Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 640 (KAR)

M. R. Sushma v. N. Muniraja

2015-06-18

N.K.PATIL, RATHNAKALA

body2015
Judgment The two appeals respectively by the wife of deceased/Smt. M.R. Sushma/sole claimant and the Insurer and the Cross Objection by the father of the deceased/H.N. Rajarao Sulakhe/cross objector are directed against the same judgment and award dated 7th February 2013, passed in MVC No.9467/2009, by the XI Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH12), (for short, ‘Tribunal’). 2. The sole claimant, Smt. M.R. Sushma, wife of deceased Narendra Rajarao Sulakhe has filed appeal in M.F.A.No.3265/2013, seeking enhancement of compensation, on the ground that the compensation awarded by Tribunal on account of the death of her deceased husband is on the lower side; The National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter called ‘Insurer’ for short) has filed the appeal in M.F.A.No.4597/2013, seeking substantial reduction of compensation, on the ground that the Tribunal has grossly erred in adding 50% towards future prospects of the deceased, when in fact, the deceased was employed in a Private Company and not in a secured job; The third respondent in the claim petition, Shri. H.N. Rajarao Sulakhe, the father of deceased Narendra Rajarao Sulakhe has filed the cross objection No.150/2013, seeking enhancement of compensation, by assessing the reasonable income of the deceased and for proper apportionment both in respect of the compensation awarded by Tribunal as also in the enhanced compensation, on the ground that the Tribunal has not apportioned any compensation in his favour on the ground that he is not a dependent, in spite of the fact that he was entirely dependent on the income of the deceased. 3. On account of the death of the deceased Narendra Rajarao Sulakhe, the sole claimant, wife of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, impleading the father and mother of the deceased as the third and fourth respondents, seeking compensation against the Insurer and owner of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 7th February, 2013. 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. 42,77,360/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. 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. 42,77,360/- under different heads, with 6% interest per annum, from the date of petition till the date of payment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, the wife of the deceased and the Insurer have filed the first two appeals respectively and father of the deceased/third respondent in claim petition has filed the cross objection, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the wife of the deceased, Shri. Shripad V. Shastri vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and also conventional heads, on account of the death of the deceased, without taking into consideration the credible documentary evidence available on file. To substantiate the said submission, he pointed out that the deceased was aged about 33 years, working as a Software Engineer at one of the internationally reputed Companies, viz. Wipro Technology, drawing gross salary of Rs. 48,324/- and net salary of Rs. 44,604/- per month, as per the salary slip for the month of October 2009 produced at Ex.P17. But, the Tribunal, erroneously assessed the gross salary of the deceased at Rs. 2,72,336/- per annum relying upon Ex.R1, income tax work sheet, which cannot be sustained. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that the income of the deceased may be reassessed at Rs. 44,604/- per month, being the net salary per month as per the pay slip at Ex.P17, for the month of October 2009, which is the month immediately preceding the date of accident on 15.11.2009. He further vehemently submitted that the wife was aged about only 27 years at the time of the death of the deceased and she has lost the life partner at an young age. The compensation awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads, viz. loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, in hosts of judgments. The compensation awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads, viz. loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation of dead body and funeral expenses is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, in hosts of judgments. Regarding the submission and the stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for Insurer in the memorandum of appeal filed by them that the claimants are not entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- received by them from Group Personal Accident Policy of Insurance, learned counsel appearing for claimant/- wife of deceased submitted that the said ground cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected at the threshold, for the simple reason that the same has been taken for the first time before this Court as the Insurer has neither pleaded in their objections filed nor has elicited anything with regard to that in the cross examination of the claimant. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgments, the said ground cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected, at the threshold. 5. Shri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, learned counsel appearing for Insurer vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed a grave error, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, in awarding exorbitant compensation of Rs. 42,27,360/- towards loss of dependency, assessing the gross income of the deceased at Rs. 2,72,336/- per annum, and further adding 50% towards loss of future prospects, even though the deceased was not employed in a stable job. The said addition of 50% towards prospects of the deceased cannot, at any stretch of imagination be sustained, for the reason that the Tribunal should have noticed that taking future prospects in respect of a private employee is impermissible as the job held by such an employee cannot be termed as stable or permanent as an employee could be removed by giving notice ranging from one to three months and therefore, such an employment where an employee could be terminated by issue of notice by the employer will not fall within the category of stable employment Therefore, he vehemently submitted that addition of 50% towards future prospects is liable to be set aside. 6. Further, learned counsel appearing for Insurer submitted that a sum of Rs. 6. Further, learned counsel appearing for Insurer submitted that a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- received by wife and parents of deceased from the Group Personal Accident Policy of Insurance, which was in fact, not disclosed by them, is liable to be deducted from out of the total compensation as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Helen C. Robello and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3191 and United India Insurance company Limited and others Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 2607 and the said view is reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in another decision in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Kanta Aggarwal and others reported in 2008 ACJ 2372 and hence, the compensation awarded is liable to be scaled down by Rs. 12,00,000/- . Thus, he submitted that the compensation be reduced substantially, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. 7. As against the submission of learned counsel appearing for claimant and learned counsel appearing for Insurer, learned counsel appearing for the father of the deceased/cross objector vehemently submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in not awarding reasonable compensation, assessing the reasonable income of the deceased and further seriously erred in not apportioning any compensation in his favour, when in fact, he was entirely dependent on the income of the deceased. To substantiate the same, he submitted that there is a joint Saving Bank Account of the deceased and himself at Canara Bank, Bagepalli Branch and that the deceased used to deposit to the said Joint Account, to enable him to meet the day to day requirements and in spite of producing necessary cogent and credible documents before the Tribunal, the same have not been considered or appreciated and totally ignoring the interest of the father of the deceased, who is not doing any work due to old age, the impugned judgment and award has been passed by Tribunal, without apportioning any compensation in his favour. He further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously come to a conclusion that the father, being a senior citizen, is not a dependent on the son. He further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously come to a conclusion that the father, being a senior citizen, is not a dependent on the son. The same cannot be sustained for the reason that the father has produced enough material to establish that he was depending on the income of the deceased to meet his day-to-day requirements. In spite of the credible and valid documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal, it has failed to apportion any amount of compensation in favour of the father of the deceased. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that reasonable apportionment of compensation be made both in the compensation awarded by Tribunal as also in the enhanced compensation, to be made by this Court, by modifying the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. Regarding the submission and the stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for Insurer in the memorandum of appeal filed by it that the claimants are not entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- received by them from Group Personal Accident Policy of Insurance, learned counsel appearing for father of deceased submitted that he would adopt the submission of the learned counsel appearing for claimant/wife of deceased and submitted that the said ground cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the same has been taken for the first time before this Court and the Insurer has not pleaded anything regarding the same, either in the objections or elicited anything in the cross examination of the claimant nor at least, raised any objection at the time of framing the issues. Therefore, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgments, the said ground cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected, at the threshold. 8. After taking into consideration the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for all the parties, i.e. wife of the deceased, Insurer and father of the deceased and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before us, the points that arise for our consideration in the appeals and the cross objection are: 1] Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable? 2] Whether the Insurer has made out a case for deduction of Rs. 12.00 lakhs from out of the total compensation awarded? 2] Whether the Insurer has made out a case for deduction of Rs. 12.00 lakhs from out of the total compensation awarded? 3] Whether the Tribunal is justified in not apportioning any compensation in favour of the father of the deceased? 