THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusKALU RAM AND OTHERS

                 [2026] 7 S.C.R. 195 : 2026 INSC 653

             The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
                                v.
                      Kalu Ram and Others
                      (Civil Appeal No. 8706 of 2026)
                                23 June 2026
           [Prashant Kumar Mishra* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the correctness of the concurrent finding of
       negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded by the courts
       below; and the enhancement of compensation on the ground that
       the future earning potential of the deceased was not adequately
       assessed and that compensation under the conventional heads
       was not fully granted.

                                  Headnotes†
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss.166 and 140 – Enhancement of
       the compensation – Victim, aged 20 years pursuing Chartered
       Accountancy (Final), and undergoing articleship, was travelling
       in the car driven by his roommate, which collided with a
       truck stationed in the middle of the road without parking
       lights, indicators, reflectors or any cautionary sign, making
       it completely invisible due to the darkness, at night – Victim,
       met with an accident resulting in fatal injuries and succumbed
       thereto, while his roommate also suffered injuries – FIR
       registered and charge-sheet filed against the truck driver –
       Parents of the victim sought compensation – Truck driver,
       owner and insurer of the offending truck’s case that the truck
       had suffered puncture in its rear tyres and had been parked
       on the extreme left side of the road, and that the accident
       occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the car
       driver – Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the
       negligence of the truck driver in leaving the vehicle stationed
       on the road without adequate warning or precautionary
       measures – Tribunal assessed the compensation taking into
       account his educational and professional trajectory and
       awarded Rs.81,21,900/- – Appeals by insurer and claimants –

* Author
196                                                              [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       High Court affirmed the finding of the tribunal, and maintained
       the award in its entirety – Correctness:
       Held: As regards negligence, no reason to take a view different
       from that concurrently taken by the tribunal and the High Court –
       Mere fact that the car collided with the truck from behind cannot,
       by itself, lead to an inference of negligence on the part of its
       driver – Issue of negligence to be examined in the totality of
       circumstances – Stationary vehicle occupying the road in the dead
       of night without any warning indication poses an evident hazard
       to road users – Tribunal and the High Court, on appreciation of
       the evidence, rightly concluded that the proximate cause of the
       accident was the negligent act of the truck driver in leaving the
       vehicle unattended on the road without adequate precautionary
       measures – No evidence worth the name adduced to establish
       negligence on the part of the car driver, and in the absence
       thereof, the plea of contributory negligence cannot be accepted
       on mere conjecture – Determination of compensation under the
       MV Act is guided by the principle of awarding ‘just compensation’,
       which must account for the future prospects of the deceased and
       such determination cannot travel into the realm of conjecture –
       Compensation cannot be founded on assumptions of assured
       professional success or on salary benchmarks of unrelated
       successful professionals – Exercise of assessing compensation
       by the tribunal, sufficiently accounts for the professional promise of
       the deceased and leaves no room for further enhancement on the
       aspect of loss of dependency – Any further increase on that basis
       would cease to be compensatory and would enter the impermissible
       domain of speculation – Considering that the accident took place
       in 2013, no inclination to interfere with the same by reducing the
       award under any heads – Life of a young individual and the loss
       suffered by his family cannot be measured in precise monetary
       terms, and determination of ‘just compensation’ under the MV
       Act does not admit of mathematical exactitude – MV Act being a
       beneficial legislation, the duty of the Court is to ensure that just
       compensation is awarded, even if legitimate conventional head is
       omitted by the courts below – On facts, the claimants, being the
       parents of the deceased unmarried son, entitled to compensation
       under the head of ‘filial consortium’ – Compensation awarded by
       the tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court, enhanced by an amount
       of Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium, payable to the claimants
       in equal measure, together with interest – Compensation awarded
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                           197

   The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kalu Ram and Others


     by the tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court, modified from
     Rs.81,21,900/- to Rs.82,01,900/- along with interest. [Paras 14-30]

                             Case Law Cited
     National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others
     [2017] 13 SCR 100 : (2017) 16 SCC 680; Magma General Insurance
     Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others
     [2018] 11 SCR 664 : (2018) 18 SCC 130 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
     Constitution of India; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

                             List of Keywords
     Negligence; Quantum of compensation; Enhancement of
     compensation; Future earning potential of the deceased;
     Compensation under conventional heads; Victim, aged 20 years
     pursuing Chartered Accountancy; Vehicle stationed on road without
     adequate warning or precautionary measures; Educational and
     professional trajectory; Compensation to be just and reasonable.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8706
     of 2026
     From the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2022 of the High Court
     of Delhi at New Delhi in MACAPP No. 79 of 2018.
     With
     Civil Appeal No. 8707 of 2026

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant(s):
     T. Mahipal, Rohit Kumar Sinha, Surya Kamal Mishra, Partap Singh,
     Arun Yadav, Ms. Chetna Yadav, Mayank Kumar Singh, B.N Yadav,
     Ashutosh Yadav, Yadav Narender Singh.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     Partap Singh, Arun Yadav, Ms. Chetna Yadav, Mayank Kumar Singh,
     B.N Bajpai, Ashutosh Yadav, Yadav Narender Singh, T. Mahipal,
     Rohit Kumar Sinha, Surya Kamal Mishra.
198                                                             [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


                         Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                        Judgment

       Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     These cross-appeals arise out of the common judgment dated
       08.08.2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi1 in MAC.APP. No.
       79 of 2018 and MAC.APP. No. 702 of 2018, whereby the High
       Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the insurer as well as the
       claimants and affirmed the award dated 30.11.2017 passed by the
       Motor Accident Claims Tribunal2, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Suit
       No. 3059 of 2016.
3.     The case arises out of a motor vehicular accident that occurred in
       the early hours of 11.06.2013. The deceased, Akash Kumar, aged
       about 20 years, was travelling in a Wagon-R car bearing registration
       No. DL-6CH-6143, driven by his roommate, Nikhil Kumar Jain. At
       about 3:00 a.m., when the vehicle reached near Andrews Ganj Bus
       Stop on the BRT Corridor, Delhi, it collided with a truck bearing
       registration No. HR-55B-0379.
4.     According to the claimants, the truck had been stationed in the
       middle of the road without any parking lights, indicators, reflectors
       or warning signs and, owing to the darkness and absence of any
       cautionary indication, it was not visible to the driver of the car. As
       a result of the collision, Akash Kumar sustained fatal injuries and
       succumbed thereto, while Nikhil Kumar Jain also suffered injuries.
       In connection with the accident, FIR No. 90n of 2013 came to be
       registered at Police Station Defence Colony and, upon investigation,
       a charge-sheet was filed against the truck driver under Sections 279,
       337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 18603.
5.     A Detailed Accident Report4 came to be instituted before the Tribunal
       on 11.09.2013. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased instituted
       a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles


1    For short, ‘High Court’
2    For short, ‘Tribunal’
3    For short, ‘IPC’
4    Fort short, ‘DAR’
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                          199

     The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kalu Ram and Others


       Act, 19885 seeking compensation on account of the untimely death
       of their son. It was pleaded that the deceased was a bachelor aged
       20 years, pursuing Chartered Accountancy6 (Final), and undergoing
       articleship with M/s ASA & Associates. According to the claimants,
       besides his articleship stipend between Rs. 8,000/- to Rs 11,000/-,
       the deceased was also earning approximately Rs. 25,000/- from
       private tuition and had bright professional prospects, which deserved
       due consideration while assessing compensation.
6.     The claim petition was contested by the driver, owner and insurer of
       the offending truck. Their defence was that the truck had suffered
       puncture in its rear tyres and had been parked on the extreme left
       side of the road, and that the accident occurred solely due to rash
       and negligent driving of the Wagon-R, which rammed into the truck
       from behind. The insurer, while admitting the insurance coverage
       of the offending vehicle, denied liability and supported the plea that
       negligence was attributable to the driver of the car.
7.     In support of the claim, the claimants examined Nikhil Kumar Jain, the
       driver of the Wagon-R and an injured eyewitness to the occurrence.
       He deposed that the truck had been stationed on the road without
       indicators, reflectors or any warning signs and that the street lights
       on the road were also not functional at the relevant time, rendering
       the vehicle practically invisible. The Tribunal also considered the
       site photographs and the material collected during investigation.
       Significantly, neither the truck driver nor the owner entered the
       witness box to rebut the evidence led by the claimants.
8.     Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal recorded
       a finding that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of
       the truck driver in leaving the vehicle stationed on the road without
       adequate warning or precautionary measures. The Tribunal rejected
       the plea that the driver of the Wagon-R was negligent or contributorily
       negligent.
9.     On the question of compensation, the Tribunal examined the evidence
       led by the claimants concerning the educational and professional
       profile of the deceased. Apart from the testimony of the claimants
       themselves, the Tribunal also examined Dr. Surender Pal (PW-3), Joint


5    For short, ‘MV Act’
6    For short, ‘CA’
200                                                           [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


       Director of CA Institute who had stated that students after completing
       CA got salaries between 1 to 2 lakhs per month and average salary
       offered to CA was around Rs 7.37 Lakhs during campus placement
       in year 2013-2014. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the
       deceased was pursuing CA Final and undergoing articleship with M/s
       ASA & Associates. Upon appreciation of such evidence, the Tribunal
       noted that the deceased had already reached the final stage of a
       professional course and was at the threshold of entering the profession.
       Though the actual stipend received by the deceased was placed on
       record as in the range of Rs. 3,595/- to Rs. 14,410/- per month, the
       Tribunal considered his future professional prospects and assessed
       his income at Rs. 55,500/- per month on the basis of likely earnings
       of an entry-level Group-A officer, having regard to his educational
       and professional trajectory. After making deductions towards income
       tax and personal expenses, adding future prospects of 50% and
       applying the multiplier of 18, as well as providing under various
       conventional heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
       Rs. 81,21,900/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date
       of institution of the DAR, fastening the liability upon the insurer by
       award dated 30.11.2017. The distribution of compensation awarded
       by the Tribunal under various heads is reflected in table below:

                  HEADS                                MACT
              Monthly Income                        Rs. 55,500/-
           Income Tax deduction            Rs 55,500 – 10% of Rs 55,500 =
                 of 10%                              Rs 49,950/-
        Income after future prospects      Rs 49,950 + 50% of Rs 49,950 =
                  of 50%                             Rs 74,925/-
                  Deduction                  Rs 74,925/2 = Rs 37,462.5/-
          (1/2th for two claimants)
                  Multiplier                             18
            Loss of dependency                 Rs 37,462.5 * 18 * 12 =
                                                   Rs 80,91,900/-
               Loss of Estate                       Rs 15,000/-
             Funeral Expenses                       Rs 15,000/-
         TOTAL COMPENSATION                        Rs. 81,21,900/-

10. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer preferred MAC.APP. No.
    79 of 2018 before the High Court under Section 173 of the MV Act,
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                       201

   The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kalu Ram and Others


     principally contending that the Tribunal erred in fastening negligence
     upon the truck driver and in assessing the income of the deceased
     on hypothetical considerations, resulting in an excessive award.
     The claimants, on the other hand, preferred MAC.APP. No. 702 of
     2018 seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the
     future earning potential of the deceased had not been adequately
     assessed.
11. Both appeals were heard together and came to be dismissed by the
    High Court by the impugned common judgment dated 08.08.2022.
    The High Court affirmed the finding of the Tribunal that the truck had
    been negligently stationed on the road without warning indicators
    and upheld the conclusion that there was no contributory negligence
    on the part of the Wagon-R driver. The High Court also found
    the assessment of compensation to be just and reasonable and,
    consequently, maintained the award in its entirety.
12. It is in these circumstances that the insurer has approached this Court
    assailing the concurrent findings on negligence and the quantum
    of compensation, whereas the claimants seek enhancement of the
    compensation awarded, giving rise to the present cross-appeals for
    consideration.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
    material on record, the controversy in the present cross-appeals lies
    in a narrow compass. The insurer questions the concurrent finding
    of negligence returned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High
    Court, besides assailing the quantum of compensation awarded. The
    claimants, on the other hand, seek enhancement of compensation on
    the ground that the future earning potential of the deceased was not
    adequately assessed and that compensation under the conventional
    heads has not been fully granted.
14. Insofar as the question of negligence is concerned, we find no
    reason to take a view different from that concurrently taken by the
    Tribunal and the High Court. The evidence on record, particularly
    the testimony of Nikhil Kumar Jain, who himself was an injured
    eyewitness to the occurrence, establishes that the offending truck
    had been stationed on the road without parking lights, indicators,
    reflectors or any cautionary signs. The accident having occurred at
    about 3:00 a.m., the absence of such warning measures assumes
    significance. The said testimony has remained materially unshaken.
202                                                         [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


15. The defence set up by the driver and owner of the offending truck
    was that the vehicle had suffered puncture in its rear tyres and had
    been stationed on the extreme left side of the road. However, neither
    the driver nor the owner entered the witness box to substantiate such
    plea. In the absence of any evidence from the side of the truck driver,
    the Tribunal was justified in drawing an adverse inference against
    them. The site photographs and the attendant circumstances also
    do not support the case that the truck had been stationed with due
    care and caution.
16. The mere fact that the Wagon-R collided with the truck from behind
    cannot, by itself, lead to an inference of negligence on the part of its
    driver. The issue of negligence has to be examined in the totality of
    circumstances. A stationary vehicle occupying the road in the dead
    of night without any warning indication poses an evident hazard to
    road users. The Tribunal and the High Court have, on appreciation
    of the evidence, rightly concluded that the proximate cause of the
    accident was the negligent act of the truck driver in leaving the vehicle
    unattended on the road without adequate precautionary measures.
17. The submission on behalf of the insurer that the accident was
    occasioned due to rash and negligent driving of the Wagon-R
    and that the case was one of contributory negligence does not
    merit acceptance. Save and except the plea raised in the written
    statement, no evidence worth the name has been adduced to
    establish negligence on the part of the driver of the Wagon-R. In
    the absence of cogent material, the plea of contributory negligence
    cannot be accepted on mere conjecture.
18. It is well settled that this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under
    Article 136 of the Constitution of India, does not ordinarily interfere
    with concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are shown to
    be perverse, manifestly erroneous or based on no evidence. We find
    none of these infirmities in the present case. The challenge laid by
    the insurer to the finding of negligence therefore deserves to fail.
19. Turning to the issue of quantum, we find that the Tribunal took due
    notice of the educational advancement of the deceased, who was
    pursuing CA (Final) and undergoing articleship at the relevant time.
    The actual stipend received by the deceased during articleship was
    brought on record as in the range of Rs. 3,595/- to Rs. 14,410/- per
    month. However, instead of confining the assessment to the proved
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                       203

    The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kalu Ram and Others


      income, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the monthly income of
      the deceased at Rs. 55,500/- by taking into account his educational
      progression, professional prospects and likely career advancement.
      The High Court, upon reappreciation, found such methodology to
      be fair and reasonable.
20. Upon examining the methodology adopted by the Tribunal in
    computing compensation, as affirmed by the High Court, we find
    that while determining the monthly income of the deceased at
    Rs. 55,500/-, the Tribunal had already departed from the actual
    stipend proved on record and proceeded to assess the income
    by taking into account the deceased’s professional prospects and
    educational progression, his imminent entry into the profession of
    CA and the likely increase in earning capacity attendant thereto.
    In other words, the multiplicand itself was arrived at on a forward-
    looking assessment of the deceased’s professional future. In National
    Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others7, this
    Court has explained that the addition towards future prospects is
    intended to be made to the established income of the deceased so
    as to account for the normal rise in income over time, and even in
    the case of self-employed or fixed-salary individuals, such addition
    is structured as a standardised percentage over the proven income.
    In the present case, apart from this aspect of calculation of future
    income of deceased, a further addition of 50% towards future
    prospects on the same foundation has been awarded by the Tribunal.
    The adjudication of compensation in the present matter cannot be
    viewed in sterile mathematical terms alone detached from human
    element underlying such claims. The case before us concerns the
    loss of a young life with promising professional potential, and the
    determination of compensation under the MV Act is ultimately guided
    by the principle of awarding ‘just compensation’. This principle is not
    one of exact mathematical equivalence, rather it is an attempt by
    the law to provide a measure of solace, within human limitations, to
    those who have suffered an irreparable loss. In the present case, a
    young student has died on the threshold of a professional career,
    whose life and potential stand extinguished forever. The claimants
    are parents who lost their young son in an accident that occurred in
    the year 2013 and the award was rendered by the Tribunal in 2017.


7   (2017) 16 SCC 680 at Para 54 to 57
204                                                          [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       For nearly a decade, the compensation determined by the Tribunal
       and affirmed by the High Court has held the field.
21. Though this Court undoubtedly possesses the jurisdiction to interfere
    where computation results in manifest excess or legal infirmity, the
    exercise of such power must ultimately subserve the ends of justice.
    In the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that
    reducing the compensation payable to the claimants at this stage on
    account of what is essentially a technical overlap in the methodology
    adopted by the Tribunal would not advance the cause of substantive
    justice. The loss suffered by the parents of the deceased cannot
    be measured with arithmetical precision, and the compensation
    awarded, viewed holistically, cannot be said to transgress the bounds
    of ‘just compensation’ under the MV Act. The beneficial character
    of the legislation, the long passage of time since the accident, the
    concurrent assessment made by the Tribunal and the High Court, and
    the impossibility of placing a precise monetary value upon the loss of
    a young life, together persuade us not to disturb the compensation
    awarded towards loss of dependency. Viewed holistically, we are
    of the considered view that no interference is called for with the
    compensation awarded towards loss of dependency.
22. It is no doubt true, as we have emphasised in the preceding
    paragraphs, that the determination of compensation under the MV
    Act is guided by the principle of awarding ‘just compensation’, which
    must account for the future prospects of the deceased. At the same
    time, such determination cannot travel into the realm of conjecture.
    In the present case, while there was evidence of the stipend being
    earned by the deceased, no cogent material was placed on record
    to establish the alleged income from private tuition. Equally, the
    assertion of the claimants that the deceased would certainly qualify
    as a Chartered Accountant and thereafter earn substantially higher
    income remains a matter of future uncertainty. Compensation cannot
    be founded on assumptions of assured professional success or on
    salary benchmarks of unrelated successful professionals.
23. In fact, as stated earlier, the Tribunal has already taken an exceptionally
    liberal and beneficial view in favour of the claimants by not restricting
    the assessment to the actual proved income and by adopting a
    substantially enhanced benchmark reflective of the deceased’s future
    earning potential. Such determination was not arrived at in vacuum,
    rather the Tribunal had examined the oral and documentary evidence
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                      205

    The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kalu Ram and Others


      led by the claimants, including the testimony of Dr. Surender Pal
      (PW-3), Joint Director, along with other witnesses, while assessing
      the future earning potential of the deceased. That exercise, in our
      considered view, sufficiently accounts for the professional promise
      of the deceased and leaves no room for further enhancement on the
      aspect of loss of dependency. We say so especially on the peculiar
      facts of this case. Any further increase on that basis would cease
      to be compensatory and would enter the impermissible domain
      of speculation. At the same time, while it has been argued by the
      insurer that the compensation so assessed appears to be on the
      higher side considering that the accident took place in 2013, we are
      not inclined to interfere with the same by reducing the award under
      any heads. The life of a young individual and the loss suffered by
      his family cannot be measured in precise monetary terms, and the
      determination of ‘just compensation’ under the MV Act does not
      admit of mathematical exactitude.
24. However, upon examining the award of the Tribunal, as affirmed by
    the High Court, we find that no amount has been awarded under
    the conventional head of consortium. In Pranay Sethi (supra), this
    Court recognised consortium as one of the conventional heads under
    which compensation is required to be awarded in cases of death.8 The
    said principle has thereafter been explained and expanded by this
    Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu
    Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others9 to include the entitlement of
    parents in the case of death of an unmarried son or daughter under
    the head of ‘filial consortium’.
25. The MV Act being a beneficial legislation, the duty of the Court is
    to ensure that just compensation is awarded, even if a legitimate
    conventional head has been omitted by the courts below. In the facts
    of the present case, the claimants, being the parents of the deceased
    unmarried son, are entitled to compensation under the head of ‘filial
    consortium’. The omission of the Tribunal and the High Court in this
    regard requires correction.
26. Accordingly, in addition to the compensation already awarded, the
    claimants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each towards



8   As per Para 46, 52 and 59.8 of Pranay Sethi judgment.
9   (2018) 18 SCC 130 at Para 21 to 24
206                                                          [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       filial consortium, in terms of the principles, governing compensation
       under the conventional heads, as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, we reach to the following
    conclusion:
       a)     The Appeal preferred by the insurer is dismissed.
       b)     The Appeal preferred by the claimants is partly allowed to the
              limited extent indicated above. Accordingly, the compensation
              awarded by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court, shall
              stand enhanced by an amount of Rs. 80,000/- towards filial
              consortium, payable to the claimants in equal measure, together
              with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal.
28. Consequently, in terms of the findings recorded hereinabove, the
    compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the High
    Court, stands modified. The revised computation of compensation
    is set out hereunder:
               HEADS               MACT          HIGH COURT   THIS COURT
            Monthly Income      Rs. 55,500/-     Upheld the    Confirmed
          Income Tax          Rs 55,500 – 10%     award of     with further
        deduction of 10%       of Rs 55,500 =      MACT        addition as
                                 Rs 49,950/-                      below
           Income after       Rs 49,950 + 50%
         future prospects      of Rs 49,950 =
              of 50%             Rs 74,925/-
         Deduction (1/2th     Rs 74,925/2 = Rs
        for two claimants)       37,462.5/-
               Multiplier            18
               Loss of          Rs 37,462.5 x
             dependency         18 * 12 = Rs
                                 80,91,900/-
            Loss of Estate       Rs 15,000/-
        Funeral Expenses         Rs 15,000/-
             Loss of Filial    Not considered                 Rs 40,000 x 2
             Consortium                                       = Rs 80,000/-
              (Parents/
              Claimants)
           TOTAL               Rs. 81,21,900/-                     Rs.
        COMPENSATION                                           82,01,900/-
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                      207

     The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kalu Ram and Others


29. The amount awarded under the conventional heads, namely, loss of
    consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, should be enhanced
    at the rate of 10% in every three years.10
30. Accordingly, the total compensation payable to the claimants shall
    stand enhanced from Rs. 81,21,900/- to Rs. 82,01,900/- along with
    interest in terms of the award of the Tribunal. The insurer shall
    deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal within a period of
    four weeks from today.
31. The Appeals are decided in the above terms.

       Result of the case: Appeal by the insurer dismissed.
                            Appeal by the claimants partly allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain




10   As per Para 59.8 of Pranay Sethi judgment.