SEBASTIANI LAKRA & ORS. versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. on 12 October 2018

[2018] 13 S.C.R. 1053

SEBASTIANI LAKRA & ORS.

v.

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 10588-10589 of 2018)

OCTOBER 12, 2018

[MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER ANDDEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

s. 168 – Fatal accident – Claim for compensation – Incomeof deceased Rs. 58,565/- p.m – Tribunal for the purpose ofcompensation assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs.50,000/- p.m – Deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, andapplying multiplier of 11assessed the compensation atRs. 40,00,000/- for loss of income and Rs. 90,000/- towards otherheads – Thus, awarded total compensation at Rs. 40,90,000/- – Onappeal of insurance company plea that payment of sum ofRs. 50,082/- p.m. to the claimants under employees Family BenefitScheme should be deducted while computing compensation towardsloss of income – High Court reduced the compensation amount toRs. 36,00,000/- – On appeal, held: Deductions cannot be allowedfrom the amount of compensation either on account of insurance,or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant ofemployment to a kin of the deceased – Deduction can be orderedonly where the tort-feasor satisfies the court that the amount hasaccrued to the claimants only on account of death of the deceasedin a motor vehicle accident and not where the amount accrues as aresult of contract or act which the deceased performed in his life-time – In the facts of the case amount received under the Schemecannot be deducted – However, since the claimants are getting quitean advantage, they are not entitled to claim another amount @ 15%by way of future prospects – Amount under the Scheme more thanoffsets the loss of future prospects – Taking the last drawn incomeas Rs. 58,565/- compensation amount is enhanced toRs. 50,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing ofthe petition till the payment of the amount.

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

AJudgments:

Reasons of judgments – Need for – Held: Reasons are theheart and soul of any judicial pronouncement – No judicialpronouncement is complete without reasons.

Allowing the appeals, the CourtB

HELD: 1. The High Court, without giving any reasons, hasreduced the compensation by almost Rs.5,00,000/-. Reasons arethe heart and soul of any judicial pronouncement. No judicialorder is complete without reasons and it is expected that everycourt which passes an order, should give reasons for the same.C[Para 3][1058-D]

2.1 Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandatesthat “just compensation” should be paid to the claimants. Anymethod of calculation of compensation which does not result inthe award of ‘just compensation’ would not be in accordance withDthe Act. The word “just” is of a very wide amplitude. The Courtsmust interpret the word in a manner which meets the object ofthe Act, which is to give adequate and just compensation to thedependents of the deceased. Compensation can be paid onlyonce and not time and again. [Para 5][1059-A-B]

E

E

E2.2 The law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowedfrom the amount of compensation either on account of insurance,or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant ofemployment to a kin of the deceased. The main reason is that allthese amounts are earned by the deceased on account ofcontractual relations entered into by him with others. It cannotFbe said that these amounts accrued to the dependents or thelegal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in a motorvehicle accident. The claimants/dependents are entitled to ‘justcompensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of thedeath of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore,Gthe natural corollary is that the advantage which accrues to theestate of the deceased or to his dependents as a result of somecontract or act which the deceased performed in his life timecannot be said to be the outcome or result of the death of thedeceased even though these amounts may go into the hands ofthe dependents only after his death. [Para 12][1063-E-H]H

2.3 As far as any amount paid under any insurance policy isconcerned whatever is added to the estate of the deceased or hisdependents is not because of the death of the deceased butbecause of the contract entered into between the deceased andthe insurance company from where he took out the policy. Thedeceased paid premium on such life insurance and this amountwould have accrued to the estate of the deceased either onmaturity of the policy or on his death, whatever be the manner ofhis death. These amounts are paid because the deceased haswisely invested his savings. Similar would be the position in caseof other investments like bank deposits, share, debentures etc..The tort-feasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wisefinancial investments made by the deceased. [Para 13][1064-A-C]

2.4 As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity areconcerned, these are paid on account of the service rendered bythe deceased to his employer. It is now an established principleof service jurisprudence that pension and gratuity are the propertyof the deceased. They are more in the nature of deferred wages.The deceased employee works throughout his life expecting thaton his retirement he will get substantial amount as pension andgratuity. These amounts are also payable on death, whatever bethe cause of death. Therefore, applying the same principles, thesaid amount cannot be deducted. [Para 14][1064-D]

2.5 Deduction can be ordered only where the tort-feasorsatisfies the court that the amount has accrued to the claimantsonly on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicleaccident. [Para 16][1064-F]

2.6 Under the employees family Benefit Scheme, thenominee or legal heir(s) of the deceased employee have todeposit the entire amount of gratuity and all other benefits payableto them on the death of the employee. In the present case, itstands proved that the claimants have deposited a sum ofRs.27,43,991/- received by them on the death of the deceasedwith the employer and are now getting about Rs.50,082/- permonth. This amount of Rs.50,082/- is to be paid to the legalheirs under the Scheme only till date of retirement of thedeceased. Even if an interest @ of 12% per annum is calculated AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aon the amount of Rs.27,43,991/-, that would amount toRs.3,30,000/- per year or Rs.27,500/- per month. The appellants-claimants are getting about Rs.50,000/- per month i.e. aboutRs.22,500/- per month more, but this is only to be paid for a periodof about 7 years till 30.04.2021. This payment will ceasethereafter. This amount cannot be deducted. [Paras 18, 19 andB20][1064-G-H; 1065-A-C]

2.7 However, since the claimants are getting quite anadvantage, the MACT was right in not taking into considerationthe future prospects in the peculiar facts and circumstances ofthe case. Therefore, though the amount payable to the claimants,Care not to be deducted, in the peculiar facts and circumstances ofthe case, they are not entitled to claim another amount @ of 15%by way of future prospects. The payment of the amount underthe Scheme more than offsets the loss of future prospects. This,would be ‘just’ compensation. [Para 21][1065-D-E]D2.8 It is not disputed that the last drawn income of thedeceased including DA was Rs.58,565/-. On this amount, thedeceased would definitely have been paying some income tax.Since exact calculations of the same has not been given, the Courtdeducts about Rs.2,565/- per month for this purpose and forEpurposes of calculation of loss of income, assesses the income asRs.56,000/- per month. Out of this amount 1/3 is deducted i.e.Rs.18,667/-, for personal expenses leaving a balance ofRs. 37,333/- per month as loss of dependency to the family, whichworks out to Rs.4,47,996/- per annum. Applying a multiplier of11, the compensation works out to Rs.49,27,956/-. In additionFthereto, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate,Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- for funeralexpenses i.e. a total amount of Rs.49,97,956/- which is roundedoff to Rs.50,00,000/-. On this amount, the claimants shall beentitled to interest @ of 9% per annum from the date of filing ofGthe petition till the payment of the amount. [Para 22][1065-F-H;1066-A]

Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 : [2009] 5SCR 1098; Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC(1999) 1 SCC 90 : [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 684; UnitedHIndia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan

(2002) 6 SCC 281 : [2002] 3 SCR 1176; NationalInsurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC680; Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan (2013) 7 SCC 476– relied on.

A

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma(2016) 9 SCC 627 : [2016] 6 SCR 488 – distinguished.

B

Perry v. Cleaver 1969 ACJ 363 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 10588-10589 of 2018

E

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2017 of the HighCourt of Orissa at Cuttack in M.A.C.A. Nos. 372 and 508 of 2016.

Hitendra Nath Rath, Avijit Patnaik, Advs. for the Appellants.

F

Abhishek Kumar, Sudhir Naagar, Sidharth Khatana, Advs. forthe Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK GUPTA J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals filed by the claimants-appellants are directedagainst the judgment dated 21.12.2017 delivered by the High Court ofOrissa at Cuttack whereby compensation of Rs.40,90,000/- awarded bythe IInd Addl. District Judge-cum-V[th] Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal,Rourkela (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’) has been reduced toRs.36,00,000/-.

G

H

A3. The MACT found that the revised basic pay of the deceasedwas Rs.51,328/- and he was entitled to DA of Rs.7,237/- at the time ofhis death i.e. he was getting a total salary of Rs.58,565/-. However, theMACT, for the purposes of compensation, assessed the monthly incomeof deceased at Rs.50,000/- per month and deducted 1/3 for his personalexpenses leaving a datum figure of Rs.33,333/- per month. Since theBdeceased was 52 years old, the MACT following the judgment of thisCourt in Sarla Verma v. DTC[1], applied a multiplier of 11 and assessedcompensation at Rs.40,00,000/- for loss of income, Rs.25,000/- wasadded for funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- for the loss of estate, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- for loss of affection i.e.Ctotal compensation of Rs.40,90,000/- was awarded to the claimants. Theclaimants and the insurance company filed appeals challenging thequantum of compensation. The main ground raised by the insurancecompany was that the claimants were being paid a sum of Rs.50,082/-per month under the Employees Family Benefit Scheme (for short ‘theEFB Scheme’). The High Court, without giving any reasons, has reducedDthe compensation by almost Rs.5,00,000/-, to Rs.36,00,000/-. Reasonsare the heart and soul of any judicial pronouncement. No judicial orderis complete without reasons and it is expected that every court whichpasses an order, should give reasons for the same.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and it is notEdisputed before us that the last drawn income of the deceased includingDA was Rs.58,565/- per month. According to the insurance company,since the claimants are getting a sum of Rs.50,082/- under the EFBScheme, this amount should be deducted in terms of the judgment of thisCourt in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Sharma[2].FOn the other hand, the claimants/appellants submit that no deductionshould be made in view of the judgments rendered by this Court in thecase of Helen C. Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC[3] and United IndiaInsurance Co. Ltd. v. Patricia Jean Mahajan[4]. The appellants furthercontend that, in fact, as per the judgment rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi[5], 15% should be added towards future prospects.G

1 (2009) 6 SCC 1212 (2016) 9 SCC 6273 (1999) 1 SCC 904 (2002) 6 SCC 2815 (2017) 16 SCC 680

H

5. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘theAct’) mandates that “just compensation” should be paid to the claimants.Any method of calculation of compensation which does not result in theaward of ‘just compensation’ would not be in accordance with the Act.The word “just” is of a very wide amplitude. The Courts must interpretthe word in a manner which meets the object of the Act, which is to giveadequate and just compensation to the dependents of the deceased. Onemust also remember that compensation can be paid only once and nottime and again.

6. The traditional view was that while assessing compensation,the Court should assess the loss of income caused to the claimants bythe death of the deceased and balance it with the benefits which mayhave accrued on account of the death of the deceased. However, evenwhen this traditional view was being followed, it was a well settled positionof law that the tort-feasor cannot take benefit of the munificence orgratuity of others.

7. In Helen C. Rebello case (supra), the issue was whether theamounts received by the deceased by way of provident fund, pension,life insurance policies and similarly, in cash, bank balance, shares, fixeddeposits etc., are ‘pecuniary advantages’ received by the heirs on accountof death of the deceased and liable to be deducted from the compensation.This Court held that these amounts have no co-relation with thecompensation receivable by the dependents under the Motor VehicleAct. The following observations were made by the Court:

“35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fundwhich is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by anemployee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or hisheirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of theaccidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received,while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain andis receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident,which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is alsoearned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form ofhis contribution in the service in terms of the service conditionsreceivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive familypension even otherwise than the accidental death. No corelationbetween the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either A

B

C

D

E

FG

H

Aby the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contractwith the insurer, for which the insured contributes in the form ofpremium. It is receivable even by the insured if he lives till maturityafter paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurerindemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of thecontract for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivableBby the claimant not on account of any accidental death butotherwise on the insured’s death. Death is only a step orcontingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount.Similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. thoughare all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on accountCof one’s death but all these have no corelation with the amountreceivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidentaldeath. How could such an amount come within the periphery ofthe Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “pecuniary advantage”liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain,it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, inter se,Dbetween them and not to which there is no semblance of anycorelation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own moneyfor which he receives the amount which has no corelation to thecompensation computed as against the tortfeasor for hisnegligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amountEreceivable as compensation under the Act is on account of theinjury or death without making any contribution towards it, thenhow can the fruits of an amount received through contributions ofthe insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under theMotor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act he receives withoutany contribution. As we have said, the compensation payable underFthe Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivableunder the life insurance policy is contractual.”

8. In Patricia Jean Mahajan case (supra), the deceased was adoctor practicing in the United States of America. He died on a visit toIndia. His wife had received an amount of $ 2,50,000/- on account ofGlife insurance policies of the deceased. She had also receivedunemployment allowance for 8 or 9 months and it was urged that theseamounts should be deducted from the compensation assessed. Afterreferring to the entire law on the subject including the decision in HelenC. Rebello case (supra) this Court held as follows:

H

“36. We are in full agreement with the observations made in thecase of Helen Rebello that principle of balancing between lossesand gains, by reason of death, to arrive at the amount ofcompensation is a general rule, but what is more important is thatsuch receipts by the claimants must have some correlation withthe accidental death by reason of which alone the claimants havereceived the amounts. We do not think it would be necessary forus to go into the question of distinction made between the provisionsof the Fatal Accidents Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingto the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this judgment, it isclear that the amount on account of social security as may havebeen received must have a nexus or relation with the accidentalinjury or death, so far to be deductible from the amount ofcompensation. There must be some correlation between theamount received and the accidental death or it may be in thesame sphere, absence (sic) the amount received shall not bededucted from the amount of compensation. Thus, the amountreceived on account of insurance policy of the deceased cannotbe deducted from the amount of compensation though no doubtthe receipt of the insurance amount is accelerated due to prematuredeath of the insured. So far as other items in respect of whichlearned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently urged,for example some allowance paid to the children, and Mrs PatriciaMahajan under the social security system, no correlation of thosereceipts with the accidental death has been shown much lessestablished. Apart from the fact that contribution comes fromdifferent sources for constituting the fund out of which paymenton account of social security system is made, one of theconstituents of the fund is tax which is deducted from income forthe purpose. We feel that the High Court has rightly disallowedany deduction on account of receipts under the insurance policyand other receipts under the social security system which theclaimant would have also otherwise been entitled to receiveirrespective of accidental death of Dr Mahajan. If the proposition“receipts from whatever source” is interpreted so widely that itmay cover all the receipts, which may come into the hands of theclaimants, in view of the mere death of the victim, it would onlydefeat the purpose of the Act providing for just compensation on AB

CDE

F

G

H

Aaccount of accidental death. Such gains, maybe on account ofsavings or other investment etc. made by the deceased, wouldnot go to the benefit of the wrongdoer and the claimant should notbe left worse off, if he had never taken an insurance policy or hadnot made investments for future returns.”

B9. Thereafter, similar matter came up for consideration in VimalKanwar v. Kishore Dan[6]. This Court, following Helen C. Rebello case(supra) held that the amounts received by the heirs by way of providentfund, pension and insurance cannot be termed as ‘pecuniary advantage’liable for deduction. This Court also held that the salary received oncompassionate appointment cannot be deducted.C

10. In Shashi Sharma case (supra) this Court was dealing withthe payments made to the legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Rule 5(1) of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants ofDeceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the saidRules’). Under Rule 5 of the said Rules on the death of a GovernmentDemployee, the family would continue to receive as financial assistance asum equal to the pay and other allowances that was last drawn by thedeceased employee for periods set out in the Rules and after the saidperiod the family was entitled to receive family pension. The familywas also entitled to retain the Government accommodation for a periodEof one year in addition to payment of Rs.25,000/- as ex gratia. In thiscase, the three-Judge Bench adverted to the principles laid down in HelenC. Rebello case (supra), followed in Patricia Jean Mahajan case(supra), and came to the conclusion that the decision in Vimal Kanwarcase (supra) did not take a view contrary to Helen C. Rebello or PatriciaJean Mahajan case (supra). The following observations are relevant:F

“15. The principle expounded in this decision in Helen C. Rebellocase that the application of general principles under the commonlaw to estimate damages cannot be invoked for computingcompensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the“pecuniary advantage” from whatever source must correlate toGthe injury or death caused on account of motor accident. Theview so taken is the correct analysis and interpretation of therelevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, and must 6 (2013) 7 SCC 476H

apply proprio vigore to the corresponding provisions of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988. This principle has been restated in thesubsequent decision of the two-Judge Bench in Patricia JeanMahajan case, to reject the argument of the Insurance Companyto deduct the amount receivable by the dependants of the deceasedby way of “social security compensation” and “life insurancepolicy.”

However, while dealing with the scheme the Court held that applying aharmonious approach and to determine a just compensation payable underthe Motor Vehicles Act it would be appropriate to exclude the amountreceived under the said Rules under the Head of ‘Pay and OtherAllowances’ last drawn by the employee. We may note that on principlethis Court has not disagreed with the proposition laid down in Helen C.Rebello or in Patricia Jean Mahajan case (supra), but while arrivingat a just compensation, it had ordered the deduction of the salary, receivedunder the statutory rules.

11. The Indian courts have consistently followed the multipliersystem while assessing compensation and the judgment of this Court inSarla Verma (supra) has been reiterated by a Constitution Bench ofthis Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) in so far as choice of multiplier isconcerned.