9. Re-Point No.1] : The occurrence of accident at about 4:00 A.M. on 15.11.2009 and the resultant death of deceased Narendra Rajarao Sulakhe are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 33 years, working as Senior Analyst at Wipro BPO, drawing gross salary of Rs. 48,324/- per month and net salary of Rs. 44,604/- per month. Smt. M.R. Sushama is the wife and the cross objector, Shri. H.N. Rajarao Sulakhe is the father of deceased. The deceased had a bright future and a good career inasmuch as there was every chance of he getting lucrative job with lucrative salary and other perks. The PW2, Senior Manager HR Operation of WIPRO Technology has deposed in his evidence clearly that the deceased had a very bright future and he had obtained a special training at London during 2008 and that his next promotion was Team Leader and he had every chance to go to abroad with promotions and high skill and the same would have been about 15% to 20% + other facilities. To substantiate their case further, the claimant has produced Ex.P13, promotion letter as a senior Analyst and Ex.P14, a probation confirmation letter, showing that the WIPRO Company has confirmed the deceased as a permanent employee of the Company. Unfortunately, on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the DCM Either bearing Registration No.KA40/A1818, the deceased met with the accident and succumbed to the same. Admittedly, he was working in an internationally reputed IT Company, having branches at USA, UK, China, Canada etc. and drawing salary of Rs. 44,604/- per month as per Ex.P17. He had huge period of active career left in his life. 10. On account of his untimely death, the wife aged about only 27 years, has lost her life partner and the mother and father, aged about 54 years and 62 years respectively at the time of accident, have lost the security and are deprived of seeing his progress and achievement in life apart from social and financial security. 10. On account of his untimely death, the wife aged about only 27 years, has lost her life partner and the mother and father, aged about 54 years and 62 years respectively at the time of accident, have lost the security and are deprived of seeing his progress and achievement in life apart from social and financial security. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the social and financial condition of the family is affected severely. 11. Considering the age and avocation of the deceased and other relevant material available on file coupled with the oral evidence of PW2 and documentary evidence at Ex.P17, salary slips, we accept the salary slip and reassess the income of the deceased at Rs. 44,604/- per month. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for wife of the deceased and the learned counsel appearing for the father of the deceased, and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, such as Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) and also the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8362/2013, in Civil Appeal No.4497/2015, the claimants are entitled to additional 50% of the income, towards future prospects of the deceased. 12. After going through the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain’s case (supra), it can be seen that, the Hon’ble Apex Court, after referring to various judgments in the case of Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 421 , Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 9 SCC 54 , has given its views with regard to addition of 50% towards future prospects and also the multiplier to be adopted. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 and Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 9 SCC 54 , has given its views with regard to addition of 50% towards future prospects and also the multiplier to be adopted. It has exhaustively dealt with the matter and referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh’s case (supra), and opined that in the case of self employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing compensation payable towards future prospects and such actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any and addition should be 30% in case the deceased victim was in the age group of 40 to 50 years. 13. Further, in spite of there being lot of confusion as to what is the proper multiplier to be adopted, whether the age of the dependents or that of the deceased is to be taken, the Apex Court in its latest judgment in Munna Lal Jain’s case (supra), has observed that the said confusion has been given a quietus by another three judgment bench decision in Reshma Kumari’s case, (supra) which has held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased and there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased and not with regard to the age of the dependents as there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc. is to be taken. 14. Thus, applying the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain’s case (supra), we uphold the addition of 50% towards future prospects made by the Tribunal and adopt the multiplier of ‘16’, considering the age of the deceased, as rightly adopted by the Tribunal. 15. Accordingly, if 50% (i.e. Rs. 22,302/-), is added, the total income comes to Rs. 66,906/- per month. Per annum, the said income works out to Rs. 8,02,872/-. Further, if income tax and professional tax of Rs. 2,43,261/- is deducted from it, the net annual income works out to Rs. 5,59,611/-. The dependents are wife and parents of deceased. 15. Accordingly, if 50% (i.e. Rs. 22,302/-), is added, the total income comes to Rs. 66,906/- per month. Per annum, the said income works out to Rs. 8,02,872/-. Further, if income tax and professional tax of Rs. 2,43,261/- is deducted from it, the net annual income works out to Rs. 5,59,611/-. The dependents are wife and parents of deceased. Therefore, we deduct 1-3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 1-3rd (i.e. Rs. 1,86,537/-) is deducted from Rs. 5,59,611/- towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net income would be Rs. 3,73,074/- per annum. Since the deceased was aged about 33 years, the proper multiplier applicable is ‘16’ as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) as rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to Rs. 59,69,184/- (i.e. Rs. 3,73,074/- x ‘16’) as against Rs. 42,27,360/- awarded by Tribunal and accordingly it is awarded. 16. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards conventional heads, viz. loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses. The same is on the lower side. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, we award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of consortium as against Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of love and affection, at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- to each dependent as against Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate as against Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by Tribunal. 17. Thus, the total compensation would work out to Rs. 60,99,184/- as against Rs. 42,73,360/- awarded by Tribunal. The enhancement of compensation would be Rs. 18,25,824/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 18. Accordingly, we answer point No.1] in the ‘Negative’ and award additional compensation of Rs. 18,25,824/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 19. 42,73,360/- awarded by Tribunal. The enhancement of compensation would be Rs. 18,25,824/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 18. Accordingly, we answer point No.1] in the ‘Negative’ and award additional compensation of Rs. 18,25,824/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 19. Re-Point No. 2]: Regarding the specific stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for Insurer at ground No.4 of the memorandum of appeal filed by it, it can be seen that, the Insurer has stated that the; claimants are not entitled to a sum of Rs. 12.00 lakhs from out of the total compensation, as the employer has paid the premium towards Group Personal accident Policy of Insurance and it has been received by the wife and parents of deceased. In support of the said stand, he has relied upon two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Helen C. Robello and others Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3191 and United India Insurance company Limited and others Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 2607 and submitted that the said view is reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in another decision in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Kanta Aggarwal and others reported in 2008 ACJ 2372 and hence, the compensation awarded is liable to be scaled down by Rs. 12,00,000/-. The said submission and the ground taken in the memorandum of appeal cannot be accepted nor the same has got any substance and is liable to be rejected at the threshold, for the simple reason that the said ground has been taken for the first time, in this appeal, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for wife of deceased and learned counsel appearing for father of deceased. It can further be seen that, when the Insurer cross examined the witness, PW1, M.R. Sushma, wife of deceased, nothing was elicited regarding the said aspect and the same was not even pleaded in the objections filed by them before the Tribunal. It can further be seen that, when the Insurer cross examined the witness, PW1, M.R. Sushma, wife of deceased, nothing was elicited regarding the said aspect and the same was not even pleaded in the objections filed by them before the Tribunal. Therefore, when the Insurer, in spite of being given sufficient opportunity before the Tribunal, has neither raised any objection nor has cross examined the witness regarding the said aspect, nor at least, raised objection at the time of framing the issues, cannot, at this stage, for the first time, take such a plea/ground before this Court. The same cannot be sustained and is rejected. 20. Further, it is pertinent to note here itself that, in the ground No.4 taken by the Insurer in the memorandum of appeal filed by it in M.F.A.No.4597/2013, at internal page No. 5, ink page No. 7, 2nd line, the sentence starts with the words “It appears that the employer had paid premium towards Group Personal Accident Policy of Insurance and a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- was paid in respect of such claim and Respondents Nos.1 to 3 and 4 are the recipients of such compensation.” After going through the same, two things are revealed. One, that the Insurer is not sure of whether the dependents of the deceased have received the said claim or not, as the words ’It appears that” is used and two, instead of mentioning respondents 1, 3 and 4, it has been wrongly written in manuscript as “respondents 1 to 3 and 4”, which includes the owner of the offending vehicle also as having received the compensation. The same cannot be sustained. Further, the Insurer has not produced even a piece of documentary evidence either before the Tribunal or before this Court to substantiate the said stand and in fact, in spite of ample opportunity being afforded to it before the Tribunal, the said point is not at all pleaded/raised in the objections statement filed nor while orally cross examining the witness, PW 1 nor at least, raised objection at the time of framing the issues. Therefore, the specific ground taken by the Insurer in the memorandum of appeal at ground No.4, cannot be accepted and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel to substantiate the said ground are of no avail to him in this appeal and the same cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. Hence, we reject the ground No.4 intoto. 21. Accordingly, we answer point No.2] in the ‘Negative’, holding that the Insurer has utterly failed to substantiate its prayer for deduction of Rs. 12.00 lakhs from out of the total compensation payable to claimants. 22. Re-Point No. 3]: It is the specific case of the father of the deceased, Shri. H.N. Rajarao Sulakhe/cross objector that the Tribunal grossly erred in not assessing the reasonable income of the deceased, in spite of producing credible and valid documentary evidence, i.e. pay slips, promotion letter, etc. coupled with oral evidence of the Official of the Company, who has deposed in clear terms that the deceased had a bright future and had every chance of being promoted and getting higher salary in future, had the deceased been alive. 