Holding

The claim petition filing date is the proper date for fixing the exchange rate, there is no contributory negligence by the deceased, and the compensation should be Rs 57,49,500 with interest as calculated.

Summary

The claimants, the wife, children and mother of Joy Kuruvila, who died in a road accident while employed in the US, filed a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking a sum in Indian rupees. The key issues were the appropriate date for fixing the foreign exchange rate to convert the deceased's US salary into rupees, whether the deceased was contributorily negligent, and the proper quantum of compensation including multiplier and deductions. The Supreme Court held that the date of filing the claim petition (April 1990) is the correct date for fixing the exchange rate, rejecting the High Court’s use of the later determination date. It found no evidence of contributory negligence by the deceased and applied a multiplier of 14, deducting one‑fourth of the total income for personal expenses, resulting in a compensation of Rs 57,49,500 plus 12% interest. The Court modified the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Kerala High Court accordingly, allowing the appeal of the claimants and partially allowing the insurance company’s appeal regarding the multiplier.

Issues considered

Which date should be used to fix the foreign exchange rate for converting foreign currency compensation to Indian rupees?
Was there any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased?
Was the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and High Court just and proper, including the multiplier and deductions?

Legislation cited

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 140, s. 166

Subjects

Motor accident compensationForeign exchange rate conversionContributory negligenceMultiplierLoss of love and affectionLoss of consortiumMotor Vehicles Act

Judgment

[2013] 7 S.C.R. 276

A JIJU KURUVILA & ORS.
v.
KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4945-4946 of 2013)
JULY 02, 2013
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:
c
s. 166 - Fatal accident -- Compensation - Deceased
employed in US - Date for fixing the rate of exchange -
Deduction towards personal expenses - Held: If the claimant
files petition claiming compensation in Indian Rupees(INR),
then date of filing of claim petition is the proper date for fixing
0
the rate of exchange at which foreign currency amount has
to be converled into currency of the country (INR) -- Deceased
aged 45 years, multiplier of 14 applicable - At the time of
death, there being four dependents, 114th of total income to
be deducted towards personal expenses - Amount of
E compensation payable to claimants will thus, be
Rs.54,49,500/-, besides Rs.2,00,0001- as loss of love and
affection to two children and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
consorlium to the wife, with 12% interest.

F s. 166 - Fatal accident - Comp~ds~t(on ~ Propfiety of ·
Tribunal and High Court apportioning corJtributory negligence
at 75:25 and 50:50 respectively and avfarding cqmpensation
accordingly - Held: The eviden'ce;of eye~witness,:f!fe FIR and
the charge-sheet against the driver of offending vehicle,
G established that he caused the death due to negligent driving
-- Therefore, Tribunal and High Court erred iri concluding that
the accident occurred due to the negligence. d.n the part of the
deceased as well.

276
H
JIJU KURUVILA & ORS. v. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & 277
ORS.
The father of appellant no. 1, while driving a car, met A
with an accident as a bus coming from the opposite
direction hit his car resulting in his death. At that time
he was aged about 45 years and was employed in US at
a monthly salary of 2500 US Dollar. The wife of deceased,
his two minor children and his mother joined as B
claimants in the petition filed before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal in April 1990, claiming a total
compensation of Rs.57,25,000/. The mother of the
deceased died during pendency of the claim petition.
The Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.18,38,500/ c
-, apportioned the liability for the accident in the ratio of
75.25, between the driver of the bus and the deceased
and deducting 25% towards contributory negligence,
awarded a sum of Rs.13,80,625/-. The High Court
assessed total compensation at Rs.47 ,09,500/- but 0
apportioned the contributory negligence @50:50 and
accordingly awarded Rs.23,45,750/-.
In the instant appeals filed by the claimants and the
insurance company, the questions for consideration
before the Court were: (i) "Whether the foreign currency E
amount has to be converted into the currency of the
country on the basis of exchange rate as on the date of
filing claim petition (April, 1990) or as on the date of
determination (May, 1993)"; (ii) Whether there was any
. contributory ne~ljgence on the part of the deceased; and F
· (iii). Wh~ther eomp~~sation
' . .. .. ,
·:,
awarded was just and proper.

. Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD~·'L ~n. the \~sta~l· ~ase,
the claimants filed the
petition in April 1990 and ciaimed compensation in INR. G
Such compensation was not claimed in U.S. Dollars.
Therefore, in view of the facts and the decision of this
., Court in Forasors case,' the date of filing of the claim
petition (April, 1990) is the proper date for fixing the rate
of exchange at which foreign currency amount has to be H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.

A converted into currency of the country (INR). The Tribunal
and the High Court have rightly fixed the rate of exchange
as Rs.17.30 per US Dollar (as was prevailing in April,
1990). [Para 16) [288-E-G]

Forasol v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission 1984 SCR
8
526=1984 (Suppl.) SCC 263; Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v.
=
General Electric Co. 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 22 1994 Suppl
(1) sec 644 - relied on.

2.1 As regards the contributory negligence, there is
C no evidence on record to suggest any negligence on the
part of the deceased. The owner of the bus and its
driver, who were the first and the third respondents
before the Tribunal and High Court, did not deny the
allegation that the accident occurred due to rash and
D negligent driving. on the part of the bus driver. The
evidence of PW-3, an independent eye witness
accompanying the deceased, the FIR registered ulss.
279, 337 and 304A IPC and the charge-sheet submitted
by the police against the bus driver u/ss. 279, 337 and
E 304A IPC specifically show that the bus driver caused the
death due to rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the
Tribunal and the High Court erred in concluding that the
accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of
the deceased as well, as the said conclusion was not
F based on evidence but based on mere. presumption and
surmises. [Para 20-23 and 26] [289~D~F.i, ~-H; 290-A-C;
291-B] .. , " : '- .· '. -
. :.-·.

2.2 Both the TribunaL<J!'ld the ,High C~tlrt have
. accepted that the deceased vias wotklrig .as:;[q~ria'~er in
G U.S.A. and was getting a monthly salary o~ 2500 U.S.
Dollars. The High Court accept~d th~~ the deceased, as
per conditions of service, could have continued in the
employment upto the age of 65 years. - On the basis of
the annual income and exchange rate of Rs. 17.30 per US
H Dollar as applicable in April, 1990, the annual income of

I
JIJU KURUVILA & ORS. v. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & 279
ORS.
the deceased if converted in Indian currency will be Rs. A
5,19,000/- at the time of death. The deceased was 45
years of age, therefore, by applying the multiplier of 14,
the amount will be Rs.5,19,000 x 14 = Rs.72,66,000/-. The
family of the deceased consisted of 5 persons i.e.
deceased hiplself, wife, two children and his mother. As B
per the decision of this Court in Sar/a Verma there being
four dependents at the time of death, 1/4th of the total
income to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased, and, as such, the
compensation payable to the claimants will be c
Rs.54,49,500/-. Besides, the claimants are entitled to get
Rs.1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection to
the two children i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-and a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to wife which
seems to be· reasonable. Therefore, the total amount
0
comes to Rs.57,49,500/-. The claimants are entitled to
interest@ 12% from the date of filing of the petition till
the date of realisation. The judgment of the High Court
and the award of the Tribunal are modified accordingly.
[Paras 27, 29-31] [291-C~D, F-H; 292-A-E, F]
E
Sar/a Verma & Ors,· .vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr. 2009 (5) SCR 1098 2009 (6) sec 121 - relied on. =
· .Case law Reference:
relied on. Para 14 F
. '

. :'.f993 (3) Suppl. SCR 22 relied on Para 15
.·. 2()0~,.(S) scJi.,1098 < ,, relied on Para 29
' . ~~c.~~\:;:, -~ > - ,_- ·:: . ·,.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.· G
49454946 of 2013.. .
t!·_,'":·.

From the. Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2007 of the
High Court of Kera ta at Ernakulam in M. F.A. Nos. 1298 & 1162
of 2001 (D). .
H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A WITH
C.A. Nos. 4947 & 4948 of 2013.

C.N. Sree Kumar, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Reshmita R.
Chandraw for the Appellants.
B
Manjeet Chawal, A. Raghunath for the Respondents.
'
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Delay
c condoned. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 12th April,
2007 in M.F.A. Nos. 1162 and 1298 of 2001 (D) whereby
compensation awarded to the claimants by Motor Accident
D Claims Tribunal, Kottayam (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal', for short) was enhanced and the liability for the
accident was apportioned at the ratio of 50:50.
3. The facts that lead to the present case are as follows:
E On 16th April, 1990, a motor accident took place on K.K.
Road, near Pampadi Mavell Store, whereby the car driven by
one Joy Kuruvila (deceased) had a head on collision with a
bus that came from the opposite direction. Joy Kuruvila
sustained serious injuries and died on the way to hospital. His
F four dependents, namely, Chinnamm;:i Joy (widow of
deceased), Jiju Kuruvila aged 14 years, Jaisoiri<uruvila aged
11 years (2 minor children of the deceased) an~ Gra~ Kuruvila
(mother of the deceased) aged 85 years filed ·a joint applic~tion
under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor VehiCles AGt,.· 1986
G (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), claiming .compensation
of Rs.57,25,000/- towards following heads:-
(a) Funeral Expenses . Rs. 25,000/-

(b) Compensation for pain and suff~ring Rs. 1,00,000/-
H
JIJU KURUVILA & ORS. v. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & 281
ORS. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
(c) Compensation on account of death A
of the deceased and consequent loss Rs. 54,00,000/-
of income to the petitioners
(d) Compensation for the loss of
consortium to the 1st petitioner Rs. 1,00,000/-
B
') (e) Loss of paternal love, affection
· and guidance to the 2nd and 3rd Rs. 1,00,000/-
petitioners Rs. 57,25,000/-
4. At the time of accident, Joy Kuruvila was about 45
years of age and was working as a Manager in the Freeman c
Management Corporation, New York Branch in the United State
of America for more than nine years and was receiving a
monthly salary of 2500 US Dollars equivalent to Rs.43, 100/-.
He was provided with quarter by the employer and was residing
alongwith his wife. Joy Kuruvila used to give Rs.30,000/- per 0
month to his wife for the household expenses and savings after
meeting his personal expenses. He was healthy, energetic,
otherwise, had longevity of life and could have continued in
service upto the age of 65 years as per service conditions i.e.
for another 20 years. ·
E
5. The 1st claimant is the wife, 2nd and 3rd claimants are
the children and the 4th claimant was the mother of the
deceased. P.C. Kurian, who was the 3rd respondent, was
driving the bus at the time of the accident and 1st respondent,
Kunjujamma Mohanwa!i.the bus owner. It was alleged that the F
accident occurred'solE1ly due to rash and negligent driving of
the bus driver, P;C ..kurian and the vehicle had valid insurance
with the Oriental ·lnsu'rance Co.Ltd .. Based on such facts, the
claimants Claimed:a sum of R~: 57,25,000/- as compensation
with 18% int~test and cost: . .. G
6. In spite of noti®, the bus owner, Kunjujamma Mohan
and the driver, P.C; Kurian did not appear before the Tribunal
and the High Court and had not denied the allegations.

H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A 7. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to
as , "the Insurance Company") in its written statement,
admitted the existence of the valid policy of bus No.KRK-3057
in the name of Kunjujamma Mohan but denied the allegation
of rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver, P.C.
B Kurian in causing the accident. The age, occupation, monthly
income of the deceased and the claim of compensation werEr
also disputed. According to the Insurance Company, the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
deceased.
c 8. The evidence consisting of testimony of PW.1 to PW.3
and Ext.-A 1 to Ext. -8 and Ext. B1 to 83 were brought on record.
9. During pendency of the claim before the Tribunal, the
4th claimant, Grace Kuruvila, mother of the deceased expired;
0 the rest of the claimants remained as legal heirs of the
deceased. The 2nd and 3rd claimants, children of the
deceased, who were minor at the time of filing the claim case
attained majority during the pendency of the case and were
declared as major.
!
E 10. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and recording
evidence held t~at the accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving ,of the bus driver. Considering the contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased the Tribunal
apportioned the liability for the accident in the ratio of 75:25
F between the driver of the bus and the decea~~d. It assessed
compensatio~ to ~e Rs. ~8,38...•. 500/- and,:att.efdeductiq~25%
towards contnbuto'ry negligence on the part of the d~ceased,
awarded a s.um of Rs. 13,80,625/- with.12% in~erest for
payment in favour of the claimants .. , . ·. '· ,. .1. : · ·
•, :. ~ 'I'

G 11. The High Court affirined the view the Tribunal of
'
regarding rash and negligent driving botlN>!'I the~part of the bus
driver and the deceased, but apportioned the contributory
negligence @ 50:50 for payment of, compensation. The High
Court held that the Tribunal wrongly. fixed Rs. 10,000/- as the
H monthly contr#Jution by the deceased to the family and
JIJU KURUVILA & ORS. v. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & 283
ORS. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
observed that even if 1/3rd was deducted towards personal A
expenses of the deceased, more than 1600 US Dollars could
be taken as dependency benefit. However, while determining
the compensation, the High Court took the figure of 1500 US
Dollars as the dependency benefit. The exchange rate as was
prevailing on the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. April, B
1990 was taken into consideration based into Ext.-A7 and
·worked out the contribution to the family was calculated to be
Rs. 25,950/- per month. On the basis of such contribution, the
High Court assessed the total compensation at Rs. 47,09,500/
- and ordered to pay 50% of the amount i.e. Rs. 23,45,750/- C
with interest in favour of the claimants.
12. The claimants have challenged the determination
made by the High Court mainly on the following terms:- ·
(i) The foreign exchange rate as was prevailing at the time D
of award i.e. May, 1993, and shown in Ext.-A8, ought to
have been taken into consideration for calculation of
compensation.
(ii) In absence of any evidence relating to negligence on
the part of the deceased and in view of the direct evidence E
on record, both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in
holding that there was negligence on the part of the
deceased. ·

13. In this case, the questions which arise for consideration
.. are: ,.,,, °' F

{~Jwhethe'r tfl~>ioreign currency amount has to be
· · converted into th~ currency of the country on the basis of
exchange rate ~ on the date of filing claim petition (April,
1990)~'0.r a~on thE\date of determination (May, 1993);
G
(ii) Whether.there.was any contributory negligence on the
part of the de.i;e:ased; ~oy Kuruvila and
(iii) Whether compen$ation. awarded is just and proper.

14. The question a~ t~ whether the proper date for fixing H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A rate of exchange at which the foreign currency amount is to be
converted into the currency of the country, for determination of
amount payable to a claimanUplaintiff fell for consideration
before this Court in Forasol v. Oil and Natural Gas
Commission1984 (Suppl.) SCC 263 wherein .this Court
B observed as follows: ._

"24. In an action to recover an amount payable in [,foreign
currency, five dates compete for selection by the Court as
the proper date for fixing the rate of exchange at which the
foreign currency amount has to be converted into the
C currency of the country in which the action has been
commenced and decided. These dates are:
(1) the date when the amount became due and payable;
(2) the date of the commencement of the action;
D
(3) the date of the decree;
(4) the date when the Court orders execution to issue; and
(5) the date when the decretal amount is paid or realised.
E 25. In a case where a decree has been passed by the
Court in terms of an award made in a foreign currency a
sixth date also enters, the competition, namely, the date
of the award. The case before us is one in which a decree
in terms of such an award has been passed by the Court."
F
Taking into consideration the clairn as was made in the
said case this Court held as follows: '' - '
.. ' . . . ·':. . ..

"70. It would be convenient if we nowset out the practice,
which according to us, ought to be follovyed'in suit$:in which
G a sum ·of money expressed in a foreign· purrency can
legitimately be claimed by the plaintiff and decreed by the
court. It is unnecessary for us to categorize the cases_ in
which such a claim can be made and decreed. They have
been sufficiently indicated in the English decisions
referred to by us above. Such instances can, however,
H
JIJU KURUVILA & ORS. v. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & 285
ORS. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
never, be exhausted because the law cannot afford to be A
static but must constantly develop and progress as the
society to which it applies, changes its complexion and old
ideologies and concepts are discarded and replaced by
new. Suffice it to say that the case with which we are
.con~erned was one which fell in this category. In such a B
· su~the plaintiff, who has not received the amount due to
him in a foreign currency, and, therefore, desires to seek
the assistance of the court to recover that amount, has two
courses open to him. He can either claim the amount due
to him in Indian currency or in the foreign currency in which
it was payable. If he chooses the first alternative, he can C.
only sue for that amount as converted into Indian rupees
and his prayer in the plaint can only be for a sum in Indian
currency. For this purpose, the plaintiff would have to
convert the foreign currency amount due to him into Indian
rupees. He can do so either at the rate of exchange D
prevailing on the date when the amount became payable
for he was entitled to receive the amount on that date or,
at his option, at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date
of the filing of the suit because that is the date on which
he is seeking the assistance of the court for recovering the E
amount due to him. In either event, the valuation of the suit
for the purposes of court-fees· and the pecuniary limit of
jurisdiction of the court will be the amount in Indian currency
claimed in the suit. The plaintiff may, however, choose the
second coi.irs~op_en to him.and claim in foreign currency F
. the amount due to him ..In such a suit, the proper prayer
·for the plaintiff tp make in..his plaint would be for a decree
thatthe defendant ~o pay to him the foreign currency sum
claimed irJ the plaint subject to the permission of the
concerr;i,ed authorities Under the Foreign Exchange G
Regulation Act; 1973, being granted and that in the event
of the foreign exchange authorities not granting the
requisite permission or the defendant not wanting to make
payment in foreign currency even though such permission
has been granted qr the defendant not making payment H
..,

' .
.'
••
286 · SUPREME'COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R. It JIJU KURUVILA & ORS. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & 287 v.
i
I
ORS. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
A · in foreign currency or in Indian rupees, whether such
permission has been granted or not, the defendant do pay
l.
I
proved before the court as aforesaid. In the event of the A
decree being challenged in appeal or other proceedings

B
··to the plaintiff the rupee equivalent of the foreign currency
sum claimed at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date
· of the '.judgment. For the purposes of court fees and
jurisdiction the plaintiff should, however, value his claim in
the suit by converting the foreign currency sum claimed by
I and such appeal or other proceedings being decided in
whole or in part in favour of the plaintiff, the appellate court
or the court hearing the application in the other
proceedings challenging the decree should follow the
same procedure as the trial court for the purpose of
B

him into Indian rupees at the rate of exchange prevailing ascertaining the rate of exchange prevailing on the date.
on the date of the filing of the suit or the elate nearest or of its appellate decree or of its order on such application
most nearly preceding such date, stating in his plaint what or on the date nearest or most nearly preceding the date ' ~

c such rate of exchange is. He should further give an of such decree or order. If such rate of exchange is
c
undertaking· in the plaint that he would make good the different from the rate in the decree which has been
· deficiency in the court-fees, if any, if at the· date of the challenged, the court should make the necessary
·· judgment, at the rate of exchange then prevailing, the rupee modification with respect to .the rate of exchange by its
equivalent of the foreign currency sum decreed is higher appellate decree or final order. In all such cases, execution
0 than that mentioned in the plaint for the purposes of court- ·• can only issue for the rupee equivalent specified in the
fees and jurisdiction. At the hearing of such a suit, before decree, appellate decree or final order, as the case may D
passing the decree, the court should call upon the 'plaintiff be. These questions, of course, would not arise if pending
' to prove the rate of exchange prevailing on the date· of the appeal or other proceedings adopted by the defendant the
· judgment or on the date nearest or most nearly preceding decree has been executed or the money thereunder
the date of the judgment. If necessary, after delivering received by the plaintiff."
E judgment on all other issues, the court may stand over the • E
15. In Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.
rest of the judgment and the passing of the decree and
1994 Suppl (1) SCC 644, similar question 'came for
adjourn the matter to enable the· plaintiff to prove such. rate
<$. consideration. In the said case, a foreign award was under
of exchange. The decree to be passed by the court should
be one which orders the defendant to pay tci the plaintiff I · consideration and the Arbitral Tribunal awarded the same in
F the foreign currency sum adjudged by the court subject to
I U.S. Dollars with interest. In the said case relying on decision
of this Court in Forasol (supra), it was held as follows: F
the requisite permission of the concerned authorities under I
\.
the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, being "143. In accordance with the decision in Forasol case the
'

granted, and in 'the event of the foreign exchange f·" said amount has to be converted into Indian rupees on the
authorities not granting the requisite permission oi the
I
,:,
1' basis of the rupee-dollar exchange· rate prevailing at the .
G defendant 'not wanting lo niake payment in foreign currency time of this judgment. As per information supplied by the G
even though such permission has been granted or the Reserve Bank of India, the Rupee-Dollar Exchange .
defendant not making payment in foreign currency o'r in . (Selling) Rate as on October 6, 1993 was Rs 31.53 per
Indian rupees; whether such permission has. been granted dollar.
or not, the equivalent of such foreign currency sum ! ·-'

converted into Indian rupees at the rate of exchange xxx xxx xxx
H H

;• l l l l l Ul/l l/l l/l l l l /1/1/J/J/J/ /IJ/J J/ l/Jf/ / / / / / / / / / / / lml~m
..,

' .
.'
••
286 · SUPREME'COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R. It JIJU KURUVILA & ORS. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & 287 v.
i
I
ORS. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
A · in foreign currency or in Indian rupees, whether such
permission has been granted or not, the defendant do pay
l.
I
proved before the court as aforesaid. In the event of the A
decree being challenged in appeal or other proceedings

B
··to the plaintiff the rupee equivalent of the foreign currency
sum claimed at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date
· of the '.judgment. For the purposes of court fees and
jurisdiction the plaintiff should, however, value his claim in
the suit by converting the foreign currency sum claimed by
I and such appeal or other proceedings being decided in
whole or in part in favour of the plaintiff, the appellate court
or the court hearing the application in the other
proceedings challenging the decree should follow the
same procedure as the trial court for the purpose of
B

him into Indian rupees at the rate of exchange prevailing ascertaining the rate of exchange prevailing on the date.
on the date of the filing of the suit or the elate nearest or of its appellate decree or of its order on such application
most nearly preceding such date, stating in his plaint what or on the date nearest or most nearly preceding the date ' ~

c such rate of exchange is. He should further give an of such decree or order. If such rate of exchange is
c
undertaking· in the plaint that he would make good the different from the rate in the decree which has been
· deficiency in the court-fees, if any, if at the· date of the challenged, the court should make the necessary
·· judgment, at the rate of exchange then prevailing, the rupee modification with respect to .the rate of exchange by its
equivalent of the foreign currency sum decreed is higher appellate decree or final order. In all such cases, execution
0 than that mentioned in the plaint for the purposes of court- ·• can only issue for the rupee equivalent specified in the
fees and jurisdiction. At the hearing of such a suit, before decree, appellate decree or final order, as the case may D
passing the decree, the court should call upon the 'plaintiff be. These questions, of course, would not arise if pending
' to prove the rate of exchange prevailing on the date· of the appeal or other proceedings adopted by the defendant the
· judgment or on the date nearest or most nearly preceding decree has been executed or the money thereunder
the date of the judgment. If necessary, after delivering received by the plaintiff."
E judgment on all other issues, the court may stand over the • E
15. In Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.
rest of the judgment and the passing of the decree and
1994 Suppl (1) SCC 644, similar question 'came for
adjourn the matter to enable the· plaintiff to prove such. rate
<$. consideration. In the said case, a foreign award was under
of exchange. The decree to be passed by the court should
be one which orders the defendant to pay tci the plaintiff I · consideration and the Arbitral Tribunal awarded the same in
F the foreign currency sum adjudged by the court subject to
I U.S. Dollars with interest. In the said case relying on decision
of this Court in Forasol (supra), it was held as follows: F
the requisite permission of the concerned authorities under I
\.
the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, being "143. In accordance with the decision in Forasol case the
'

granted, and in 'the event of the foreign exchange f·" said amount has to be converted into Indian rupees on the
authorities not granting the requisite permission oi the
I
,:,
1' basis of the rupee-dollar exchange· rate prevailing at the .
G defendant 'not wanting lo niake payment in foreign currency time of this judgment. As per information supplied by the G
even though such permission has been granted or the Reserve Bank of India, the Rupee-Dollar Exchange .
defendant not making payment in foreign currency o'r in . (Selling) Rate as on October 6, 1993 was Rs 31.53 per
Indian rupees; whether such permission has. been granted dollar.
or not, the equivalent of such foreign currency sum ! ·-'

converted into Indian rupees at the rate of exchange xxx xxx xxx
H H

;• l l l l l Ul/l l/l l/l l l l /1/1/J/J/J/ /IJ/J J/ l/Jf/ / / / / / / / / / / / lml~m
-------- --

JIJU KURUVILA & ORS. v. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & 289
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. ORS. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
(
Per contra, according to the Insurance Company, the A
A .<i JOO( aceident took place due to negligent driving on the part of the
deceased, who was in the intoxicated condition. They relied
'· JOO( JOO( . JOO(
on Ext.-A5, U~_e post-mortem report.
146. In the result, C.A. Nos. 71 and 71-A oy 1990 and C.A. 18. Three witnesses, PW.1 to PW.3 deposed before the
. , No. 379 of 1992 are dismissed and the decree passed Tribunal •. Parties placed documentary evidence, Ext.A-1 to 8
B · by the High Court is affinned with the direction that in tenns Ext.A-8, Ext. 81 and 82. On behalf of the claimants. they relied
of the award an amount of US $12,333,355.14 is payable on the oral evidence and documentary evidence to show rash
by Renusagar to General,Electric out of which a sum of and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver. On behalf of
US $ 6,289,800.00 has already been paid by Renusagar the Insurance Company, the counsel relied on Ext.-82 'Scene
in discharge of the decretal amount and the balance Mahazar' and Ext.-A5, post mortem report to suggest. C
amount payable by Renusagar under the decree is US $
c 6 043 555.14 which amount on conversion in Indian rupees
negligence on the part of the deceased.
' ' \ '
· at the rupee-dollar exchange rate of Rs 31.53 per dollar 19. The High Court based on Ext.-82 'Scene Mahazar' and
prevalent at the ti111e _of this judgment comes to Rs Ext.-A5, post mortem report held that there was also negligence
19,05,53,293.56. Renusagar will be liable t? pay future on the part of the deceased as well.
D
interest @ 18 . per cent on. this amount of Rs '
D 20. On hearing the parties and perusal of record, the
19,05,53,293.56 from the date·of this judgment till
1 following facts emerge:-
payment. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
,, . . . - The owner of the vehicle Kunjujamma Mohan and the driver
· 16. In the present case, admittedly the claimants filed a
of the bus, P.C. Kurian who were the first and third respondents
petition in April, 1990 (affidavit sworn on 24th March, 1990) and
before the Tribunal and High Court, had not denied the allegation E
E claimed compensation in INR i.e. Rs.57,25,000/-. Such
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on
compensation was not claimed in U.S. Dollars. For the said
the part of the. bus driver. · ·
reason and in view of the decision of this Court in Forasol
(supra) as followed in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. (supra), we 21. PW-3, an independent eye witness W:l:'., FCcompanying
hold that the date of filing of the claim petition (April, 1990) is the deceased during the journey on the fateful day. He stated F
F the proper date for fixing the rate of exchange at which foreign · that the bus coming from the opposite direction hit the car driven
currency amount tias to be converted into currency of the by the deceased and the accident occurred due to rash and
country (INR). The Tribunal and the High Court have rightly relied negligent driving of the bus driver.
on Ext.-A7, to fix the rate of exchange as Rs.17.30 (as was
22. Ext.-A1, FIR registered by Pampady Police against the
prevailing in April, 1990).
bus driver, P .C. Kurian, under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC G
G . . 17. The second question is relati~g to· contributory shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent·
negligence of the deceased. According cto the claimants, driving on the part of the bus driver. After investigation, the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part police submitted a charge-sheet (Ext.-A4) against the bus driver
of the bus driver, P.C. Kurian and there was no negligence on under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC with specific allegation
· the part of the deceased, Joy Kuruvila. H
H
-------- --

JIJU KURUVILA & ORS. v. KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & 289
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. ORS. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
(
Per contra, according to the Insurance Company, the A
A .<i JOO( aceident took place due to negligent driving on the part of the
deceased, who was in the intoxicated condition. They relied
'· JOO( JOO( . JOO(
on Ext.-A5, U~_e post-mortem report.
146. In the result, C.A. Nos. 71 and 71-A oy 1990 and C.A. 18. Three witnesses, PW.1 to PW.3 deposed before the
. , No. 379 of 1992 are dismissed and the decree passed Tribunal •. Parties placed documentary evidence, Ext.A-1 to 8
B · by the High Court is affinned with the direction that in tenns Ext.A-8, Ext. 81 and 82. On behalf of the claimants. they relied
of the award an amount of US $12,333,355.14 is payable on the oral evidence and documentary evidence to show rash
by Renusagar to General,Electric out of which a sum of and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver. On behalf of
US $ 6,289,800.00 has already been paid by Renusagar the Insurance Company, the counsel relied on Ext.-82 'Scene
in discharge of the decretal amount and the balance Mahazar' and Ext.-A5, post mortem report to suggest. C
amount payable by Renusagar under the decree is US $
c 6 043 555.14 which amount on conversion in Indian rupees
negligence on the part of the deceased.
' ' \ '
· at the rupee-dollar exchange rate of Rs 31.53 per dollar 19. The High Court based on Ext.-82 'Scene Mahazar' and
prevalent at the ti111e _of this judgment comes to Rs Ext.-A5, post mortem report held that there was also negligence
19,05,53,293.56. Renusagar will be liable t? pay future on the part of the deceased as well.
D
interest @ 18 . per cent on. this amount of Rs '
D 20. On hearing the parties and perusal of record, the
19,05,53,293.56 from the date·of this judgment till
1 following facts emerge:-
payment. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
,, . . . - The owner of the vehicle Kunjujamma Mohan and the driver
· 16. In the present case, admittedly the claimants filed a
of the bus, P.C. Kurian who were the first and third respondents
petition in April, 1990 (affidavit sworn on 24th March, 1990) and
before the Tribunal and High Court, had not denied the allegation E
E claimed compensation in INR i.e. Rs.57,25,000/-. Such
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on
compensation was not claimed in U.S. Dollars. For the said
the part of the. bus driver. · ·
reason and in view of the decision of this Court in Forasol
(supra) as followed in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. (supra), we 21. PW-3, an independent eye witness W:l:'., FCcompanying
hold that the date of filing of the claim petition (April, 1990) is the deceased during the journey on the fateful day. He stated F
F the proper date for fixing the rate of exchange at which foreign · that the bus coming from the opposite direction hit the car driven
currency amount tias to be converted into currency of the by the deceased and the accident occurred due to rash and
country (INR). The Tribunal and the High Court have rightly relied negligent driving of the bus driver.
on Ext.-A7, to fix the rate of exchange as Rs.17.30 (as was
22. Ext.-A1, FIR registered by Pampady Police against the
prevailing in April, 1990).
bus driver, P .C. Kurian, under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC G
G . . 17. The second question is relati~g to· contributory shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent·
negligence of the deceased. According cto the claimants, driving on the part of the bus driver. After investigation, the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part police submitted a charge-sheet (Ext.-A4) against the bus driver
of the bus driver, P.C. Kurian and there was no negligence on under Section 279, 337 and 304A IPC with specific allegation
· the part of the deceased, Joy Kuruvila. H
H
"-· -

290 SUPREME COURTREPORTS ·· [2013)-7-S.C.R' JIJU'.KURUVILA"& ORS. v.·KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & 291;
I : , , ·. ' : :-:::::··:'''./)'-'.::~'"·!.~: ;·,·_:·:,.~ !.i;':_;~.C-~:-,\;);:-;J ~·::>: __.
I . ORS. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
A thatthe bus .drlvercaused the 'death .of Joy Kuruvila due.to rash eye:.witness,' '. Ext.-A1(FIR);· .. Ext.-A4(charge-sheet) and Ext.- A.
and llegligenfdriving_of the bl.ls 'ori' 16th April, 1990 at ;(50P .M.' · B1 ( F.I: statement). are on record. · · · ·, : : < :;. J
In view of the direct evidence, the Tribuna(and the High Court ~";;i::.J.;.):;Ji;);~-:-.:.:_:~;-:~.'.--::~:,.··· ···~.' ' ''. ;·,! ···:. '•; ,.,_.;
held that the accident was occurred i:lu'e to' rash' and negiigent' ..•. In view of. the aforesaid,· we, therefore; . hold that the
Trltiuriai" and the High Court erred in concluding that the said:
driving on the part of the bus driver. :< '· : / ·:· ·-·~· :T ,;r
aceideiit.occurrecl dtfe to:the negligence ori the part of the
B . \ ' 23: There is 'no evidence "(J"n ~record t~ 1 '.sJggesf any deeeas'ed. as well, •. as the' said. Conclusion was not based on: B
negligence ciri 'the ·part of the. deceased!' Exf-B2/ 'Scene; evidence but based on mere~ presiimpticiri' and surmises'.;J '--;,d
. • -.---. ,. •'' • ,• .,,, •• '
. ·. :'' · • · , " • .' ·.,. ,,..,. ,.,;·_,... . . . . . . ·.. ',6-~ ••• ;

M,ahazar' .also'. does not suggest ·ally rash-and negligent drivin'g;
_on the part of the decea'sed."""-' ·..· · ··-' '."'"''::) ,:,;;: '' ·: ·. -~ 27:·-· The·~ast question relates'to just and·proper-
•_ __ -.:~
:. __ :.;-.;~'~_:,
:·-, '1:;',_-/) -: .. ·.; ·:~·r~·:-; . . r··:_.;~} C-~·:,-;::·::j?"i'~ :: -._·
; -.-:__ '._··:· compensation;' ·Both the Tribunal and the High Court: have•
1

c · :.•,24.The mere position ofthevehicles after:accident;,'as: aceepted.that"the deceased was 45 years of age at the time' c
· ·. shown in a Scene Mahazar; cannot give a substantial proof, of accident; he·was working as! ;m·anager/Fie'eman
as _to the rash and negligent driving on the part .of one or the M<i'llag'emellt ·corporation·, New York Branch; u.s.A: and was
ottier
.
...
·
When
, · _ , ,-_
!Wo. vehicles
• -, I
coming
.- . , . -
irom
-, -, .. ,. ,,,
opposite_,. -
directions. u • ., , _, _- ~ ..•••
getting a~monthly salary' of 2500 U.S. Dollars: The High' Court
collide,· the position of the vehicles and ·its 'direction etc:' aecepted)liat the deceasedi ,as per conditions" of service}
D depends on number of factors like speed of vehicles,' intensity' ·· c6uld liave c6ntinued the employment upto the age 'of 65 years:
of. collision, reason for collision, place at which one .vehicle hit ·-:~.;_:--·· (;J ,-___· rr:·~::_; L;:.'c;:;::; \:;.:;} ::-. ;;
•• - ' ... \_:_.:;.:
1
D
the other, etc. Froio the scene of the accident, one may suggest; 28. Ext.-A6, is a certificate issued by the employer of
or presume the manner in which . the accident caused; but in deceased; Le.;FreemanManagement ·corporation, U.S.A.
absence 'of any direct or eorroboratiVe" evidence; iii> ccinctusion dated 23rd April,'1990 which shows'ttiat his· arinual salary was
cari be drawn a!:i to whether there 'was. negligence 'ori the part) . 30,000 U.S.Dollara. He' was in their employment for 9 yeais
E of the 'driver'. lri ab's·e·rice 1
of -such direct or- ·corroborative; and had an excellent standing and his employment was of a E
' ·- - ,. . .I ' -
evidence; the Court eanriot give' any specific- finding :about'
,- ' - .
perrnanent,nature •. The dece;ised.would have continued in
negligence on the part_ofany individU(\I/''"'. •:::J '•:'.' '.c· ;,,-,, ···:; service upto' th'e.:age'of65,years.'.Ext.:A6.was attested by
Notary Public and counteisigned byth~-~on:iulate' General of
. ·_ < 25: Pcist Mortem report, Ext~A5 shows the condition of the India, New;York: as~pe·r:section 3 of the Diplomatic'.'and
F deceased at the· time' of death? The said'report reflects .that'. Consular
·~.··. .
Officers(Oaths and Fees) Act, ('.i1948~-
-; _.,. ,,J ,..,,,_.-_.,
. ,·/ - ,!:··.· ~1-',·.
., . ".'.,·: ..., ... ,
\;, ...• , -·'-

the' deceased had already taken meal as hls stomach was half
full and contained. riee,: vegetables' and. meat 'pieees' in. a. fluid . :/. 29. On' the basis' of the· aforesaid annual income· and
with strong smell of spirit. ::.;,: 0 •· • •/i 'c ,,.,,.<"::: ;,· ·:.::,, ·• exChange iate'of Rs;717.30 per US Dollar as applicable in April;
1990 (Ext~A7),; the 'annual income of the deceased 'if
, ' ' ~ '" '' ' • -·-

... · · 26; Jhe aforesaid evidence, Ext."A5 clearly suggests that
• ,!,, -- , ,, 0 .. - ' ' ~. ' •' • ,. ' ··-: L ' • • ....,_ -, <

converted in Indian' currency Will be 30,000x17.30 5;19,000/ =
G the deceased had taken~ liquor but 'O"ri the basisof the' same,'
1
-·at the'tinie ofdeattl: The deceased was45'years of age,! I
no'definite finding be'given tnat the deceased was 'driving: can therefore, as per decision in Sar/a Verma & Ors.: V.Delhi
the car rashly arid riegligentl;i'at the. time' of aecident.t The mere ; Transporl_Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier
suspicion based 'ciii Ext.~82;'-'Scelle Mahazar'' and the Ext:~ 1 of 14 shall be applicable. But the High Court and the Tribunal
A5, posfmorterri report cannot take': the'place of 'evidenee; wrongly held that the multiplier of 15 will be applicable. Thus,
H particularly, when the direct evidence like PW.3, independent by applying the multiplier of 14, the amount of compensation
"-· -

290 SUPREME COURTREPORTS ·· [2013)-7-S.C.R' JIJU'.KURUVILA"& ORS. v.·KUNJUJAMMA MOHAN & 291;
I : , , ·. ' : :-:::::··:'''./)'-'.::~'"·!.~: ;·,·_:·:,.~ !.i;':_;~.C-~:-,\;);:-;J ~·::>: __.
I . ORS. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
A thatthe bus .drlvercaused the 'death .of Joy Kuruvila due.to rash eye:.witness,' '. Ext.-A1(FIR);· .. Ext.-A4(charge-sheet) and Ext.- A.
and llegligenfdriving_of the bl.ls 'ori' 16th April, 1990 at ;(50P .M.' · B1 ( F.I: statement). are on record. · · · ·, : : < :;. J
In view of the direct evidence, the Tribuna(and the High Court ~";;i::.J.;.):;Ji;);~-:-.:.:_:~;-:~.'.--::~:,.··· ···~.' ' ''. ;·,! ···:. '•; ,.,_.;
held that the accident was occurred i:lu'e to' rash' and negiigent' ..•. In view of. the aforesaid,· we, therefore; . hold that the
Trltiuriai" and the High Court erred in concluding that the said:
driving on the part of the bus driver. :< '· : / ·:· ·-·~· :T ,;r
aceideiit.occurrecl dtfe to:the negligence ori the part of the
B . \ ' 23: There is 'no evidence "(J"n ~record t~ 1 '.sJggesf any deeeas'ed. as well, •. as the' said. Conclusion was not based on: B
negligence ciri 'the ·part of the. deceased!' Exf-B2/ 'Scene; evidence but based on mere~ presiimpticiri' and surmises'.;J '--;,d
. • -.---. ,. •'' • ,• .,,, •• '
. ·. :'' · • · , " • .' ·.,. ,,..,. ,.,;·_,... . . . . . . ·.. ',6-~ ••• ;

M,ahazar' .also'. does not suggest ·ally rash-and negligent drivin'g;
_on the part of the decea'sed."""-' ·..· · ··-' '."'"''::) ,:,;;: '' ·: ·. -~ 27:·-· The·~ast question relates'to just and·proper-
•_ __ -.:~
:. __ :.;-.;~'~_:,
:·-, '1:;',_-/) -: .. ·.; ·:~·r~·:-; . . r··:_.;~} C-~·:,-;::·::j?"i'~ :: -._·
; -.-:__ '._··:· compensation;' ·Both the Tribunal and the High Court: have•
1

c · :.•,24.The mere position ofthevehicles after:accident;,'as: aceepted.that"the deceased was 45 years of age at the time' c
· ·. shown in a Scene Mahazar; cannot give a substantial proof, of accident; he·was working as! ;m·anager/Fie'eman
as _to the rash and negligent driving on the part .of one or the M<i'llag'emellt ·corporation·, New York Branch; u.s.A: and was
ottier
.
...
·
When
, · _ , ,-_
!Wo. vehicles
• -, I
coming
.- . , . -
irom
-, -, .. ,. ,,,
opposite_,. -
directions. u • ., , _, _- ~ ..•••
getting a~monthly salary' of 2500 U.S. Dollars: The High' Court
collide,· the position of the vehicles and ·its 'direction etc:' aecepted)liat the deceasedi ,as per conditions" of service}
D depends on number of factors like speed of vehicles,' intensity' ·· c6uld liave c6ntinued the employment upto the age 'of 65 years:
of. collision, reason for collision, place at which one .vehicle hit ·-:~.;_:--·· (;J ,-___· rr:·~::_; L;:.'c;:;::; \:;.:;} ::-. ;;
•• - ' ... \_:_.:;.:
1
D
the other, etc. Froio the scene of the accident, one may suggest; 28. Ext.-A6, is a certificate issued by the employer of
or presume the manner in which . the accident caused; but in deceased; Le.;FreemanManagement ·corporation, U.S.A.
absence 'of any direct or eorroboratiVe" evidence; iii> ccinctusion dated 23rd April,'1990 which shows'ttiat his· arinual salary was
cari be drawn a!:i to whether there 'was. negligence 'ori the part) . 30,000 U.S.Dollara. He' was in their employment for 9 yeais
E of the 'driver'. lri ab's·e·rice 1
of -such direct or- ·corroborative; and had an excellent standing and his employment was of a E
' ·- - ,. . .I ' -
evidence; the Court eanriot give' any specific- finding :about'
,- ' - .
perrnanent,nature •. The dece;ised.would have continued in
negligence on the part_ofany individU(\I/''"'. •:::J '•:'.' '.c· ;,,-,, ···:; service upto' th'e.:age'of65,years.'.Ext.:A6.was attested by
Notary Public and counteisigned byth~-~on:iulate' General of
. ·_ < 25: Pcist Mortem report, Ext~A5 shows the condition of the India, New;York: as~pe·r:section 3 of the Diplomatic'.'and
F deceased at the· time' of death? The said'report reflects .that'. Consular
·~.··. .
Officers(Oaths and Fees) Act, ('.i1948~-
-; _.,. ,,J ,..,,,_.-_.,
. ,·/ - ,!:··.· ~1-',·.
., . ".'.,·: ..., ... ,
\;, ...• , -·'-

the' deceased had already taken meal as hls stomach was half
full and contained. riee,: vegetables' and. meat 'pieees' in. a. fluid . :/. 29. On' the basis' of the· aforesaid annual income· and
with strong smell of spirit. ::.;,: 0 •· • •/i 'c ,,.,,.<"::: ;,· ·:.::,, ·• exChange iate'of Rs;717.30 per US Dollar as applicable in April;
1990 (Ext~A7),; the 'annual income of the deceased 'if
, ' ' ~ '" '' ' • -·-

... · · 26; Jhe aforesaid evidence, Ext."A5 clearly suggests that
• ,!,, -- , ,, 0 .. - ' ' ~. ' •' • ,. ' ··-: L ' • • ....,_ -, <

converted in Indian' currency Will be 30,000x17.30 5;19,000/ =
G the deceased had taken~ liquor but 'O"ri the basisof the' same,'
1
-·at the'tinie ofdeattl: The deceased was45'years of age,! I
no'definite finding be'given tnat the deceased was 'driving: can therefore, as per decision in Sar/a Verma & Ors.: V.Delhi
the car rashly arid riegligentl;i'at the. time' of aecident.t The mere ; Transporl_Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier
suspicion based 'ciii Ext.~82;'-'Scelle Mahazar'' and the Ext:~ 1 of 14 shall be applicable. But the High Court and the Tribunal
A5, posfmorterri report cannot take': the'place of 'evidenee; wrongly held that the multiplier of 15 will be applicable. Thus,
H particularly, when the direct evidence like PW.3, independent by applying the multiplier of 14, the amount of compensation
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.'
-~:·;_·.

A =
will be Rs.5:1e.ooo_x 14. Rs.72,66,000/-. The family of the
deceased consisted of 5 persons i.e. deceased himself, wife, ·
two children and his 'mother. As per the decision of this Court
in Sarta Verma (supra) there being four dependents at the time
of death,
. . 1/4th . ·of the. total
I , ; income-to
. be deducted towards
B personal and living expenses of the deceased. The High Court
has also noticed that out of 2,500 US Dollars, the deceased
used to spend'500 US Dollarsi.e. 1/5th of his income.
Therefore, if 1/4th of the total income i.e. Rs. 18, 16,500/- is
deducted towards personal and living expenses of the
deceased,._ the contribution to the family will be (Rs. 72,66,000
C - Rs. 18, 16,500/- =) Rs~54,49,500/-. Besides the aforesaid
compensation, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/-
each towards love and affection of the two. children i.e.
Rs.2,00,000/-and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
consortium to wife which seems to be reasonable. Therefore,
( D the total amount comes to Rs.57,49,500/-..
· 30. The claimants are entitled io get the said amount of
compensation alongwith interest@ 12% from the date of filing
of the petition till the date of realisation, leaving rest of the
E · conditions as mentioned in the award intact.
'
31. We, accordingly, allow the appeals filed by, the
claimants· and partly allow the· appeals preferred by the
Insurance Company, .so far as it relates to the application of
the multiplier is concerned. The impugned judgment dated 12th
F April, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High
Court in M.F.A. Nos.1162 and 1298 of 2001 and the award
passed by the Tribunal are modified to the extent above. The
amount which has already been paid to the claimants shall be
adjusted and rest of the amount with interest as ordered above
G be paid within three months. There shall be no separate order
as to costs.

R.P. Appeals disposed of.