Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Judgment delivered on: 8 January, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 819/2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate.
Versus
MEENAKSHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Peeush Sharma,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
AND
MAC.APP. 538/2013
MEENAKSHI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr. Peeush Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
BANNE ALI & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate
for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Both the appeals have been preferred against the impugned award
dated 07.01.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 1 of 10
for a sum of Rs.43,31,064/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. Vide appeal bearing MAC. APP. No.819/2013, the Insurance Company
has sought reduction of the compensation amount, whereas appeal bearing
MAC. APP. No.538/2013 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of
the compensation amount.
3. Since both these appeals have been arisen from the same impugned
judgment dated 07.01.2013, therefore, these appeals are being decided by this
common judgment.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company has argued that as per the salary certificate dated 01.04.2008 issued
by ZEE News Ltd., gross monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.25,300/-
inclusive of allowances and taxes, whereas the learned Tribunal has assessed
his monthly income as Rs.24,300/-. As per the salary certificate for the month
of June, 2008, monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.33,039/-, wherein a sum
of Rs.13,200/- was shown as payment towards incentive. He submitted that if
the said incentive amount of Rs.13,200/- is deducted from the income of the
deceased, then the balance monthly income comes to Rs.19,839/- only,
whereas the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the salary/income of the
deceased as Rs.24,300/-per month.
5. Learned counsel further argued that at the time of the accident, the age
of the deceased was 34 years; and the claimants failed to prove that he was in
permanent employment. Despite this fact, while computing the loss of
dependency, the learned Tribunal has added 40% of the income of the
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 2 of 10
deceased towards future prospects, which is contrary to the law settled by the
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC
12 , which has been thereafter confirmed by the Full Bench of the Apex Court
in the case bearing Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 , titled as ‘ Reshma Kumari
& Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.’ , decided on 02.04.2013.
6. He submitted that in view of the dictums noted above, the claimants are
not entitled for grant of any amount towards future prospects.
7. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal has considered
the wife, parents and a daughter, who was in womb at the time of the
th
accident, as dependants upon the deceased and accordingly deducted 1/4 of
the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. He argued that father
could not be considered as dependent upon the deceased, therefore, learned
rd
Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3 of income of the deceased towards
personal expenses.
8. On the issue raised above, learned counsel has relied upon the case of
Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) , wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
“15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants
are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal
and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is
also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will
not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will
be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to
the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 3 of 10
dependents, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even
if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the
mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50%
would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the
bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However,
where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the
income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or
brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted
to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as
two-third.”
9. As regards the issue of salary is concerned, undisputedly, deceased
Jagdev Singh was working with ZEE Telefilms Limited as a cameraman since
2005, as is evident from Ex.PW 2/1, i.e., his appointment letter dated
01.04.2005. At the time of accident his age was 34 years. On 01.04.2008, in
continuation of his work, his pay was revised to Rs.25,300/- per month, which
is also evident from the letter dated 01.04.2008 issued by Divya Verma, Vice
President-HR. This salary includes various items like Rs.1,000/- as uniform
allowance.
10. The claimants have also placed on record a salary certificate for the
month of June, 2008, the last drawn salary of the deceased. In this month,
total earnings have been shown as Rs.33,039/- including incentive payment of
Rs.13,200/-.
11. Since no evidence regarding incentives being part of monthly income
have been placed on record by the claimants, therefore, the learned Tribunal
while assessing the monthly income of the deceased has relied upon the salary
computation sheet issued on 01.04.2008 showing monthly income as
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 4 of 10
Rs.25,300/- from which Rs.1,000/- of the uniform allowance has been
deducted by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the income of the deceased has been
considered by the learned Tribunal as Rs.24,300/- per month.
