SHEELA (SINC SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L v. AR AND OTHERS GH LRs
Case Details
1 FAO No.3581 of 81 of 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH FAO No.35 No.3581 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Re Date of De of Reserve: 20.12.2024 of Decision: 27.02.2025 SHEELA (SINC SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L Vs AR AND OTHERS GH LRs .....Appellant(s) ....Respondent(s) RAM KUMAR A CORAM: HON' ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH ESH MANUJA Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate Present: Mr. for the appellant(s). for th Mr. S Mr. S.S. Mor, Advocate for respondent No.1. for re Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate Mr. D for respondent No.3-United India Ins dia Insurance Ltd. Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj, Advocate a Mr. N Mr. S Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for respondent No.4- Shri Ram Gene for re ocate and General Insurance Company. HARKESH MAN MANUJA, J. **** [1]. By way of present appeal, challenge By w allenge has been laid to an award date rd dated 04.04.2024 passe passed by the learned Motor Acc r Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaith Kaithal (hereinafter to be to be referred as “the Tribunal”), whe whereby an amount of Rs.13,05,003 05,003/- was awarded as c as compensation to the appellant/cl lant/claimant along with interest @ t @ 7% per annum. Brief Facts [2]. Appellant and legal representative Appe ntatives of respondent No. 5 bein 5 being dependents upon upon the deceased, filed claim petitio petition before the learned Tribunal fo unal for grant of compens mpensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,0 5,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakh e Lakhs only) along with i with interest @ 18% per annum on ac on account of death of Prem Chand hand in MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.03 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3581 of 81 of 2024 (O&M) 2 a motor vehicula hicular accident which took place on ace on 15.03.2013, while alleging ras ing rash and negligent driv river. nt driving of respondent No.1/driver. [3]. Learned Tribunal after appraisal o Lear isal of evidence and record held th eld that accident occurred curred due to rash and negligent drivi t driving of respondent No.1/driver an iver and awarded compens mpensation in the following manner: nner:- Claim S.No Heads of Claim S.N n Rs) Amount (in Rs) (cid:3) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3) (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:3) (cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:25)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:3) (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:3) (cid:27)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:6)(cid:30)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:5)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) !(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:3)"(cid:3)(cid:5)#(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)$(cid:29)%(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)$(cid:29)%(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:30)%(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:5)(cid:31) (cid:3) Learned Tribunal while adjudicating Lear icating upon liability to pay amount o ount of compensation rec on recorded that respondent Nos.1 & 2 s.1 & 2 were jointly and severally liab ly liable and absolved res ed respondents No.3 & 4 (Insurance urance Companies) from any liabili liability thereof. [4]. Being aggrieved against the awar Bein award dated 04.04.2024 the prese present appeal has been been preferred by the appellant for e for enhancement of compensation a ation as awarded by the le the learned Tribunal. Arguments [5].
