THE HONOURABLE STI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MACMA Nos.2009 and 1293 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are arising out of the same case in MVOP No.179 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned MACT’). The claimants in the case feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded at Rs.15,94,000/- as against their claim made for Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one Sri K. Munaswamy in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.09.2012, filed MACMA No.2009 of 2018. 2. The 3rd respondent before the learned MACT, the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured, filed MACMA No.1293 of 2018 questioning both the liability and the quantum of compensation. 3. The parties are hereinafter referred to as ‘the claimants’ and ‘the respondents’ as per their status before the learned MACT. 4. The 1st respondent is the APSRTC; the 2nd respondent is the owner of the bus bearing registration No. AP 03 Y 8728 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’); and the 3rd respondent is the Insurance Company with which the 2nd respondent’s bus was insured. Case of the Claimants: 5. One Sri K. Munaswamy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), is the husband of the 1st claimant, father of claimant Nos.2 and 3, and son of the 4th claimant. On the fateful day i.e., on 28.09.2012 at about 12:00 noon, while the diseased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. TN 18 L 3800 near Aditi Spinning Mill on the Srikalahasthi-Pitchathur Main road, within the limits of KVB Puram Police Station, the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, causing instantaneous death of the deceased. A case in Crime No.24/2012 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences under sections 304-A and 279 of the India Penal Code, 1860, and charge sheet was subsequently filed before the competent Court. 6. Further case of the claimants is that, the diseased was hale and healthy, aged about 40 years, and was working as a Welder. He had previously worked for Larsen & Turbo Limited, Chennai, 3 and other reputed companies. He was earning a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. He was also owning Acs.3.00 of agricultural land in his native village, from which he earned approximately Rs.50,000/- per annum through agricultural operations. The claimants, being the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased, lost all forms of support, therefore entitled for a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 7. Common defences of the respondents: i. The claimants are put to strict proof of all the allegations made, including the occurrence of the accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, and the death of the diseased as a result of the said accident. ii. The negligence of the deceased in riding the motor cycle cannot be ignored. iii. The claimants shall prove the age, occupation, and income of the diseased from the welding work as well as agriculture, and the actual loss of income suffered by them. 8. Specific case of the 1st respondent-APSRTC: The case of the 1st respondent-APSRTC is that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent-Insurance 4 Company. Therefore, the 1st respondent-APSRTC is not liable to pay any compensation. 9. Specific case of the 2nd respondent-Owner of the offending vehicle: i. The driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. ii. A valid insurance policy was in force and the premium was duly paid by the 2nd respondent under IMT – 44. iii. The 2nd respondent is not liable to be pay any compensation. 10. Specific case of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company: i. There is no privity of contract between the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company and the 1st respondent-APSRTC. ii. The hiring of the vehicle is not proper. iii. The offending vehicle was under the control of the 1st respondent-APSRTC. iv. The 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 5 11. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of rider of APSRTC hire bus bearing No. AP 03 Y 8728 of respondents 1 & 2 on 28.09.2012 and whether K. Munaswamy who was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No. TN 18 L 3800 died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident? 2. What was the age and income of the deceased on the date of his death? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? 4. To what relief? 12. Evidence before the learned MACT: Particulars Description Remarks Oral evidence P.W.1: M. Munilakshmi Wife of the deceased. P.W.2: K. Sudhakar Eye witness P.W.3: B. Dilli Proprietor of Balu Fabricators Documentary evidence Ex.A1:CC of FIR Ex.A2:CC of Charge Sheet Ex.A3:CC of Inquest Report Ex.A4:CC of PM Certificate On behalf of the petitioners. 6 Ex.A5:MVI Report Ex.A6:CC of Form-54 Ex.A7:Salary Certificate Ex.A8:Ration card with translation copy from Tamil to English Ex.A9:Certificates issued by Petron Engineering Construction Limited Ex.A10:Certificates issued by Larsen & Turbo Limited Ex.A.11:Welder Qualification certificates Ex.A.12:Certificate issued by Serck Services International with Welder Identity Card Ex.A.13:Certificate issued by ALBIS Engineering Company Ex.A14:Welder Qualification Card issued by Stewarts & Lloyds of (1) Limited Ex.A15:Identity Card issued by Stewarts & Lloyds of (1) Limited Ex.A16:Identity Card issued by Padma Fabricators Ex.A17:Identity Card issued by Madras Refineries 7 Limited Ex.A18:Photocopy of Pattadar Pass Book Ex.A19:Identity Card issued by Employees State Insurance Corporation Ex.A20:1-B Namoona (ROR) Ex.A21:Copy of No.3 adangal Ex.A22:Passport of the deceased Ex.B1:Hire agreement On behalf of the 1st respondent- APSRTC 13. Findings of the learned MACT: i. With the evidence of PW2 (an eye witness) and the documentary evidence such as the FIR, charge sheet, and other supporting records, the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is believed. ii. Based on the evidence of PW3 and the documents produced by the claimants, the age of the deceased is 40 years, monthly income is Rs.12,000/-, if deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, Rs.96,000/- per annum is the contribution to the family. Multiplier of 14 is applicable. 8 iii. Claimants entitlement is at Rs.13,44,000/- under the head of ‘loss of dependency’. iv. Claimants are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.1,00,000/- to claimant Nos.2 and 3 under the head of loss of love and affection. In total, the compensation awarded was Rs.15,94,000/-. 14 Arguments in the appeals: a. On behalf of the claimants: i. The learned MACT erred in ignoring the agricultural income of the deceased while assessing the compensation. Ii. The learned MACT failed to add future prospects to the monthly income taken at Rs.12,000/-. Iii. The compensation awarded is meagre and inadequate. b. On behalf of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company: i. There is no proper basis for accepting the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. ii. The compensation awarded is on the higher side. 9 iii. The negligence of the diseased is ignored, and the liability ought to have been apportioned between the vehicles involved in the accident. iv. The quantification of compensation is not in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1. 15. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration given to the arguments advance by both sides. 16. The points that arise for determination in these appeals are: 1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 28.09.2012 has occurred due to the exclusive negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the diseased? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum, and what is the extent of liability of the 1st respondent-APSRTC and the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. 3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.11.2017 passed by the learned MACT are sustainable in law and on the facts, and whether any interference is warranted? If so, on what grounds and to what extent? 1 2017 (16) SCC 680 10 4. What is the result in MACMA No.2009 of 2018? 5. What is the result in MACMA No.1293 of 2018? Point No.1: a. Parameters MACT can consider while assessing negligence: 1. Whether there is denial by proper person. 2. There must be convincing evidence from disputing party. 3. There must be at least oath against oath and tested by cross-examination. 4. Examination of eye witnesses reflected in charge sheet filed by Police is preferable. However, the same cannot be the thumb rule. 5. Examination of witnesses present at the scene of offence, at relevant time. 6. The driver of the offending vehicle, if takes witness stand and denies the negligence, it will have some importance, in cases of contributory negligence. 11 7. In cases of serious dispute as to planting of either witnesses or vehicles, summoning the investigating officers and eliciting the probabilities or improbabilities is necessary. 8. The rough sketch of scene of offence and Motor Vehicles Inspector Report indicating the damage to the vehicles etc. will be helpful to draw some inference. 9. However, no straight jacket and standard formula is possible and each matter has to be considered on its own merits and facts and circumstances including the relevant and reliable evidence placed before the tribunal. 10. Finally the Tribunal shall have holistic view of the matter. 17. It is relevant to note that in view of the summary nature and mode of enquiry contemplated under Motor Vehicles Act and social welfare nature of legislation, the Tribunal shall have holistic view with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. It is sufficient if there is probability. The principle of standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim seeking compensation for the death or the injury on account of road accident. The touch stone of the case, the claimant shall have to establish is preponderance of probability only. The legal position to 12 this extent is settled and consistent. Reference can be made to the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court: 1. Dulcina Fernandes and others Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another2 2. Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation3. 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta4. 4. Mathew Alexander Vs. Mohammed Shafi and another5. 18. This Court finds it relevant to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in Bimla Devi case (referred to as citation 3), which reads as under: “15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, 2 2013 (10) SCC 946 3 2009 (13) SCC 530 4 2011 (10) SCC 509 5 AIR 2023 (SC) 3349 13 the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.” 19. While addressing the defence of contributory negligence, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and others6, at Paragraph Nos.36 and 37 made reference to other judgments and extracted relevant observations which are as follows: 36. In the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, {(2002) 6 SCC 455}, this Court while referring to a decision of the High Court of Australia in Astley v. Austrust Ltd., {(1999) 73 ALJR 403}, went on to hold that: “… where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty.” 37. In the very same judgment, this Court also referred to and approved the view taken in Swadling v. Cooper, {1931 AC 1}, as below: 6 2024 (6) ALD (SC)=2024 SCC OnLine SC 2584 14 “Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extra ordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute negligence.” 20. The observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court lead to understand that mere failure to avoid the collision or take extraordinary precautions does not constitute negligence. b. Analysis of evidence: 21. PW2, one Sri K.Sudhakar, stated that on 28.09.2012, while he was going to Aditi Spinning Mill, he witnessed the deceased, Sri K. Munaswamy, riding his motor cycle on the left side of the road near Aditi Spinning Mill on the Srikalahasthi-Pitchatur Main Road. At that time, an APSRTC bus, proceeding to Srikalahasthi and being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motor cycle. As a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. 22. During cross-examination, PW2 was unable to recall the registration number of the offending vehicle or the motorcycle of the deceased. However, he did provide the number of his own motor cycle, which he was riding in the opposite direction to the offending vehicle. He admitted that he did not lodge a report with the police himself but stated that he was examined by the police. He denied 15 the suggestion made during cross-examination that he had not witnessed the accident or that there was no negligence on the part of the APSRTC bus driver. 23. It is pertinent to note that PW2 (Sri K. Sudhakar) is arrayed as LW4 in the charge sheet, and his name is also mentioned in the inquest report as a witness. There is no substantial reason to disbelieve his testimony, particularly regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle and the negligence of its driver. 24. Further, it is important to observe that the respondents in the MVOP, who disputed the allegation of negligence, did not choose the lead any kind of evidence in support of their claim. Thus, there is not even ‘oath against oath’. In the present case before this Court, the evidence is that the offending vehicle came from behind and hit the motor cycle on which the deceased was travelling. Therefore, the defence of contributory negligence by the deceased is fit to be rejected. In light of the discussion made above, the findings of the learned MACT regarding the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle are found justified and acceptable. 25. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents, concluding that the accident occurred solely due to the exclusive negligence of the 16 driver of the offending vehicle. There is no material on record to establish any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Point No.2: a. Entitlement: 26. There is no dispute regarding the relationship of the claimants with the deceased. The 1st claimant is the wife, claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children and the 4th claimant is mother of the deceased. Therefore, all the claimants are entitled for compensation. b. Quantum of compensation: 27. Precedential Guidance for quantifying the compensation in case of claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Accidents causing death:- a. Adoption of Multiplier, Multiplicand and Calculation: i. Hon’ble Apex Court to have uniformity of practice and consistency in awarding just compensation provided certain guidelines in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.7 vide paragraph Nos.18 and 19, while prescribing a table directed adoption of suitable multiplier mentioned 7 2009 (6) SCC 121 17 in column No.4 of the table. As per the observations in the judgment the claimants have to establish the following: 1. Age of the deceased. 2. Income of the deceased. 3. Number of dependents. ii. Hon’ble Apex Court directed certain steps while determining the compensation, they are: Step No.1: Ascertain the multiplicand, which shall be the income of the deceased he / she should have contributed to the dependents and the same can be arrived after deducting certain part of personal living expenses of the deceased. Step No.2: Ascertaining Multiplier. This shall be with reference to the table provided and table is provided in judgment itself. Step No.3: Calculation of the compensation. Final Step: 18 After calculation adding of certain amount towards conventional heads towards loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenditure, cost of transport, cost of medical expenses for treatment of the deceased before the death etc. are advised. b. Adding of future prospects: i. Enhancing the scope for awarding just compensation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others8 case guided for adding of future prospect. In respect of permanent employment, 50% where the deceased is below 40 years, 30% where the deceased is 40-50 years and 15% where the deceased is 50-60 years. ii. The actual salary to be taken shall be after deducting taxes. Further, in respect of self employed on fixed salary addition is recommended, at 40% for the deceased below 40 years, at 25% where the deceased is between 40-50 years, at 10% where the deceased is between 50-60 years. Further, adding of compensation for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively is 8 2017(16) SCC 680 19 recommended by Hon’ble Apex court with an addition of 10% for every three years in Pranay Sethi’s case. c. Loss of Consortium under the heads of parental and filial consortium: Further enlarging the scope for awarding just and reasonable compensation in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others9, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that compensation can be awarded under the heads of loss of consortium not only to the spouse but also to the children and parents under the heads of parental and filial consortium. d. Just Compensation: In Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos.10 and 11 made relevant observations, they are as follows: 10. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa case [Nagappa v. Gurudayal 9 (2018) 18 SCC 130 10 (2013) 9 SCC 54 20 Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 523 : AIR 2003 SC 674] , it was held as follows: (SCC p. 280) “10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to „make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just‟. Therefore, the only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be „just‟. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.” The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 987] and in Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SCC 710 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 241 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1213] 11. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. e. Adding of future prospects in respect of self employed, non-earning group and notional income group : 21 In Meena Pawaia and Ors. v. Ashraf Ali and Ors.11, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide para 13 and 14 of the judgments, observed that in respect of self-employed or in respect of non-earning or not doing any job persons also there is no bar of adding future raise of income or adopting notional income. 28. Analysis of evidence: It is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by undertaking welding work and Rs.50,000/- per annum from agricultural operations. a. Documentary evidence: Ex.A7 to Ex.A17 are the documents supporting the claim that the deceased is working as a welder. Ex.A18 shows the land owned by the deceased. Ex.A19 is the Identity Card issued by the ESIC. Ex.A20 is the 1-B Namoona (ROR). Ex.A21 is a copy of No.3 adangal. Ex.A22 is the passport of the deceased. b. Oral evidence: i. PW1, the wife of the deceased, stated about the occupation of the deceased. PW3, Sri B. Dilli, also deposed that the deceased is 11 (2021) 17 SCC 148 22 working as a welder under him, which corroborating the evidence of PW1 as to the deceased’s occupation. However, with regard to agricultural income, no material is placed on record to support the claim, except Exs.A20 and A21, Revenue Records indicating the land holding by the deceased. ii. The learned MACT has adopted the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses. The Insurance Company contends that the income assessed is excessive and unsupported by documentary proof. However, in view of the voluminous evidence available, the income of Rs.12,000/- per month, as accepted by the learned MACT, cannot be approved as future prospects and agricultural income are not added. However, doing some guess work, taking aid of evidence on record, the income of the deceased is fit to be taken at Rs.15,000/- inclusive of future prospects. iii. The monthly income acceptable is at Rs.15,000/- (Rs.1,80,000/- annually), after deducting 1/3rd (Rs.60,000/-), multiplicand comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. iv. As per the inquest report, the age of the deceased was 42 years, and for this age group, the appropriate multiplier is 14, in 23 accordance with the Sarla Verma Case (referred to as citation 7). The learned MACT rightly adopted the multiplier of 14. Hence, the quantification of compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,80,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- x 14). v. With regard to loss of consortium, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st claimant, Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses, and Rs.1,00,000/- for love and affection awarded, require a revisit and revamping, as they are not in line with the directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cited judgments. The claimants are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium: the 1st claimant (wife) is entitled for Rs.40,000/- under the head of spousal consortium, claimant Nos.2 and 3 (children) are each entitled for Rs.40,000/- under the head of parental consortium, and the 4th claimant (mother) is entitled for Rs.40,000/- under the head of filial consortium. Thus, the total under this head is Rs.1,60,000/- for all the claimants. vi. Under the head of funeral expenses, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/-, as opposed to Rs.25,000/- awarded by the learned MACT. Further, under the head of loss of estate, no amount was awarded by the learned MACT. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- under this head. 24 vii. The amount awarded under the head of funeral expenses is not in line with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Sarla Verma case (referred to as citation 7) and the Pranay Sethi case (referred to as citation 1). viii. Since compensation is awarded under the head of loss of consortium, awarding compensation again under the head of loss of love and affection is unnecessary. Accordingly, the amount awarded under the head of loss of love and affection required to be deleted. ix. The entitlement of the claimants for compensation under various heads, in comparison to the compensation awarded by the learned MACT, is as follows, based on the decision made above: Sl. No. Head Granted by the MACT Fixed by this Appellate Court 1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,44,000/- Rs.16,80,000 /- 2. Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- @ each claimant: 40,000x4) 3. Funeral Expenditure Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/- 4. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- -Nil- 5. Loss of estate -Nil- Rs.15,000/- Total: Rs.15,69,000 /- (however, the learned MACT mistakenly totaled Rs.15,94,000/- Rs.18,70,000/- 25 29. Liability: i. The Insurance Company disputed its liability, contending that there is no privity of contract with the APSRTC and that the offending vehicle was under the control of the APSRTC; therefore, it disclaimed liability. Additionally, the Insurance Company argued that the contributory negligence of the deceased, who was riding the motor cycle, must be taken into account. ii. With regard to the issue of contributory negligence under Point No.1, it is concluded that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot evade liability on that ground. iii. With regard to the contention that the offending vehicle was under the control of the APSRTC, it is pertinent to note that the insurance policy runs with the vehicle. Moreover, the 2nd respondent-owner of the offending vehicle, categorically stated that the premium was duly paid at the time of obtaining the policy, in terms of IMT-44. In this connection, it is relevant to consider the legal position regarding the liability of the Insurance Company for a vehicle hired by a Road Transport Corporation. 26 iv. While explaining the legal position in UPSRTC Vs. Kulsum12 and UPSRTC Vs. Rajenderi Devi and Others13, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation where a vehicle is hired to a Road Transport Corporation. The interpretation of ‘owner’ under Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), is not exhaustive and is to be understood in a broad and inclusive sense. Once the vehicle is insured, it may be used by the owner or any other person with the owner’s consent. Section 146 of the Act does not mandate that a separate insurance policy must be taken by every person who uses the vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape liability merely on the ground that the vehicle was hired by the Road Transport Corporation. v. In view of the above legal and factual aspects, this Court concludes that the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability and is exclusively liable to pay the compensation. vi. Accordingly, in view of the findings and conclusions drawn above, Point No.2 is answered in the affirmative, holding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.18,70,000/- and that 12 (2011) 8 SCC 142 13 (2020) 19 SCC 230 27 the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Point No.3: 30. For the reasons stated and conclusions drawn under Point Nos.1 and 2, the decree and judgment dated 01.11.2013 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, requires modification. Point Nos.4 and 5:- 1. In the result, MACMA No.2009 of 2018 filed by the claimants is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,94,000/- to Rs.18,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. MACMA No.1293 of 2018 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. 3. The compensation awarded by the learned MACT at Rs.15,94,000/- is enhanced to Rs.18,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 4. The apportionment of compensation made by the learned MACT shall stand affirmed. However, the enhanced portion of the compensation in the appeal shall be apportioned 28 in tune with the apportionment made under the impugned decree and judgment. 5. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of two (2) months. 6. Upon deposit, the claimants, who are majors, shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in full. The claimants, who are minors, are entitled to withdraw the amount upon attaining majority, subject to seeking necessary recognition as majors and obtaining permission from the learned MACT. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J 2nd May, 2025 cbn 29 22 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2009 and 1293 of 2018 2nd May, 2025 cbn