The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Ors.

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON‟BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAC App. No.25 of 2024

Appellant : The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited

versus

Respondents
: Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance

Mr. Madan Kumar Sundas, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. Rahul Rathi, Advocate with Ms. Rupal Agarwal, Advocate for the
Respondents No.1, 2 and 3.

Mr. Nirmal Thapa, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing : 12-03-2026

Judgment reserved : 12-03-2026
Judgment pronounced & uploaded : 20-03-2026
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. On a Petition filed by the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3
herein, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the
Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim
(hereinafter, the “MACT”), as Claimants, seeking compensation of ₹
4,41,47,970/- (Rupees four crores, forty one lakhs, forty seven
thousand, nine hundred and seventy) only, on account of the death
of their brother, in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on the
intervening night of 28-05-2022 and 29-05-2022, at Khedum along
Chungthang-Lachung Road, Mangan District, Sikkim, the Learned
MACT vide the impugned Judgment dated 12-08-2024, in MACT Case
No.27 of 2022 ( Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others vs. The
Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another ),

MAC App No.25 of 2024 2

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
granted compensation of ₹ 4,22,21,125/- (Rupees four crores,
twenty-two lakhs, twenty-one thousand, one hundred and twenty-
five) only, against the claim sought.
(i) Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the
Appellant Insurance Company alleges that the Claimants are adults
with their own sources of income and hence not even entitled to the
compensation, hence the Appeal.
2. The arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for the
Appellant are that, in the first instance, the Respondent No.3 being
the married elder sister of the deceased was not dependant on his
income nor were the Respondents No.1 and 2, his elder brothers
rd
dependent on his earnings. The deduction of 1/3 (one-third), made
by the MACT, towards personal expenses of the deceased ought to be
set aside and the deduction ought to be enhanced to 50% based on
the assumption that, he was a bachelor on account of the demise of
his immediate family comprising of his wife and children, in the
accident. It was also denied that he earned ₹ 36,00,000/- (Rupees
thirty-six lakhs) only, per year, as claimed and deposed by the
Claimants, since they only furnished the Income Tax Return (ITR) of
the deceased, unsupported by any Bank statement, which therefore
cannot be relied on as a valid and effective document. Learned
Counsel further argued that the cost of litigation of ₹ 25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand) only, was added by the MACT without
basis which therefore deserves to be deducted. The Appeal therefore
be allowed.
3. Opposing Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3
contended that it is erroneous to argue that 50% ought to be
deducted towards personal expenses of the victim who was a married

MAC App No.25 of 2024 3

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
man and cannot be presumed to be a bachelor by virtue of the fact
that his family also perished in the accident. That apart,
Respondents No.1 to 3 are entitled to the compensation claimed as
they are legal representatives of the deceased and were at the time
of the accident living in a joint family and solely dependent on the
earnings made by the deceased. That, during the cross-examination
there was no denial regarding the earning of the deceased which was
placed at ₹ 36,00,000/- (Rupees thirty six lakhs) only, by the
Respondents No.1 to 3 based on the ITR of the deceased. The
Appeal deserves to be dismissed as there are no errors in the findings
and conclusion of the MACT.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 had no
submissions to advance.
5. I have perused the entire records before me and
considered the verbal submissions put forth by Learned Counsel for
the parties.
6. It is a rather unseemly argument advanced by Learned
Counsel for the Appellant that, the deceased should be considered as
a bachelor as his entire family perished in the accident. That
circumstance would surely not render him a bachelor. This argument
has no legs to stand and is disregarded, consequently the contention
that 50% ought to be deducted from his income towards personal
expenses is rejected as untenable. In the context of deduction
towards personal expenses in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi
1
Transport Corporation and Another
the Supreme Court has with clarity
inter alia held that;
“30. …………………… Having considered several
subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view
that where the deceased was married, the deduction

1
(2009) 6 SCC 121

MAC App No.25 of 2024 4

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased,
should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th)
where the number of dependent family members is 4 to
6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of
dependent family members exceeds six.

Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
31.
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 dependant.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and
sisters will not be considered as dependants, because
they will either be independent and earning, or married,
or be dependent on the father. ” (emphasis supplied)

(i) Thus, on the anvil of the above exposition, no fault lies in
rd
the deduction of 1/3 (one-third) towards the personal expenses of
the deceased as held by the MACT in the impugned Judgment.
(ii) Now, addressing the concerns regarding the entitlement
of the Respondents to the compensation claimed, it would be
beneficial to examine who a legal representative is. The Supreme
2
Sadhana Tomar and Others Ashok Kushwaha and Others
Court in vs. has
held that;
“14. Recently in N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam
MS General Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) 14 SCC
712], this Court observed that:

