DATED THIS THE 10 TH BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE...

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

GULBARGA BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10TH

DAY OF JUNE, 2014

BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.12587/2007 (MV)

C/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.13450/2006

BETWEEN:

1. Laxmibai W/o Yallappa Bilagi

Age: 38 years, Occupation: House hold

R/o Balabatii

Taluka: Muddebihal

District: Bijapur.

2. Hanamanth S/o Yallappa Bilagi

Age: 24 years, Occupation: Student,

R/o Balabatii

Taluka: Muddebihal

District: Bijapur.

3. Srishail S/o Yallappa Bilagi


R/o Balabatii

Taluka: Muddebihal

District: Bijapur.

4. Bouramma D/o Yallappa Bilagi


R

2

R/o Balabatii

Taluka: Muddebihal

District: Bijapur.

… APPELLANTS

(Shri H.R. Malipatil and J.S. Shetty, Advocates)

AND:

1. Shantappa P. Kamat

Age: Major

R/o Itagi, Now residing at

Muddebihal behind the Syndicate Bank,

Reshma Building Muddebihal

Naragund Taluk

Naragund, District: Gadag.

2. Branch Manager

National Insurance Company Limited

Porwal Building,

Siddeshwar Cross Road,

Bijapur.

… RESPONDENTS

(Smt. Preeti Patil, Advocate for respondent-2

Smt. Saroj S. Patil and Shri G.B.Yadav,

Advocate for respondent-2 (v/k not filed)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section

173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgement and

Award dated 01.08.2006 passed in MVC No. 54/2004 on the

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muddebihal, partly

allowing the claim petition and seeking further enhancement of

compensation.

3

MFA 13450/06

BETWEEN:

The National Insurance Company Limited

Divisional Office,

Porwal Building, Siddeswara Cross Road,

Bijapur, represented by Bangalore Regional Office,

By its authorised officer,

Shubharam Complex, II Floor,

No.144, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Bangalore – 560 001.

… APPELLANT

(Smt. Preeti Patil, Smt. Saroja S. Patil and

Shri C.S. Kalburgi, Advocates)

AND:

1. Laxmibai W/o Yallappa Bilagi

Age: 37 years, Occupation: House hold work,

2. Hanamant S/o Yallappa Bilagi


3. Srishail S/o Yallappa Bilagi

Age: 20years, Occupation: Student,

4. Bouramma D/o Yallappa Bilagi

Age: 18 years,

All are R/o Balabatti

4

Taluka: Muddebihal-586 212

Bijapur District.

5. Shantappa P. Kamat

Age: Major,

Occupation: Business and Agriculture

R/o Itagi,

Now Residing at Muddebihal,

Behind the Syndicate Bank,

Reshmi Building, Muddebihal.

… RESPONDENTS

(Shri S.S. Shetty, Advocate for respondent-1 to 5)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section

173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgement and

Award dated 01.08.2006 passed in MVC No. 54/2004 on the

file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Member, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Muddebihal, awarding a

compensation of Rs.2,74,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the

date of petition till date of realisation.

These appeals coming on for Hearing this day, the Court

delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the

learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeals are filed in respect of the same

judgment and award. The appeal in MFA 12587/2007 is filed

by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation that is

5

awarded and the connected appeal in MFA 13450/2006 is filed

questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company in

respect of payment of compensation.

3. The brief facts are as follows:-

The claimants are the widow and children of deceased

Yallappa Bilagi, who was said to be travelling in a tractor and

trailer bearing No.KA-28/T-37 and 38 from Balabatti to his

field and the trailer was loaded with fertilizer. When the tractor

had reached Hullur cross, it is claimed that on account of the

tractor being driven in a rash and negligent manner, Yallappa

Bilagi was thrown out of the trailer and he was run over by

the trailer and his head was crushed. He died on the spot. It is

in this background that a claim for compensation was lodged by

his widow and children, claiming that he was working as a

coolie and he was earning about Rs.8000/- per month and the

accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent

driving of the tractor, which belonged to respondent no.1 in the

present appeal and the tractor was duly insured with the second

6

respondent – Insurance Company. The claim petition was

contested and the following issues were framed on the basis of

the pleadings.

“1. Whether the petitioners prove that, husband

of petitioner No.1 by name Yallappa Hanamant Bilagi

has died on 5-7-2002 due to dashing of tractor and its

trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-28/T-37 and 38 near Hullur

Cross, wherein Yallappa was travelling in the said

tractor and trailer from Hullur to Balabatti loading

fertilizer in the trailer of tractor for his lands and that

driver of the said tractor drove it in a rash and negligent

manner so as to endanger human life at the date, time

and place of accident?

2) Whether petitioners prove that Yallappa

Hanamant Bilagi was aged 45 years and was earning

Rs.8,000/- per month by doing agriculture and coolie?

3) Whether petitioners proves that, petitioner are

entitled to compensation? If so, how much ? and from

whom?”

The Tribunal, on consideration of the material evidence

that was produced and the rival contentions, has proceeded to

hold that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was

7

travelling in a tractor trailer and apart from this, it is shown that

the tractor was carrying fertilizer and it was intended to be

unloaded on the field of the deceased and hence, the presence of

the deceased in the trailer was sought to be explained and

further that the tractor and trailer was being used for an

agricultural purpose at the time of the accident and the vehicle

was duly insured at the time of the accident and there was no

mechanical defect, as per the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s

Report, to the tractor at the time of the accident. Therefore, it

was held that the accident has apparently occurred only on

account of the rash and negligent driving act of the driver. In

the above circumstances, the Tribunal has allowed the claim

and has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,49,600/- towards loss

of future income, on the basis that the deceased was aged about

45 years and was working as a coolie and though it was claimed

that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, the Tribunal has

chosen to adopt Rs.2,400/- per month as the notional income,

and has applied the multiplier of ‘13’ and deducted one-third

8

of the income, while also awarding compensation under other

conventional heads amounting to Rs.25,000/-, thus amounting

to a total compensation of Rs.2,74,600/-. It is that which is

sought to be questioned by the claimants as well as the insurer.

4. Addressing the contention on behalf of the insurer, the

learned Counsel for the appellant – insurer in MFA 13450/2006

would firstly point out that the policy of insurance that was

issued was a Farmers Package Insurance Policy. In the said

insurance policy, the coverage of the tractor, is only on behalf

of the owner and that it shall be used only for the purpose of

agriculture by the owner. The question of hiring out the

tractor to third-parties or permitting workmen to be carried on a

tractor was impermissible. It is evident from the record that

there was a report lodged with the jurisdictional Police of the

accident and the complainant was none other than the son of

the deceased and who was also said to be travelling on the

trailer at the time of the accident, he has categorically stated

9

that the vehicle had been taken on lease by his father to carry

fertilizer to his field. This would clearly indicate that it was

not being used for his own purpose by the insured, but had

been let on hire. Further, the tractor is treated as a non-

transport vehicle and there is no provision for carrying any

person on the trailer. It was to be used only for agricultural

purposes. Hence, the question of carrying passengers or

persons on the trailer did not arise. Further it is pointed out

that the deceased was not an agricultural labourer and was not

employed by the insured nor was allowed to travel on the

tractor trailer as a passenger or the owner of goods,

accompanying the goods. The tractor trailer is not a goods

carriage vehicle and it was to be used for the purpose of

agricultural operations. There is no seating capacity which

would on the face of it indicate that the trailer could not carry

any passengers in the cargo compartment nor could it be said

that the deceased was a third-party, on whose death, a claim

could be raised by his legal representatives for compensation.

10

The Tribunal merely having proceeded on the basis that the

tractor was being used for agricultural operations at the time of

the accident and that it was covered under an insurance policy

by itself , would not be sufficient to attract the liability of the

insurance company unless it was being used for agricultural

operations of the insured.

The learned Counsel would also point out that the

Tribunal, in its judgment, has not indicated as to how and

under which provision of the contract, the insurance company

has become liable to pay compensation. In the absence of any

such liability to be found either in the policy or under the

provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (Hereinafter referred

to as the ‘MV Act’, for brevity), the fastening of liability on

the insurance company is untenable and unjust. The learned

Counsel has also produced the Guidelines issued when the

Scheme of a Farmers Package Insurance policy was first

introduced and with reference to the same, it is pointed out that

the package included coverage in respect of the farmer’s tractor

11

and had covered only the risk of third-parties and unless it was

shown that the deceased was a third-party, the question of

covering the risk did not arise.

The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions

in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.

Chinnamma, Civil Appeal No.5478/2004 dated 25.8.2004,

which is referred to and applied in Divisional Manager vs.

Akkavva, ILR 2007 Kar.1382, to emphasize that the liability of

a insurance company is not attracted in respect of death or

injury to persons travelling in a tractor trailer and therefore,

would submit that the impugned judgment be set aside in so

far as it fastens liability of payment of compensation, jointly

and severally on the appellant – Insurance company.

The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company would

contend that the owner has not been examined, who was the

best person to speak about the manner in which the deceased

was present on the vehicle and hence, the claim ought to have

been rejected and seeks that the appeal be allowed.

12

5. While the learned Counsel for the claimants would

contend that the Certificate of Insurance which was alone

marked in evidence, does not contain any restriction on the

manner in which a tractor trailer, which is covered in the

insurance policy, shall be utilised, except to indicate that it

shall be used only for agricultural purposes, it is not in dispute

that a fully worded contract pertaining to the Farmers Package

Insurance policy was not produced before the court below. In

the absence of a fully worded contract placing such restriction

on the usage of the tractor trailer and such contract not being

produced even before this court, it would not be open for the

counsel for the insurance company to contend that the contract

was circumscribed by such restrictions. Though the learned

counsel for the insurance company has now produced the

Guidelines, which are said to indicate the detailed conditions,

covering the Farmers Package Policies in so far as the tractor

trailer is concerned, the liability of the insurance company

being restricted to third-parties, would squarely apply in so far

13

as the deceased is concerned. Even according to the insurance

company and the complaint that was lodged in the first

instance, the vehicle was being used for agricultural operations

and it was being used to carry fertilizer to the field of the

deceased. The deceased was travelling in the tractor along

with other men, including the complainant, who was his son, in

order to carry such fertilizer to his field. Therefore, if the

deceased was travelling in the tractor trailer to carry fertilizer

to his field along with other workmen, he was certainly

assisting the workmen in carrying his own goods and therefore,

he was a third-party in so far as the contract of insurance

between the insurance company and the insured is concerned.

Further, under Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules,

1999, it is not impermissible for loaders being carried in such

vehicles. The owner of the goods also functioning as a loader

cannot be ruled out. If he was sitting on the fertilizer in the

trailer, he was joining hands with the loaders in carrying the

goods. Therefore, it cannot be characterised as the deceased

14

being an unauthorised person travelling in the tractor trailer. In

any event, there is no provision contained either in the

Certificate of Insurance or in the Guidelines pertaining to the

Farmers Package Insurance prohibiting such user of the tractor

trailer. On the other hand, the only restriction that is spoken to

by RW.1, an officer of the Insurance Company, was that the

tractor trailer could not be used for any purpose other than

agricultural purposes. It is not denied by the insurance

company that at the time of the accident, it was being used to

carry fertilizer to the field of the deceased and therefore, it was

being used for an agricultural purpose. The further contention

that such agricultural purpose should relate to the insured alone

is not a condition prescribed either in the Certificate of

Insurance or under the guidelines. Hence, the several

contentions on behalf of the insurer, to hold that the insurance

company is absolved of its liability on account of the tractor

being treated as a non-transport vehicle and there is no

provision for carrying any person on the trailer and that it

15

should be used only for agricultural purposes and hence, the

question of carrying passengers or persons on the trailer did not

arise; or that the deceased was not an agricultural labourer and

was not employed by the insured nor was allowed to travel on

the tractor as a passenger or owner of goods accompanying the

goods; and that the tractor trailer is not a goods carriage vehicle

and that there is no seating capacity, which would on the face

of it indicate that the trailer could not carry any passengers in

the cargo compartment nor can it be said that the deceased was

a third-party, on whose death, a claim could be raised by his

legal representatives for compensation, etc., it is contended, as

not being relevant.

Attention is also drawn to Section 149 of the MV Act, to

the effect that the restrictions as to the manner in which the

insurer’s liability would be absolved is prescribed. It does not

contain any prohibition that the vehicle insured ought not to be

used by anyone other than the owner of the vehicle, in taking

away the liability of the insurance company. In so far as the

16

judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant

is concerned, the counsel would seek to contend that they are

authorities for the cases decided therein and on facts and

circumstances, there is a clear distinction in the circumstances

pertaining in those cases and hence cannot be applied

mechanically to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, as

rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent,

the Certificate of Insurance itself offers no clue as to the

restriction of the liability of the insurance company. This is

evident from a plain reading of the Certificate of Insurance,

which is reproduced hereunder:-

“CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE OF MISCELLANEOUS AND

SPECIAL TYPE OF VEHICLES

Form 51 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989

Policy Number: 602601/47/03/6300192 Certificate No: 602601/47/03/6300192

Farmers Package Insurance

Development Officer/Agent: 602601/90091097

Insured’s name : Sri. Shantappa P. Kamat Insurer Code: 602601

Email: [email protected]

Address : A/P Itagi, Tq: B.Bagewadi Address: S.S.Cross Road

Dist: Bijapur, Bijapur – 586101

Karnataka-586101 Telephone No.251171, 251999 Fax No: 0

17

Premium: Rs.3,091 S.Tax; Rs.242 Tot Premium Rs.3,333 (RUPEES

THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE ONLY)

Particulars of vehicle Insured : Vehicle IDV: Rs.75,000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Registered Mark No. Make Year of Engine No.

Mft/ Chassis No.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KA-28/T-0037 Swaraj Tractor 1994 94H 5650709 97 1203/G 94556

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hire/Hypo/Lease : NONE

Name of the Registration Authority: R.T.Office, R.T.O. Geographical Area INDIA

Bijapur

Effective date of commencement of Insurance for the purpose of the Act

From 00:00 o’clock on 19/07/2003 To Midnight Of 18/07/2004Subject to IMT endorsement printed herein/attached hereto: 21,48,36,24,17,40

Persons or classes of Persons entitled to drive:

Any person including Insured provided that a person driving holds an

effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified

from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person

holding an effective Learner’s Licence may also drive the vehicle and

such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor

Vehicle Rule, 1989.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub-Section 3

of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The policy does not cover use for

a. Organised Racing

b. Pace making

18

c. Reliability Trails

d. Speed Testing

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Limit of Liability

Limit of the amount of the company’s Liability Under Section II-1(i) in respect

of any one accident: as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Limit of the amount of the Company’s Liability Under Section II-1(i) in respect of

any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event: UPTO Rs.750000

I/We hereby certify that the policy to which the certificate relates as well as the

certificate of Insurance are issued in accordance with provisions of Chapter X

and XI of M. V. Act, 1988.

For and on behalf of


Sd/-

Duly Constituted Attorney(s).”

Policy No: 602601/47/03/6300192 Dept: Rural Sector Business

Farmer’s Package Insurance

Agriculture Tractor Premium Detail

Other covers Premium

One damage premium: (Rs.) Rs.1,250

Third party premium: (Rs.) Rs.1,457

Bonus/Malus (%): Rs. 0.00

AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS 2,707”

xx

“Policy Number:602601/47/03/6300192 Dept: Rural Sector Business

Farmer’s Package Insurance

Insured’s Name: Sri. Shantappa P. Kamat Issuing Officer: Unit 602601

Address:: A/P Itagi, Tq: B.Bagewadi Address: S. S. Cross Road,

19

Dist: Biajpur, Karnataka – 586101 Bijapur – 586101

Telephone: 251171, 251999, Fax: 0, email:n

D0evelopment Officer/Agent: 602601/90091097

Date of proposal and declaration: 18/07/2003

Policy Period: 00:00 Hrs on 19/07/2003 to midnight of 18/07/2004

Receipt date No: 18/07/2003 1/2003/01038

Net Premium (Rs.): 3,091 (RUPEES THREE THOUSAND NINETY ONE ONLY)

Service tax (Rs.): 242

Total premium (Rs.): 3,333

Serial .No. Type of cover Cover Sum Insured Basic

Description (Rs.) Premium (Rs.)

1. Fire allied perils and

Terrorism (1) Building 1,25,000.00 88

2. Fire allied perils and

Terrorism (2) Contents 40,000.00 124

3. Burglary house

Breaking Burglary 40,000.00 96

4. Baggage Baggage 2,100.00 16

5. JPA/GAP JPA 1,00,000.00 60

6. Tractor details 75,000.00

7. Trailer details 25,000.00

8. Live stock details

9. Animal cart details

10. Poultry details

11. Agricultural pumpset

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total sum insured: 4,07,100.00

Details of trailer

20

Purpose Chassis No. Registration No.

Trailer G.S.002/94-95 KA-28/T/39

Details of PA (JPA/GAP)

SlL.

No. Name Occupation Date of birth Age Existing Nominee Sum

Disability Name Insured

(Rs.)

1 KAMAT AGRI NA 1,00,000

For and on behalf of


Sd/-

Authorised Signatory.

xx


Regd. & Head Office: 3, Middleton Street, Post Box. No.9229,

Kolkata-700071

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BIJAPUR BD

S.S.CROSS ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101

CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF COMPLIANCE OF

SECTION 64 VB OF INSURANCE ACT 1938

Re: Policy No:602601/47/03/6300192

Insured : SRI SHANTAPPA P. KAMAT

------------------------------------------------------------------------a) Date of commencement of risk: 19/07/2003

Policy Number : 602601/47/03/6300192

Date:18/07/2003

21

b) Actual premium payable under the policy/renewal/cover note:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Policy number Endorsement. Amount of Receipt Number Receipt Date Endt Start Date No. Premium

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

602601/47/03/

6300192 3,333.00 1/2003/01038 18/07/2003

c) Whether the premium paid was provisional or final and if provisional,

reason thereof

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Payment Mode Amount BG No. BG Exp Date Apd/BG Balance Branch Realized on

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash 3,333.00

f) Whether Bank Guarantee was invoked:

Date of invocation:

g) Payment of premium under Bank Guarantee:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B.G.No Collection number Collection Date Amount paid Collection particulars

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

h) In view of the details (a) to (g) above whether Section 64 VB of

Insurance Act is complied with.”

The learned Counsel for the appellant – insurer was

pointedly called upon to produce a fully worded contract

relating to the Farmers Package Insurance policy. Inspite of her

best efforts, she was not able to secure one and has been able

to secure only the Guidelines pertaining to the Farmers Package

Insurance. It is noticed that Section 14 of the Guidelines, which

22

is in respect of agricultural tractors and particularly with

respect to liability to third-parties, reads as follows:-

“Subject to the Limits of Liability as laid down in

the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the

Insured against all sums including claimant’s cost and

expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to

pay in respect of

i. death or bodily injury to any person

caused by or arising out of the use (including the

loading and/or unloading) of the agricultural tractor.

ii. damage to property caused by the use

(including the loading and/or unloading) of the

tractor.” (emphasis supplied)

It is evident that the death or the actual bodily injury to

any person caused by or arising out of the use by the tractor

would attract the insurer’s liability. This would include any

expenditure occurring during loading or unloading. Hence,

apart from this, there is no indication that the usage of the

tractor is restricted in the manner as sought to be contended by

the learned Counsel for the insurer. In the absence of any

23

specific restriction, the liability of the insurance cannot be taken

away.

A serious contention as regards the tractor trailer not

being a transport vehicle has been raised by the learned Counsel

for the insurer, apparently drawing sustenance from the

judgment of this court in Divisional Manager vs. Akkavva,

supra, wherein the facts were that a tractor trailer was being

used to carry over 60 people and an accident having occurred,

the insurance company was absolved of its liability on the

footing that the tractor was apparently being used as a

passenger vehicle. And though under Section 66 of the MV

Act, such vehicles can be used for carrying persons, provided

there was prior permission obtained from the competent

authority, but and no such permission having been obtained,

the tractor trailer could not be used to ferry such number of

persons and it is in that circumstance that it was held that the

tractor trailer not being a passenger vehicle, could not be

utilised for carrying persons and the liability of the insurance

24

company was absolved. Similarly, the decision in National

Insurance Company vs. Chinnamma, supra, the apex court had

found that the tractor trailer involved was being utilised for the

business activity of the owner in carrying vegetables and the

mere fact that it was carrying vegetables could not be

characterised as being used exclusively for agricultural

purposes and since the owner of the tractor was a dealer in

vegetables, it was held that it was not being used in the course

of agricultural operations. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by

the learned Counsel for the claimants, these are decisions which

are relied upon by the learned counsel for the insurer would be

authorities for cases that were decided and in the absence of

any restriction as to the manner in which a tractor could be

used, except that it could not be used for a purpose other than

agriculture purposes and apparently in the present case, it was

being used for an agricultural purpose, albeit for the benefit of

the deceased, it cannot be said that the tractor was being used

for any purpose other than agricultural purposes. Therefore,

25

either with reference to the Certificate of insurance, the

guidelines, or the provisions of the MV Act, the insurance

company cannot be said to be absolved of its liability.

Accordingly, the appeal in MFA 13450/2006 filed by the

insurance company stands dismissed.

Insofar as the claim for enhancement is concerned, the

Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,74,600/-.

This is on the basis that the notional income of the deceased

was taken at Rs.2,400/- per month and after deducting one-third

towards his personal expenses, has applied the multiplier of

‘13’. This is on the lower side. Though the notional income

could have been higher, in the absence of any evidence and

given the vehement opposition to the claim petition, any

enhancement of compensation on that ground, would probably

lead to further acrimony, in the insurer possibly carrying this

judgment in appeal to the Supreme Court. Hence, it is felt

prudent not to enhance the income that is adopted, except that

26

the multiplier should have been ‘14’ instead of ‘13’ which

leads to a partial enhancement under the head of loss of

dependency and the appellants claimants are entitled to

additional compensation of Rs.19,200/- Insofar as the loss

of consortium is concerned, the Tribunal has restricted the

compensation to a sum of Rs.5,000/-. This is an abysmally low

amount and should be enhanced reasonably. Therefore, the

claimants are held entitled to a nominal additional

compensation of at least Rs.15,000/- under this head.

In so far as the funeral expenses are concerned, the

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- and in the opinion of

this court, it should be enhanced by another sum of Rs.17,000/-.

Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to a marginal

enhancement of compensation of Rs.51,200/-, which shall be

paid as additional compensation with interest at 6% per annum

from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The

27

amount in deposit to be transferred to the Tribunal for the

benefit of the claimants.

The appeal in MFA 12587/2007 is allowed in part.

Sd/-JUDGE

nv

DATED THIS THE 10 TH BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE...

Documents

Transcript of DATED THIS THE 10 TH BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE...