Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 721 (KAR)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sowmya

2014-08-07

B.SREENIVASE GOWDA, N.K.PATIL

body2014
Judgment : 1. Though this appeal is posted for Admission, the same is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. This appeal by the Insurer is directed against the judgment and award dated 6th January 2011, passed in MVC No.3884/2009, by the XVI Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH-14), (for short, 'Tribunal'), seeking reduction of compensation, on the ground that, the compensation awarded by Tribunal on account of the death of deceased M.L. Meena Kumari, is excessive, exorbitant and disproportionate to the income of the deceased and hence, liable to be reduced substantially and that the direction issued by the Tribunal to the Insurer to indemnify the award is liable to be set aside on the ground that the offending vehicle in question is not at all involved in the accident. 3. The facts of the case as stated in the claim petition are that, at about 11-00 A.M., on the ill-fated day, i.e. on 14-06-2012, when the deceased M.L. Meena Kumari was crossing the road, in front of BMTC Bus stop, near Pallavi at RRMR Road, Bangalore, at that time, an Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/ME- 3606 came at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, she sustained grievous injuries to her head and chest. Immediately she was shifted to St. Martha's Hospital, Bangalore. After examination, it was confirmed that she is dead. 4. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimant/daughter of deceased/respondent 1 herein filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- against the appellant/Insurer and another. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 6th January, 2011. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.23,59,400/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs.23,59,400/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the direction issued by the Tribunal to indemnify the award and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurer is in appeal before this Court, seeking reduction of compensation, on the ground that the offending bus was not at all involved in the accident and that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is exorbitant and on the higher side and also disproportionate to the source of income of the deceased. 5. We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal Carefully, perused the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel for Insurer and also learned counsel appearing for first respondent/claimant. 6. Shri A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned counsel appearing for appellant/ Insurer vehemently submits at the outset that, the Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/ME-3606 is not at all involved in the accident, but the Tribunal grossly erred in recording a finding contrary to the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 3 and other material and also failed to consider and appreciate the contents of FIR. To substantiate the said submission, he is quick to point out and rely upon the oral evidence of RWs.1 and 3, and also documentary evidence at Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P6-IMV report, Ex.R5-sketch and Ex.R6 - RTO letters. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the Innova Car was in fact, involved in the accident and that the claimant/respondent No.1 herein, who is the daughter of the deceased is entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency cannot be sustained. Further, he vehemently submitted that the sketch produced at Ex.R5, would give a clear indication that the accident occurred on a busy road where their exists no pedestrian crossing and more than that, the said accident has occurred on the middle of the road and therefore, it should be a case of wrong judgment by the deceased in attempting to cross the road unmindful of the flow of traffic and the deceased took calculated risk in crossing the road and therefore the vehicle has dashed against her. He further submitted that, it could be reasonably gathered that a person who has dashed against the deceased could not have imagined that, a lady would cross the road so abruptly. In that view of the matter, keeping in view the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the road regulations and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prembai Patel and others, reported in 2005 ACJ 1323, it could be safely gathered that the deceased has also contributed to the accident at least at 75%. Therefore, the Tribunal, ought to have utilized the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Koosappa Poojari Vs. K. Sadabba and others reported in ILR 2004 Kar.1104, regarding contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Further, he submitted that, the Tribunal ought to have noticed that the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is based on the liability of the tort-feasor and therefore, the Tribunal must be cautious while looking at the evidence on record for deciding the question of negligence. In the instant case, this aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered nor appreciated and held that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident, which is contrary to the material on record and hence, liable to be set aside. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the Tribunal has failed to notice that the claimant/first respondent herein is the daughter of the deceased, who was married and she was living with the deceased and was gainfully employed and therefore, she is not a dependent on the alleged income of the deceased and there existed no legal liability on the part of the deceased to maintain the claimant, who is a married daughter, during her lifetime. In the light of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another reported in 2007 (2) TAC 431 (SC), a married daughter is not entitled to seek compensation towards loss of dependency and if at all she is entitled, she is entitled at the most, only towards loss of estate and not loss of dependency. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another reported in 2007 (2) TAC 431 (SC), a married daughter is not entitled to seek compensation towards loss of dependency and if at all she is entitled, she is entitled at the most, only towards loss of estate and not loss of dependency. In that view of the matter, the claimant/first respondent herein in the worst eventuality would be entitled to a maximum amount of Rs.50,000/- as contemplated in Manjuri's case (supra). Further, he submitted that the Tribunal ought to have noticed that for the death of a son or daughter, parents are entitled to get compensation after deduction of 50%, as held by the Apex Court in Meena Variyal's case. Therefore, he submitted that in the instant case, the daughter alone is the claimant and on account of untimely death of deceased, deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of deceased is highly erroneous and quantification of compensation has no legs to stand and the same deserves to be set aside. He therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal on both the counts, i.e. liability as also the quantum of compensation are liable to be set aside by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for claimant/first respondent herein, Shri. K.T. Gurudeva Prasad, inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and other relevant material and also taking into consideration the oral evidence of PW1/claimant and RWs1 to 3 and also with reference to documentary evidence at Exs.P1, P2, P3 and P4 to P6 and specifically placing heavy reliance on Ex.P23, telephonic information and Ex.P24, the Control room reply and Ex.R6, the RTO letters. The contents of all these documentary evidence establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the vehicle in question was in fact, involved in the accident, causing the death of the deceased M.L. Meena Kumari. Further, he vehemently submitted that, it is for the first time that the Insurer has taken such a contrary stand. The contents of all these documentary evidence establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the vehicle in question was in fact, involved in the accident, causing the death of the deceased M.L. Meena Kumari. Further, he vehemently submitted that, it is for the first time that the Insurer has taken such a contrary stand. In support of the said submission he submitted that as per the telephonic conversation between the informer and the Control Room, a copy of which is produced at Ex.P23, one of the passersby/pedestrian has informed that an accident has occurred, resulting in injuries to an old lady, opposite S.R. Nagar Kanteerava Stadium, at Rajaram Mohan Roy Road and therefore to send a Hoysala Jeep immediately as nobody is attending to her. Thereafter, another eye witness, who was passing from Nelasandra to Majestic in a Bus, has dialed the Control Room, stating that an Innova vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03/3606 has hit an old lady and run and that the colour of the said Car is 'pista'. The copy of the conversation between the second informer/eye witness and the Control Room attendant is marked as Ex.P24. He further submitted that, in fact, RW1, the owner of Innova Car, Shri Y. Venkateshwara Rao has admitted in unequivocal terms that, the said Innova Car belongs to second respondent and that he was driving the Car. Further, learned counsel appearing for claimant/first respondent has taken us through the evidence of RW3, K. Prabahakar Bayari, CPI of Ulsoor Gate, Bangalore, wherein he has stated that, after thorough investigation of the matter, the Police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. RW1, which is a conclusive proof and further he has taken us through the contents of Ex.P4 Mahazar and Ex.P3, sketch which establishes beyond all reasonable doubts that the vehicle in question, i.e Innovar Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/ME-3606 was involved in the accident and that has been rightly considered and appreciated by Tribunal and it has recorded a finding of fact at paragraph 16 of its judgment. The same is well founded and well reasoned and hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. The same is well founded and well reasoned and hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. Further, in reply to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer, he submitted that non mentioning of exact vehicle number in the FIR does not take away the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and after thorough investigation by the jurisdictional Police authorities and also the telephonic conversation between the informers and the Control Room through telephonic talks, the officer in-charge of the Control Room, immediately after receipt of the said information has communicated the next higher Officers and they have followed up and the seized the vehicle. Thereafter, the in-charge traffic Police have taken the deceased to the Hospital immediately. Therefore, he submitted that there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for Insurer that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. Further, regarding the submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer that, the claimant/respondent No.1 is not entitled to any compensation towards loss of dependency and conventional heads and that she is entitled to compensation only towards loss of estate is concerned, he submitted that the said submission cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected at the threshold. To substantiate the said submission, he is quick to point out and rely upon the judgment and decree passed by the jurisdictional Family Court, a copy of which is produced at Ex.P30 to show that the claimant though a married person, has got a decree of divorce from the competent Family Court and is at present a divorcee and unemployed and is entirely dependent on the income of her deceased mother, after her divorce. He further submitted that the mother of the claimant, i.e. the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident and working as an Accounts Officer in the Department of Backward Classes and Minority Institutions, getting gross salary of Rs.26,542/- per month. Out of which, the permissible deductions are only income tax and professional tax and therefore, reasonable monthly income may be assessed after making necessary deductions. Out of which, the permissible deductions are only income tax and professional tax and therefore, reasonable monthly income may be assessed after making necessary deductions. Further, he is quick to point out that the Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, considering the fact that the deceased was a married person and that the claimant was entirely dependent on the income of the deceased. In support of the said contention, he strongly relied upon the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions and further also submitted that, as held by Tribunal at paragraph 11 of its judgment, the claimant/first respondent herein, who is the daughter of deceased is a divorcee and unemployed and has no father or mother, i.e. the deceased and also the husband. When such being the case, considering all these aspects of the matter, the Tribunal is highly justified in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and holding that the deceased was contributing 2/3rd of the income towards the family requirements. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of dependency and also conventional heads is just and proper and does not call for interference and the appeal filed by the appellant/Insurer is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurer, learned counsel appearing for claimant/first respondent herein, after perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and after going through the entire original records placed before us threadbare, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are: [1] Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/ME-3606 is involved in the accident in question? [2] Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and liable to be reduced? 9. Re-Point 1]: The undisputed facts of the case are, occurrence of accident at about 10:20 A.M. on 27- 09-2008 and the resultant death of deceased M.L. Meena Kumari. The issuance of Insurance Policy and its validity as on the date of accident are not disputed, but, the involvement of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/ME-3606 in the accident in question is in serious dispute. 10. The issuance of Insurance Policy and its validity as on the date of accident are not disputed, but, the involvement of the offending Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/ME-3606 in the accident in question is in serious dispute. 10. It is the case of the appellant/Insurer in their written statement before the Tribunal that, the Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/ME-3606 is not at all involved in the accident and that RW1, Y. Venkateshwara Rao was not at all driving the said vehicle on the said date and time of accident and that, he was never at the spot of accident on the aforesaid time and place of accident and hence, the said vehicle is falsely fixed in the accident and therefore, the appellant/Insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/first respondent herein. In support of their case, the Insurance Company have examined RW1, the Director of the 2nd respondent - Company, RW2, an official witness, RW3, the Circle Inspector of Police and got marked Exs.R1 to R6 which are all letter correspondence, policy copy, claim form, letter, sketch and RTO letters. The aforesaid witnesses were cross examined at length. RW1 even though has deposed that he was not at all driving the said Innova Car, during the course of cross examination has clearly admitted in unequivocal terms that, on 27-09-2008, i.e. the date of occurrence of accident, he was driving the said Innova Car and further admitted the damages mentioned in IMV report and stated that the said damages were caused to his vehicle. He also admitted that the said vehicle also met with two more accidents prior to the present accident. Further, the said witness has clearly admitted that they have not challenged the said charge sheet nor produced any records to show that they are contesting the criminal case, to establish that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. 11. Further, the said witness has clearly admitted that they have not challenged the said charge sheet nor produced any records to show that they are contesting the criminal case, to establish that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. 11. On the contrary, it emerges from the documentary evidence produced by the claimant/first respondent at Ex.P23- telephonic information and Ex.P24, Control Room reply that, immediately after the occurrence of the accident in question, a pedestrian who saw the accident caused by the Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/ME-3606, by hit and run, has informed the Control Room, by giving the colour of the said Innova Car also as 'pista' and also the manner in which they have tried to chase the said vehicle and caught hold of the driver of the said vehicle. But, the driver of the said Innova Car has in a very clever manner deposed that he never passed in that route. But, unfortunately, he has failed to establish the same by producing any evidence, oral or documentary. However, on the basis of the telephonic information, the jurisdictional Police have traced the vehicle and recorded the statement of RW1, wherein he has admitted in cross examination that he has not challenged the charge sheet nor contested the same in criminal proceedings. 12. Further, it can be seen that, even though RW1 has stated that he has written letter to DCP, he has clearly admitted that he has not produced any records to show that the same has been served on DCP. 13. RW2, the Official of the Insurance Company has admitted that he has not produced any records to show that they have issued notice to the insured. Further, he has stated that they have conducted investigation in this case, but the details of the said investigation is not produced. Further he has admitted that they have not gone to the Police Station to enquire about the involvement of the Innova Car and has clearly admitted that they have not challenged the charge sheet. When such being the case, it is as good as admitting the charge sheet and also the claim. 14. Further he has admitted that they have not gone to the Police Station to enquire about the involvement of the Innova Car and has clearly admitted that they have not challenged the charge sheet. When such being the case, it is as good as admitting the charge sheet and also the claim. 14. Further, Insurance Company has examined CPI, Ulsoor Gate Police Station as RW3, from whose mouth, nothing worth could be elicited, on the other hand, RW3 has stated that glass pieces were found at the spot and he has filed the charge sheet after proper investigation. Further, Exs.P14 to P22 are the statements of different witnesses, Ex.P23 is the telephonic information, Ex.P24 is the Control Room reply, Exs.P25 to P29 are the reply of SI & PSI, B Register Extract, Police Notice, Accident Register Extract and reply notice. The contents of all these documents clearly establish the involvement of the Innova Car in the accident in question. 15. Further, it can be seen that, RW3, K. Prabhakar, CPI, Ulsoor gate, Bangalore has deposed that FIR was registered on the basis of MLC intimation by one Dr. Shashikanth at 11:00 A.M. that, one Innova Car bearing Registration No.'KA-03/3606' has caused the accident and then he has stated that he wrote a letter to RTO and got the Registration Number of the said Innova Car as 'KA-03/ME-3606' and stated that, initially he was not aware of the letters 'ME' and later on, it was ascertained from the RTO thereafter it was confirmed that the said 'ME' letters pertain to the Innovar Car in question only. 16. In this regard, the Tribunal, relying upon several decisions of the Apex Court, other High Courts and also this Court, wherein it is held that an FIR is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported, has rightly observed that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the Police Officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and also corrections in FIR. Just because there are some corrections in the names of some of the accused persons in written complaint, it cannot be said that those persons were falsely implicated when neither the time intervened nor did the nature of corrections indicated that the corrections were improvement suggesting deliberation and false involvement of accused persons. Therefore, as the very word itself indicates First Information Report, whatever information was available with the complainant, at the time of registration of the complaint, he has immediately passed on the same, by contacting the Control Room. Just because there are some omissions or corrections in the FIR, it cannot be said that the accident itself has not occurred or the vehicle in question is not all involved in the accident. 17. After re-appreciation and re-analysis of the entire material available on file threadbare, including oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, it can be seen that the Tribunal is highly justified in holding that the Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-03/ME-3606 was in fact, involved in the accident on the aforementioned date and time and that the resultant death of the deceased M.L. Meena Kumari is on account of the said accident, which occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said Innova Car. Therefore, the said finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is after critical evaluation of the entire material available on its file and the same is well founded and well reasoned and therefore, interference in the same is uncalled for. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the 'Affirmative'. 18. Re-Point 2]: After Careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it emerges that, occurrence of accident and the resultant death of deceased M.L. Meena Kumari are not in dispute. It is further not disputed that the deceased was aged about 54/55 years and working as an Accounts Officer in the Department of Backward Classes and Minorities, drawing salary of a sum of Rs.26,542/- per month, as per Ex.P31. The sole claimant is none other than the only daughter and she was entirely dependent on her mother. It is further not disputed that the deceased was aged about 54/55 years and working as an Accounts Officer in the Department of Backward Classes and Minorities, drawing salary of a sum of Rs.26,542/- per month, as per Ex.P31. The sole claimant is none other than the only daughter and she was entirely dependent on her mother. She has further stated that she is a divorcee and also an unemployed and has been living with her deceased mother since then and that on account of the death of her deceased mother, she is left with no father, no husband and now, no mother, who was the only source of livelihood and also security to her. 19. It is the specific case of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer that the sole claimant, being the married daughter, is not entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency, and if at all she is entitled to any compensation, then she is entitled to compensation towards loss of estate only. But, the said ground cannot be accepted or sustained and liable to be rejected at the threshold, for the reason that, no doubt a married daughter is not entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency as she is not dependent on her parents for livelihood, facts and circumstances of the present case are entirely different inasmuch as, the Tribunal has specifically referred in the impugned judgment, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, particularly Ex.P30, copy of the judgment and decree along with the orders sheets maintained by the Family Court, that the sole claimant is the daughter of deceased, who is a divorcee and also an unemployed person. 