Legal Reasoning
Learned Counsel for the appellant a Lear llant assailed the award on the ground grounds that the learned arned Tribunal erred while absolvi bsolving respondent No.4-Shree Ra ee Ram General Insuranc surance Company of liability to pay c pay compensation on the ground th und that the offending veh ng vehicle was not insured with it. He it. He further contended that the learne learned Tribunal erred wh red while making deduction of 1/3 tow 1/3 towards personal expenses from th rom the MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.03 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3581 of 81 of 2024 (O&M) 3 income of decease eceased as at the time of filling of cla of claim petition both appellant (Shee (Sheela w/o Prem Chand) hand) and respondent No.5 (Bimla m mla mother of Prem Chand) being aliv ng alive were dependent o dent on the deceased and therefore, d fore, deduction of 1/4 towards person personal expenses should h ould have been made. He also submi @ 10% submitted that future prospects @ 10% should have been e been added to the income of deceas eceased while considering the fact th fact that he was 59 years o ears of age at the relevant time. Lastly Lastly, he contended that compensatio ensation awarded under co der conventional heads was on the lo the lower side and the same was liab as liable ced. to be enhanced. [6]. Learned Counsel for respondent No Lear No.1/driver argued that at the time o time of accident the offe offending vehicle was duly insur insured by respondent No.4 and th and the learned Tribunal bunal erred while absolving it from a from any liability to pay compensatio nsation. He further prayed prayed for modification of the award t ward to the extent that respondent No nt No.4 should be jointly jointly and severally held liable to p le to pay the amount of compensatio ensation being the insurer surer for indemnifying the award. [7]. On the other hand, learned Counse On t ounsel for respondent No.4 submitte bmitted that the learned arned Tribunal rightly held responde pondent Nos.1 & 2 liable to pay th pay the amount of compe compensation as the offending vehicl vehicle was not insured with it on th t on the day of motor veh or vehicular accident. He further con er contended that the learned Tribun ribunal correctly recorded corded that there was no cogent evide idence led by respondent Nos.1 & .1 & 2 to prove that polic at policy “Mark-H” was a genuine poli ne policy issued by respondent No.4. H o.4. He also contended th ded that it was the case of responde pondents No.1 & 2 that the offendin ffending vehicle was not o not originally insured with responden ondent No.4 rather there was a break break-in period and the s the same was got insured by resp y respondent No.3 after conducting cting a physical inspectio spection on 10.03.2013. He further su ther submitted that the insurance polic e policy was issued by re by respondent No.3 on 29.03.2013 w 2013 while relying on previous polic s policy MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.03 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3581 of 81 of 2024 (O&M) 4 “Mark-H” though though at that time the offending vehic vehicle was in police custody and thu nd thus, respondent No.4 w No.4 was rightly exonerated by the le the learned Tribunal. Lastly, he praye prayed that the award of ard of compensation needed no interfe interference, and the present appeal wa eal was liable to be dismis dismissed. [8]. I have heard learned counsel for th I hav for the parties and perused the pap e paper book of the case. case. I find force in the arguments s advanced by the learning couns counsel for the appellant/c llant/claimant. Discussion Question of Insu f Insurance Company Liability [9]. Upon perusal of record, it is ev Upon is evident from Ex.RW2/E that th that the offending vehicle vehicle was insured with responden pondent No.3-United India Insuranc surance Company from 2 rom 29.03.2013 to 28.03.2014 and a and a careful analysis of documents ents at page No.526 of 26 of the LCR showed that this po his policy was issued on the basis o basis of previous policy olicy no. 1020153112056465.Mr. N Mr. Nipun Khurana, Deputy Gener General Manager, United nited Insurance Company, while app ile appearing as RW2 deposed that th that the insurance policy o olicy of the offending vehicle was iss as issued by respondent No.3 based o ased on a cover note be te bearing no. 076662 dated 20.03 20.03.2013 (Ex.RW2/F) which eve ch even recorded about previous insurance policy no. as no. as 1020153112056465 being val ng valid from 29.03.2012 .2012 to 28.03.2013, issued by respo respondent No.4-Shree Ram Gener General Insurance Compa ompany. Also, RW2 during his length lengthy cross-examination deposed th sed that in cases where th here there was no break-in period, n riod, new insurance policy was issue s issued based on cover no over note only and no physical examin examination of the vehicle was neede needed. The argument rais ent raised by learned Counsel for respo r respondent No.4 that respondent No nt No.3 could not have is ave issued the insurance policy of th y of the offending vehicle while it wa e it was lying in police cu lice custody on 29.03.2013 holds no fo s no force because if there was break break-in MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.03 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3581 of 81 of 2024 (O&M) 5 period in the insu e insurance policy, respondent No.3 No.3 would have physically inspecte spected the vehicle and t and there would have been photogr hotographs thereof showing accident cidental damage to the off the offending vehicle, but to the contr e contrary there was nothing of the so the sort ever produced o ced on record by respondents. F nts. Furthermore, the argument th nt that respondent