dated this the 10 th before the honourable mr.justice...
TRANSCRIPT
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH
DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.12587/2007 (MV)
C/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.13450/2006
BETWEEN:
1. Laxmibai W/o Yallappa Bilagi
Age: 38 years, Occupation: House hold
R/o Balabatii
Taluka: Muddebihal
District: Bijapur.
2. Hanamanth S/o Yallappa Bilagi
Age: 24 years, Occupation: Student,
R/o Balabatii
Taluka: Muddebihal
District: Bijapur.
3. Srishail S/o Yallappa Bilagi
Age: 21 years, Occupation: Student,
R/o Balabatii
Taluka: Muddebihal
District: Bijapur.
4. Bouramma D/o Yallappa Bilagi
Age: 19 years, Occupation: Student,
R
2
R/o Balabatii
Taluka: Muddebihal
District: Bijapur.
… APPELLANTS
(Shri H.R. Malipatil and J.S. Shetty, Advocates)
AND:
1. Shantappa P. Kamat
Age: Major
R/o Itagi, Now residing at
Muddebihal behind the Syndicate Bank,
Reshma Building Muddebihal
Naragund Taluk
Naragund, District: Gadag.
2. Branch Manager
National Insurance Company Limited
Porwal Building,
Siddeshwar Cross Road,
Bijapur.
… RESPONDENTS
(Smt. Preeti Patil, Advocate for respondent-2
Smt. Saroj S. Patil and Shri G.B.Yadav,
Advocate for respondent-2 (v/k not filed)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgement and
Award dated 01.08.2006 passed in MVC No. 54/2004 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muddebihal, partly
allowing the claim petition and seeking further enhancement of
compensation.
3
MFA 13450/06
BETWEEN:
The National Insurance Company Limited
Divisional Office,
Porwal Building, Siddeswara Cross Road,
Bijapur, represented by Bangalore Regional Office,
By its authorised officer,
Shubharam Complex, II Floor,
No.144, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.
… APPELLANT
(Smt. Preeti Patil, Smt. Saroja S. Patil and
Shri C.S. Kalburgi, Advocates)
AND:
1. Laxmibai W/o Yallappa Bilagi
Age: 37 years, Occupation: House hold work,
2. Hanamant S/o Yallappa Bilagi
Age: 23 years, Occupation: Student,
3. Srishail S/o Yallappa Bilagi
Age: 20years, Occupation: Student,
4. Bouramma D/o Yallappa Bilagi
Age: 18 years,
All are R/o Balabatti
4
Taluka: Muddebihal-586 212
Bijapur District.
5. Shantappa P. Kamat
Age: Major,
Occupation: Business and Agriculture
R/o Itagi,
Now Residing at Muddebihal,
Behind the Syndicate Bank,
Reshmi Building, Muddebihal.
… RESPONDENTS
(Shri S.S. Shetty, Advocate for respondent-1 to 5)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgement and
Award dated 01.08.2006 passed in MVC No. 54/2004 on the
file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Muddebihal, awarding a
compensation of Rs.2,74,600/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till date of realisation.
These appeals coming on for Hearing this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the
learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The present appeals are filed in respect of the same
judgment and award. The appeal in MFA 12587/2007 is filed
by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation that is
5
awarded and the connected appeal in MFA 13450/2006 is filed
questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company in
respect of payment of compensation.
3. The brief facts are as follows:-
The claimants are the widow and children of deceased
Yallappa Bilagi, who was said to be travelling in a tractor and
trailer bearing No.KA-28/T-37 and 38 from Balabatti to his
field and the trailer was loaded with fertilizer. When the tractor
had reached Hullur cross, it is claimed that on account of the
tractor being driven in a rash and negligent manner, Yallappa
Bilagi was thrown out of the trailer and he was run over by
the trailer and his head was crushed. He died on the spot. It is
in this background that a claim for compensation was lodged by
his widow and children, claiming that he was working as a
coolie and he was earning about Rs.8000/- per month and the
accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent
driving of the tractor, which belonged to respondent no.1 in the
present appeal and the tractor was duly insured with the second
6
respondent – Insurance Company. The claim petition was
contested and the following issues were framed on the basis of
the pleadings.
“1. Whether the petitioners prove that, husband
of petitioner No.1 by name Yallappa Hanamant Bilagi
has died on 5-7-2002 due to dashing of tractor and its
trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-28/T-37 and 38 near Hullur
Cross, wherein Yallappa was travelling in the said
tractor and trailer from Hullur to Balabatti loading
fertilizer in the trailer of tractor for his lands and that
driver of the said tractor drove it in a rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger human life at the date, time
and place of accident?
2) Whether petitioners prove that Yallappa
Hanamant Bilagi was aged 45 years and was earning
Rs.8,000/- per month by doing agriculture and coolie?
3) Whether petitioners proves that, petitioner are
entitled to compensation? If so, how much ? and from
whom?”
The Tribunal, on consideration of the material evidence
that was produced and the rival contentions, has proceeded to
hold that as on the date of the accident, the deceased was
7
travelling in a tractor trailer and apart from this, it is shown that
the tractor was carrying fertilizer and it was intended to be
unloaded on the field of the deceased and hence, the presence of
the deceased in the trailer was sought to be explained and
further that the tractor and trailer was being used for an
agricultural purpose at the time of the accident and the vehicle
was duly insured at the time of the accident and there was no
mechanical defect, as per the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s
Report, to the tractor at the time of the accident. Therefore, it
was held that the accident has apparently occurred only on
account of the rash and negligent driving act of the driver. In
the above circumstances, the Tribunal has allowed the claim
and has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,49,600/- towards loss
of future income, on the basis that the deceased was aged about
45 years and was working as a coolie and though it was claimed
that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month, the Tribunal has
chosen to adopt Rs.2,400/- per month as the notional income,
and has applied the multiplier of ‘13’ and deducted one-third
8
of the income, while also awarding compensation under other
conventional heads amounting to Rs.25,000/-, thus amounting
to a total compensation of Rs.2,74,600/-. It is that which is
sought to be questioned by the claimants as well as the insurer.
4. Addressing the contention on behalf of the insurer, the
learned Counsel for the appellant – insurer in MFA 13450/2006
would firstly point out that the policy of insurance that was
issued was a Farmers Package Insurance Policy. In the said
insurance policy, the coverage of the tractor, is only on behalf
of the owner and that it shall be used only for the purpose of
agriculture by the owner. The question of hiring out the
tractor to third-parties or permitting workmen to be carried on a
tractor was impermissible. It is evident from the record that
there was a report lodged with the jurisdictional Police of the
accident and the complainant was none other than the son of
the deceased and who was also said to be travelling on the
trailer at the time of the accident, he has categorically stated
9
that the vehicle had been taken on lease by his father to carry
fertilizer to his field. This would clearly indicate that it was
not being used for his own purpose by the insured, but had
been let on hire. Further, the tractor is treated as a non-
transport vehicle and there is no provision for carrying any
person on the trailer. It was to be used only for agricultural
purposes. Hence, the question of carrying passengers or
persons on the trailer did not arise. Further it is pointed out
that the deceased was not an agricultural labourer and was not
employed by the insured nor was allowed to travel on the
tractor trailer as a passenger or the owner of goods,
accompanying the goods. The tractor trailer is not a goods
carriage vehicle and it was to be used for the purpose of
agricultural operations. There is no seating capacity which
would on the face of it indicate that the trailer could not carry
any passengers in the cargo compartment nor could it be said
that the deceased was a third-party, on whose death, a claim
could be raised by his legal representatives for compensation.
10
The Tribunal merely having proceeded on the basis that the
tractor was being used for agricultural operations at the time of
the accident and that it was covered under an insurance policy
by itself , would not be sufficient to attract the liability of the
insurance company unless it was being used for agricultural
operations of the insured.
The learned Counsel would also point out that the
Tribunal, in its judgment, has not indicated as to how and
under which provision of the contract, the insurance company
has become liable to pay compensation. In the absence of any
such liability to be found either in the policy or under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (Hereinafter referred
to as the ‘MV Act’, for brevity), the fastening of liability on
the insurance company is untenable and unjust. The learned
Counsel has also produced the Guidelines issued when the
Scheme of a Farmers Package Insurance policy was first
introduced and with reference to the same, it is pointed out that
the package included coverage in respect of the farmer’s tractor
11
and had covered only the risk of third-parties and unless it was
shown that the deceased was a third-party, the question of
covering the risk did not arise.
The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions
in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Chinnamma, Civil Appeal No.5478/2004 dated 25.8.2004,
which is referred to and applied in Divisional Manager vs.
Akkavva, ILR 2007 Kar.1382, to emphasize that the liability of
a insurance company is not attracted in respect of death or
injury to persons travelling in a tractor trailer and therefore,
would submit that the impugned judgment be set aside in so
far as it fastens liability of payment of compensation, jointly
and severally on the appellant – Insurance company.
The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company would
contend that the owner has not been examined, who was the
best person to speak about the manner in which the deceased
was present on the vehicle and hence, the claim ought to have
been rejected and seeks that the appeal be allowed.
12
5. While the learned Counsel for the claimants would
contend that the Certificate of Insurance which was alone
marked in evidence, does not contain any restriction on the
manner in which a tractor trailer, which is covered in the
insurance policy, shall be utilised, except to indicate that it
shall be used only for agricultural purposes, it is not in dispute
that a fully worded contract pertaining to the Farmers Package
Insurance policy was not produced before the court below. In
the absence of a fully worded contract placing such restriction
on the usage of the tractor trailer and such contract not being
produced even before this court, it would not be open for the
counsel for the insurance company to contend that the contract
was circumscribed by such restrictions. Though the learned
counsel for the insurance company has now produced the
Guidelines, which are said to indicate the detailed conditions,
covering the Farmers Package Policies in so far as the tractor
trailer is concerned, the liability of the insurance company
being restricted to third-parties, would squarely apply in so far
13
as the deceased is concerned. Even according to the insurance
company and the complaint that was lodged in the first
instance, the vehicle was being used for agricultural operations
and it was being used to carry fertilizer to the field of the
deceased. The deceased was travelling in the tractor along
with other men, including the complainant, who was his son, in
order to carry such fertilizer to his field. Therefore, if the
deceased was travelling in the tractor trailer to carry fertilizer
to his field along with other workmen, he was certainly
assisting the workmen in carrying his own goods and therefore,
he was a third-party in so far as the contract of insurance
between the insurance company and the insured is concerned.
Further, under Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules,
1999, it is not impermissible for loaders being carried in such
vehicles. The owner of the goods also functioning as a loader
cannot be ruled out. If he was sitting on the fertilizer in the
trailer, he was joining hands with the loaders in carrying the
goods. Therefore, it cannot be characterised as the deceased
14
being an unauthorised person travelling in the tractor trailer. In
any event, there is no provision contained either in the
Certificate of Insurance or in the Guidelines pertaining to the
Farmers Package Insurance prohibiting such user of the tractor
trailer. On the other hand, the only restriction that is spoken to
by RW.1, an officer of the Insurance Company, was that the
tractor trailer could not be used for any purpose other than
agricultural purposes. It is not denied by the insurance
company that at the time of the accident, it was being used to
carry fertilizer to the field of the deceased and therefore, it was
being used for an agricultural purpose. The further contention
that such agricultural purpose should relate to the insured alone
is not a condition prescribed either in the Certificate of
Insurance or under the guidelines. Hence, the several
contentions on behalf of the insurer, to hold that the insurance
company is absolved of its liability on account of the tractor
being treated as a non-transport vehicle and there is no
provision for carrying any person on the trailer and that it
15
should be used only for agricultural purposes and hence, the
question of carrying passengers or persons on the trailer did not
arise; or that the deceased was not an agricultural labourer and
was not employed by the insured nor was allowed to travel on
the tractor as a passenger or owner of goods accompanying the
goods; and that the tractor trailer is not a goods carriage vehicle
and that there is no seating capacity, which would on the face
of it indicate that the trailer could not carry any passengers in
the cargo compartment nor can it be said that the deceased was
a third-party, on whose death, a claim could be raised by his
legal representatives for compensation, etc., it is contended, as
not being relevant.
Attention is also drawn to Section 149 of the MV Act, to
the effect that the restrictions as to the manner in which the
insurer’s liability would be absolved is prescribed. It does not
contain any prohibition that the vehicle insured ought not to be
used by anyone other than the owner of the vehicle, in taking
away the liability of the insurance company. In so far as the
16
judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant
is concerned, the counsel would seek to contend that they are
authorities for the cases decided therein and on facts and
circumstances, there is a clear distinction in the circumstances
pertaining in those cases and hence cannot be applied
mechanically to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, as
rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent,
the Certificate of Insurance itself offers no clue as to the
restriction of the liability of the insurance company. This is
evident from a plain reading of the Certificate of Insurance,
which is reproduced hereunder:-
“CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE OF MISCELLANEOUS AND
SPECIAL TYPE OF VEHICLES
Form 51 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989
Policy Number: 602601/47/03/6300192 Certificate No: 602601/47/03/6300192
Farmers Package Insurance
Development Officer/Agent: 602601/90091097
Insured’s name : Sri. Shantappa P. Kamat Insurer Code: 602601
Email: [email protected]
Address : A/P Itagi, Tq: B.Bagewadi Address: S.S.Cross Road
Dist: Bijapur, Bijapur – 586101
Karnataka-586101 Telephone No.251171, 251999 Fax No: 0
17
Premium: Rs.3,091 S.Tax; Rs.242 Tot Premium Rs.3,333 (RUPEES
THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE ONLY)
Particulars of vehicle Insured : Vehicle IDV: Rs.75,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered Mark No. Make Year of Engine No.
