no distinctevidence regarding salary being paid to deceased Vijaykumar forworking as a driver. Even the papers of the truck, which wasallegedly driven by the deceased Vijaykumar, are not placed onrecord. Therefore, there is no evidence that deceased Vijaykumarwas in employment of this witness as driver. Therefore, the onlycourse left open to the Tribunal was to consider the notionalincome. 17 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)18 23.However, considering that the deceased Vijaykumar was askilled driver, the Tribunal assessed his monthly salary atRs.8,000/-, which, in the opinion of this Court, ought to have beenassessed at a minimum of Rs.10,000/-. As pointed out, the learnedTribunal does not appear to have awarded any amount under thehead of ‘loss of consortium’ to each of the claimants, who areentitled to the same in their respective individual capacities as thewife, sons, and parents of the deceased. All the claimants areequally entitled to loss of consortium. The learned Tribunal hasawarded the same only to claimant No. 1. Therefore, modificationin the award to that extent is also required to be made. Similarly,the Tribunal seems to have forgotten to award distinctcompensation under the head of ‘loss of future prospects’.24.In view of the ratio laid down in National InsuranceCompany Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680,claimants are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each, i.e. 2,00,000/- plus20% (Rs.40,000/-) which comes to Rs. 2,40,000/- towardsconsortium. Claimants are also entitled for future prospects.Considering that the age of deceased at the time of accident was29 years, 40% needs to be awarded towards future prospectus in18 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)19 view of ratio in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ramalias Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. 25.In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants if First AppealNo.2159/2019 (M.A.C.P. No.247/2015) are entitled for followingcompensation. Name of the deceased : Vijaukumar Rawate [(First Appeal No.2159/2019) (M.A.C.P. No. 247/2015)]HeadCompensation Amount1.Annual Income (i.e. Rs.10,000 X 12)Rs.1,20,000/-2.Future Prospects 40%i.e. 48,000 (1,20,000 + 48000)Rs.1,68,0003.less 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses.(Rs. 1,68,000 – 42,000)Rs.1,26,000/-4.Multiplier of 17 (1,26,000 X 17)(As applied by the Tribunal)Rs.21,42,000/-5.Non-pecuniary Losses:-Loss consortium andLove and affection = Rs.2,40,000/-Loss of Estate = Rs.15,000/-(As awarded by the Tribunal)Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/(As awarded by the Tribunal)Rs.2,70,000/- 6.Total compensation to be paid(i.e. Rs.21,42,000 + Rs.2,70,000 )Rs.24,12,000/-6.Compensation awarded by TribunalRs.12,94,000/-7.Total Enhanced Compensation(Rs.24,12,000 – Rs.12,94,000 )Rs.11,18,000/-19 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)20 26.As regards to computation of compensation in M.A.C.P.No.248/2015 is concerned, the deceased Dhondiram was shown tohave been working as a cleaner on the truck owned by Mr. SayyedYasinsab. Though deceased Dhondiram claimed to be working ascleaner, in this regard also there is no evidence whatsoever to showthat he rendered in such work. Therefore, in the absence of anysuch evidence, the notional income, as assessed by the Tribunal, isrequired to be considered. However, the multiplier applied by theTribunal is 13, which was based on the average age of the parents.In fact, considering the age of the deceased Dhondiram as 18years, the Tribunal ought to have applied a multiplier of 18, inaccordance with the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma and others Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC3104. So also, as pointed out, in this claim also the learnedTribunal does not appear to have awarded any amount under thehead of ‘loss of consortium’ to each of the claimants. Therefore,modification in the award to that extent is also required to bemade. Similarly, the Tribunal seems to have forgotten to awarddistinct compensation under the head of ‘loss of future prospects’.20 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)21 27.In view of the ratio laid down in National InsuranceCompany Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16) SCC 680,claimants are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each, i.e. 1,20,000/- plus20% (Rs.24,000/-) which comes to Rs. 1,44,000/- towardsconsortium. Claimants are also entitled for future prospects.Considering that the age of deceased at the time of accident was18 years, 40% needs to be awarded towards future prospectus inview of ratio in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra).28.In view of the aforesaid discussion, claimants if First AppealNo.2160/2019 (M.A.C.P. No.248/2015) are entitled for followingcompensation. Name of the deceased : Dhondiram Shelke (M.A.C.P. No. 248/2015)HeadCompensation Amount1.Annual Income (i.e. Rs.6000 X 12)(As assessed by the Tribunal) Rs.72,000/-2.Future Prospects 40%i.e. 28,800 (72,000 + 28,800) Rs.1,00,8003.less 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses.(Rs. 1,00,800 – 50,400) Rs.50,400/-4.Multiplier of 18 (50,400 X 18) Rs.9,07,200/-21 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)22 5.Non-pecuniary Losses:-Loss consortium = Rs.1,44,000/-Loss of Estate = Rs.15,000/-(As awarded by the Tribunal)Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/(As awarded by the Tribunal)Rs.1,74,000/- 6.Total compensation to be paid(i.e. Rs.9,07,200 + Rs.1,74,000 )Rs.10,81,200/-6.Compensation awarded by TribunalRs.4,98,000/-7.Total Enhanced Compensation(Rs.10,81,200 – Rs.4,98,000 )Rs.5,83,200/-29.In the result, First Appeal Nos. 2159 of 2019 and 2160 of2019 preferred by the original claimants are partly allowed asunder :-Order in First Appeal No. 2159 of 2019(I)Impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2017, passedby Ex-Officio Member of M.A.C.T., Latur in M.A.C.P. No.247 of2015 is modified as under:(a)Respondent no.3-insurance company to payenhanced compensation of Rs.11,18,000/- toclaimants within 12 weeks from today along withinterest @ 7.5% per annum from the date ofregistration of claim petition till its realization. 22 of 23 2159-19-FA (+3) (Jt)23 Order in First Appeal No. 2160 of 2019(II)Impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2017, passedby Ex-Officio Member of M.A.C.T., Latur in M.A.C.P. No. 248 of2015 is modified as under:(a)Respondent no.3-insurance company to payenhanced compensation of Rs.5,83,200/- to claimantswithin 12 weeks from today along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of registration of claimpetition till its realization.(III)First appeal Nos. 2161 of 2019 and 2162 of 2019 preferredby the Insurance company stand dismissed.(IV)No order as to costs. (V)Award be drawn up accordingly.(VI)On deposit of the amount by Insurance Company,appellants/claimants in FA/2159/2019 and 2160/2019 arepermitted to withdraw the same. [ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ] JUDGES.P. Rane23 of 23