12. Moreover, this Court in case bearing MAC. APP. No. 110/2007, titled
as ‘ Meenakshi Mishra & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors.’ , decided on
19.12.2011, has held as under:-
“4. The deceased’s salary was extracted in Para 10 of the
impugned judgment. Apart from basic salary of ` 9,56, 808/- the
deceased Prafull Chandra Mishra was getting Bonus, House
Rent, Vehicle Allowance, Medical Allowance and contribution
towards Provident Fund, Superannuation, House Maintenance,
Telephone Expenses, Mobile Charges and Hard Furnishing
allowances. The Tribunal relied on Asha & Ors. v. United India
Insurance Company & Anr. 2004 ACJ 448 in not adding the
allowance in the deceased’s income. While interpreting Asha
(supra), the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Indira Srivastava, (2008) 2 SCC 763 held as under:-
“17. This Court in Asha (supra) did not address itself the
question raised before us. It does not appear that any
precedent was noticed nor the term “just compensation”
was considered in the light of the changing societal
condition as also the perks which are paid to the employee
which may or may not attract income tax or any other tax.
What would be “just compensation” must be determined
having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
The basis for considering the entire pay-packet is what the
dependants have lost due to death of the deceased. It is in
the nature of compensation for future loss towards the
family income.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
6. In Sarla Verma (supra) the Supreme Court had the occasion
to consider the grant of compensation in fatal accident cases and
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 5 of 10
dwelled in detail as to how the multiplicand is to be arrived and
how the multiplier is to be selected. It was held that generally
the income tax should be deducted from the actual income to
arrive at the deceased’s net income. In Para 20 of the report it
was held as under:-
“20. Generally the actual income of the deceased less
income tax should be the starting point for calculating
the compensation. The question is whether actual income
at the time of death should be taken as the income or
whether any addition should be made by taking note of
future prospects.”
7. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the deceased’s entire
income was to be used by him for himself as well as for the
members of his family. In this view of the matter, there is no
manner of doubt that the deceased’s entire income i.e. Rs.
18,34,391/- was to be considered for computation of dependency
less income tax.”
13. In view of the above, I do not find any discrepancy in the order passed
by the learned Tribunal qua the issue of salary, therefore, I confirm the same.
14. As regards the issue of dependency, the claimants have claimed that
parents were dependents upon the income of deceased. The
appellant/Insurance Company has not led any evidence contrary to that. The
appellant even failed to cross-examine the witnesses on this issue. Moreover,
respondent No.4, Kumari Drishti Negi, lost her father when she was in womb
itself. She born fatherless, therefore, she could not get love and affection of
her father.
15. So far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, undisputedly, the
deceased was aged 34 years at the time of the accident and the learned
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 6 of 10
Tribunal has added 40% of the income towards future prospects. The
deceased was working with the employer noted above, since 2005. It is a
matter of record that he graduated in the year 1998. He also completed
Diploma in Film and T.V. in 2002. It is also on record that deceased was with
Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd. (A Govt. Organization) as
Lightning Assistant for the project operation and maintenance of Doordarshan
News Channel for some time. The claimants have produced the details of his
salary right from year 2005 to 2008, which shows that in ZEE News Limited
itself, the deceased exhibited growth of salary from Rs.14,000 (on
01.04.2005) to Rs.22,000/- (on 01.04.2007) and eventually to Rs.25,300/- (on
01.04.2008). Therefore, in consideration of the educational qualification and
job profile of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has added only 40% of the
income of the deceased towards future prospects, which is rather less in my
considered opinion keeping in mind the dictum of the Apex Court in the case
of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563 , which
has been followed by this Court in the case bearing MAC.APP. No. 846/2011
titled as ‘ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh &
Ors.’, decided on 30.09.2013.
16. It is pertinent to mention here that vide MAC. APP. No.538/2013, the
appellants/claimants while seeking enhancement of the compensation amount,
have raised one of the issue that the learned Tribunal has wrongly added 40%
towards future prospects instead of 50%.
17. Therefore, keeping in view the aforenoted discussion, settled position
of law and the age of the deceased, i.e., 34 years at the time of the accident,
this Court increases the future prospects from 40% to 50%.
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 7 of 10
18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants in the
appeal noted above has argued that the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal towards non-pecuniary damages is on a very lower side. Deceased
Jagdev Singh Negi died in the accident in question on 06.07.2008 leaving
behind his wife, a daughter in womb and parents. Vide award dated
07.01.2013, the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards
loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses but no
amount has been awarded for loss of consortium and for loss of estate.
19. Admittedly, the deceased died in the accident on 06.07.2008. The
appellants/claimants filed the claim petition on 01.09.2008, which was
allowed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 07.01.2013.
However, the learned Tribunal failed to grant any compensation towards loss
of consortium and loss of estate.
20. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the
deceased as 34 years on the date of the accident and the dependants left
behind, this Court grants compensation for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the
compensation granted by the learned Tribunal towards loss of love and
affection as Rs.35,000/- and towards funeral expenses as Rs. 10,000/- is on
lower side. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court enhances the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of
loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses.
22. Consequently, the compensation amount comes as under:-
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 8 of 10
th
% Judgment delivered on: 8 January, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 819/2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate.
Versus
MEENAKSHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Peeush Sharma,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
AND
MAC.APP. 538/2013
MEENAKSHI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr. Peeush Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
BANNE ALI & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate
for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Both the appeals have been preferred against the impugned award
dated 07.01.2013, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 1 of 10
for a sum of Rs.43,31,064/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. Vide appeal bearing MAC. APP. No.819/2013, the Insurance Company
has sought reduction of the compensation amount, whereas appeal bearing
MAC. APP. No.538/2013 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of
the compensation amount.
3. Since both these appeals have been arisen from the same impugned
judgment dated 07.01.2013, therefore, these appeals are being decided by this
common judgment.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company has argued that as per the salary certificate dated 01.04.2008 issued
by ZEE News Ltd., gross monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.25,300/-
inclusive of allowances and taxes, whereas the learned Tribunal has assessed
his monthly income as Rs.24,300/-. As per the salary certificate for the month
of June, 2008, monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.33,039/-, wherein a sum
of Rs.13,200/- was shown as payment towards incentive. He submitted that if
the said incentive amount of Rs.13,200/- is deducted from the income of the
deceased, then the balance monthly income comes to Rs.19,839/- only,
whereas the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the salary/income of the
deceased as Rs.24,300/-per month.
5. Learned counsel further argued that at the time of the accident, the age
of the deceased was 34 years; and the claimants failed to prove that he was in
permanent employment. Despite this fact, while computing the loss of
dependency, the learned Tribunal has added 40% of the income of the
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 2 of 10
deceased towards future prospects, which is contrary to the law settled by the
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC
12 , which has been thereafter confirmed by the Full Bench of the Apex Court
in the case bearing Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2009 , titled as ‘ Reshma Kumari
& Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr.’ , decided on 02.04.2013.
6. He submitted that in view of the dictums noted above, the claimants are
not entitled for grant of any amount towards future prospects.
7. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Tribunal has considered
the wife, parents and a daughter, who was in womb at the time of the
th
accident, as dependants upon the deceased and accordingly deducted 1/4 of
the income of the deceased towards personal expenses. He argued that father
could not be considered as dependent upon the deceased, therefore, learned
rd
Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3 of income of the deceased towards
personal expenses.
8. On the issue raised above, learned counsel has relied upon the case of
Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) , wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
“15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants
are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In
regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal
and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is
also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in
which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is
likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the
contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will
not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will
be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to
the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 3 of 10
dependents, because they will either be independent and
earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus even
if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the
mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50%
would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the
bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However,
where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the
income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or
brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted
to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as
two-third.”
9. As regards the issue of salary is concerned, undisputedly, deceased
Jagdev Singh was working with ZEE Telefilms Limited as a cameraman since
2005, as is evident from Ex.PW 2/1, i.e., his appointment letter dated
01.04.2005. At the time of accident his age was 34 years. On 01.04.2008, in
continuation of his work, his pay was revised to Rs.25,300/- per month, which
is also evident from the letter dated 01.04.2008 issued by Divya Verma, Vice
President-HR. This salary includes various items like Rs.1,000/- as uniform
allowance.
10. The claimants have also placed on record a salary certificate for the
month of June, 2008, the last drawn salary of the deceased. In this month,
total earnings have been shown as Rs.33,039/- including incentive payment of
Rs.13,200/-.
11. Since no evidence regarding incentives being part of monthly income
have been placed on record by the claimants, therefore, the learned Tribunal
while assessing the monthly income of the deceased has relied upon the salary
computation sheet issued on 01.04.2008 showing monthly income as
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 4 of 10
Rs.25,300/- from which Rs.1,000/- of the uniform allowance has been
deducted by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the income of the deceased has been
considered by the learned Tribunal as Rs.24,300/- per month.
12. Moreover, this Court in case bearing MAC. APP. No. 110/2007, titled
as ‘ Meenakshi Mishra & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors.’ , decided on
19.12.2011, has held as under:-
“4. The deceased’s salary was extracted in Para 10 of the
impugned judgment. Apart from basic salary of ` 9,56, 808/- the
deceased Prafull Chandra Mishra was getting Bonus, House
Rent, Vehicle Allowance, Medical Allowance and contribution
towards Provident Fund, Superannuation, House Maintenance,
Telephone Expenses, Mobile Charges and Hard Furnishing
allowances. The Tribunal relied on Asha & Ors. v. United India
Insurance Company & Anr. 2004 ACJ 448 in not adding the
allowance in the deceased’s income. While interpreting Asha
(supra), the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Indira Srivastava, (2008) 2 SCC 763 held as under:-
“17. This Court in Asha (supra) did not address itself the
question raised before us. It does not appear that any
precedent was noticed nor the term “just compensation”
was considered in the light of the changing societal
condition as also the perks which are paid to the employee
which may or may not attract income tax or any other tax.
What would be “just compensation” must be determined
having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
The basis for considering the entire pay-packet is what the
dependants have lost due to death of the deceased. It is in
the nature of compensation for future loss towards the
family income.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
6. In Sarla Verma (supra) the Supreme Court had the occasion
to consider the grant of compensation in fatal accident cases and
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 5 of 10
dwelled in detail as to how the multiplicand is to be arrived and
how the multiplier is to be selected. It was held that generally
the income tax should be deducted from the actual income to
arrive at the deceased’s net income. In Para 20 of the report it
was held as under:-
“20. Generally the actual income of the deceased less
income tax should be the starting point for calculating
the compensation. The question is whether actual income
at the time of death should be taken as the income or
whether any addition should be made by taking note of
future prospects.”
7. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the deceased’s entire
income was to be used by him for himself as well as for the
members of his family. In this view of the matter, there is no
manner of doubt that the deceased’s entire income i.e. Rs.
18,34,391/- was to be considered for computation of dependency
less income tax.”
13. In view of the above, I do not find any discrepancy in the order passed
by the learned Tribunal qua the issue of salary, therefore, I confirm the same.
14. As regards the issue of dependency, the claimants have claimed that
parents were dependents upon the income of deceased. The
appellant/Insurance Company has not led any evidence contrary to that. The
appellant even failed to cross-examine the witnesses on this issue. Moreover,
respondent No.4, Kumari Drishti Negi, lost her father when she was in womb
itself. She born fatherless, therefore, she could not get love and affection of
her father.
15. So far as the issue of future prospects is concerned, undisputedly, the
deceased was aged 34 years at the time of the accident and the learned
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 6 of 10
Tribunal has added 40% of the income towards future prospects. The
deceased was working with the employer noted above, since 2005. It is a
matter of record that he graduated in the year 1998. He also completed
Diploma in Film and T.V. in 2002. It is also on record that deceased was with
Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd. (A Govt. Organization) as
Lightning Assistant for the project operation and maintenance of Doordarshan
News Channel for some time. The claimants have produced the details of his
salary right from year 2005 to 2008, which shows that in ZEE News Limited
itself, the deceased exhibited growth of salary from Rs.14,000 (on
01.04.2005) to Rs.22,000/- (on 01.04.2007) and eventually to Rs.25,300/- (on
01.04.2008). Therefore, in consideration of the educational qualification and
job profile of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has added only 40% of the
income of the deceased towards future prospects, which is rather less in my
considered opinion keeping in mind the dictum of the Apex Court in the case
of Rajesh and Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563 , which
has been followed by this Court in the case bearing MAC.APP. No. 846/2011
titled as ‘ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh &
Ors.’, decided on 30.09.2013.
16. It is pertinent to mention here that vide MAC. APP. No.538/2013, the
appellants/claimants while seeking enhancement of the compensation amount,
have raised one of the issue that the learned Tribunal has wrongly added 40%
towards future prospects instead of 50%.
17. Therefore, keeping in view the aforenoted discussion, settled position
of law and the age of the deceased, i.e., 34 years at the time of the accident,
this Court increases the future prospects from 40% to 50%.
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 7 of 10
18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants in the
appeal noted above has argued that the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal towards non-pecuniary damages is on a very lower side. Deceased
Jagdev Singh Negi died in the accident in question on 06.07.2008 leaving
behind his wife, a daughter in womb and parents. Vide award dated
07.01.2013, the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards
loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses but no
amount has been awarded for loss of consortium and for loss of estate.
19. Admittedly, the deceased died in the accident on 06.07.2008. The
appellants/claimants filed the claim petition on 01.09.2008, which was
allowed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 07.01.2013.
However, the learned Tribunal failed to grant any compensation towards loss
of consortium and loss of estate.
20. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the
deceased as 34 years on the date of the accident and the dependants left
behind, this Court grants compensation for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that the
compensation granted by the learned Tribunal towards loss of love and
affection as Rs.35,000/- and towards funeral expenses as Rs. 10,000/- is on
lower side. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court enhances the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of
loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses.
22. Consequently, the compensation amount comes as under:-
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 8 of 10
| Sr.<br>No. | Heads | Calculation as<br>per MACT | Calculation as<br>per this Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Loss of dependency | 42,86,064.00 | 52,48,800 |
| 2. | For loss of love and<br>affection and loss of<br>consortium | 35,000.00 | 1,00,000.00 |
| 3. | Funeral expenses | 10,000.00 | 25,000.00 |
| 4. | Loss of consortium | Nil | 1,00,000.00 |
| 5. | Loss of Estate | Nil | 10,000.00 |
| Total | 43,31,064.00 | 54,83,800/- |
Resultantly, the enhanced compensation comes to Rs.11,52,734/-
(Rs.54,83,800- Rs.43,31,066.00).
23. The enhanced compensation amount shall also carry interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.
24. In view of the above discussion, appeal bearing MAC. APP. No.
538/2013 is allowed and appeal bearing MAC. APP. No. 819/2013 is
accordingly dismissed.
25. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the Insurance Company and remaining
compensation amount in favour of the claimants in terms of the award dated
07.01.2013 in MAC. APP. No.819/2013.
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 9 of 10
26. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount in MAC. APP. No.538/2013 alongwith interest with the
Registrar General of this Court within a period of five weeks from today,
failing which, appellants/claimants shall be entitled for penal interest @ 12%
per annum on account of delayed payment.
27. On deposit, the Registrar General is directed to release the amount in
favour of the appellants/claimants in terms of the impugned award dated
07.01.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal on taking necessary steps by them
except the share of appellant/claimant No.4/Kumari Drishti Negi, which shall
be kept in the form of FDR for a period of three years to be renewed
automatically till she attains the age of majority.
SURESH KAIT, J.
JANUARY 08, 2014
sb
MACA No. 819 & 538/2013 Page 10 of 10