FAO No.3135 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SMT. LABH KAUR Vs HARYANA ROADWAYS THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND ORS AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. A.K. Spehia Mr. Rajesh Duhan, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Arun Beniwal, Sr. Ms. Nirmala Jangra, Advocate for Mr. Sachin Gupta Ladwa, Advocate for respondent No.2. HARKESH MANUJA, J. [1]. By way of 04.09.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (hereinafter to be referred as instance of appellants/claimants compensation to the tune Brief facts [2]. The appellants/ Singh, filed claim petition before the Tribunal the tune of Rs.15 Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place on and negligent driving of Bus Singh, Respondent No. of 2001 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. Date of Reserve: Date of Decision: SMT. LABH KAUR AND OTHERS HARYANA ROADWAYS THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. A.K. Spehia, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Duhan, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. Arun Beniwal, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana. Ms. Nirmala Jangra, Advocate for Mr. Sachin Gupta Ladwa, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, challenge passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”), whereby claim petition filed at the instance of appellants/claimants was dismissed with costs though having assessed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,59,000/-. The appellants/claimants being dependents filed claim petition before the Tribunal praying 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place on driving of Bus bearing Registration Singh, Respondent No.2-driver. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3135 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Reserve: 18.07.2025 Date of Decision: 08.08.2025 ......Appellant(s) HARYANA ROADWAYS THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND ....Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Sachin Gupta Ladwa, Advocate challenge has been laid to an award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala whereby claim petition filed at the was dismissed with costs though having assessed claimants being dependents upon the deceased praying for grant of compensation to Fifteen lakhs Only) on account of death of Singh in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 17.10.1997, alleging rash egistration No.HR-37-1463 by Mohinder 1 an award Patiala whereby claim petition filed at the was dismissed with costs though having assessed deceased Jit compensation to on account of death of Jit , alleging rash Mohinder MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.18 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3135 of [3]. Learned the accident did not occur due to rash and negl driver and after ass working as a driver of tractor trolley compensation in the following manner: S.No 1. 2. 3. [4]. Being learned Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant setting aside the same as well as for enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition about here for the sake of brevity. Arguments [5]. Learned counsel for the appellant submitting that learned perspective. Lear respondent No.2 did not deny the accident though it was stated that accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased. It was submitted that even from the deposition of respondent No.2 went on to state that the accident occurred while overtaking of the tractor, it was of 2001 (O&M) Learned Tribunal, after appraisal of evidence the accident did not occur due to rash and negl driver and after assessing income of deceased @ Rs. working as a driver of tractor trolley besides compensation in the following manner:- S.No Heads of Claim Loss of dependency Loss of consortium Funeral Expenses Total Being aggrieved against the award d Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant setting aside the same as well as for enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition about the manner of accident are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity. Learned counsel for the appellant learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record perspective. Learned counsel pointed out that even in the wr 2 did not deny the accident been though it was stated that accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased. It was submitted that even from the deposition of respondent No.2 went on to state that the accident occurred while overtaking of the tractor, it was after appraisal of evidence on record, held that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. essing income of deceased @ Rs.5,500/- per month while besides doing dairy work, assessed Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs) Rs.1,44,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,59,000/- aggrieved against the award dated 04.09.2000 passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants for setting aside the same as well as for enhancement of compensation. Facts as the manner of accident are not being repeated Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the award while Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right ounsel pointed out that even in the written statement, been caused with the offending bus, though it was stated that accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased. It was submitted that even from the deposition of respondent No.2-driver, who went on to state that the accident occurred while overtaking of the tractor, it was 2 held that igent driving of respondent No.2- per month while , assessed Amount (in Rs) ated 04.09.2000 passed by the /claimants for setting aside the same as well as for enhancement of compensation. Facts as the manner of accident are not being repeated assailed the award while in right itten statement, bus, though it was stated that accident occurred due to own negligence of the deceased. driver, who went on to state that the accident occurred while overtaking of the tractor, it was MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.18 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3135 of sufficiently established that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of offending bus. [5.1]. Learned counsel also submitted that earning of the the tune of Rs. working as a tractor It was further submitted that the above fact was duly proved from the deposition of the widow, who appeared as PW leading any evidence and the compensation to b submitted that the compensation under conventional heads i.e., loss of estate and loss of consortium [6]. On the other hand, learned coun driver submitted that responsible for the accident. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver who was at a high speed. The income of the deceased and the dependency of specifically denied. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the claim petition was rightly dismissed and, thus, the present appeal was liable to be rejected. [6.1]. In addition, driver was driving the bus at an average speed and was not responsible for causing the accident. Learned State counsel solely due to the rash and negligent interference was called for in this present appeal. of 2001 (O&M) sufficiently established that the accident took place due to the negligence of the ffending bus. Learned counsel also submitted that earning of the the tune of Rs.5,500/- per month i.e., Rs. 2,500/ tractor-trolley driver and Rs.3,000/ urther submitted that the above fact was duly proved from the deposition of widow, who appeared as PW-1; which was not rebutted by the respondents by leading any evidence and, therefore, learned Tribunal went wrong while assessing the compensation to be paid to the appellants/claimants. Furthermore, it was the compensation under conventional heads i.e., loss of estate and loss of consortium was also on the lower side. On the other hand, learned counsel representin driver submitted that the driver was driving bus at a moderate speed and was not responsible for the accident. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver who was at a high speed. The income of the deceased and the dependency of specifically denied. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the claim petition was rightly dismissed and, thus, the present appeal was liable to be rejected. In addition, learned State counsel submitted that respondent No. driver was driving the bus at an average speed and was not responsible for causing Learned State counsel further submitted that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver and, therefore, no interference was called for in this present appeal. sufficiently established that the accident took place due to the negligence of the Learned counsel also submitted that earning of the deceased was to i.e., Rs. 2,500/- per month as salary while 3,000/- per month by doing dairy work. urther submitted that the above fact was duly proved from the deposition of which was not rebutted by the respondents by Tribunal went wrong while assessing e paid to the appellants/claimants. Furthermore, it was the compensation under conventional heads i.e., funeral expenses, on the lower side. sel representing respondent No. was driving bus at a moderate speed and was not responsible for the accident. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver who was at a high speed. The income of the deceased and the dependency of the appellants/claimants was specifically denied. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the claim petition was rightly dismissed and, thus, the l submitted that respondent No. driver was driving the bus at an average speed and was not responsible for causing further submitted that the accident occurred driving of the tractor driver and, therefore, no interference was called for in this present appeal. 3 sufficiently established that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased was to per month as salary while per month by doing dairy work. urther submitted that the above fact was duly proved from the deposition of which was not rebutted by the respondents by Tribunal went wrong while assessing e paid to the appellants/claimants. Furthermore, it was funeral expenses, g respondent No.2- was driving bus at a moderate speed and was not responsible for the accident. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver who was at a high speed. The the appellants/claimants was specifically denied. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, the claim petition was rightly dismissed and, thus, the l submitted that respondent No.2- driver was driving the bus at an average speed and was not responsible for causing further submitted that the accident occurred driving of the tractor driver and, therefore, no MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.18 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3135 of [7]. I have heard learned counsel book of the case. I find force in the argument the appellants/claimants. Discussion Question of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2/Driver [8]. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the framed as many as four issues. For the purpo relevant which is reproduced here "1. and negligent driving of Bus No. HR respondent No. 2? If so to what effect? OPP" [9]. In order to prove PW-1 and Karnail Singh as PW No.2-driver has himself appeared as RW circumstances leading to the accident as alleged in the claim petition. Whereas learned Tribunal, while relying upon the deposition of Respondent who appeared as RW negligent act of the driver of t decided against the claimants/ appellants. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. [9.1]. It appears that the as if the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle established beyond reasonable doubt, criminal proceedings. However, in motor accident claim proof is that of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the evidence of 2001 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced appellants/claimants. Question of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2/Driver On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the framed as many as four issues. For the purposes of present appeal is reproduced here as under:- Whether on 17.10.1997 Jit Ram @ Jit Singh died due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HR respondent No. 2? If so to what effect? OPP" In order to prove this issue, the claimants examined Labh Kaur as ail Singh as PW-2. On the other hand, driver has himself appeared as RW- circumstances leading to the accident as alleged in the claim petition. Whereas Tribunal, while relying upon the deposition of Respondent who appeared as RW-1 concluded that the claimants failed to prove the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. Issue No. decided against the claimants/ appellants. Consequently, the claim petition was It appears that the learned Tribunal evaluated the evidence on record the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle beyond reasonable doubt, similar to the standards applicable in the criminal proceedings. However, in motor accident claim proof is that of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the evidence for the parties and perused the paper advanced by the learned counsel Question of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2/Driver On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal ses of present appeal issue No.1 is Whether on 17.10.1997 Jit Ram @ Jit Singh died due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HR-37-1463 by Mohinder Singh, respondent No. 2? If so to what effect? OPP" this issue, the claimants examined Labh Kaur as . On the other hand, Mohinder Singh, respondent -1. The claimants narrated the circumstances leading to the accident as alleged in the claim petition. Whereas Tribunal, while relying upon the deposition of Respondent No.2/driver at the claimants failed to prove the rash and he offending vehicle. Issue No.1 was accordingly decided against the claimants/ appellants. Consequently, the claim petition was ibunal evaluated the evidence on record the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle was required to be similar to the standards applicable in the criminal proceedings. However, in motor accident claim cases, the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the evidence, on 4 the paper counsel for Tribunal 1 is Whether on 17.10.1997 Jit Ram @ Jit Singh died due to rash 1463 by Mohinder Singh, this issue, the claimants examined Labh Kaur as Mohinder Singh, respondent 1. The claimants narrated the circumstances leading to the accident as alleged in the claim petition. Whereas /driver at the claimants failed to prove the rash and 1 was accordingly decided against the claimants/ appellants. Consequently, the claim petition was ibunal evaluated the evidence on record was required to be similar to the standards applicable in the cases, the standard of , on MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.18 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3135 of the standard of preponderance of probabilities, events. [10]. The rash and negligent driving of the offending No.2-driver was established on record even as per his own de appearing as RW and as soon as the bus tried to overtake the same, a scoot of the tractor and when half portion of the bus had already crossed, the tractor struck the rear portion of the bus on the conductor side as a result of which the driver of the tractor fell down. [10.1]. From the statement of RW occurred while the offending bus was overtaking the tractor and the same struck in the rear portion of the bus. If at all, any scootrist would have come in front of the tractor and the deceased had to apply his brakes, there occasion of the tractor hitting the rear portion of the bus and in all probabilities the offending bus in the process of overtaking the tractor an obvious mistake in swerving to the left thereby resulting into the accident in question and falling of the deceased from the tr of being rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle. [11]. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No. accident held on 17.10.1997 which resulted in occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of t No. 2/driver. of 2001 (O&M) the standard of preponderance of probabilities, The rash and negligent driving of the offending driver was established on record even as per his own de appearing as RW-1, wherein he deposed that the tractor was going ahead of the bus and as soon as the bus tried to overtake the same, a scoot of the tractor and when half portion of the bus had already crossed, the tractor struck the rear portion of the bus on the conductor side as a result of which the driver of the tractor fell down. From the statement of RW-1, it is clearly occurred while the offending bus was overtaking the tractor and the same struck in the rear portion of the bus. If at all, any scootrist would have come in front of the tractor and the deceased had to apply his brakes, there occasion of the tractor hitting the rear portion of the bus and in all probabilities the offending bus in the process of overtaking the tractor an obvious mistake in swerving to the left thereby resulting into the accident in question and falling of the eceased from the tractor. Moreover, respondent No. of being rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 are hereby set aside, and it is held that the accident held on 17.10.1997 which resulted in occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of t supports the claimants’ version of The rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent driver was established on record even as per his own deposition, while 1, wherein he deposed that the tractor was going ahead of the bus and as soon as the bus tried to overtake the same, a scootrist suddenly came in front of the tractor and when half portion of the bus had already crossed, the tractor struck the rear portion of the bus on the conductor side as a result of which the 1, it is clearly established that the accident occurred while the offending bus was overtaking the tractor and the same struck in the rear portion of the bus. If at all, any scootrist would have come in front of the tractor and the deceased had to apply his brakes, there would not have been any occasion of the tractor hitting the rear portion of the bus and in all probabilities the offending bus in the process of overtaking the tractor an obvious mistake in swerving to the left thereby resulting into the accident in question and falling of the actor. Moreover, respondent No.2 also faced trial on account of being rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by re hereby set aside, and it is held that the accident held on 17.10.1997 which resulted into death of Jit Ram @ Jit Singh, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by respondent 5 supports the claimants’ version of vehicle by respondent position, while 1, wherein he deposed that the tractor was going ahead of the bus in front of the tractor and when half portion of the bus had already crossed, the tractor struck the rear portion of the bus on the conductor side as a result of which the established that the accident occurred while the offending bus was overtaking the tractor and the same struck in the rear portion of the bus. If at all, any scootrist would have come in front of the would not have been any occasion of the tractor hitting the rear portion of the bus and in all probabilities the offending bus in the process of overtaking the tractor an obvious mistake in swerving to the left thereby resulting into the accident in question and falling of the 2 also faced trial on account In view of the above facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by re hereby set aside, and it is held that the death of Jit Ram @ Jit Singh, he offending bus by respondent MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.18 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3135 of Question of Income assessed [12]. In the present case, Labh Kaur (wife of deceased) while PW-1 deposed that earning Rs.2,500/ Rs.3,000/- per month. In rebuttal, the respondents led no evidence on this issue. Thus, the learned T Rs.5,500/- per month, thereby calling [13]. The income towards personal expenses. In the present case the deceased was survived by his widow and four children. As such in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and another.” reported as case the number of dependent family members were 4 to 6, 1/4thof the total income was to be deducted as personal expenses towards personal Relevant para of the judgment is culled out as under: “30. and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362], the general deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one (1/3 fourth(1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one six.” Question of Compensation under Conventiona of 2001 (O&M) Question of Income assessed n the present case, Labh Kaur (wife of deceased) while ed that the deceased was working as driver of 2,500/- per month but was also doing dairy farming and earning per month. In rebuttal, the respondents led no evidence on this issue. learned Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased as per month, thereby calling for no interference in th The learned Tribunal failed to assess the deduction of deceased’s income towards personal expenses. In the present case the deceased was survived by his widow and four children. As such in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported as 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77 case the number of dependent family members were 4 to 6, 1/4thof the total income was to be deducted as personal expenses towards personal Relevant para of the judgment is culled out as under: “30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362], the general deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one (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 member exceeds six.” Question of Compensation under Conventiona n the present case, Labh Kaur (wife of deceased) while appearing as the deceased was working as driver of tractor trolley and was also doing dairy farming and earning per month. In rebuttal, the respondents led no evidence on this issue. ribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased as no interference in this regard. Tribunal failed to assess the deduction of deceased’s income towards personal expenses. In the present case the deceased was survived by his widow and four children. As such in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble thers vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, wherein it was held that in case the number of dependent family members were 4 to 6, 1/4thof the total income was to be deducted as personal expenses towards personal expenses. Relevant para of the judgment is culled out as under:- Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362], the general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third rd) 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 fifth(1/5th) where the number of dependent family member exceeds Question of Compensation under Conventional Heads 6 appearing as tractor trolley and was also doing dairy farming and earning per month. In rebuttal, the respondents led no evidence on this issue. ribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Tribunal failed to assess the deduction of deceased’s income towards personal expenses. In the present case the deceased was survived by his widow and four children. As such in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble thers vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , wherein it was held that in case the number of dependent family members were 4 to 6, 1/4thof the total expenses. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction third rd) 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 fifth(1/5th) where the number of dependent family member exceeds MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.18 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3135 of [14]. Furthermore, i Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi & others”, "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur" as (2021) 11 SCC 780 required to be re as compensation under the head of funeral expenses of estate. Loss of consortium is to be (Rs.48,000/- x 5 are also entitled for Conclusion [15]. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for the grant of compensation following manner Sr.No. 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. of 2001 (O&M) Furthermore, in view of Sarla Verma’s Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi & others”, reported as "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur" (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation awarded under conventional heads is also required to be re-assessed. Appellants/Claimants are as compensation under the head of funeral expenses Loss of consortium is to be awarded to the tune of Rs. 5) as appellants/claimants being spouse and children are also entitled for spousal and parental consortium. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for the grant of compensation following manner:- Sr.No. Nature Annual Income of deceased Add 40% of Future prospects Total Income (Rs.66,000/- Deduction (1/4th) Net Income after 1/4th Deduction Loss of Income after applying 15 as per age of 38 years(Rs. Funeral Expenses Loss of Consortium (Rs.48000x Loss of Estate Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Amount Sarla Verma’s case (supra), “National reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 and "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur", reported compensation awarded under conventional heads is also Claimants are held entitled for Rs.18,000/ as compensation under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss awarded to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/ spouse and children of the deceased and parental consortium. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the Amount in Rupees Annual Income of deceased Rs.66,000/- % of Future prospects Rs.26,400/- + Rs.26,400) Rs.92,400/- Rs.23,100/- Deduction Rs.69,300/- Loss of Income after applying multiplier of years(Rs.69,300/- x 15) Rs.10,39,500 Rs.18,000/- Consortium (Rs.48000x5) Rs.2,40,000/ Rs.18,000/- Rs.13,15,500 Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,59,000/ Rs.11,56,500 7 “National and , reported compensation awarded under conventional heads is also entitled for Rs.18,000/- towards loss ,000/- deceased In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the in the Amount in - - - - - 10,39,500/- - ,000/- - 500/- 00/- 00/- MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.18 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.3135 of [16]. Learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation has not granted interest, however, as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in others Vs. National Insura approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443 annum is granted the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claim from the enhanced compensation. [17]. In view of aforesaid stands allowed. disposed of. August 08, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable of 2001 (O&M) Learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation has not granted interest, however, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case; rather as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443 is granted on the amount of compensation awarded to the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claim from the enhanced compensation. In view of aforesaid modification of the award . Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation has not granted circumstances of the present case; rather as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and nce Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, interest @ 9% per on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be deducted modification of the award, the present appeal Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 8 Learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation has not granted circumstances of the present case; rather Smt. Supe Dei and (2009) (4) SCC 513 Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. interest @ 9% per the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to mention here shall be deducted , the present appeal Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand MOHMED ATIK 2025.08.18 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment