Page 1

  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7368 OF 2013 (Arising  out of SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011)

MINU ROUT & ANR.         …  APPELLANTS                     VS. SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA & ORS.         … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellants who were claimants  before  the  Additional  District  Judge-cum-4th MACT,  

Jagatsinghpur, Odisha (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC case  

No.6 of 2005, questioning the correctness of the judgment  

and award dated 27.07.2011 passed by the High Court of  

Orissa, Cuttack in MACA No. 594 of 2010, wherein it has  

affirmed the judgment and award of the Tribunal holding

Page 2

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

that the award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour  

of the appellants along with interest at the rate of 6% per  

annum from the date of filing of the claim application till  

actual payment, is legal and valid and the same is not  

vitiated either on account of impropriety or illegality.  

The correctness of the same is challenged in this appeal  

urging certain relevant facts and grounds.

3.     Brief facts of the case are mentioned hereunder for the  purpose of appreciating the case and to examine whether the  

appellants  are  entitled  for  enhancement  of  compensation  

claimed by them in this civil appeal.  The first appellant  

is the wife of the deceased Susil Kumar Rout and the second  

appellant is the son of the deceased (minor at the time of  

the accident). On account of a head on collision between  

the car of the deceased bearing registration No. OR 09 C  

6463 and a truck bearing registration No. OR 09 C 7165 on  

National Highway 5 near Uraili Chhaka on 08.11.2004, the  

deceased sustained injuries and was declared brought dead  

at Jajpur Hospital.  It is the case of the appellants that  

the road was wide and spacious and the accident was due to  

the  rash  and  negligent  driving  of  the  driver  of  the  

offending truck. It is claimed by the appellants that at  

- 2 -

Page 3

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

the time of the accident, the deceased was having good  

health and was earning a sum of Rs.5000/- per month which  

was  mostly  contributed  to  the  appellants  for  their  

livelihood.  

4.    During the time of hearing, the owner of the truck was  arrayed  as  a  party  and  was  served  with  notice  but  he  

remained  absent  and  did  not  contest  the  proceedings.  

Respondent No. 1, the driver also did not file any counter  statement despite notice being served on him and he was set  

ex-parte. Respondent No.2, the New India Assurance Company  

filed its statement of counter opposing the claim of the  

appellants taking the plea that the claim petition is not  

maintainable and the claim is barred by limitation.  The  

averments regarding the age and income of the deceased were  

denied, and so also, the averments regarding the manner in  

which  the  accident  occurred  as  described  in  the  claim  

petition.  It was pleaded by the Insurance Company that the  

averments  made  by  the  appellants  in  the  claim  petition  

regarding the manner in which the accident took place are  

false and fabricated. They have claimed that the accident  

was  not  due  to  sole  negligence  of  the  driver  of  the  

offending  truck,  by  placing  strong  reliance  upon  the  

- 3 -

Page 4

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

charge-sheet filed by the Dharmasala police, who seized  

both the vehicles.  Therefore, it is stated that both the  

drivers  of  the  car  and  the  truck  were  responsible  for  

causing accident amounting to contributory negligence on  

the part of the deceased Susil Rout.  The accident occurred  

on account of head on collision between the two vehicles.  

Due to the death of the deceased- husband of the first  

appellant,  the  charge-sheet  submitted  against  him  was  

deleted.   

5.    Four issues were framed by the Tribunal on the basis of  the pleadings and the case went for trial on behalf of the  

appellants.  The first appellant was examined as PW-1. In  

support  of  their  claim,  she  produced  and  marked  the  

documents namely, Exh.1 charge-sheet filed in GR 114 of  

2004  before  the  S.D.J.M.,  Exh.2  three  seizure  lists,  

Exh.3 Zimanama, Exh. 4 inquest report, Exh.5 post mortem  

examination report and Exh.6 the copy of driving licence of  

the deceased. Apart from her, three other eye witnesses  

were  examined,  and  they  supported  the  claim  of  the  

appellants. None were examined on behalf of the Insurance  

Company  to  prove  its  case  before  the  Tribunal.    The  

Tribunal, on the basis of appreciation of pleadings and  

- 4 -

Page 5

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

evidence on record, has answered the issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3  

together and partly accepted the case of the appellants.  

The evidences of PW-2 and PW-4 are taken into consideration  

by the Tribunal and recorded the finding holding that the  

appellants did not produce FIR but on the other hand they  

have suppressed the same.  The Tribunal placed reliance  

upon the charge-sheet-Exh. 1 and other documentary evidence  

referred to supra and held that due to negligence of both  

the drivers of the vehicles, there was a head on collision  

of  both  the  vehicles  and  the  accident  occurred.  The  

appellants have placed strong reliance on the documents  

Exhs.1  to  5  produced  by  them  in  their  evidence  after  

adverting to the fact that neither the owner of the car nor  

the driver of the truck came forward to adduce evidence to  

prove the plea taken by the Insurance Company that there  

was contributory negligence on the basis of the documentary  

evidence on record and the so called admission of PW-4. The  

Tribunal  has  recorded  the  finding  of  fact  on  the  

contentious  issue  No.  1,  and  held  that  the  accident  

occurred due to head on collision between the two vehicles  

and  both  the  drivers  are  equally  responsible  for  the  

occurrence  of  the  accident.   Therefore,  the  Tribunal  

recorded a finding of fact in this regard and held that  

- 5 -

Page 6

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased are  

entitled to get compensation to the extent of 50% for the  

fault of the offending truck and held that the owner of the  

truck and the Insurance Company both are liable to pay 50%  

of the compensation to the appellants.  Accordingly, issue  

Nos. 2 and 3 were also decided in favour of the appellants.  

The Tribunal quantified the compensation accepting the age  

of the deceased as 35 years on the basis of post mortem  

examination report - Exh.5 and applied multiplier of 16 to  

the  multiplicand  to  quantify  the  loss  of  dependency  by  

taking the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- in  

the absence of documentary evidence.  Out of this amount,  

1/3rd was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased  

and the amount was quantified at Rs.3,84,000/-. Out of this  

amount again, 50% was deducted towards alleged contributory  

negligence of the deceased husband of the first appellant  

and the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,92,000/- towards the loss of  

dependency.  To this amount, under the conventional heads,  

Rs.5000/-  and  Rs.3000/-  was  awarded  towards  funeral  

expenses  and  loss  of  estate,  love  and  affection  

respectively  and  thereby  in  total,  a  compensation  of  

Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum was  

awarded to the appellants. The appellants were aggrieved by  

- 6 -

Page 7

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

the inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal in its  

judgment. The correctness of the same was questioned by  

them by filing an appeal before the High Court seeking  

enhancement of compensation.   The High Court has passed a  

cryptic order without adverting to and appreciating the  

pleadings and evidence, and assigning any reason whatsoever  

to hold that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal on the  

contentious  issue  Nos.  1  and  2  do  not  suffer  from  

impropriety and illegality.  The correctness of the same is  

challenged in this appeal urging the following grounds.

6.    It  is  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  that  the  High  Court  has  not  considered  the  

evidence produced on record to show that the accident took  

place  on  account  of  rash  and  negligent  driving  of  the  

driver of the truck, which is proved by examining the three  

eye-witnesses  PW-2  to  PW-4.  The  Tribunal,  without  

considering  the  testimony  of  the  eye  witnesses  has  

erroneously  placed  reliance  upon  Exh.1  the  charge-sheet  

which was filed against both the drivers of the car as well  

as the offending truck. Further, it has held that there is  

50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.  

PW-3 was not examined by the police during the course of  

- 7 -

Page 8

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

investigation and PW-2 had stated in his evidence that the  

car was also driven in high speed. It is urged by the  

learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  that  the  Tribunal,  

without there being any rebuttal evidence adduced by either  

the  owner  of  the  truck  or  his  driver  or  any  other  

independent  witness  to  prove  the  alleged  fact  of  

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, has  

erroneously recorded the finding of fact on the contentious  

issue No. 1 and held that there is contributory negligence  

on the part of the deceased. Therefore, it is urged by the  

learned  counsel  that  the  approach  of  the  Tribunal  in  

appreciating the evidence on record without there being any  

evidence on record adduced by the Insurance Company about  

the negligence of the deceased is erroneous. The Tribunal  

has placed reliance on the charge-sheet filed against both  

the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle and  

has  held  that  there  was  contributory  negligence  of  the  

deceased which resulted in head on collision between the  

two vehicles. This fact is not established by producing any  

evidence by the Insurance Company availing the defence of  

the insured. PW-1 who was traveling in the car has narrated  

how the accident occurred. The other eye witnesses who have  

witnessed the accident have also deposed in favour of the  

- 8 -

Page 9

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

appellants. They have stated that on account of rash and  

negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck, the  

accident  took  place.   In  fact,  PW-2  has  stated  in  his  

evidence that he was going to his village on his bicycle  

and the accident took place within a distance of 15 feet  

away from him.  Two other persons who have witnessed the  

accident were examined in the case in support of the claim  

of the appellants.  It is urged in their evidence that they  

had helped the injured persons by shifting them to the  

Jajpur Hospital. PW-3, who is a betel shop owner, whose  

shop is situated near the place of accident, has stated in  

his evidence that there were six persons in the car and  

that he was not examined by the police. PW-4 deposed that  

he had seen the accident from a little distance from market  

where 10 to 20 persons were present at that time.  He has  

stated in his evidence that the truck was in a high speed  

and there were six persons inside the car who sustained  

injuries.   The  driver  of  the  car  sustained  grievous  

injuries and was conscious when he was taken to Jajpur  

Hospital on a trekker and later succumbed to injuries.  The  

evidence  of  this  eye  witness  has  not  been  properly  

considered both by the Tribunal and the High Court, while  

recording the finding on the relevant contentious issue  

- 9 -

Page 10

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

No.1. Therefore, the findings recorded on the issue No.1 by  

the Tribunal is erroneous in law, and the same concurred  

with by the High court without re-appreciating evidence on  

record,  and  therefore,  is  liable  to  be  set  aside.  The  

compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards the loss of  

dependency was at Rs.3,84,000/- for the reason that the  

appellants did not produce documentary evidence to prove  

the  monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- as claimed  

by them. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken Rs.3000/- per  

month  as  salary  of  the  deceased,  even  though  he  was  

entitled for more than Rs.6000/- per month as the job of a  

driver  is  a  skilled  job.   The  aforesaid  relevant  fact  

should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal  

in the absence of documentary evidence placed on record to  

quantify  the  reasonable  compensation.  The  Tribunal  was  

required to consider the claim of the appellants by taking  

reasonable amount towards the monthly salary for which the  

deceased  was  entitled  to  in  law  and  on  that  basis  the  

Tribunal  should  have  quantified  and  awarded  just  and  

reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency. That  

has not been done in the case in hand by the Tribunal.  

Therefore, it is urged by the learned counsel that the  

Tribunal has committed an error on fact by taking Rs.3000/-  

- 10

Page 11

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

as  monthly  salary  of  the  deceased  for  determination  of  

multiplicand by ignoring the fact that the job of a driver  

is a skilled job.  The Tribunal should have taken Rs.6000/-  

per month as the salary of the deceased and 1/3rd should  

have  been  deducted  from  his  monthly  salary  towards  his  

personal expenses.  

7.   Out of the total compensation of Rs.3,84,000/- under the  head loss of dependency, 50% was deducted on the ground of  

equal contributory negligence on the part of the deceased  

and  the  Tribunal  has  erroneously  awarded  Rs.1,92,000/-  

towards the loss of dependency.  It is further contended  

that the aforesaid legal contentions urged on behalf of the  

appellants  are  not  examined  by  the  High  Court  while  

exercising its appellate jurisdiction.  It has passed a  

cryptic  order  without  re-appreciating  the  facts,  legal  

evidence on record and law on the question.  Therefore, it  

is contended that the impugned judgment is vitiated both on  

facts and law and hence, the same is liable to be set  

aside.

8.    The learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company  has  sought  to  justify  the  impugned  judgments  of  both  the  

Tribunal  as  well  as  the  High  Court  contending  that  the  

- 11

Page 12

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

Tribunal  being  a  fact  finding  authority,  on  proper  

appreciation  of  both  oral  and  documentary  evidence,  

particularly,  the  evidence  of  PW-3  and  PW-4  who  were  eye  

witnesses,  and  have  deposed  that  there  was  contributory  

negligence, has rightly affirmed so. The PW-2, who has stated  

in his evidence that the car was coming in a speed and there  

was a head on collision between the two vehicles, on the  

basis  of  documentary  evidence  Exh.1  the  charge-sheet,  the  

finding  of  fact  recorded  by  the  Tribunal,  regarding  

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is based  

on  proper  appreciation  of  facts  and  legal  evidence.  

Therefore, the same cannot be termed as erroneous and does  

not call for interference by this Court.  Further, it is  

urged  that  the  quantum  of  compensation  awarded  by  the  

Tribunal  under  the  heading  of  loss  of  dependency  at  

Rs.1,92,000/- in the absence of documentary evidence to prove  

the monthly income of the deceased, is legal.  

9.    On the basis of the rival factual and legal contentions  urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the parties, the  

following points would arise for consideration of this Court:

1. Whether the finding of fact recorded by  

the Tribunal on the contentious issue No.1  

- 12

Page 13

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

holding that contributory negligence on the  

part of the deceased driver Susil Rout and  

award of compensation at Rs. 1,92,000/-, the  

same being affirmed by the High Court in its  

judgment,  is  erroneous  in  law  and  warrant  

interference in this appeal?

2. Whether  the  appellants  are  entitled  to  

enhanced compensation?

3.   What award?

Answer to point No.1: 10.    This point is required to be answered in favour of the  appellants for the following reasons:-  

    It is an undisputed fact that the accident took place on  

08.11.2004 at about 11.45 p.m on account of head on collision  

between truck bearing registration No. OR09-C-7165 and the  

car driven by the deceased bearing registration No. OR 09-C-

6463.  The Jajpur Police Station has registered FIR against  

both the drivers of the offending vehicle and the car.  After  

investigation of the case, charge-sheet Exh.1 GR 114 of 2004  

was  filed  before  the  S.D.J.M  Jajpur  against  the  first  

respondent and the deceased, and on account of his death the  

case was abated and therefore, the Tribunal has committed  

- 13

Page 14

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

error in law in coming to the conclusion in the absence of  

rebuttal evidence that there was contributory negligence of  

50% on the part of the deceased.

11. The case of the appellants is that the accident took  

place  on  account  of  rash  and  negligent  driving  of  the  

offending truck by its driver. The offending truck was coming  

from opposite direction to the car.  In the car, there were  

six persons traveling including the first appellant.  The  

first appellant was examined as P.W.1 and other three eye  

witnesses were also examined as P.W.2 to P.W.4, who supported  

the version of P.W.1. They have narrated in their evidence  

that the accident occurred on 8.11.2004. P.W.2 has stated in  

his evidence that the accident took place within 15 feet away  

from the place, when he was going to his village in his  

bicycle.  Two other eye witnesses were also examined as P.W.3  

and P.W.4 who have also deposed before the Tribunal stating  

that  Susil  Rout  got  grievous  injuries  on  account  of  the  

accident and was shifted to the Jajpur Hospital, where he was  

declared dead. They have also deposed that the occurrence of  

the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of  

the truck. There was head on collision between the offending  

truck and the car.   

- 14

Page 15

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

12.    P.W.3 was a betel shop owner, whose shop is situated  near the spot of the accident. Though he was not examined by  

the Investigating Officer in the police case he is examined  

before the Tribunal whose evidence is required to be accepted  

for  the  reason  that  the  same  is  not  rebutted  by  the  

respondents. P.W.4 has stated in his cross examination that  

he saw the accident from a little distance from the market  

place, where about 10 to 20 persons were present. He has  

further deposed that the truck was in a high speed and the  

people traveling in the car sustained injuries and the driver  

of  the  car  Susil  Rout  suffered  grievous  injuries  and  

succumbed to the same. He was conscious when he was taken to  

the  Jajpur  Hospital  on  a  trekker.  The  Tribunal,  on  

appreciation  of  the  oral  and  documentary  evidence,  has  

recorded the  erroneous finding by placing strong reliance  

upon the charge-sheet-Exh.1 without considering the fact that  

the  criminal  case  was  abated  against  the  deceased   and  

further  has  made  observation  in  the   judgment  that  the  

appellants had not produced the FIR. Therefore, it has held  

that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the  

deceased driver in causing accident. The Tribunal ought to  

have seen that non production of FIR has no consequence for  

the  reason  that  charge  sheet  was  filed  against  the  truck  

- 15

Page 16

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

driver for the offences punishable under Sections 279 read  

with Section 302 of IPC read with the provisions of the M.V.  

Act. The Insurance Company, though claimed permission under  

Section  170(b)  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988  from  the  

Tribunal to contest the proceedings by availing the defence  

of the owner of the offending vehicle, it did not choose to  

examine  either  the  driver  of  the  truck  or  any  other  

independent  eye  witness  to  prove  the  allegation  of  

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Susil  

Rout on account of which the accident took place  as he was  

driving the car in a rash and negligent manner.  In the  

absence  of  rebuttal  evidence  adduced  on  record  by  the  

Tribunal, the Tribunal should not have placed reliance on the  

charge-sheet-Exh.1 in which the deceased driver was mentioned  

as an accused and on his death; his name was deleted from the  

charge  sheet.  The  Tribunal  has  referred  to  certain  stray  

answers  elicited  from  the  evidence  of P.W.2  and  P.W.3  in  their cross-examination and placed reliance on them to record  

the finding on issue no.1. For the aforesaid reasons, the  

findings  and  reasons  recorded  by  the  Tribunal  on  the  

contentious  issue  No.1  holding  that  there  is  contributory  

negligence on the part of the deceased driver in the absence  

of legal evidence adduced by the Insurance Company to prove  

- 16

Page 17

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

the plea taken by it that accident did not take place on  

account of rash and negligent driving of the truck driver is  

erroneous in law. The Tribunal has accepted the part of oral  

evidence of the eye witnesses regarding the scene of accident  

and it has erroneously placed reliance upon the charge-sheet-

Exh.1, which was filed against the driver of the offending  

truck and deceased to hold there was contributory negligence  

on  his  part  by  ignoring  the  fact  that  the  criminal  case  

against the deceased was abated.  Therefore, we have to hold  

that  the  finding  of  fact  recorded  on  issue  No.1  by  the  

Tribunal  and  affirmed  by  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  

judgment, is erroneous for want of proper consideration of  

pleadings and legal evidence by both of them.  Accordingly,  

we have answered point No.1 in favour of the appellants in so  

far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the question  

of contributory negligence of 50% on the part of the deceased  

is concerned.

Answer to point Nos. 2 and 3:

13.   The appellants claimed compensation under the heading  of loss of dependency as they were all dependents upon the  

earnings of the deceased Susil Rout.  It is an undisputed  

- 17

Page 18

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

fact that Susil Rout was working as a driver of the car which  

is  a  skilled  job.  Appellants  have  stated  in  the  claim  

petition  and in the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased was  

earning Rs.5,000/-  per month.  The oral evidence of PW-1 is  

not accepted by the Tribunal, solely for the reason that the  

appellants did not produce documentary evidence to prove the  

monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month as  

claimed by them.  However, it had taken monthly income of the  

deceased at Rs.3,000/-, for the purpose of determining the  

multiplicand.  Out  of  Rs.3,000/-  p.m.,  1/3rd amount  was  

deducted  towards  personal  expenses  of  the  deceased  and  

arrived at Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of dependency.  Out of  

that  compensation,  50%  was  deducted  towards  contributory  

negligence on the part of the deceased and Rs.1,92,000/- was  

awarded under the above heading.  The compensation awarded by  

the Tribunal is approved by the High Court, which is not only  

erroneous in law but also suffers from error in law.  The  

Tribunal  ought  to  have  taken  the  salary  of  the  deceased  

driver at Rs.6,000/- by taking judicial notice of the fact  

that the post of a driver is a skilled job.  Though the claim  

of  the  appellants  is  Rs.5000/-  as  monthly  salary  of  the  

deceased  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  loss  of  

dependency,  the  actual  entitlement  of  the  salary  of  the  

- 18

Page 19

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

deceased should have been taken at Rs.6000/- per month by the  

Tribunal for awarding just and reasonable compensation, which  

is  the  statutory  duty  of  the  Tribunal  and  the  Appellate  

Court.    In view of the law laid down by this Court in  

Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.1; 30%  of future prospects of the deceased should be added to the  

monthly income.  If 30% is added to the monthly income, it  

would amount to Rs.7,800/- p.m.  From the same, 1/3rd should  

be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased,  

then the remaining amount would come to Rs.5,200/- per month.  

The same is multiplied by 12 amounting to Rs.62,400/- which  

would be  the multiplicand.  The same must be multiplied by  

16  multiplier  as  the  Tribunal  has  taken  the  age  of  the  

deceased at 35 as mentioned in the post mortem report, which  

is produced as Exh.5. According to the decision of this Court  

in  Sarla  Verma vs.  Delhi  Transport  Corporation2,  the  multiplier of 16 taken by the Tribunal for computation of  

loss  of  dependency  is  correct.   If  the  16  multiplier  is  

applied  to  the  multiplicand  of  Rs.62,400/-,  it  comes  to  

Rs.9,98,400/- which amount is awarded towards the loss of  

dependency of the appellants.  We have answered point No.1 in  

favour of the appellants holding that the finding recorded by  1  2012 (6) SCC 421 2  (2009) 6 SCC 121

- 19

Page 20

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

the Tribunal that there was 50% contributory negligence of  

both the drivers of the offending truck and the deceased, is  

erroneous and further 50% deduction out of the total loss of  

dependency  compensation  determined  by  the  Tribunal  is  not  

correct. Therefore, we have to hold that the appellants are  

entitled to the full amount of Rs.9,98,400/-. Further, the  

Tribunal  has  erroneously  awarded  a  sum  of  Rs.5,000/-  for  

funeral expenses without taking into consideration the actual  

amount  required  to  be  spent  towards  funeral  expenses  and  

obsequies  ceremonies.   The  Tribunal  has  also  inadequately  

awarded Rs.3,000/- towards loss of love and affection.  The  

Tribunal  also  erred  both  on  facts  and  in  law  as  it  has  

completely ignored the fact that the deceased died leaving  

behind him the first appellant-the widow, his mother and two  

minor children, who have lost the love and affection of their  

father.  Therefore,  this  Court,  after  taking  into  

consideration all the expenses incurred for the funeral and  

sudhi ceremonies and towards loss of love and affection by  

the surviving child and the first appellant wife, by applying  

the  decision  in  the  case  of  Kerala  State  Road  Transport  Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas3, awards Rs.50,000/- which is  just  and  reasonable  under  the  conventional  heads.  If  

3 (1994) 2 SCC 176

- 20

Page 21

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

Rs.50,000/- is added to the compensation awarded for the loss  

of  dependency,  the  total  compensation  comes  to  

Rs.10,48,400/-.  The Insurance Company is liable to pay the  

same as the offending vehicle is insured with it and the same  

is an undisputed fact. The Insurance Company is also liable  

to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of  

application till the date of payment in view of the decision  

of this Court in Municipal Council of Delhi vs. Association  of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy4.  

14.   Accordingly,  we  allow  the  appeal  in  the  following  terms:

I) The impugned judgments and awards of  the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside.

II) We  award  Rs.10,48,400/  with  9%  interest per annum payable from the date of filing the  application till the date of payment.

III)The  compensation  awarded  shall  be  apportioned  between  the  appellants  -  Minu  Rout  and  Sumit  Kumar  Rout,  equally  as  the  remaining  appellants  Ratnamani  Rout and Rohit Kumar Rout died during the pendency of  the proceedings and their names have been deleted by  the High Court of Orissa on 22.8.2011.   

4  (2011) 4 SCC 481

- 21

Page 22

C.A.@ SLP (C) No. 31402 of 2011

IV) We direct the Insurance Company to deposit 50% of  the awarded amount with proportionate interest in any  of  the  Nationalized  Bank  of  the  choice  of  the  appellants for a period of 3 years. During the said  period, if they want to withdraw a portion or entire  deposited  amount  for  their  personal  or  any  other  expenses, including development of their asset, then  they  are  at  liberty  to  file  application  before  the  Tribunal  for release of the deposited amount, which  may be considered by it and pass appropriate order in  this  regard.  The  rest  of  50%  amount  awarded  with  proportionate interest shall be paid to the appellants  by way of a demand draft within six weeks from the date  of receipt of a copy of this order after deducting the  amount if already paid.  

         There will be no order as to costs.

                                …………………………………………………………J.            [G.S. SINGHVI]

 …………………………………………………………J.        [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi, September 2, 2013      

- 22