12. The law is well settled that deductions cannot be allowedfrom the amount of compensation either on account of insurance, or onaccount of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to akin of the deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts are earnedby the deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by himwith others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to thedependents or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death ina motor vehicle accident. The claimants/dependents are entitled to ‘justcompensation’ under the Motor Vehicles Act as a result of the death ofthe deceased in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the natural corollaryis that the advantage which accrues to the estate of the deceased or tohis dependents as a result of some contract or act which the deceasedperformed in his life time cannot be said to be the outcome or result ofthe death of the deceased even though these amounts may go into thehands of the dependents only after his death.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A13. As far as any amount paid under any insurance policy isconcerned whatever is added to the estate of the deceased or hisdependents is not because of the death of the deceased but because ofthe contract entered into between the deceased and the insurancecompany from where he took out the policy. The deceased paid premiumon such life insurance and this amount would have accrued to the estateBof the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his death, whateverbe the manner of his death. These amounts are paid because thedeceased has wisely invested his savings. Similar would be the positionin case of other investments like bank deposits, share, debentures etc..The tort-feasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financialCinvestments made by the deceased.

14. As far as the amounts of pension and gratuity are concerned,these are paid on account of the service rendered by the deceased to hisemployer. It is now an established principle of service jurisprudencethat pension and gratuity are the property of the deceased. They areDmore in the nature of deferred wages. The deceased employee worksthroughout his life expecting that on his retirement he will get substantialamount as pension and gratuity. These amounts are also payable ondeath, whatever be the cause of death. Therefore, applying the sameprinciples, the said amount cannot be deducted.

E15. As held by the House of Lords in Perry v. Cleaver[7] theinsurance amount is the fruit of premium paid in the past, pension is thefruit of services already rendered and the wrong doer should not begiven benefit of the same by deducting it from the damages assessed.

16. Deduction can be ordered only where the tort-feasor satisfiesFthe court that the amount has accrued to the claimants only on accountof death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

17. The issue before us is whether we should deduct the amountbeing received by the family members under the EFB Scheme whilecalculating the loss of income.

G

18. The EFB Scheme is totally different from the rules whichwere under consideration of this Court in Shashi Sharma case (supra).Under this Scheme, the nominee or legal heir(s) of the deceased employeehave to deposit the entire amount of gratuity and all other benefits payableto them on the death of the employee.

H7 1969 ACJ 363

19. In the present case, it stands proved that the claimants havedeposited a sum of Rs.27,43,991/- received by them on the death of thedeceased with the employer and are now getting about Rs.50,082/- permonth. This amount of Rs.50,082/- is to be paid to the legal heirs underthe EFB Scheme only till date of retirement of the deceased. Even if aninterest @ of 12% per annum is calculated on the amount of Rs.27,43,991/-, that would amount to Rs.3,30,000/- per year or Rs.27,500/- per month.The appellants-claimants are getting about Rs.50,000/- per month i.e.about Rs.22,500/- per month more, but this is only to be paid for a periodof about 7 years till 30.04.2021. This payment will cease thereafter.

20. The aforesaid payment is totally different to the payment madeby the employer in Shashi Sharma case (supra) which was statutory innature. Therefore, we hold that this amount cannot be deducted.

21. However, since the claimants are getting quite an advantage,we feel that the MACT was right in not taking into consideration thefuture prospects in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.Therefore, though we are not inclined to deduct the amount payable tothe claimants, we feel that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of thecase, they are not entitled to claim another amount @ of 15% by way offuture prospects. The payment of the amount under the EFB Schememore than offsets the loss of future prospects. This, in our opinion,would be ‘just’ compensation.

22. It is not disputed that the last drawn income of the deceasedincluding DA was Rs.58,565/-. On this amount, the deceased woulddefinitely have been paying some income tax. Since exact calculationsof the same has not been given, we deduct about Rs.2,565/- per monthfor this purpose and for purposes of calculation of loss of income, assessthe income as Rs.56,000/- per month. Out of this amount 1/3 is deductedi.e. Rs.18,667/-, for personal expenses leaving a balance of Rs. 37,333/- per month as loss of dependency to the family, which works out toRs.4,47,996/- per annum. Applying a multiplier of 11, the compensationworks out to Rs.49,27,956/-. In addition thereto, according to the judgmentof this Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra), the claimants are entitled toRs.15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses i.e. a total amount of Rs.49,97,956/- which isrounded off to Rs.50,00,000/-. On this amount, the claimants shall beentitled to interest @ of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apetition till the payment of the amount. Obviously, the insurance companyshall be entitled to deduct/adjust the amounts already paid by it.

23. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pendingapplication(s), if any, stands disposed of.

B

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H