Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 312 (KAR)

Nasreen Banu v. Divisional Manager

2008-06-20

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, MANJULA CHELLUR

body2008
Judgment :- Manjula Chellur, J. MFA No.492/07 is filed by the legal representatives of pillion rider of a motorcycle by name Syed Maksood Alum, who died in a motor accident, pertaining to MVC No.81/05. 2. MFANo.9616/06 is filed by the insurer of the lorry questioning the quantum of compensation awarded to the dependants and LRs of the rider of motorcycle by name Mohd. Yunus. They have also taken up the contention that the driver of the lorry alone was not responsible for the accident but the rider of the motorcycle as well contributed negligence for the occurrence of the accident. 3. Thefacts that led to filing of these two appeals, in brief, are as under: On 10.2004, both the rider and pillion rider Mr. Mohd Yunus and Syed Maksood Alum were proceeding at about 7 or 7.30 pm on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-37/L-7227 on NH 63 from Gadag to Koppal. According to the claimants, a truck bearing No.GA-02/ U-5103 was proceeding ahead of the motor vehicle. It is alleged that the rider of the motorcycle sought for signal to overtake the lorry and the lorry driver indicated to the motorcyclist to proceed further. But, the lorry driver suddenly came towards his right side and applied the brakes abruptly. As a result of this, the motorcyclist had to come in contact with the lorry, thereby, both rider and pillion rider fell down sustaining fatal injuries. They succumbed to the injuries and the same was informed to the legal representatives of the rider and the pillion rider. A case came to be registered against the driver of the lorry for penal action for an offence U/s 304-A IPC. 4. According to the claimants of the motorcycle rider Mr Mohd Yunus, he was working in a roadside bar and his salary was Rs.6,150/- p.m and on account of the untimely death of the deceased, they are thrown to the streets, therefore, they sought for Rs. 10,35,000/- as compensation. According to the claimants of the pillion rider of the motorcycle, they contend that the deceased was working as a booking manager in a theatre at Gangavati and he was earning a salary of Rs.4,950/- per month, therefore, they have sustained immense loss and misery on account of the untimely death of Syed Maksood Alum and they have claimed Rs.10,21,000- as compensation. 5. 5. Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the owner and the driver of the lorry were placed exparte and fortunately – the insurer of the offending vehicle was represented and they contested the matter. 6. According to the insurer, the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist and therefore, question of paying any compensation by the insurer of the lorry would not arise. They further contend that the driver of the lorry was diligent and careful in driving his lorry, therefore, in no way he contributed negligence for the occurrence of the accident in question. They have also called upon the claimants to prove the contentions regarding the age, occupation and earning of the respective deceased persons apart from the occurrence of the accident etc. 7. On behalf of the claimants, apart from two bereaved wives, one Chandrashekariah, stated to be an eye witness was examined to explain how the accident has occurred. Except cross-examining these witnesses, the insurer did not examine the driver of the lorry, an important witness who could have explained how the accident occurred. However, they have examined one Officer from the insurance company. 8. From the contentions raised in the written statement of the insurer, they do not deny the insurance coverage so far as the lorry in question as on the date of accident. With these pleadings, the Tribunal proceeded to frame the following five issues: 1) Whether petitioners prove that respondent No.1 being the driver of lorry bearing No.GA-02/U- 5103 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident? 2) Whether respondent No.3 proves that the accident was caused due to the negligence of driver of motor cycle? 3) Whether respondent No.3 further proves that there is a contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers? 4) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom? 5) What order? 9. The first three issues pertain to the question of negligence i.e. whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry in question or whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the rider or in the alternative, whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist who died in the accident. 10. 10. While analysing these three issues pertaining to negligence, the learned MACT Judge has taken into consideration the police records and at paragraph 8 of the judgment, in about nine lines, he comes to the conclusion that respondent No.1, the driver of the lorry in question alone was entirely responsible for causing the accident. Then coming to the quantum of compensation, so far as rider of the motorcycle in question, he takes his income as Rs.6000/- evidenced as per Ex.P.9 and calculates the loss of dependancy after deducting 1-3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased at Rs.7,68,000/. To this, he adds Rs.57,000/-towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- each under the heads of loss of marital life, transportation and funeral expenses, loss of consortium and he awards in all Rs.9,00,000/--as compensation. He also awards rate of interest 9% p.a apart from costs on this Rs.9,00,000/-. 11. Then coming to the quantum of compensation pertaining to the pillion rider, he refers to the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs R. Anand And Another 2006 (1) KCCR 290 , and comes to the conclusion that though the rider of motorcycle was not responsible for the accident, pillion rider on a motorcycle is not entitled for compensation because he was a pillion rider. Based on this opinion, he dismissed the claim petition of the LRs of pillion rider Mr Syed Maksood Alum. 12. Aggrieved by this judgment of the MACT, both the LRs of the rider and the pillion rider and the insurer questioning the quantum of compensation awarded to LRs of the rider, are before us as stated above. .13. We have heard the arguments of both the Counsels at length and we have perused the original .records pertaining to the two motor vehicle claims. 14. So far as the occurrence of the accident on 10.04 at 7.30 p.m near a bus stop on Koppal Road between Gadag and Koppal on NH 63 is not in dispute. Involvement of the motorcycle and so also the lorry are not in dispute. The bone of contention is whether lorry driver was alone responsible for the accident or the motorcyclist was alone responsible for the accident or both were responsible for the accident in question? 15. So far as oral evidence of the witnesses before the Tribunal, neither of the wives was the eye witness to the occurrence of the accident. The bone of contention is whether lorry driver was alone responsible for the accident or the motorcyclist was alone responsible for the accident or both were responsible for the accident in question? 15. So far as oral evidence of the witnesses before the Tribunal, neither of the wives was the eye witness to the occurrence of the accident. We have only the evidence of a third party, who was examined before the Tribunal as an eye witness to the accident in question. From the perusal of the police records pertaining to criminal case registered against the driver of the lorry, we notice that PW-3 Chandrashekaraiah was cited as a witness in the charge sheet. Learned Advocate for the insurer vehemently argues that based on the records placed before the Court especially the IMV report and the contents of the spot mahazar, the accident has not occurred in the manner described by PW-3 before the Court. He alternatively submits that even if the contents of the spot mahazar and IMV report are not looked into, the very statement of PW-3 the eye witness in the cross-examination that he was on the left side of the place of accident would indicate that it was impossible for him to witness the accident especially at 7.30 pm. in the absence of any specific evidence that there was enough light for him to witness the accident and at what angle he was standing when he saw the accident in question is also relevant. 16. According to the learned Counsel for the claimants, in the absence of the driver being examined before the Court, question of the insurer now finding fault with the evidence on record does not arise because in the given circumstances, the best witness to speak to the actual cause of accident was the driver of the lorry. .17. Learned Counsel for the appellant takes us through the judgment of the Apex Court, National Insurance Company Co.Ltd. Vs Premabai Patel And Others AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2337 in support of his contention that primarily the injured or the dependants of the deceased ha?e to establish that on the part of the victim there was no negligence. .17. Learned Counsel for the appellant takes us through the judgment of the Apex Court, National Insurance Company Co.Ltd. Vs Premabai Patel And Others AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2337 in support of his contention that primarily the injured or the dependants of the deceased ha?e to establish that on the part of the victim there was no negligence. In the above case, the Apex Court while comparing the provisions of Sec. 147 & 149 regarding insurance liability whether it should be considered under Workmen Compensation Act or under Motor Vehicles Act, proceeded to discuss how the Tribunal or the Court has to assess the evidence on record to hold the driver or the victim responsible for the accident based on the material placed before the Court. While discussing the said issue, their Lordships proceeds to hold the very basis or foundation on which a claim for compensation to the victim of the accident being negligent and the same has to be discharged by preponderance of evidence that there was no negligence on the part of the injured or the deceased. At paragraph 6, it is held as under; ."6. A person who has sustained injury or where death has resulted from an accident all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased can claim compensation by moving an application under Section 166 of the Act by filing a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act lays down that if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of the said Act. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under the Act and also under the Workmens Act, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. The claim petition had been filed by respondents 3 to 6 claiming compensation for the death of Sunder Singh, who was an employee of respondent No.2, in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The claim petition had been filed by respondents 3 to 6 claiming compensation for the death of Sunder Singh, who was an employee of respondent No.2, in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Therefore, they could claim compensation under either of-the Act. But they choose the forum provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. In a petition under the Workmens Act, the injured or the legal heirs of the deceased-workmen have not to establish negligence as a pre-condition for award of compensation. But the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is an action in tort and the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased have to establish by preponderance of evidence that there was no negligence on the part of the injured or deceased and they were not responsible for the accident. The exception to this general rule in Section 140 of the Act where the Legislature has specifically made provisions for payment of compensation on the principle of no-fault liability." 18. He also refers to a decision reported in Municipal Corporation Of Greater Bombay Vs Sri Laxmaniyer And Another 2003(8) SCC 731 wherein their Lordships have in detail dealt with the aspects of all facets of negligence and so also the `doctrine of last opportunity. The relevant paragraphs at 6 & 7 are narrated as under; .6. The plea which was stressed strenuously related to alleged contributory negligence. Though there is no statutory definition, in common parlance `negligence is categorized as either composite or contributory. It is first necessary to find out what is a negligent Act. Negligence is omission of duty caused either by an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations, who ordinarily by reason of conduct of human affairs would do or be obligated to, or by doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. Negligence does not always mean absolute carelessness, but want of such a degree of care as is required in particular circumstances. Negligence is failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, the degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The idea of negligence and duty are strictly correlative. Negligence means either subjectively a careless state of mind, or objectively careless conduct. Negligence is failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, the degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The idea of negligence and duty are strictly correlative. Negligence means either subjectively a careless state of mind, or objectively careless conduct. Negligence is not .an absolute term, but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative terms. No absolute standard can be fixed and no mathematically exact formula can be laid down by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. What constitutes negligence varies under different conditions and in determining whether negligence exists in a particular case or whether a mere act or course of conduct amounts to negligence, all the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances have to be taken into account. It is absence of care according to circumstances. To determine whether an Act would be or would not be negligent, it is relevant to determine if any reasonable man would foresee that the Act would cause damage or not. The omission to do what the law obligates or even the failure to do anything in a manner, mode or method envisaged by law would equally and per se constitute negligence on the part of such person. If the answer is in the affirmative, it is a negligent Act. Where an accident is due to negligence of both parties, substantially there would be contributory negligence and both would be blamed. In a case of contributory negligence, the crucial question on which liability depends would be whether either party could, by exercise of reasonable care, have avoided the consequence of the others negligence. Whichever party could have avoided the consequence of the others negligence, negligence would be liable for the accident. If a persons negligent Act or omission was the proximate and immediate cause of death, the fact that the person suffering injury was himself negligent and also contributed to the accident or other circumstances by which the injury was caused would not afford a defence to the other. Contributory negligence is applicable solely to the conduct of a plaintiff. If a persons negligent Act or omission was the proximate and immediate cause of death, the fact that the person suffering injury was himself negligent and also contributed to the accident or other circumstances by which the injury was caused would not afford a defence to the other. Contributory negligence is applicable solely to the conduct of a plaintiff. It means that there has been an act or omission on the part of the plaintiff which has materially contributed to the damage, the Act or omission being of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence, although negligence is not given its usual meaning (See Charles worth on Negligence. 3rd End, para 328). It is now well settled that in the case of contributory negligence, courts have the power to apportion the loss between the parties as seems just and equitable. Apportionment in that context means that damage is reduced to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claim shared in the responsibility for the damage. But in a case where there has been no contributory negligence on the part of the victim, the question of apportionment does not arise. Where a person is injured without any negligence on his part but as a result of the combined effect of the negligence of two other persons, it is not a case of contributory negligence in that sense. It is a case of what has been styled by Pollock as injury by composite negligence . 7. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the `doctrine of last opportunity. The said doctrine is said to have emanated from the principle enunciated in Davies V. Mann which has often been explained as amounting to a rule that when both parties are careless, the party which has the last opportunity of avoiding the results of the others carelessness is alone liable. However, according to Lord Denning it is not a principle of law, but a test of causation. Though in some decisions, the doctrine has been applied by courts, after the decisions of the House of Lords in Volute and Swadling V. Cooper, it is no longer to be applied. The sample test is, what was the cause or what were the causes of the damage. Though in some decisions, the doctrine has been applied by courts, after the decisions of the House of Lords in Volute and Swadling V. Cooper, it is no longer to be applied. The sample test is, what was the cause or what were the causes of the damage. The act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care or in defiance of duty or obligation on the part of the complaining party which conjointly with the other partys negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, renders it one to be the result of contributory negligence. 19. Whenever a claim petition is made claiming compensation based on actionable negligence of a rider or a driver of a vehicle, in the normal course of events, the Tribunal or the Court would look to the police records as prima facie material. Apparently, in this case, a criminal case came to be registered and even charge sheet. came to be filed against the driver of the lorry. The complainant was the elder brother of pillion rider Syed Vlaksood Alum. Of course, he is not an eye witness to the incident in question. Depending upon the pleadings, the burden of establishing a particular fac or contention depends upon the evidence let in by each of the parties. Therefore, as and when the material is brought on record during the course of trial„ the burden shifts from one party to the other party. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts including this Court. it is now well settled that in a claim petition for compensation based on actionable negligence, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle need not be established beyond reasonable doubt like that of a penal action case i.e. criminal case. However, one cannot loose sight of Evidence Act and like a civil case, if it is purely based on facts, it has to be on the number of preponderance of probabilities. This preponderance of probability again is a relative word which depends upon the nature and quality of evidence let in by the parties. 20. The bone of contention between the parties is whether rider of the i motorcyclist was solely responsible for the accident in question or in the alternative he also contributed negligence? If so, to what extent? 21. This preponderance of probability again is a relative word which depends upon the nature and quality of evidence let in by the parties. 20. The bone of contention between the parties is whether rider of the i motorcyclist was solely responsible for the accident in question or in the alternative he also contributed negligence? If so, to what extent? 21. Inview of the discussions of the Apex Court pertaining to evidence of preponderance, the material on record has to be considered keeping in view the settled position of law. In that view of the matter, the evidence of PW-3 assumes great relevance in the absence of evidence of driver of the lorry in question. .22. Apparently the other two persons who could have given details of accident are rider and pillion rider who are dead and gone from this world. The best available evidence in the absence of deceased is the driver of the lorry who is not examined before the Tribunal. Therefore, importance should be attached to the evidence of PW-3 an eye witness to the incident whose name Ends a place in the charge sheet as an eye witness? He has come before the Court and on oath, he has stated how the accident has occurred. According to this witness, the lorry was proceeding ahead of the two-wheeler and when the rider of the motorcycle sought signal to overtake the lorry, though the lorry driver gave clearance for the motorcyclist, when the motorcyclist was about to overtake the lorry, the driver of the lorry suddenly came towards his right side and applied brakes, therefore, the motorcyclist who did not anticipate such sudden move on the part of the lorry driver, came in contact .with the lorry as a result of losing balance, both the rider and pillion rider fell down sustaining injuries. This evidence of PW-3 initially discharges the primary burden which lies on the dependants or the claimants of the deceased to show that there was no negligence on the part of the motorcyclist or it was the sudden decision of the lorry driver to come towards his right side being the cause of accident. Then the burden shifts to the insurer--- appellant to establish that it was beyond the control of the lorry driver to avoid the occurrence of the accident or how the motorcyclist alone was responsible for the occurrence of the accident ? Then the burden shifts to the insurer--- appellant to establish that it was beyond the control of the lorry driver to avoid the occurrence of the accident or how the motorcyclist alone was responsible for the occurrence of the accident ? Except placing reliance on one or two statements of the eye witness PW-3, during the cross-examination and also the spot mahazar and IMV report, the driver of the truck is not examined. Though some doubt arises whether PW-3 could have visualised in detail how the accident occurred at about 7.30 pm, if he were to stand on the left side of the road, the fact remains, he has in detail disclosed how the accident occurred? He was examined more than two or three years subsequent to the accident, therefore, the minute details must have escaped his memory which is quite normal and natural. 23. Then coming to the contents of spot mahazar and IMV report, we notice the hind mud-guard portion near the right wheel of the lorry was completely damaged including the tail lamp of the lorry. So also the headlight and front portion of the motor cycle was damaged. This would only persuade us to opine that the hind mud-guard portion near the right wheel of the lorry came in contact with the front portion of the motorcycle. This will not allow us to conclude or hold that the accident was due to the motorcyclist who was solely responsible for the occurrence of the accident in view of the evidence of PW-3 that after giving clearance for the motorcyclist to overtake the lorry, the lorry driver came to his right side without any indication, therefore, the accident has occurred. In this given situation, we have to see whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. Having regard to the fact that the lorry and the motorcycle were proceeding near a bus stand where public including other vehicles were moving on the road, both the lorry driver and the motorcyclist ought to have exercised due diligence and care atleast for the safety o f themselves especially a motorcyclist who was trying to over take a heavy vehicle like that of a lorry especially in the night hours because the motorcyclist may not be able to visualise what are the vehicles that would be coming in the opposite direction ahead of the lorry. This compels any prudent and normal thinking person to take minimum safety measure by keeping safe distance between the heavy goods vehicle and the motorcycle he was riding. But for the clearance given by the lorry driver, the motorcyclist would not have ventured to overtake the truck. If only safe distance was maintained between the motorcycle and time truck, the motorcyclist and the pillion rider would not have met with untimely death. All these facts would go to show both the lorry driver and the motorcyclist were not careful enough to avoid the accident which they could have avoided if only they had adhered to minimum safety precautions. However, under the facts and circumstances, it can be held that the driver of the lorry contributed negligence to an extent of 75% and the motorcyclist to an extent of 25% for the occurrence of the accident. 24. Then coming to the quantum of compensation neither the claimants pertaining to the motorcyclist nor the claimants pertaining to the pillion rider have brought the respective employers or any other material except the salary certificate to establish the exact avocation the deceased were doing and the actual income they were earning as on the date of their death. In that view of the matter, when we see the number of dependants in both the claim petitions, we notice that other than the wife and more than two children, mother of the deceased is also shown as one of the dependant. Either of the families had minimum number of five persons to constitute the family. Under these circumstances, we could take the income of both the deceased persons as 4000/- per month irrespective of whatever avocation they must have been doing. Both the rider and pillion rider were friends and they hail from the same place. Having regard to the number of dependants, major portion of the income would have been spent on the family rather than themselves. Therefore, it would be just and proper to deduct 1/4th towards the personal expenses of-the deceased out of Rs.4000/- which comes to Rs.3000/-. The annual loss of dependancy would come to Rs.36,000/- which has to be multiplied by 16 as deceased were aged between 28 and 32 as on the date of accident. The loss of dependancy comes to Rs.5,76,000/-. If we deduct 25% out of this towards contributory negligence of the deceased rider i.e. Rs. The annual loss of dependancy would come to Rs.36,000/- which has to be multiplied by 16 as deceased were aged between 28 and 32 as on the date of accident. The loss of dependancy comes to Rs.5,76,000/-. If we deduct 25% out of this towards contributory negligence of the deceased rider i.e. Rs. 1,44,000/-, it comes to Rs.4,32,000/-. To this, other Rs.40,000/ - towards conventional heads like loss of consortium towards the wife, loss of love and affection towards children and mother, loss to the estate, funeral and incidental charges are added, it would come to Rs.4,72,000/-. 25. So far as the pillion rider is concerned, no doubt, the law pertaining to pillion rider which is referred to in the judgment of the Tribunal is applicable provided the pillion rider was claiming compensation against the owner and the insurer of the motor vehicle. Apparently, the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle are not before us and no allegation whatsoever is made against the rider of the motorcycle. In that view of the matter, the pillion rider of the motorcycle was not a pillion rider so far as the liability of the insured and the insurer of the lorry in question. Mere word "pillion rider" does not avoid or does not debar the insurer to pay compensation to the pillion rider. The pillion rider will not be allowed to claim compensation in the absence of any specific premium being paid by the insurer of the motorcycle on which he was a pillion rider. In that context, the tribunal or the Court has to look into the given case and it should not go by the word or the name `pillion rider. So far as pillion – rider in this case was a third party to the insured and insurer of the lorry. Therefore, the decision was not applicable to the facts of the case. .26. Learned Counsel for the claimants i.e. L.Rs of pillion rider relies on a Full Bench judgment KSRTC Vs Arun @ Aravind And Others ILR 2004 Kar 26. This case refers to earlier full bench decision in Ganesh Vs Syed Munned Ahamed And Others ILR 1999 KAR 403. In Aruns case, the details of other vehicle was not available and therefore, the other joint tort-feasor was not made a party. This case refers to earlier full bench decision in Ganesh Vs Syed Munned Ahamed And Others ILR 1999 KAR 403. In Aruns case, the details of other vehicle was not available and therefore, the other joint tort-feasor was not made a party. In the present case, right from the beginning, LRs of the pillion rider were aware on whose motorcycle deceased was proceeding as the pillion rider and met with his death. In that view of the matter, in the light of insurer taking a specific contention that the rider of motorcycle was solely responsible for the occurrence of the accident, they ought to have made efforts to see that the other insurer and insured were also made parties to the proceedings. Even otherwise, owner of the motorcycle is the rider Mr Yunus who died in the accident. His LRs are already on record. At the instance of both the LRs, both the petitions were clubbed together by recording common evidence and disposed of by a common order. Therefore, the facts available before us and the peculiar circumstances in which this Court has to go into the question of contributory negligence of the rider of motorcycle so as to quantify the contributory negligence of the rider, according to us, Aruns case referred to above does not apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, for the negligence of the rider of motorcycle whose owner and insurer is not before us, we cannot fasten the liability to the insurer of the lorry. Therefore, 25% from the loss of dependency even in the case of pillion rider deserves to be deducted. 27. As already stated above, the income of the pillion rider is also taken at Rs.4000/- p.m and the total loss of dependancy with the multiplier of 16 comes to Rs.5,76,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-deserves to be deducted towards the contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Another Rs.40,000/- added under conventional heads comes to Rs.4,72,000, even in the case of claimants of pillion rider. 28. Now it is well settled that in all death cases, the rate of interest should be 6% p.a. and in injured cases, it has to be 8% p.a. In that view of the matter, in both the cases, the claimants are entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment on the award amount. According the following: ORDER MFA No.492/07 is allowed setting aside the judgment and award of dismissal by the Tribunal. A compensation of Rs.4,72,000/-is awarded together with costs and interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Appellant No.1 is entitled to a share of 50% of the compensation amount, out of which 25% of the amount shall be disbursed to her and balance of 25% shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised or scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years. Appellant Nos.2 to 5 are entitled to balance 50% of the amount in equal share. The share of the minors shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized or scheduled Bank till they attain the age of majority and the interest thereon shall be paid to appellant No.1 from time to time to meet the expenses of the minors. The share of mother of deceased shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised or scheduled Bank for a period of five years and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the mother of deceased from time to time. MFA No.9616/06 is allowed in part reducing the quantum of compensation to Rs.4,72,000/-as against the award of Rs.9,00,000/ -. The rate of interest is also reduced to 6% p.a. A compensation of Rs.4,72,000/- is awarded together with costs and interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Appellant No.1 is entitled to a share of 50% of the compensation amount, out of which 25% of the amount shall be disbursed to her and balance of 25% shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised or scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years. Appellant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to balance 50% of the amount in equal share. The share of the minors shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised or scheduled Bank till they attain the age of majority and the interest thereon shall be paid to appellant No.1 from time to time to meet the expenses of the minors. The share of mother of deceased shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized or scheduled Bank for a period of five years and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the mother of deceased from time to time. The share of mother of deceased shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized or scheduled Bank for a period of five years and the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the mother of deceased from time to time. Eight weeks time from the date of receipt of copy of the order to deposit the above amounts is granted.