Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 4057 (MAD)

Oriental Insurance v. Chinnal

2013-11-29

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2013
Judgment 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which figured as the third respondent in MCOP.No.11 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Sathyamangalam, is the appellant herein and the appeal has been filed against the award of the said Tribunal dated 30.09.2011 made in the above MCOP directing the respondents 3 and 4 and the appellant in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.4,74,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 herein/cross objectors for the death of their son Maheswaran in a road accident that took place at Erangatoor Piruvu on the Sathyamangalam – Mettupalayam Road at about 3 a.m on 12.04.2006. 2. The claim was made originally by the first respondent herein/mother of the deceased alone against the respondents 3 and 4 and the appellant herein. Subsequently, the husband of the first respondent, being the father of the deceased, was impleaded and both the parents became the claimants. They had made the claim based on the averments that their son Maheswaran died in an accident while he was proceeding in a TVS-50 Moped bearing registration No.TN-37-Q-8340 along with one Balakrishnan from Alampalayam to Erangatoor, as the said moped was knocked down by a lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786 belonging to the 4th respondent herein, which was driven by the 3rd respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner. The claim was made against the 3rd and 4th respondents as well as the appellant herein, as they happened to be the driver, owner and insurer of the above said offending vehicle, namely the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786. Averments had been made to the effect that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the above said lorry by the 3rd respondent herein and that hence the respondents 3 and 4 herein and the appellant herein were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 herein/claimant. Contending that the deceased was aged 19 years and was employed as a power loom employee and an Artist having an income of Rs.6000/- per month, the respondents 1 and 2 herein claimed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Contending that the deceased was aged 19 years and was employed as a power loom employee and an Artist having an income of Rs.6000/- per month, the respondents 1 and 2 herein claimed a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Even though the respondents 3 and 4 herein, who figured as 1st and 2nd respondents in the MCOP, remained exparte before the Tribunal and did not contest the case, the appellant insurance company which figured as third respondent alone contested the MCOP by resisting the claim on the basis of the averments made in the counter statement. Besides denying the petition averment that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786, the appellant herein had taken a further stand that a case had been foisted falsely against the 3rd respondent herein/1st respondent in the MCOP pursuant to the collusion between Murugesh, who furnished the information to the police for registration of the case and one Balakrishnan, who travelled in the Moped along with the deceased Maheswaran. It was also contended therein that the deceased Maheswaran without possessing a valid driving licence drove the Moped in a rash and negligent manner at uncontrollable speed, suddenly entered the Sathyamangalam – Mettupalayam Road, turned towards the right and dashed against the lorry that was coming at a low speed in the main road and that the accident in which Maheswaran died was invited by his own fault. Contending further that in any event the deceased was also guilty of contributory negligence and that the amount claimed was highly excessive and exorbitant, the appellant herein prayed for dismissal of the MCOP. 4. The Tribunal conducted an enquiry in which two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. One witness was examined on the side of the respondents in the MCOP and one document was marked as Ex.R1. 5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, rendered a finding that the accident as propounded by the respondents 1 and 2 herein (claimants in MCOP) was true and that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786 by its driver, namely 3rd respondent herein. 5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, rendered a finding that the accident as propounded by the respondents 1 and 2 herein (claimants in MCOP) was true and that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786 by its driver, namely 3rd respondent herein. In line with the above said finding and also based on the admission that the said lorry belonging to the 4th respondent herein stood insured with the appellant herein, the Tribunal mulcted the liability on the appellant and the respondents 3 and 4 in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, holding them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the parents of the deceased, namely the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Fixing the age of the deceased to be 19 years and that of the first respondent to be 44 years and taking the age of the mother as the basis for selection of multiplier, the Tribunal referred to the Second Schedule in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and selected 14' to be the appropriate multiplier. The Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.48,000/-, deducted 1/3rd from it towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and took the balance, namely Rs.32,000/- as the annual loss of dependency caused to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The product of the multiplicand, namely Rs.32,000/-, and the multiplier, namely 14', was arrived at and Rs.4,48,000/- was fixed as compensation for loss of dependency. Adding a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards transport expenses, a total sum of Rs.4,74,000/- was fixed by the Tribunal as the reasonable amount of compensation, to which the respondents 1 and 2 were entitled. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the respondents 3 and 4 herein and the appellant herein to jointly and severally pay the above said sum together with an interest on the said sum at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the MCOP till the deposit and also costs. 6. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the respondents 3 and 4 herein and the appellant herein to jointly and severally pay the above said sum together with an interest on the said sum at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the MCOP till the deposit and also costs. 6. As against the above said award of the Tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company has brought forth the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging not only the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence, but also on the reasonableness of the quantum awarded as compensation. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed Cross Objection contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and the same should be enhanced. 7. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal and the cross objection are as follows:- 1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786 belonging to the 4th respondent by its driver, namely, 3rd respondent herein is erroneous ? 2) Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is excessive and exorbitant requiring downward revision as claimed by the appellant ? 3) Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate requiring enhancement as claimed by the respondents 1 and 2/cross objectors ? 8. The arguments advanced by Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr.V.K.Gowtham, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/cross objectors are heard. The materials available on record are also perused. 9. The insurer of the alleged offending vehicle involved in the accident is the appellant in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The challenge to the award is made not only on the question of quantum, but also regarding the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the lorry insured with the appellant was at fault and that it was due to his rash and negligent driving the accident took place. Out of the two witnesses examined on the side of the claimants, admittedly PW.1 – mother of the deceased was not an eye witness. One Murugesh, who happened to be the informant, based on whose complaint the police registered a case against the 3rd respondent herein in connection with the accident in question, has chosen to depose as PW.2. Out of the two witnesses examined on the side of the claimants, admittedly PW.1 – mother of the deceased was not an eye witness. One Murugesh, who happened to be the informant, based on whose complaint the police registered a case against the 3rd respondent herein in connection with the accident in question, has chosen to depose as PW.2. In his evidence, he has clearly stated that he, along with one Kumar, was following the TVS 50 Moped bearing registration No.TN-37-Q-8340 in which the deceased Maheswaran and one Balakrishnan were proceeding towards Erangatoor for the purpose of making wall drawing of the symbol of a political party after completing such drawing in Alampalayam; that while Maheswaran and Balakrishnan proceeded ahead of them in the above said TVS 50 Moped, he along with Kumar followed them in a Suzuki motorcycle; that when they turned at Alampalayam diversion, the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786 that came in the direction of North to South hit the TVS-50 Moped in which the deceased Maheswaran and Balakrishnan were travelling as the said lorry was driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and that the two occupants of the TVS 50 Moped fell down due to the impact and Maheswaran's head caught crushed under the left side rear wheel of the lorry resulting in his instantaneous death. It is his further testimony that it was he who lodged the complaint at Bhavanisagar police station for the registration of a case in Crime No.56 of 2006 on the file of the said police station. 10. Of course an answer came to be elicited during cross examination of PW.2 that he did not notice the number of the lorry, which hit the TVS 50 Moped. However his further answer neutralised the above said answer. He had clarified in the further answer that he could not see the number of the lorry as the lorry did not stop after hitting the Moped and they chased the lorry to a distance of one kilometre and caught it. The same makes the evidence of PW.2 in cross examination in conformity with his testimony in the chief examination ruling out any material contradiction in this regard. The same makes the evidence of PW.2 in cross examination in conformity with his testimony in the chief examination ruling out any material contradiction in this regard. In addition, the evidence of PW.2 is in tune with the averment found in the complaint, which has been incorporated in the First Information Report, a copy of which has been marked as Ex.P1. This Court does not find any material contradiction between the evidence of PW.2 and the contents of Ex.P1. 11. From Ex.P1, it is obvious that a case was registered on the file of Bhavanisagar Police Station as Crime No.56 of 2006 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304 (A) IPC against the driver of the lorry bearing Karnataka Registration with number 5786. Of course in the First Information Report, No.37 in between the English Alphabets 'KA' and the Number of the vehicle is missing. However, the Motor Vehicle Inspector's inspection report, a certified copy of which has been marked as Ex.P3, contains the full details of the registration number of the said lorry as KA-37-5786. It is also obvious that the accident took place at 3.00 hours on 12.04.2006 and the lorry was inspected by the Motor Vehicles Inspector on the very same day at 14.35 hrs. Therefore, there cannot be any false introduction of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786 as the one involved in the accident. In addition to that, the investigation of the case by the police resulted in submission of a final report accusing the driver of the said lorry, namely 3rd respondent herein, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 277, 337 and 304(A) IPC and also an offence under Section 134 read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A certified copy of the final report is found marked as Ex.P6. 12. As against the said evidence of PW.2 and the above said documentary evidence adduced on the side of the claimants, the appellant herein/insurer chose to examine one K.Sampath, Law Assistant of the appellant Insurance Company as the sole witness (RW.1) on the side of the appellant/3rd respondent in the MCOP. Excepting the production of a copy of the Insurance Certificate issued in respect of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786, no other document has been produced on the side of the appellant/3rd respondent in the MCOP. Excepting the production of a copy of the Insurance Certificate issued in respect of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786, no other document has been produced on the side of the appellant/3rd respondent in the MCOP. RW.1 simply expressed his opinion on going through the papers and according to him, since the accident spot was fixed by the police to be on the middle of the road at a distance of 30 feet on the north of the junction of Alampalayam branch road with the main road and since the Motor Vehicle Inspector has noted the damage found on the left side rear wheel mudguard of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-37-5786, the accident could have happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Moped by the deceased. He has also opined that since the deceased Maheswaran did not hold a valid driving licence and no damage was found on the front side of the lorry, the accident should have happened only due to the negligence of the deceased in riding the Moped. However, RW.1 has admitted that the police, after investigation, chose to file a charge sheet against the driver of the lorry. A reading of the testimony of RW.1 will show that RW.1 simply expressed his opinion after going through the records submitted to the Insurance Company and such a opinion cannot be a substitute for the oral and other documentary evidence to discredit the evidence of PW.2, an eye witness who also happened to be the informant, based on whose complaint the criminal case came to be registered. 13. Of course, in the copy of the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer, which has been marked as Ex.P4, the accident spot has been marked at the middle of the road. However, this Court is able to notice that the accident spot is at a considerable distance away from the junction of Alampalayam road and Sathyamangalam – Mettupalayam main road. Simply because the accident spot has been marked to be at the middle of the road, we cannot assume that the Moped rider could have acted with negligence in going to the middle of the road and got hit by the lorry. Simply because the accident spot has been marked to be at the middle of the road, we cannot assume that the Moped rider could have acted with negligence in going to the middle of the road and got hit by the lorry. The other figures found in the rough sketch depicting the dead body of the deceased and the Moped would show that while the body was lying on the western portion of the North-South road, the Moped was found lying on the eastern portion of North-South road. The said document alone will not give a clear picture as to who was at fault and due to whose negligence the accident took place. In the absence of any other tangible evidence adduced on the side of the appellant/insurer to show that the deceased was at negligence or atleast there was contributory negligence on his part, and in the light of the evidence of PW.2, we have to come to a necessary conclusion that the appellant/insurer failed in their attempt to prove their contention regarding negligence and on the other hand, the claimants have proved the fault on the part of the driver of the lorry. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the finding of the Tribunal holding the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786, namely the 3rd respondent herein, to be at fault, does not deserve any interference and the said finding deserves confirmation. 14. As this Court has observed supra, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37-5786 owned by the 4th respondent herein was at fault, the decision of the Tribunal to mulct the liability on the respondents 3 and 4 and the appellant herein being the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle holding them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 herein/claimants cannot be found fault with. 15. Though the claimants had made the claim on the basis of their contention that the deceased was aged 19 years, neither the birth certificate nor the school certificate has been produced to prove the age of the deceased. However the postmortem examination certificate marked as Ex.P5 contains a reference to his age and it has been stated that the deceased was aged about 19 years. However the postmortem examination certificate marked as Ex.P5 contains a reference to his age and it has been stated that the deceased was aged about 19 years. Though the age noted in the postmortem examination certificate shall be approximate, in the absence of any other document, relying on the oral evidence adduced on the side of the claimants and the particulars found in the postmortem examination certificate, a certified copy of which has been marked as Ex.P5, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the age of the deceased Maheswaran at 19 years. 16. Out of two claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, the younger being the mother, namely the 1st respondent herein, was admittedly aged 38 years at the time of the death of Maheswaran and aged 44 years on the date of making the claim. Though the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased at 19 years, it chose to select a multiplier for computation of compensation on the basis of the age of the 1st respondent herein rather than the age of the deceased. Accordingly, the Tribunal selected 14' to be the appropriate multiplier. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/cross objectors would submit that the said procedure adopted by the Tribunal is not in tune with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in comparatively recent decisions wherein it has been held that in fatal cases for computation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the age of the deceased alone shall be relevant and the age of the claimants shall be ignored. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/cross objectors drew the attention of the Court to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma case reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 and Reshma Kumari case reported in 2013(2) CTC 680. The first one being a judgment of the two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the second one being a larger Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17. The first one being a judgment of the two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the second one being a larger Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17. In addition, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/cross objectors also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Amrit Bhanu Shali and others vs. National Insurance Company and others" reported in (2012) 11 SCC 738 , wherein a Bench consisting of two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, following the verdict of Sarla Verma case, reiterated the point that in fatal case the age of the deceased alone shall be taken into account disregarding the age of the claimants. The said point has been emphatically reiterated by a large Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another". As per the said dictum, the said guidelines were issued directing selection of multiplier based on the age of the deceased disregarding the age of the claimants was aimed at achieving uniformity and avoiding anomaly that may arise in certain cases wherein a claim based on no fault liability under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may be more than the amount that could be awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in case the claimants are comparatively older. The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed the view that the same would not be desirable and the same could not have been the intention of the Legislature. In fact in Reshma Kumari case, the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court consisting of three Hon'ble Judges made the following observations:- "34.If the multiplier as indicated in Column (4) of the table read with paragraph 42 of the Report in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC), is followed, the wide variations in the selection of multiplier in the claims of compensation in fatal accident cases can be avoided. A standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than a criss-cross of varying methods. It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. A standard method for selection of multiplier is surely better than a criss-cross of varying methods. It is high time that we move to a standard method of selection of multiplier, income for future prospects and deduction for personal and living expenses. The Courts in some of the overseas jurisdictions have made this advance. It is for these reasons, we think we must approve the table in Sarla Verma, for the selection of multiplier in Claim Applications made under Section 166 in the cases of death. We do accordingly. ......" 18. It has also been observed in the same judgment that the table prepared in Sarla Verma case was with a view to bring about uniformity and consistency in selection of multiplier. It has also been observed that once the net annual loss is assessed, taking into account the age of the deceased, such amount should be multiplied by the multiplier to arrive at loss of dependency. The larger Bench has also made an observation that the claimants in case of death claim for the purpose of compensation must establish: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) number of dependents. By a catena of recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court now it has been a recognised principle that in cases of claim for death under the Motor Vehicles Act, the age of the deceased alone shall be relevant and the age of the claimant shall be ignored for the limited purpose of selection of multiplier. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/cross objectors that the Tribunal committed an error in selecting 14' to be the multiplier taking the age of the first respondent, the mother of the deceased as the basis for such selection is bound to be discountenanced. Accordingly, following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per column 4 of the table found in Sarla Verma case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appropriate multiplier shall be 18' since the deceased was aged 19 years coming within the age group of 16 to 25 years. 19. Accordingly, following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per column 4 of the table found in Sarla Verma case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appropriate multiplier shall be 18' since the deceased was aged 19 years coming within the age group of 16 to 25 years. 19. Though the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/cross objectors proved to be successful in his contention that the Tribunal committed an error in selecting the multiplier, the learned counsel for the appellant proved to be successful in projecting the appellant's case that the deduction towards personal and living expenses should have been made at 50% of the annual income and that the Tribunal allowed a lesser deduction of 1/3rd. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case has held that in case of death of bachelors, normally 50% is to be deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that the bachelor would tend to spend more on himself and that even otherwise, there is also the possibility of getting married in short time, in which event, the contribution to the parents and the siblings is likely to be cut down drastically and that subject to evidence to the contrary, the father who is likely to have his own income is not to be considered as a dependent and the mother alone can be considered to be a dependent. The said observation made in paragraph 31 of the judgment of the Sarla Verma case came to be considered by a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari case and the larger Bench approved the said dictum to be correct subject to a rider that the guidelines issued in Sarla Verma case for deduction of 50% in case of bachelors towards personal expenses is only a general guideline and that while deciding the question, one must bear in mind the proportion of the man's net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not form part of the living expenses, but what he spends exclusively upon himself does; that the percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses shall vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family and that the personal and living expenses of the deceased need not correspond to the number of dependents. Here in this case, since the claimants are parents of the deceased, who was a bachelor, and there is no proof that the father did not have an independent income to support himself, the mother alone shall be considered to be the dependent and application of the principle recommended in Sarla Verma case to deduct 50% of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses shall be justified. 20. In order to fix the amount of compensation for the loss of dependency, the Tribunal/Court shall fix the income of the deceased, deduct the personal and living expenses and then multiply the balance with the selected multiplier. The respondents 1 and 2 made a claim on the basis of their contention in the claim petition that the deceased was a power loom employee and an artist and he was drawing a monthly income of Rs.6000/-. But unfortunately there is no evidence to show that the deceased was employed in any power loom. On the other hand, the evidence adduced through PW.2 is to the effect that the deceased was engaged by PW.2 for the wall drawing work. Considering the fact that such work shall not be available throughout the year, we have to assume that the deceased would have got job atleast for 24 days in a month at the rate of Rs.150/- per day. Thus the monthly income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.3,600/- as against Rs.4,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. Once the monthly income of the deceased is ascertained, then depending on the age of the deceased, it must be loaded by an addition for future prospects. Though in the earlier cases it was held that those who were self employed and not employed in a post carrying regular increments, no addition to the actual income should be made towards future prospects, in yet another case, it has been advocated that in case of self employed and persons with fixed pay, the addition shall be 30%. In Rajesh case, the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even in such cases also for persons below the age of 40, an addition of 50% and for persons between the age of 40 and 50, an addition of 30% and for persons between the age of 50 and 60, an addition at the rate of 15% should be made towards future prospects. Applying the said ratio, this Court comes to the conclusion that the above said monthly income of the deceased should be loaded with 50% addition towards future prospects. Thus, the annual average income of the deceased for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency caused to the respondents 1 and 2 shall be fixed at Rs.64,800/-. As the age of the deceased had been fixed at 19 years, the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses shall be Rs.32,400/- representing 50% of the income. The loss of dependancy shall be Rs.32,400/- per annum. The product of the above said multiplicand and the selected multiplier 18' comes to Rs.5,83,200/-. The same shall be the reasonable amount to be awarded as compensation for the loss of dependency (pecuniary loss) caused to the respondents 1 and 2. 21. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The same has to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- as per Rajesh case. For love and affection, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-, which according to this Court is a little higher considering the fact that the claimants are parents and they have not come forward with any proof that the deceased was the only son of the claimants. The same shall be reduced to Rs.15,000/-. In the absence of any proof regarding the expenditure incurred towards transport expenses, since the death was instantaneous, no expenditure could have been incurred for transporting the deceased before he died to the hospital. So far as the expenditure for transporting the dead body to the place of residence of the respondents or to the cremation/burial ground, the same shall stand included in the amount awarded towards funeral expenses and hence Rs.1,000/- awarded separately by the Tribunal for transport expenses has got to be disallowed. This Court comes to the conclusion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive or exorbitant and on the other hand, it is inadequate requiring enhancement to the extent indicated above. Question Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly. At the costs of this petition, the split up particulars of the total amount of compensation arrived at by this Court are reproduced here under:- Sl.No. Heads under which the amount awarded by this Court Amount 1 loss of dependency (pecuniary loss) Rs.5,83,200/- 2 funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- ? Total Rs. At the costs of this petition, the split up particulars of the total amount of compensation arrived at by this Court are reproduced here under:- Sl.No. Heads under which the amount awarded by this Court Amount 1 loss of dependency (pecuniary loss) Rs.5,83,200/- 2 funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- 3 Loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- ? Total Rs. 6,23,200/- So far as the interest is concerned, the award of interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit can be justified and no interference is warranted. 22. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Cross Objection is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.4,74,000/- to Rs.6,23,200/- (Rupees six lakhs twenty three thousand and two hundred only). In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed subject to the above said modification. The enhanced compensation awarded as per the judgment of this Court shall go to the first respondent in its entirety and the second respondent's share shall be restricted to the amount apportioned to his share in the award of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.