“16. In our view, the term “legal
representative” should be given a wider
interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of
the MV Act and it should not be confined only to
mean the spouse, parents and children of the
deceased. As noticed above, the MV Act is a
benevolent legislation enacted for the object of
providing monetary relief to the victims or their
families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal
and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose
underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative
intent. We are also of the view that in order to
maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the
claimant to establish his loss of dependency.
Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that

2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 554

MAC App No.25 of 2024 5

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
every legal representative who suffers on
account of the death of a person in a motor
vehicle accident should have a remedy for
realisation of compensation. ”
(emphasis supplied) ”

Adhering to the above pronouncement, it is clear that the
Respondents No.1 to 3 are the legal representatives of the deceased,
having lost their sole bread winner, as emerges from the evidence
discussed hereinafter.
7. The evidence of the Respondent/Claimant No.2, who
deposed for himself and on behalf of the other Claimants, reads as
follows;
“ 9. That my brother was the sole bread winner of
family and we were all dependent upon him. The
deceased used to contribute his income in the
family and we were dependent upon his
earnings. The claimants named in the claim
application are the Legal Heirs and Legal
Representatives of the deceased. The deceased
was the only support of the claimants and after
his demise we have been rendered supportless.
The claimants being the legal representatives and
Legal Heirs of the deceased are entitled to the
estate left behind by the deceased and the
compensation claimed in the instant case. ”
(emphasis supplied)

The cross-examination conducted by the Appellant fails to decimate
this claim of the Respondents No.1 to 3, wherein he deposed that;
“ ……………… I do not have any business and we
were dependent on the income of the deceased. It is
not true that our sister is residing with her husband
(witness volunteers to say that she has come back to
our house due to marital problem). It is not true that I
along with other claimants were not dependent on the
income of deceased brother. It is not true that my
deceased brother was not businessman and he did not
have a business trade as stated in Exhibit 1. It is not
true that as per his business he did not earn annual
income of Rs.33,63,690/-. …………………………… ”

(i) The above evidence of the Respondent No.2 establishes
that the Respondents No.1 to 3 were in a joint family, entirely
dependent on the income of the deceased. The cross-examination of
the Respondent did not also demolish the claim that the deceased
was earning an annual income of ₹ 33,63,690/- (Rupees thirty three

MAC App No.25 of 2024 6

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
lakhs, sixty three thousand, six hundred and ninety) only. In fact,
Respondent No.2 has also stated that whatever documents were filed
along with his claim petition were valid and effective at the time of
accident, which remained undecimated. From the foregoing
discussions, it appears that the Appellant has failed to controvert or
deny the claim made in the pleadings and evidence of the
Respondents No.1 to 3 with regard to the income of the deceased.
(ii) Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
the Respondents No.1 to 3 are found to have been dependant on the
income of the deceased, being in a joint family, including Respondent
No.3, his sister, who was living with them due to her marital
problems.
(iii) Admittedly, the multiplier of 15 invoked by the MACT to
calculate the compensation has not been assailed, the deceased
being forty years of age at the time of accident.
8. It would be fair for this Court to remove the cost of
litigation of ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, added by
the MACT in computing the compensation as it is not included under
any head by the Judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while
computing non-pecuniary damages and lacks reasonable foundation.
Transportation cost of ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only,
computed together with funeral expenses to a total of ₹ 35,000/-
(Rupees thirty five thousand) only, in Paragraph 40 of the impugned
Judgment is also done away with lacking basis. Funeral expenses are
allowed subject to the computation made by this Court.
9. So far as the compensation under love and affection is
National Insurance Company
concerned, it is clarified here that in

MAC App No.25 of 2024 7

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
3
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court held that;
“52. As far as the conventional heads are
concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view
expressed in Rajesh [ Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh , (2013) 9 SCC 54] .
It has granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs
1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000
towards loss of care and guidance for minor children.
The head relating to loss of care and minor children does
not exist. Though Rajesh [(2013) 9 SCC 54] refers to
Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2012) 6 SCC 421] , it does not seem to follow the same.
The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say,
cannot be determined on percentage basis because that
would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike
determination of income, the said heads have to be
Any quantification must have a reasonable
quantified.
foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that
price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in
many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot
remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb
rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme
difficulty in determination of the same and unless the
thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation
lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of
which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are
likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to
fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable
figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs
15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively
. The
principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable
principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or
quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that
the amount that we have quantified should be
enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and
the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a
span of three years.
We are disposed to hold so because
that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. ”
(emphasis supplied)

In a later Paragraph, the issue of enhancement was reiterated;

“59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs
15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. ”

(i) The conventional heads therefore as enumerated in
Pranay Sethi ( supra ) were (1) loss of estate ; (2) loss of consortium ;
and (3) funeral expenses . It was also elucidated at Paragraph 55 as
follows;

3
(2017) 16 SCC 680

MAC App No.25 of 2024 8

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
“55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the
concept of “just compensation” and the same has to be
determined on the foundation of fairness,
reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal
standard because such determination can never be in
arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim
is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to
arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought
on record in an individual case. The conception of “just
compensation” has to be viewed through the prism of
fairness, reasonableness and non-violation of the
principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal
heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall.
Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an
apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance.
Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite
wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be
guided by the expression, that is, “just compensation”.
The determination has to be on the foundation of
evidence brought on record as regards the age and
income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite
multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to
Sarla
multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma [
Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121
] and it has been approved
in Reshma Kumari [ Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 ].
The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be
established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the
courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies
in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to
reality. It is a well-accepted norm that money cannot
substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for
grant of just compensation having uniformity of
approach. There has to be a balance between the two
extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza
and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of
the tribunal and the courts is difficult and hence, an
endeavour has been made by this Court for
standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of
future prospects on the proven income at present. As far
as future prospects are concerned, there has been
standardisation keeping in view the principle of
certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the
principle of “standardisation” so that a specific and
certain multiplicand is determined for applying the
multiplier on the basis of age. ”

The Supreme Court went on to lay down therein as to how
computation of the income of the deceased toward future prospects is
to be made.
4
(ii) In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram , in a
Judgment authored by Indu Malhotra, J, a two Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court discussed the Judgment of Pranay Sethi ( supra ) and
observed that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with

4
(2018) 18 SCC 130

MAC App No.25 of 2024 9

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in case of
death. In Paragraph 21 of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( supra ) it
was observed as follows;
“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay
Sethi [ National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC
680] dealt with the various heads under which
compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of
these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance,
“consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses
“spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial
consortium”. The right to consortium would include the
company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.
With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,
(2013) 9 SCC 54].
………………………………………………………………. ”
(emphasis supplied)

(iii) The Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( supra )
went on to delineate what “ spousal consortium ”, “ parental
consortium ” and “ filial consortium ” entailed. In Paragraph 24 the
Court observed inter alia that the amount of compensation to be
awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding
compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi
( supra ). Accordingly, the father and sister of the deceased in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( supra ) was granted an amount of ₹
40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only, each for “ loss of filial
consortium ”.
(iv) In Paragraph 25 the heads under which compensation
was inter alia computed were; (i) Income; (ii) Future prospects; (iii)
Deduction toward personal expenditure; (iv) Total income; (v)
Multiplier; (vi) Loss of future income; (vii) Loss of love and affection ;
(viii) Funeral expenses; (ix) Loss of estate; and (x) Loss of filial
consortium
.
(v) From the above, it is clear that in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. ( supra ) apart from grant of „ filial consortium ‟, „ loss
of love and affection ‟ was also computed in non-pecuniary losses.

MAC App No.25 of 2024 10

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
(vi) Later in time in United India Insurance Company Limited vs.
5
Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and Others , a three Judge Bench of
the Supreme Court in a Judgment authored by Indu Malhotra, J, once
again discussed the three conventional heads as allowed in Pranay
Sethi ( supra ) viz., loss of estate , loss of consortium and funeral
expenses . It went on to observe inter alia that the Court in Pranay
Sethi ( supra ) held that reasonable figures on conventional heads
namely „ loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’
should be ₹ 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only, ₹ 40,000/-
(Rupees forty thousand) only and ₹ 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand) only, respectively. That, the Court in Pranay Sethi ( supra )
was of the view that the amounts to be awarded under these
conventional heads should be enhanced by 10% every three years
which would bring consistency in respect of these heads. The Court
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
also discussed that in ( supra ), the
Supreme Court had interpreted “ consortium ” to be a compendius
term, which encompasses spousal consortium , parental consortium
and filial consortium . In Paragraph 34 it was concluded as follows;
“34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to
provide uniformity with respect to the grant of
consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several
Tribunals and the High Courts have been awarding
compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of
love and affection . The Constitution Bench in Pranay
Sethi [ National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC
680] , has recognised only three conventional heads
under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.
[ Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu
In Magma General
Ram , (2018) 18 SCC 130] , this Court gave a comprehensive
interpretation to consortium to include spousal
consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial
consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended
in loss of consortium.

(emphasis supplied)


5
(2021) 11 SCC 780

MAC App No.25 of 2024 11

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
(vii) Hence, based on this conclusion, in Paragraph 38 of
Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur ( supra ), conventional heads were
enumerated as follows;
“38. ……………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………… …….……
( vii ) Funeral expenses ……………
( viii ) Loss of estate ……………
( ix ) Loss of spousal consortium ……………
( x ) Loss of parental consortium ………….. ……………
( xi ) Total compensation ……………
……………………………………………………. ………… ”



(viii) Separate compensation under the head of ‘loss of love
and affection ‟ which was granted in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
( supra ) did not find place in Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur ( supra ).
It was observed therein that some Courts had been granting
compensation for Consortium and loss of love and affection , but loss
of love and affection was to be comprehended in loss of consortium.
Resultant, the head under loss of love and affection given in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( supra ) is now to be comprehended under
“ loss of consortium ” as held in Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur
( supra ) and as per elucidation of the term made in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. ( supra ).
(ix) Consequently adhering to the pronouncement of the
Constitutional Bench Judgment in Pranay Sethi ( supra ) it would be
appropriate to consider only those conventional heads as laid down in
the said Judgment i.e., Pranay Sethi ( supra ) namely (1) loss of estate ;
(2) loss of consortium ; and (3) funeral expenses .
(x) In the instant case, it is the brother of the Respondents
No.1, 2 and 3 who had passed away in the accident. In Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( supra ) although filial consortium was
described as the right of the parents to compensation in the case of
an accidental death of a child, however apart from the father the

MAC App No.25 of 2024 12

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
sister of the deceased was also granted ₹ 40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) only, for loss of filial consortium . On the anvil of the said
decision, in my considered view, the Respondents No.1 to 3, herein
would also be entitled to filial consortium @ ₹ 40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) only, each, duly enhanced @ 10% as per Pranay Sethi
( supra ).
10. In the end result, total compensation for Respondents
No.1 to 3 is computed as follows;
₹ 33,63,690.00
Annual income of the deceased

Add 25% of ₹ 33,63,690/- as Future Prospects (+) ₹ 8,40,923.00


[in terms of Paragraph 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra) ] ₹ 42,04,613.00

rd

Less 1/3 of ₹ 42,04,613/- (-) ₹ 14,01,538.00
[in terms of Paragraph 30 of Sarla Verma (supra) ]

Net yearly income ₹ 28,03,075.00

Multiplier of „15‟ (₹ 28,03,075/- x 15) ₹ 4,20,46,125.00
[The age of the deceased at the time of death being ‟40‟
the relevant multiplier of „15‟ in terms of Paragraph 42 of
Sarla Verma (supra) is adopted]

Add Funeral Expenses (+) ₹ 16,500.00

,
[in terms of Paragraphs 52 & 59.8 of Pranay Sethi (supra)
10% enhanced every three years, hence 10% of ₹ 15,000/- =
₹ 1,500/- + ₹ 15,000/- = ₹ 16,500/-, as the accident
occurred on the intervening night of 28-05-2022 and
29-05-2022]

Add Loss of Estate (+) ₹ 16,500.00
[in terms of Paragraphs 52 & 59.8 of Pranay Sethi (supra) ,
10% enhanced every three years, hence 10% of ₹ 15,000/- =
₹ 1,500/- + ₹ 15,000/- = ₹ 16,500/-, as the accident
occurred on the intervening night of 28-05-2022 and
29-05-2022]

Add Loss of Filial Consortium (₹ 40,000/- x 3) (+) ₹ 1,32,000.00
[₹ 40,000/-, payable to Respondents No.1, 2 and 3-
Claimants, each, in terms of Paragraph 21.3 and 24 of Magma
General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and in terms
of Paragraphs 52 & 59.8 of Pranay Sethi (supra) , 10%
enhanced every three years, hence 10% of ₹ 1,20,000/- =
₹ 12,000/- + ₹ 1,20,000/- = ₹ 1,32,000/-, as the accident
occurred on the intervening night of 28-05-2022 and
29-05-2022]

Total = ₹ 4,22,11,125.00

(Rupees four crores, twenty two lakhs, eleven thousand, one
hundred and twenty five) only.

11. The impugned Judgment of the MACT is upheld, subject
to the afore modified calculation.

MAC App No.25 of 2024 13

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hasmukh Pannalal Punamiya and Others
12. Interest @ 6% per annum was granted by the MACT.
Although Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 has sought
for 9% interest per annum on grounds that this is the rate of interest
uniformly applied by this Court in all the MACT matters while granting
compensation, in my considered view, considering the total
compensation granted, interest @ 6% per annum is a fair amount
and does not require to be enhanced.
13. The Appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay the
above compensation amount of ₹ 4,22,11,125/- (Rupees four crores,
twenty two lakhs, eleven thousand, one hundred and twenty-five)
only, with interest @ 6% per annum as ordered, to the Respondents
No.1 to 3, within one month from today, failing which, it shall pay
simple interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the Claim
Petition, i.e., 16-12-2022, till full realisation.
14. The modified awarded amount of compensation along
with interest, as specified above, shall be divided equally amongst
the three Respondents with no disparity whatsoever.
15. Amounts, if any, already paid by the Appellant-Insurance
Company to the Respondents No.1 to 3, shall be duly deducted from

the awarded compensation.
16. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
17. No order as to costs.
18. Copy of this Judgment along with original records be
remitted forthwith to the Learned MACT for information.


( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
20-03-2026

Approved for reporting : Yes

ds/sdl