Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd v. Shilpa Jain & Ors

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANA AToCHANDIGARH FAO-3184-2017o(O&M) BAJAJoALLIANZEoGENERALoINSURANCEoCOoLTDoooo ......Appellant vs. SHILPAoJAINo(SINCEoDECEASED)oTHROUGHoLRS.o&oORS oo......Respondents Reservedoon:-o19.12.2025 Pronouncedoon:-o15.01.2026 Uploadedoon:-o16.01.2026 Whetheroonlyotheooperativeopartoofotheojudgmentoisopronounced?oo oNO Whetherofullojudgmentoisopronounced? o oYES CORAM:o HON'BLEoMRS.oJUSTICEoSUDEEPTIoSHARMA Present: Mr.oPunitoJain,oAdvocate forotheoappellant. Mr.oM.K.oMittal,oAdvocate fororespondentoNo.1otoo4. Ms.oFarheenoBajwa,oAdvocate foroMr.oHarshoAggarwal,oAdvocate fororespondentoNo.5. **** oSUDEEPTIoSHARMAooJo.

¶1Theopresentoappealohasobeenopreferredoagainstotheoawardodated

22.12.2016opassedobyotheolearnedoMotoroAccidentoClaimsoTribunal,oSirsao(for short,o'theoTribunal')oinotheoclaimopetitionofiledounderoSectiono166oofothe MotoroVehiclesoAct,o1988,owherein,otheoappellantoinsuranceocompanyowasoheld liableotoopayotheocompensationotootheoclaimants/respondentsotootheotuneoof Rs.64,87,743/- oalongowithointeresto@o9%operoannum,oonotheogroundoof quantumoofocompensationotoobeoonohigheroside.MOHD AYUB

¶2Asosoleoissueoforodeterminationoinotheopresentoappealoisoconfined tooquantumoofocompensationoawardedobyotheolearnedoTribunal,oaodetailed narrationoofotheofactsoofotheocaseoisonotorequiredotoobeoreproducedohereoforothe sakeoofobrevity. oSUBMISSIONSoOFooLEARNEDoCOUNSELoFORoTHEooPARTIEooSo

¶3Learned o counsel o for o the o appellant-Insurance o Company vehementlyoarguesothatotheocompensationoawardedobyotheoTribunaloisoonothe higheroside.o

¶4He o furthero contends o that o the o learned o tribunal o has o erred o in consideringotheoincomeotaxoreturnsoofo2014-2015oforotheocalculationoofoincome ofotheodeceasedoasotheosameowasofiledoafterotheodeathoofoAadishoJain,otherefore, thisoITRoshouldonotohaveobeenoconsideredoandoaverageoshouldobeotakenofrom theopreviousoITRs.

¶5HeofurtherocontendsothatotheolearnedoTribunalohasoerredoin calculatingotheoincomeoofotheodeceased,oasoitohasoconsideredotheogrossoincome withoutodeductingoincomeotax,ocontraryotootheosettledopositionoofolawolaid downobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinoaocatenaoofojudgments.

¶6HeofurtherocontendsothatotheolearnedoTribunalohasoerredoinoadding 50%otootheoincomeoofotheodeceasedoasofutureoprospectsoinsteadoofo40%.

¶7HeofurtherocontendsothatotheolearnedoTribunalohasoerredoin consideringoparentsoofotheodeceasedoasodependentouponohim.ooAccordingly,ohe praysothatotheopresentoappealobeoallowedoandoamountoofocompensationobe reducedoasoperolatestolaw.o

¶8Perocontra,olearnedocounselofororespondents-claimantsocontends thatotheoamountoawardedobyotheolearnedoTribunaloisoonotheolowerosideoandothe

¶3!eofurtheropointsooutothatotheoclai,antsohaveoalread*ofiledoa separateoappeal,o&ein"oFAA984)49'(17,otitledoasoB-hilpaoJaino.sinceodeceased1 throu"hohero>6so2s.o?nderjeetoJainoandoothersC,ochallen"in"otheo<uantu,oof co,pensation o a arded o &* o the o %ri&unal o and o see=in" o its o enhance,ent. %herefore,othe*opra*oforodis,issaloofotheopresentoappeal. 1(. ?ohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoperusedothe holeorecordoofothisocaseo ithotheiroa&leoassistance. SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

¶11!onti&leo-upre,eo+ourtoinotheocaseoofoSarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another [(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121], laidodo notheola oonoassess,entoofoco,pensationoandotheorelevantoparasoof theosa,eoareoasounder:9 B30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one'third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one'fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one'fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

¶31Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

¶32Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non'earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one'third and contribution to the family will be taken as two'third. * * *

42.oWeothereforeoholdothatotheomultiplierotoobeousedoshould be o as o mentioned o in o Column o (4) o of o the o table o above (preparedobyoapplyingoSusammaoThomas³,oTrilokoChandra andoCharlie),owhichostartsowithoanooperativeomultiplieroof 18o(forotheoageogroupsoofo15otoo20oando21otoo25oyears), reducedobyooneounitoforoeveryofiveoyears,othatoisoM-17ofor 26otoo30oyears,oM-16oforo31otoo35oyears,oM-15oforo36otoo40 years,oM-14oforo41otoo45oyears,oandoM-13oforo46otoo50 years,othenoreducedobyotwoounitsoforoeveryofiveoyears,othat is,oM-11oforo51otoo55oyears,oM-9oforo56otoo60oyears,oM-7 foro61otoo65oyearsoandoM-5oforo66otoo70oyears.

¶12Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoof oNationaloInsurance CompanyoLtd.oVs.oPranayoSethio&oOrs.o[(2017)o16oSCCo680]ohasoclarifiedothe lawounderoSectionso166,o163-Aoando168oofotheoMotoroVehiclesoAct,o1988,oon theofollowingoaspects:-

(A) Deduction o of o personal o and o living o expenses o to determineomultiplicand;

(B) Selection o of o multiplier o depending o on o age o of deceased;

(C) Ageoofodeceasedoonobasisoforoapplyingomultiplier;

(D) Reasonableofiguresoonoconventionaloheads,onamely, lossoofoestate,olossoofoconsortiumoandofuneraloexpenses, withoescalation;

(E) Futureoprospectsoforoallocategoriesoofopersonsoandofor differentoages:owithopermanentojob;oself-employedoorofixed %heorelevantoportionoofotheojud",entoisoreproducedoasounder:9 B52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh². It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact'centric or quantum'centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. * * * o59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was self'employed (or) on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴ which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that judgment.

59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."

18.o !onti&le o -upre,e o +ourt o in o the o case o of oMagma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others [2018(18) SCC 130] afteroconsiderin" oSarla Vermao (supra)o and oPranay Sethi (Supra) hasosettledotheola ore"ardin"oconsortiu,.oo6elevantoparasoofothe sa,eoareoreproducedoasounder:9 "21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi² dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband'wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation".

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training".

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

¶22Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world'over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

¶23The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.

¶24The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.

¶14Aoperusaloofotheorecordosho sothatotheodeceasedo aso'4o*earsoold atotheoti,eoofotheoaccident,oheo asostatedotoo&eorunnin"ot ooread*,ade "ar,ent o sho roo,s, o earnin" o four o la=hs o per o annu,. oAccordin" o to o the contentionoofotheoappellant9insuranceoco,pan*,otheolearnero%ri&unalohasoerred inocalculationoofotheoinco,eoofotheodeceasedo&*oplacin"orelianceoonotheoinco,e ta@oreturnsoofo'(1491#o&ecauseotheosa,eo asofiledoafterotheodeathoofoAdish Jain.o!o ever,othisocontentionodoesonotoholdoan*o,eritoinotheoe*esoofola .o?tois triteothatotheoreturnoplacedoonorecordoshallonoto&eorejectedoonl*oonotheo"round thatoito asosu&,ittedoafterotheodateoofotheoaccident.o%hisovie o asorecentl* reiteratedoinotheojud",entoof oNidhi Bhargava versus national insurance Company Limited 2025 SCC online SC 872otheorelevantopara"raphoofothe sa,eoisoreproducedoasounder: "12. Just because on the date of the accident i.e.,

12.08.2008, the Return for the Assessment Year 2008'2009 had not been filed, cannot disadvantage the appellants, for the reason that the period for which the Return is to be submitted covers the period starting 1st of April, 2007 and ending 31st March, 2008. Thus, for obvious reasons, the Return would be only for the period 01.04.2007 to

31.03.2008, and date of submission would be post'31.03.2008. No income earned beyond 31.03.2008 would reflect in the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2008'2009. To reject the Return on the sole ground of its submission after the date of accident alone,oin our considered view, cannotobe legally sustained.

¶13The Income Tax Return is a legally admissible document on which the income assessment of the deceased could be made. This Court inoMalarvizhi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 228oaffirmed that the determination of income must proceed on the basis of Income Tax Return(s), when available, being a statutory document. InoS Vishnu Ganga v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2025 SCC Online SC 182, we opined: '11. ...It is no longer res integra that Income Tax Returns are reliable evidence to assess the income of a deceased, reference whereof can be made tooAmrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738o[Para 17];oKalpanaraj v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (2015) 2 SCC 764o[Para 7], andoK Ramya (supra) [Para 14 of 2022 SCC Online SC 1338].' (emphasis supplied)

¶14In Malarvizhi (supra), the Madras High Court relied upon the Returns 'for Assessment Year 1997'1998 and not 1999'2000 and 2000'2001 which reflected a reduction in the annual income of the deceased' therein.

¶15The High Court interfered and reduced the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal only on the ground that Return for the Assessment Year 2008'2009 had to be excluded from consideration. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a businessman. The relevance of the Income Tax Return stems, in the context of the Act, for the period which it relates to i.e., the Financial Year concerned, and not on the date on which it is filed with the Income Tax Department. When faced with Returns for different Assessment Years, it would be upto the Tribunal concerned to adopt either the average income therefrom or choose an Assessment Year to rely upon. There is good reason to leave judicial discretion on the Tribunal to adopt one of the afore'noted two courses of action, bearing in nature the social purpose and object behind the Act, which is a beneficial legislation. It is quite unfortunate that the High Court in the present case has dealt with the matter in such a casual and superficial way where the rightful claim of the appellants under a welfare legislation has been drastically reduced without any cogent reason on a very tenuous ground, which we find to be totally unjustified. As pointed out inoShivaleela v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online SC 563: '13. ... InoK Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC Online SC 1338, after taking note of, inter alia,oNingamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that the '...oMotor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward' looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples' lives in the future. ...' ...'(2) [(2) Also reported as [2025] 4 SCR 63 | 2025 INSC 357] (underlined in original)

¶16On the strength of the reasons afore'indicated, the Impugned Order is modified to the extent that the original amount [Rs. 31,41,000/' (Rupees Thirty'One Lakhs Forty' One Thousand)] awarded by the Tribunal in MACT No.357515/2016 as compensation is restored. Payment be made to the Appellants by the Respondent No.1 at the rate of 9% interest per annum after adjusting amount(s), if any, that may have been paid during the interregnum. The exercise be completed within two months from today, failing which an additional 9% interest per annum shall be payable for the period of delay, both on the principal amount as well as on the interest component, till the date of actual payment. No order as to costs, in the circumstances." 1#. %herefore,otheotri&unalohasori"htl*oreliedouponotheo?%6oofo'(149 '(1#,oforotheocalculationoofoinco,eoofotheodeceased. 1). Advertin"otootheone@tocontentionoofotheoappellant9insurance co,pan*,otheosu&,issionothatoinco,eota@oisore<uiredotoo&eodeductedofro,othe "rossoinco,eoofotheodeceased,odeservesoacceptanceoinotheoe*esoofola .o?tois ellosettledothato hileodeter,inin"oco,pensation,otheo"rossoinco,eoafter deductionoofoinco,eota@oaloneoisotoo&eota=enointooconsideration.o?n oSarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121,otheo!onti&le -upre,eo+ourtocate"oricall*oheldothatotheoinco,eoofotheodeceasedo,usto&e assessedoafterodeductin"otheopa*a&leoinco,eota@.o%hisoprincipleo asofurther reiteratedoinoVimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan (2013) 7 SCC 476,o hereinoito as heldothato hereotheoinco,eoofotheodeceasedofallso ithinotheota@a&leo&rac=et, deductionoofoinco,eota@oiso,andator*.

¶176elevantoportionoofotheosa,eoisoreproducedoasounder: "21. The third issue is "whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under theoMotor Vehicles Act" In the case ofoSarla Verma & Anr. (Supra), this Court held "generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation." This Court further observed that "where the annual income is in taxable range, the word "actual salary" should be read as "actual salary less tax". Therefore, it is clear that if the annual income comes within the taxable range income tax is required to be deducted for determination of the actual salary. But while deducting income'tax from salary, it is necessary to notice the nature of the income of the victim. If the victim is receiving income chargeable under the headMOHD AYUB "salaries" one should keep in mind that underoSection 192

(1)oof the Income'tax Act, 1961 any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head "salaries" shall at the time of payment, deduct income'tax on estimated income of the employee from "salaries" for that financial year. Such deduction is commonly known as tax deducted at source ('TDS' for short). When the employer fails in default to deduct the TDS from employee salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non' deduction of TDS is prescribed underoSection 201(1A)oof the Income'tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only from "salary", the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192 (1) of the Income' tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there can be cases where the victim is not a salaried person i.e. his income is from sources other than salary, and the annual income falls within taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as to deduction of tax is made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that the victim has already paid income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from the income."

¶14Accordin"l*,otheoannualoinco,eoofotheodeceasedoisore<uiredotoo&e co,puted o after o deduction o of o the o inco,e o ta@ o and o is o thus o assessed o at ₹3,27,983/-o.8,8',)3'o9o4,7(31operoannu,.o%herefore,o,onthl*oinco,eoofothe deceasedoisoreassessedoasoRs.27,332/-.

¶13Aofurtheroperusaloofotheoa ardorevealsothatotheolearnedo%ri&unal hasoerredoinoaddin"o#(;oasofutureoprospectotootheoinco,eoofotheodeceased. Sinceotheodeceasedowasoself-employed,otherefore,oasoperotheosettledolaw,o40% isotoobeoaddedoasofutureoprospects.o

¶20Further,operusaloofotheoawardorevealsothatotheolearnedotribunalohas deductedo1/4otowardsotheopersonaloexpenditureoofotheodeceased,oconsidering hisowife,otwoochildrenoandohisoparentsoasodependentoofohimoatotheotimeoofohis death.oAsoperotheocontentionoofotheorespondent,otheoparentsoofotheodeceased wereonotodependentouponohim.oThereforeo1/3rdohasotoobeodeductedoasopersonal expenditure.oThisocontentionoisocontraryotootheosettledopositionoofolaw.oThe Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtohasoconsistentlyorecognisedothatotheolossoofoaofamily memberoinoaomotoroaccidentoisoanounfathomableotragedyonotoonlyoforothe parents.oTheoanguish,ogriefoandoemotionalotraumaosufferedobyoparentsoare profoundoandoenduring,ooftenodefyingoadequateoarticulation.oNooamountoof compensationocanotrulyoredressotheoemotionalovoidocausedobyosuchoaoloss. Sinceothereoisonoorecordotooshowothatotheoparentsoofotheodeceasedowereonot dependentouponohimoatotheotimeoofohisodeath,otheolearnedotribunalohasorightly deducted,o1/4thoasopersonaloexpenditure.

¶21AofurtheroperusaloofotheoawardorevealsothatotheolearnedoTribunal hasograntedomeageroamountounderotheoheadoofolossoofoconsortium,otherefore, theosameoisoliableotoobeoenhanced.

¶22Inoviewoofotheoabove,otheopresentoappealoisoallowed.oTheoaward datedo22.12.2016oisomodifiedoaccordingly.oTheorespondents-claimantsoare entitledotoomodifiedocompensationoasoperotheocalculationsomadeohereunder:- Sr.oNo. Heads CompensationoAwarded 1 MonthlyoIncome Rs.27,332/- 2 Futureoprospectso@o40% Rs.10,933/-/-o(40%oofo27332) 3 Deduction o towards o personal Rs.9,566/-o(38265oXo1/4th) expenditureo1/4tho 4 TotaloIncomeo Rs.28,699/-o(38265-9566) 5 Multipliero 17 6 AnnualoDependencyo Rs.58,54,596/-o(28699oXo12oXo17) 7 LossoofoEstate Rs.18,150/- 8 FuneraloExpenses Rs.25,000/- 9 LossoofoConsortium Rs.2,42,000/- Parentaloo:o2oxo48,400 Spousalooo:o1oxo48,400 Filialooooooo:o2oxo48,400 10 TotaloCompensation Rs.61,39,746/- 11 AmountoAwardedobyotheo Rs.64,87,743/- Tribunal 12 Enhancedoamount Rs.3,47,997/-o(64,87,743-61,39,746)

¶23Soofaroasotheointerestopartoisoconcerned,oasoheldobyoHon'ble SupremeoCourtoinoDaraoSingho@oDharaoBanjaraoVs.oShyamoSinghoVarma 2019oACJo3176oandoR.VallioandoOthersoVS.oTamiloNanduoStateoTransport Co orporationoo(2022)o5oSupremeoCourtoCaseso107o,otheorespondents-claimants areograntedotheointeresto@o9%operoannumoonotheomodifiedoamountofromothe dateoofofilingoofoclaimopetitionotillotheodateoofoitsorealization.

¶24Theoappellant-InsuranceoCompanyois odirectedotoodepositothe modifiedoamountoalongowithointerestowithotheoTribunalowithinoaoperiodoofotwo monthsofromotheodateooforeceiptoofocopyoofothisojudgment.oTheoTribunalois directedotoodisburseotheomodifiedoamountoofocompensationoalongowithointerest tootheorespondents-claimants.

¶25Pendingoapplicationo(s),oifoany,oalsoostandodisposedoof.

15.01.2026oooooooooo ooo (SUDEEPTIoSHARMA) Ayub ooooooooo ooo ooJUDGEo oo oWhetherospeaking/non-speakingo:oo Yes/No oWhetheroreportableo o:o Yes