Mft/ Chassis No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KA-28/T-0037 Swaraj Tractor 1994 94H 5650709 97 1203/G 94556
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hire/Hypo/Lease : NONE
Name of the Registration Authority: R.T.Office, R.T.O. Geographical Area INDIA
Bijapur
Effective date of commencement of Insurance for the purpose of the Act
From 00:00 o’clock on 19/07/2003 To Midnight Of 18/07/2004Subject to IMT endorsement printed herein/attached hereto: 21,48,36,24,17,40
Persons or classes of Persons entitled to drive:
Any person including Insured provided that a person driving holds an
effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified
from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person
holding an effective Learner’s Licence may also drive the vehicle and
such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor
Vehicle Rule, 1989.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub-Section 3
of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The policy does not cover use for
a. Organised Racing
b. Pace making
18
c. Reliability Trails
d. Speed Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Limit of Liability
Limit of the amount of the company’s Liability Under Section II-1(i) in respect
of any one accident: as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Limit of the amount of the Company’s Liability Under Section II-1(i) in respect of
any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event: UPTO Rs.750000
I/We hereby certify that the policy to which the certificate relates as well as the
certificate of Insurance are issued in accordance with provisions of Chapter X
and XI of M. V. Act, 1988.
For and on behalf of
National Insurance Company Limited
Sd/-
Duly Constituted Attorney(s).”
Policy No: 602601/47/03/6300192 Dept: Rural Sector Business
Farmer’s Package Insurance
Agriculture Tractor Premium Detail
Other covers Premium
One damage premium: (Rs.) Rs.1,250
Third party premium: (Rs.) Rs.1,457
Bonus/Malus (%): Rs. 0.00
AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS 2,707”
xx
“Policy Number:602601/47/03/6300192 Dept: Rural Sector Business
Farmer’s Package Insurance
Insured’s Name: Sri. Shantappa P. Kamat Issuing Officer: Unit 602601
Address:: A/P Itagi, Tq: B.Bagewadi Address: S. S. Cross Road,
19
Dist: Biajpur, Karnataka – 586101 Bijapur – 586101
Telephone: 251171, 251999, Fax: 0, email:n
D0evelopment Officer/Agent: 602601/90091097
Date of proposal and declaration: 18/07/2003
Policy Period: 00:00 Hrs on 19/07/2003 to midnight of 18/07/2004
Receipt date No: 18/07/2003 1/2003/01038
Net Premium (Rs.): 3,091 (RUPEES THREE THOUSAND NINETY ONE ONLY)
Service tax (Rs.): 242
Total premium (Rs.): 3,333
Serial .No. Type of cover Cover Sum Insured Basic
Description (Rs.) Premium (Rs.)
1. Fire allied perils and
Terrorism (1) Building 1,25,000.00 88
2. Fire allied perils and
Terrorism (2) Contents 40,000.00 124
3. Burglary house
Breaking Burglary 40,000.00 96
4. Baggage Baggage 2,100.00 16
5. JPA/GAP JPA 1,00,000.00 60
6. Tractor details 75,000.00
7. Trailer details 25,000.00
8. Live stock details
9. Animal cart details
10. Poultry details
11. Agricultural pumpset
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total sum insured: 4,07,100.00
Details of trailer
20
Purpose Chassis No. Registration No.
Trailer G.S.002/94-95 KA-28/T/39
Details of PA (JPA/GAP)
SlL.
No. Name Occupation Date of birth Age Existing Nominee Sum
Disability Name Insured
(Rs.)
1 KAMAT AGRI NA 1,00,000
For and on behalf of
National Insurance Company Limited
Sd/-
Authorised Signatory.
xx
National Insurance Company Limited
Regd. & Head Office: 3, Middleton Street, Post Box. No.9229,
Kolkata-700071
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BIJAPUR BD
S.S.CROSS ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101
CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF COMPLIANCE OF
SECTION 64 VB OF INSURANCE ACT 1938
Re: Policy No:602601/47/03/6300192
Insured : SRI SHANTAPPA P. KAMAT
------------------------------------------------------------------------a) Date of commencement of risk: 19/07/2003
Policy Number : 602601/47/03/6300192
Date:18/07/2003
21
b) Actual premium payable under the policy/renewal/cover note:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Policy number Endorsement. Amount of Receipt Number Receipt Date Endt Start Date No. Premium
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
602601/47/03/
6300192 3,333.00 1/2003/01038 18/07/2003
c) Whether the premium paid was provisional or final and if provisional,
reason thereof
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Payment Mode Amount BG No. BG Exp Date Apd/BG Balance Branch Realized on
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash 3,333.00
f) Whether Bank Guarantee was invoked:
Date of invocation:
g) Payment of premium under Bank Guarantee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B.G.No Collection number Collection Date Amount paid Collection particulars
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
h) In view of the details (a) to (g) above whether Section 64 VB of
Insurance Act is complied with.”
The learned Counsel for the appellant – insurer was
pointedly called upon to produce a fully worded contract
relating to the Farmers Package Insurance policy. Inspite of her
best efforts, she was not able to secure one and has been able
to secure only the Guidelines pertaining to the Farmers Package
Insurance. It is noticed that Section 14 of the Guidelines, which
22
is in respect of agricultural tractors and particularly with
respect to liability to third-parties, reads as follows:-
“Subject to the Limits of Liability as laid down in
the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the
Insured against all sums including claimant’s cost and
expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to
pay in respect of
i. death or bodily injury to any person
caused by or arising out of the use (including the
loading and/or unloading) of the agricultural tractor.
ii. damage to property caused by the use
(including the loading and/or unloading) of the
tractor.” (emphasis supplied)
It is evident that the death or the actual bodily injury to
any person caused by or arising out of the use by the tractor
would attract the insurer’s liability. This would include any
expenditure occurring during loading or unloading. Hence,
apart from this, there is no indication that the usage of the
tractor is restricted in the manner as sought to be contended by
the learned Counsel for the insurer. In the absence of any
23
specific restriction, the liability of the insurance cannot be taken
away.
A serious contention as regards the tractor trailer not
being a transport vehicle has been raised by the learned Counsel
for the insurer, apparently drawing sustenance from the
judgment of this court in Divisional Manager vs. Akkavva,
supra, wherein the facts were that a tractor trailer was being
used to carry over 60 people and an accident having occurred,
the insurance company was absolved of its liability on the
footing that the tractor was apparently being used as a
passenger vehicle. And though under Section 66 of the MV
Act, such vehicles can be used for carrying persons, provided
there was prior permission obtained from the competent
authority, but and no such permission having been obtained,
the tractor trailer could not be used to ferry such number of
persons and it is in that circumstance that it was held that the
tractor trailer not being a passenger vehicle, could not be
utilised for carrying persons and the liability of the insurance
24
company was absolved. Similarly, the decision in National
Insurance Company vs. Chinnamma, supra, the apex court had
found that the tractor trailer involved was being utilised for the
business activity of the owner in carrying vegetables and the
mere fact that it was carrying vegetables could not be
characterised as being used exclusively for agricultural
purposes and since the owner of the tractor was a dealer in
vegetables, it was held that it was not being used in the course
of agricultural operations. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by
the learned Counsel for the claimants, these are decisions which
are relied upon by the learned counsel for the insurer would be
authorities for cases that were decided and in the absence of
any restriction as to the manner in which a tractor could be
used, except that it could not be used for a purpose other than
agriculture purposes and apparently in the present case, it was
being used for an agricultural purpose, albeit for the benefit of
the deceased, it cannot be said that the tractor was being used
for any purpose other than agricultural purposes. Therefore,
25
either with reference to the Certificate of insurance, the
guidelines, or the provisions of the MV Act, the insurance
company cannot be said to be absolved of its liability.
Accordingly, the appeal in MFA 13450/2006 filed by the
insurance company stands dismissed.
Insofar as the claim for enhancement is concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,74,600/-.
This is on the basis that the notional income of the deceased
was taken at Rs.2,400/- per month and after deducting one-third
towards his personal expenses, has applied the multiplier of
‘13’. This is on the lower side. Though the notional income
could have been higher, in the absence of any evidence and
given the vehement opposition to the claim petition, any
enhancement of compensation on that ground, would probably
lead to further acrimony, in the insurer possibly carrying this
judgment in appeal to the Supreme Court. Hence, it is felt
prudent not to enhance the income that is adopted, except that
26
the multiplier should have been ‘14’ instead of ‘13’ which
leads to a partial enhancement under the head of loss of
dependency and the appellants claimants are entitled to
additional compensation of Rs.19,200/- Insofar as the loss
of consortium is concerned, the Tribunal has restricted the
compensation to a sum of Rs.5,000/-. This is an abysmally low
amount and should be enhanced reasonably. Therefore, the
claimants are held entitled to a nominal additional
compensation of at least Rs.15,000/- under this head.
In so far as the funeral expenses are concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- and in the opinion of
this court, it should be enhanced by another sum of Rs.17,000/-.
Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to a marginal
enhancement of compensation of Rs.51,200/-, which shall be
paid as additional compensation with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The