23. Further, the learned counsel appearing for father of the deceased vehemently submitted that the Tribunal is not justified in not apportioning any amount of compensation in favour of the father of deceased. The same cannot be sustained for the reason that the father of the deceased was entirely dependent on the income of the deceased for his survival. To substantiate the said stand, learned counsel appearing for cross objector/father of deceased submitted that they have produced the documentary evidence to establish that the deceased and the father of the deceased had a joint Savings Bank Account at Canara Bank, Bagepalli Branch and every month, the deceased used to deposit some amount in the said joint account for the survival of the father of deceased. From the said amount, the father of deceased/cross objector used to meet his daytoday activities and also medical and incidental expenses as he could not do any job due to old age. This clearly establishes that the deceased was dependent on the income of the deceased. From the said amount, the father of deceased/cross objector used to meet his daytoday activities and also medical and incidental expenses as he could not do any job due to old age. This clearly establishes that the deceased was dependent on the income of the deceased. Ignoring this aspect of the matter completely, on the general perception that the father is not a dependent on the income of the deceased and relying upon some decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, has rejected the claim of the father of deceased and not apportioned any amount of compensation in favour of the father. Therefore, he vehemently submitted that at least some apportionment be made in the enhanced compensation to enable the father of the deceased to lead a normal life and to meet the medical and other expenses. 24. Learned counsel appearing for wife of deceased, Shri. Shripad V. Shastri, fairly submitted that some reasonable amount may be awarded out of the enhanced compensation in favour of the father of the deceased Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the totality of the case on hand and also in spite of the fact that normally, father is not a dependent, but considering his old age and other relevant material available on file, we deem it fit to apportion the enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,25,824/- in the ratio of 70:15:15 in favour of the wife, mother and father of deceased. i.e. Wife is entitled to 70% of Rs. 18,25,824/-, i.e. Rs. 12,78,076/- ; mother of deceased is entitled to 15% of Rs. 18,25,824/-, i.e. Rs. 2,73,873/- ; and father of deceased is entitled to remaining 15% of Rs. 18,25,824/-, i.e. Rs. 2,73,875/- . 25. Accordingly, we answer point No.3 in the ‘Negative’ and apportion the enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,25,824/- in favour of the wife, mother and father of the deceased in the ratio of 70:15:15; to meet the ends of justice. 26. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the wife of deceased /- appellant in M.F.A.No.3265/2013 and cross objection filed by the father of deceased/- cross objector in Cross Objection No.150/- 2013 are allowed in part. The appeal filed by the Insurer in M.F.A.No.4597/2013 is dismissed as being devoid of merits. The appeal filed by the Insurer in M.F.A.No.4597/2013 is dismissed as being devoid of merits. The impugned judgment and award dated 7th February 2013, passed in MVC No.9467/2009, by the XI Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH12), is hereby modified, awarding additional compensation of a sum of Rs. 18,25,824/- with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,25,824/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit by the Insurer, as per the discussion made while answering point No.3, the enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,25,824/- is hereby apportioned in the ratio of 70:15:15 in favour of the wife, mother and father of deceased. i.e. Wife is entitled to 70% of Rs. 18,25,824/-, i.e. Rs. 12,78,076/- ; mother of deceased is entitled to 15% of Rs. 18,25,824/-, i.e. Rs. 2,73,873/-; and father of deceased is entitled to the remaining 15% of Rs. 18,25,824/-, i.e. Rs. 2,73,875/- . Out of the 70% of enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,25,824/-, i.e. Rs. 12,78,076/-, awarded in favour of the wife of deceased, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in her name – Smt. M.R. Sushma, in any Nationalized/ Scheduled/Grameena Bank, for a period of ten years, renewable for ten years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs. 2,78,076/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the wife of deceased, immediately. Out of the 15% of enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,25,824/-, i.e. Rs. 2,73,873/-, awarded in favour of the mother of deceased, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in her name – Smt. Padmavathi, in any Nationalized/Scheduled/Grameena Bank, for a period of five years, renewable for five years, with liberty reserved to her to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs. 73,873/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the mother of deceased, immediately. Out of the 15% of enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,25,824/-, i.e. Rs. 2,73,875/-, awarded in favour of the father of deceased, a sum of Rs. Remaining sum of Rs. 73,873/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the mother of deceased, immediately. Out of the 15% of enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,25,824/-, i.e. Rs. 2,73,875/-, awarded in favour of the father of deceased, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with proportionate interest shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in his name – Shri. H.N. Rajarao Sulakhe, in any Nationalized/Scheduled/Grameena Bank, for a period of five years, renewable for five years, with liberty reserved to him to withdraw the periodical interest. Remaining sum of Rs. 73,875/- with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the father of deceased, immediately. Office to draw the award accordingly. The amount in deposit by the Insurer in M.F.A.No.4597/2013 shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.