20. After going through the documents produced at Ex.P30, it is seen that the claimant has got a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide judgment dated 08-09-2008/16-09-2008 in M.C.No.513/2008 on the file of the competent Family Court, Bangalore. This document produced before the Tribunal proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the claimant was in fact married and later on she took divorce by mutual consent much before the occurrence of accident and has been living with her deceased mother till the date of accident of deceased. She was an unemployed person and has been depending on the income of the deceased mother for her livelihood. She was an unemployed person and has been depending on the income of the deceased mother for her livelihood. Therefore, when such clinching and credible documentary evidence is very much available on file, it is very unfortunate and unfair on the part of the Insurer to have taken such a stand before this Court, that a married daughter is not entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency. The said stand of the Insurer is contrary to the documentary evidence available on file and hence cannot be accepted at all and is rejected at the threshold. 21. Further, it can be seen that, issuance of Insurance Policy and its validity as on the date of accident are not disputed. It is seen that the deceased was aged about 55 years and by working as an Accounts Officer, she was drawing gross salary of Rs.26,542/- per month and per annum, it works out to Rs.3,18,504/-. In support of the income of deceased, the claimant has produced salary slip at Ex.P31. The same is accepted. From this, we have to deduct income tax and professional tax. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for both the Insurer and also the claimant, we deduct a sum of Rs.34,250/-towards income tax and professional tax. After such deduction, the gross annual income comes to Rs.2,84,254/-. 22. Further, regarding the specific submission of the Insurer that, since the claimant is only one, at least 50% has to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, as against 1/3rd deducted by Tribunal, it can be seen that the said submission of the learned counsel for Insurer also cannot be accepted, for the reason that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the entire material available on its file and also relying upon various judgments of the Apex Court, other High Courts and also this Court has observed at paragraph 11 of its judgment that, the deceased being aged about 55 years, would definitely not spend 50% towards her personal and living expenses. Further, the Tribunal has observed that, the sole claimant though was married, is a divorcee and has no father, no husband and also now, no mother, who is deceased in the road traffic accident. Having come to the said conclusion, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal has observed that, the sole claimant though was married, is a divorcee and has no father, no husband and also now, no mother, who is deceased in the road traffic accident. Having come to the said conclusion, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The reasoning and finding given by Tribunal for deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses are just and proper and the same are accepted, for the reason that the learned counsel appearing for Insurer has not produced an iota of document to establish that the sole claimant is self dependent or is employed, except making oral submission. Therefore, the said submission of the learned counsel appearing for Insurer is also rejected. 23. Accordingly, if 1/3rd (i.e. Rs.94,751/-) is deducted from Rs.2,84,254/- towards her personal and living expenses, the net income would be Rs.1,89,503/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged about 54/55 years, the proper multiplier applicable is 11' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Sarla Verma's case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs.20,84,533/- (i.e. Rs.1,89,503/-x 11') as against Rs.23,14,400/- awarded by Tribunal. 24. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the claimant is the sole dependent on the deceased, we deem it fit and proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of love and affections, loss of estate and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses as against Rs.45,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 25. Thus, the total compensation would work out to Rs.21,34,533/- with 6% interest per annum, as against Rs.23,59,400/- awarded by Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization. There would be reduction of compensation by Rs.2,24,867/-. Accordingly, we answer point No.2 also in the 'Affirmative'. 26. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the Insurer is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 6th January 2011, passed in MVC No.3884/2009, by the XVI Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH-14), is hereby modified, awarding compensation of Rs.21,34,533/- with 6% interest per annum, as against Rs.23,59,400/- awarded by Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The impugned judgment and award dated 6th January 2011, passed in MVC No.3884/2009, by the XVI Additional Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH-14), is hereby modified, awarding compensation of Rs.21,34,533/- with 6% interest per annum, as against Rs.23,59,400/- awarded by Tribunal, from the date of petition till the date of realization. There would be reduction of compensation by Rs.2,24,867/-. Accordingly, the appellant/Insurer is directed to deposit the remaining compensation, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, after deducting the amount if any, already deposited by it, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award. The apportionment of compensation made by Tribunal gets proportionately reduced to the extent of reduction of compensation made by this Court. The (*) amount in deposit by the Insurer is directed to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith, for proper disbursement. Office to draw award, accordingly.