No.3 i No.3 issued policy in question based o based on proposal form No.57849 date 9 dated 10.03.2013 (at pa (at page 221 of the LCR) seems to be s to be highly improbable in view of th w of the fact that RW2 p W2 produced original record of Pr of Premium collection register fro er from 01.12.2012 to 31. to 31.03.2013 (Ex.RW2/D) and there d there was no record of any receipt o ceipt of premium for alle r alleged proposal No.57849 and rat nd rather there was an entry depictin epicting premium collecti ollection in lieu of insurance policy policy dated 29.03.2013 (Ex.RW2/E W2/E). Thus, it can be sa be safely assumed that respondent No nt No.3 issued insurance policy for th y for the offending vehicle vehicle without conducting any phy y physical verification on 29.03.201 03.2013 relying on a cove a cover note dated 28.03.2013 which which was done in fact on the basis o basis of previous insuran nsurance policy issued by respond espondent No.4. (“Mark-H”)and the offending vehicle ehicle at the time of motor vehicul ehicular accident was duly insured b ured by respondent no.4 v no.4 vide policy “Mark-H” valid from d from 29.03.2012 to 28.03.2013. Therefore, in the given facts and ci Ther and circumstances of the present cas nt case, this Court in its in its humble opinion holds that th that the learned Tribunal erroneous neously overlooked the e the evidence available on record an ord and wrongly absolved responde pondent No.4 from its join its joint and several liability to pay th pay the amount of compensation to th n to the claimants. Question of Com f Computation of Compensation [10]. In the present case, based on mate In th material available on record, learne learned Tribunal assessed sessed the income of deceased as Rs. s Rs.1,90,000/- per annum based on d on his income tax return returns. The argument advanced by l d by learned Counsel for the Appella ppellant MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.03 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3581 of 81 of 2024 (O&M) 6 that the learned T rned Tribunal erred by not considering idering wife and mother of the decease eceased as dependents wh nts while making deduction towards ards personal expenses holds force force in view of the fact t fact that both the wife and mother o other of the deceased were alive at th e at the time of motor veh tor vehicular accident. In such circum ircumstances, in the humble opinion o inion of this Court deduct deduction of 1/4 is required to be ma be made from the income of decease eceased towards personal rsonal expenses while computing loss o loss of dependency. Further, in the present case deceased Furth ceased was a businessman and 59 yea 59 years of age at the time e time of motor vehicular accident, th ent, thus, in view of the law laid dow id down by the Hon’ble A n’ble Apex Court in case “Smt. Sar . Sarla Verma and others vs. Delh Delhi Transport Corpo orporation and another”, reported a orted as 2009 (3) R.C.R (Civil) 77 an and further affirmed rmed in case of “National Insuran urance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi thi & others”, reported ported as(2017) 16 SCC 680, future future prospects @ 10 % needs to b s to be added to the incom e income of the deceased while compu computing compensation. Question of Com f Compensation under Conventiona tional Heads [11]. In view of judgments of the Hon’b In vi Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma rma’s case(supra), “Pra Pranay Sethi’s case (supra)and "U "United India Insurance Co. Lt o. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kau Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur", report reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780, th , the amount awarded arded under the heads of “funeral neral expenses”, “loss of estate” an te” and “consortium” is r ” is required to be reassessed. Appe . Appellant and respondent No.5 bein .5 being claimant are thus e thus, held entitled to Rs.18,000/- as as compensation under the head o head of funeral expenses enses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of of estate by applying 10% increas increase under the conven onventional heads. Loss of consortium sortium is to be awarded to the tune o tune of Rs.2,40,000/- (48 (48,000 x 5)as Appellant and resp d respondent No.5 being wife, moth mother and children of en of deceased are also entitled f itled for spousal, parental and fili d filial MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.03 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3581 of 81 of 2024 (O&M) 7 consortium; but s ; but simultaneously, they would not ld not be entitled for compensation o ation on account of loss of loss of love and affection. [12]. In view of what has been discussed h In vi ussed hereinabove, the impugned awar d award is modified to th to the extent that respondent No.4 No.4 is also held jointly and several everally liable to pay amo y amount of compensation to the App e Appellant and respondent No.5 in th .5 in the following manner anner:- Sr.No. Nature Sr.No (cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30),(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)+(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)#(cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:30)+(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3)(cid:3) -(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:3) !(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:29)%$(cid:29)0%(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. !(cid:23)(cid:9)(cid:3) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:3) ’(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:21)(cid:12)(cid:3) (cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3) (cid:11) &(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:3) (cid:14)(cid:23)(cid:24)#(cid:3) (cid:23)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:3)((cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:19)((cid:20)(cid:14)(cid:23) (cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:3) (cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:9)(cid:3) &(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:3) (cid:1)(cid:30))(cid:3) (cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3) (cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:17) (cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:3)%+(cid:3) !(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:3)((cid:12)(cid:19)(cid:14)*(cid:3)((cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:12) (cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:23)*(cid:12)#(cid:3) (cid:27)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:3)’(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:21)(cid:12)(cid:3)!(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:29)+(cid:30)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30) !(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:21)#(cid:3) -(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:3)!(cid:1)(cid:31)(cid:6)#(cid:3) ’(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:21)(cid:12)(cid:3) (cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:3) -(cid:12) .(cid:12)(cid:18)(cid:3) (cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:21)#(cid:3) (cid:27)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:3) (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:3) (cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:14) (cid:23)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:24)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:14)*(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:13)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3)+ %+(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:3)!(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:29)%$(cid:29)0%(cid:30)(cid:3)"(cid:3)+ (cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:3) /(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:3) (cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3) (cid:10)(cid:3)+(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:23)*(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3) (cid:3)"(cid:3)+#1(cid:3) (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:3) (cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3) 2(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:3) !(cid:28)(cid:9) (cid:23)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:12) (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:23)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:3) !(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:6)3(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:25)%#(cid:3) !(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:3) (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:3).(cid:8)(cid:2)%#(cid:3) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:6) (cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:21) (cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:22)(cid:11)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:23)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:6) Amount Rupees in i (cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:1)(cid:29)+(cid:30)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30) (cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)+(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)%(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:4)%(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:29)(cid:1)(cid:30)(cid:29)0%(cid:30) %(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)3(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:6)(cid:30)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)3(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)$(cid:29)3$(cid:29)0%(cid:30) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:30)%(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:30)(cid:5) (cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:29)3(cid:1)(cid:29)0(cid:6)0(cid:31) (cid:3) %(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:3) (cid:30)(cid:5)(cid:31) (cid:3) 0(cid:31) (cid:3) [13]. The grant of interest @ 7% per ann The er annum is not equitable and unjust njust in view of the obser observations made by the Hon’ble S n’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe D pe Dei MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.03 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3581 of 81 of 2024 (O&M) 8 and others Vs. N s. National Insurance Company Li y Limited and other, (2009) (4) SC ) SCC 513 approved in ed in a subsequent judgment titled as . K.L. tled as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L Narayana Reddy eddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (C R (Civil) 443 the interest is enhance nhanced to 9% per annum nnum on the amount of compensation nsation awarded to the claimant(s) fro from the date of institu institution of claim petition till its real its realization. Needless to mention he ion here that the amount o ount of compensation already paid to to the claimant(s) shall be deducte educted from the enhanced hanced compensation. [14]. In view of aforesaid modification, th In vi tion, the present appeal stands dispose isposed of. Pending misc g miscellaneous application(s) if any, s
Decision
any, shall also stand disposed of. February 27, 202 Atik , 2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) (HA JUDGE Whe Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Whe Yes/N Yes/No Yes/No Yes/N MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.03 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment