K. RAMYA versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

[2022] 18 S.C.R. 238

[2022] 18 S.C.R.

K. RAMYA

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 7046 of 2022)

BSEPTEMBER 30, 2022

[SURYA KANT AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 168 – Motor Accident – Quantumof Compensation – Determination of – Loss of Income – NotionalIncome – Reliability on income tax returns and audit reports – DeathCof businessman in motor accident – Grant of compensation todeceased’s dependants-appellants while relying on income taxreturns and other financial documents – In appeal by the InsuranceCompany, the compensation reduced on the ground that the tribunalerred in calculating ‘loss of income’ – High Court held thatDdeceased’s income consisted returns over capital assests, which weretransferred to his legal heirs who continued to enjoy the benefitsderived from them; income derived from capital assets cannot besaid to be income earned out of the deceased’s personal skills asthere was no real contribution by him; deceased’s dependantssuffered no loss of income and instead computed the compensationEby fixing his salary at Rs 25,000/- per month on notional basis asper his educational qualification – On appeal, held: Compensationmust be fair, reasonable, and equitable – Determination of quantummust be liberal and not parsimonious – Documents such as incometax returns and audit reports are reliable evidence to determine theFincome of the deceased – Entire amount from the business venturesmust be treated as income, as deceased was actively involved in theday-to-day administration of the businesses from their stage ofinfancy – Computation under income from house property andagricultural land is related to loss of dependency arising mainlyout of loss of managment capacity or efficiency – Value of managerialGskills to be determined along with the other considerations – Inview thereof, compensation modified to Rs.2,27,12,400/- with interestat the rate of 7.5% p.a.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Compensation must be fair, reasonable andequitable. Further, the determination of quantum is fact--dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious.It must be emphasized that compensation is morecomprehensive form of pecuniary relief which involves broad--based approach unlike damages. The Tribunals under the MotorVehicles Act have been granted reasonable flexibility indetermining ‘just’ compensation and are not bound by any rigidarithmetic rules or strict evidentiary standards to compute lossunlike in the case of damages. [Para 11][246-A-C]

1.2 Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is beneficial and welfarelegislation that seeks to provide compensation as per thecontemporaneous position of an individual which is essentiallyforward--looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chieflyconcerned with making up for the past and reinstating claimantto his original position, the compensation under the Act isconcerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples’ livesin the future. [Para 12][246-D]

1.3 The High Court set aside the same on the ground thatthe income earned was out of capital assets and cannot be said tohave been earned out of personal skills of the deceased. Itconsequently went on to determine the income of the Deceasedon notional basis as per his educational qualification.Unfortunately, such an approach is erroneous in view of thedecisions of this Court, wherein this Court has held thatdocuments such as income tax returns and audit reports arereliable evidence to determine the income of the deceased.[Para 14][247-A-C]

1.4 Compensation must be modified, especially whenneither any additional evidence has been produced to showcasethat the income of the Deceased was contrary to the amountmentioned in the audit reports nor it is the stand taken by theInsurance Company that the said reports inflated the income.[Para 14][247-C]

A1.5 It would be pertinent to divide the income as mentionedin the audit reports into two parts-(a) Income from BusinessVentures and other Investments and (b) Income from HouseProperty and Agricultural Land. Moreover, it deserves to beclarified that the income under the abovementioned two partshave been computed at gross value as per the audit reports andBincludes the deductions such as interest paid on loans andexpenses incurred by the deceased. [Para 15][247-A-C]

1.6 The mere fact that the Deceased’s share of ownershipin these businesses ventures was transferred to the Deceased’sminor children just before his death or to the dependents afterChis death is not sufficient justification to conclude that thebenefits of these businesses continue to accrue to his dependents.On the contrary, it has come on record that the Deceased wasactively involved in the day-to-day administration of thesebusinesses from their stage of infancy, had undergone specializedDtraining to administer his business and that the audit reports neatlydelineate Deceased’s share of income from the businesses. Thesefacts necessitate that the entire amount from the businessventures is treated as income. Similarly, the amount earned fromthe bank interests and remaining investments must also beincluded as income. [Para 17][248-B-D]E

1.7 For computation of income from house property andagricultural land, loss of dependency arises mainly out of loss ofmanagement capacity or efficiency. As rule of prudence,computation of any individual’s managerial skills should liebetween 10 to 15 per cent of the total rental income but theFacceptable range can be increased in light of specificcircumstances. The appropriate approach, therefore, is todetermine the value of managerial skills along with any otherfactual considerations. [Para 21][249-F-G; 250-A]

1.8 The remaining amount which has been deducted by usGincludes the tax which has to be deducted in terms of the decisionin Pranay Sethi’s case. [Para 23][250-E]

K. RAMYA v. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

Amrit Bhanu Shali v National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012)11 SCC 738: (2012) 5 SCR 207; Kalpanaraj v TamilNadu State Transport Corpn, (2015) 2 SCC 764: (2014)6 SCR 577; Sarla Verma v DTC (2009) 5 SCR 1098;National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16SCC 680: (2017) 13 SCR 100; United InsuranceCompany Ltd. v Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780– relied on.

Rani Gupta v United India Insurance Limited, (2009)13 SCC 498: (2009) 5 SCR 721; Helen C. Rebello vMaharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (1999)1 SCC 90: (1998) 1 Suppl. SCR 684; United IndiaInsurance Co. Ltd. v Patricia Jean Mahajan (2002) 6SCC 281: (2002) 3 SCR 1176; New India AssuranceCo. Ltd. v Charlie (2005) 10 SCC 720: (2005) 2 SCR1173; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Indira Srivastava(2008) 2 SCC 763: (2007) 13 SCR 352; Yadava Kumarv Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd,(2010) 10 SCC 341: (2010) 10 SCR 746; Shashikalav Gangalakshmamma, (2015) 9 SCC 150: (2015) 5SCR 1; State of Haryana v Jasbir Kaur (2003) 7 SCC484: (2003) 2 Suppl. SCR 245 – referred to.

[2022] 18 S.C.R.

BCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7046of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2017 of the High Courtof Madras at Madurai Bench in C.M.A. (MD) No.279 of 2013.

K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. NupurCSharma, Shobhit Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kr. Mahara, Advs. for the Appellants.

Hetu Arora Sethi, Rahul Jain, S. P. Jain, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, ShaktiSingh, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byDSURYA KANT, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated30.06.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, MaduraiEBench whereby the appeal preferred by the National Insurance Co.Ltd. (Respondent No.1; hereinafter, “Insurance Company”) against theaward dated 06.10.2012 passed by Motor Vehicle Accident ClaimsTribunal, Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter, “Tribunal”) was allowed and thecompensation granted to Apellants was reduced from Rs. 4,29,37,700/-to Rs. 57,90,000/- along with requisite interest. The factual matrix isFsuccinctly discussed below before delving into the issue of law regardingdetermination of quantum of compensation which requires adjudicationbefore us.

A. FACTS

3. S. Kumareshan (hereinafter, “Deceased”) was resident ofGTiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu. On the fateful day, at about 4 PM in theevening, he was travelling alone in Lancer Car bearing RegistrationNo. TN 45 S 9199 and met with an unfortunate accident with anAmbassador Car bearing Registration No. TN 59 9288 along thestretch of road between Sethathupatti and Soriampattti. The collisionHwas so powerful that the drivers of both vehicles passed away before

any medical assistance could reach them. The sole survivors of thecollision were occupants of the Ambassador Car, who miraculouslyescaped death but were saddled with multiple injuries.

4. The Deceased was aged above 31 years at the time of deathand was an income tax assessee. He was businessman who helddiverse interests in arenas such as jewellery, textiles, exports andtransport. Furthermore, he also drew income from his agricultural landsand leased out real estate. At the time of his demise, he left behind awidow, two minor children and parents who were stated to be dependenton him. It is to be noted that among these dependents, the father of theDeceased passed away during the proceedings before the High Court.

5. The Deceased’s dependents filed claim petition for Rs.7,00,00,000/- in August 2004, alleging, inter alia, that he died as resultof the injuries suffered in the abovementioned accident of 10.06.2004,which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the AmbassadorCar which the Insurance Company had insured. Before the Tribunal,the Insurance Company took the stance that the Deceased was the onewho was responsible for the accident and that the compensation soughtby the Deceased was exorbitant. It is worth noting that the injuredoccupants of the Ambassador Car who survived the crash also filedtheir respective claim petitions.

6. In reaching its verdict, the Tribunal relied upon the statementsof the abovementioned injured occupants to conclude that it was thedriver of the Ambassador Car who was solely responsible for the crashand therefore assigned liability for the accident to him, which ultimatelywas to be borne by the Insurance Company. As result, the claim petitionof the Deceased’s dependents was allowed partly, and compensation ofRs 4,29,37,700/- was granted along with interest at the rate of 7.5% perannum. The Tribunal relied on the Deceased’s income tax returns andother financial documents, which were supported by the testimonies ofthe chartered accountant, auditor, and wife of the deceased (AppellantNo. 1).7. The aggrieved Insurance Company filed its appeal which wasdecided through the impugned judgement dated 30.06.2017. The HighCourt although being in total agreement with the Tribunal’s reasoning infinding that the Ambassador Car driver was solely liable for the accident,disagreed with the approach of the Tribunal in respect to the computationof compensation, primarily under the head of ‘loss of income’. It

Aemphasized that the Deceased before his death had transferred his interestin some of the partnership firms in favour of his minor children.Furthermore, it highlighted that almost all of the Deceased’s incomeconsisted of returns he received on his capital assests. Even after hisdeath, the same assets were transferred to his legal heirs who continuedto enjoy the benefits derived from them. The impugned judgement’sBreasoning was hinged on the premise that income derived from capitalassets cannot be said to be income earned out of the Deceased’s personalskills as there was no real contribution by him. Consequently, the HighCourt concluded that the Deceased’s dependants suffered no loss ofincome and instead computed the compensation by fixing his salary atCRs 25,000/- per month on notional basis as per his educationalqualification. Furthermore, it also made minor alterations under otherconventional heads and accordingly, the compensation was reduced toRs 57,90,000/- along with interest of 7.5% per annum.

B. CONTENTIONSD

8. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused thedocuments produced on record. It must be noted that Learned counselsfor both sides have not disputed the finding concerning the InsuranceCompany’s liability to pay the compensation. The only limited questionthat remains disputed before us in the present proceedings pertains toEconcerning the quantum of compensation that is to be granted to theAppellants.

9. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the Appellantscontended that – Firstly, High Court via impugned decision has erred bycomputing the compensation on the basis of notional income despite theFfact that the Appellants adduced specific evidence to ascertain the incomeearned by Deceased. He strongly asserted that the Tribunal rightly reliedon the income tax returns and the audit reports of the Deceased tocompute the amount under the head of ‘loss of income’ and stated thatrelevant testimonies supported the same; Secondly, he contended thatthe Deceased was actively involved in running multiple businesses andGeven undertook specialized courses to achieve success. Hence, the HighCourt has unjustly concluded that the Deceased has earned no incomefrom his personal skills; Thirdly, it is argued that the only deductionallowed while computing an individual’s income is the tax payable by

him in terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench in NationalInsurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi.[1]; Finally, he contended that thecomputation of compensation under Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter, “The Act”) must be ‘just’ and the same must co-relate to the standard of ‘fairness, reasonableness and equitability’ asper the decision in Pranay Sethi.[2]

10. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Insurance Companyargued that High Court has rightly reduced the compensation in view ofthe fact that the income tax returns and the audit reports highlight thatthe Deceased’s income essentially constituted of returns from his capitalassets which have been duly bequeathed to the Deceased’s dependents.It was argued that loss of income must be equivalent to only that portionwhich corresponds to the skill of the deceased, as consequence ofwhich there has been no loss of income to the Appellants in the presentcase. High Court has rightly taken notional income as the basis ofdetermination of compensation under the head of ‘loss of income’. Thelearned counsel has placed substantial reliance on the decision of thiscourt in Rani Gupta v United India Insurance Limited[3] to advancethe argument that in the case of accidental death of people in business,the genuine determination for loss of income depends on ascertainingthe Deceased’s contribution in running the business and the same is afactual enquiry which varies on the facts and circumstances of eachcase.

C. ANALYSIS

C.1 DETERMINATION OF‘JUST’ COMPENSATIONUNDER SOCIALWELFARE STATUTE

11. At the outset, it is pertinent to reiterate the concept of ‘just’compensation under Section 168 of the Act. It is settled proposition,now through catena of decisions[4] including the one rendered by theConstitution Bench in Pranay Sethi[5]that compensation must be fair,

1 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, para 59.3.

2 ibid, para 55.

3 Rani Gupta v United India Insurance Limited (2009) 13 SCC 498, para 24.

4 Helen C. Rebello v Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

(1999) 1 SCC 90; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Patricia Jean Mahajan (2002) 6SCC 281; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Charlie (2005) 10 SCC 720; NationalInsurance Co. Ltd. v Indira Srivastava

(2008) 2 SCC 763.

5 Pranay Sethi (n 1), para 55.

Areasonable and equitable. Further, the determination of quantum is afact-dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious. Itmust be emphasized that compensation is more comprehensive formof pecuniary relief which involves broad-based approach unlikedamages as noted by this court in Yadava Kumar v DivisionalManager, National Insurance Co. Ltd[6]. The discussion in theBabovementioned cases highlights that Tribunals under the Act have beengranted reasonable flexibility in determining ‘just’ compensation and arenot bound by any rigid arithmetic rules or strict evidentiary standards tocompute loss unlike in the case of damages. Hence, any interference bythe Appellate Courts should ordinarily be allowed only when theCcompensation is ‘exorbitant’ or ‘arbitrary’.

12. Furthermore, Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is beneficial andwelfare legislation[7] that seeks to provide compensation as per thecontemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward-looking.[8] Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with makingDup for the past and reinstating claimant to his original position, thecompensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability andcontinuity in peoples’ lives in the future.[9] Keeping the abovementionedprinciples in the backdrop, we now move on to the facts at hand.

C.2 RELIABILITY ON INCOME TAX RETURNS ANDEAUDIT REPORTS TO DETERMINE ‘LOSS OF INCOME’

13. The Deceased in the present case was businessman andduring the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Appellants produced therelevant income tax returns, audit reports and other relevant documentspertaining to the commercial ventures of the Deceased to prove the lossof income attributable on account of his sudden demise. The TribunalFrelied on the same and computed the income by taking an average of theincome recorded in three prior financial years (FY 2000-2001, FY 2001-2002 and FY 2002-2003) to determine the compensation under the headof ‘loss of income’.

6 Yadava Kumar v Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC341, para 17.

7 Ningamma v United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710, para 34.

8 Peter Cane, Atiyah’s Accidents, Compensation and the Law (7th edn, CambridgeUniversity Press 2006) 411-412.9 ibid.H

14. In contrast, the High Court set aside the same on the groundthat the income earned was out of capital assets and cannot be said tohave been earned out of personal skills of the deceased. It consequentlywent on to determine the income of the Deceased on notional basis asper his educational qualification. Unfortunately, such an approach, in ouropinion, is erroneous in view of the decisions of this court in Amrit BhanuShali v National Insurance Co. Ltd.[10]and Kalpanaraj v Tamil NaduState Transport Corpn.[11]wherein this court has held that documentssuch as income tax returns and audit reports are reliable evidence todetermine the income of the deceased. Hence, we are obliged to modifythe compensation, especially when neither any additional evidence hasbeen produced to showcase that the income of the Deceased wascontrary to the amount mentioned in the audit reports nor it is the standtaken by the Insurance Company that the said reports inflated the income.

15. At this stage, to facilitate our analysis, it would be pertinent todivide the income as mentioned in the audit reports into two parts – (a)Income from Business Ventures and other Investments and (b) Incomefrom House Property and Agricultural Land. It should be emphasizedthat these audit reports only showcase amounts which specifically stemfrom the shares and interest held by the Deceased in the businesses andit is not case wherein the entire turnover of businesses are depicted asDeceased’s income. Moreover, it deserves to be clarified that the incomeunder the abovementioned two parts have been computed at gross valueas per the audit reports and includes the deductions such as interest paidon loans and expenses incurred by the deceased.

C.2.1 – Treatment of Income from Business Ventures and otherInvestments

16. As per the audit report and other documents, the income underthis part was attributable to the amounts earned from the deceased’smultiple business ventures, which included the partnership firms and otherinvestments such as shares and bank interests. On perusal of thedocuments on record, it is to be noticed that almost all business ventureswere the result of the initiatives taken by the Deceased, and he wasactively involved in the day-to-day management of these entities. Infact, the testimony of the Deceased’s wife points out that the Appellants

10 Amrit Bhanu Shali v National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 11 SCC 738, para 17.

11 Kalpanaraj v Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. (2015) 2 SCC 764, para 8.

Ahad to sell the buses which were utilized in the transport business becausethey were not able to take care of the vehicles on account of the demiseof the Deceased and even the export business was shut down due to thesame reason.

17. The mere fact that the Deceased’s share of ownership inBthese businesses ventures was transferred to the Deceased’s minorchildren just before his death or to the dependents after his death is nota sufficient justification to conclude that the benefits of these businessescontinue to accrue to his dependents. On the contrary, it has come onrecord that the Deceased was actively involved in the day-to-dayadministration of these businesses from their stage of infancy, hadCundergone specialized training to administer his business and that theaudit reports neatly delineate Deceased’s share of income from thebusinesses. These facts necessitate that the entire amount from thebusiness ventures is treated as income. Similarly, the amount earnedfrom the bank interests and remaining investments must also be includedDas income.

18. The Appellants have produced audit reports for the last fourfinancial years which highlight the amounts under ‘Income from BusinessVentures and other Investments’ which is as per follows – (i) for FY2000-2001 is Rs. 8,95,812/- (ii) for FY 2001-2002 is Rs. 10,31,091/-E(iii) for FY 2002- 2003 is Rs. 14,65,060/- and (iv) for FY 2003-2004 isRs. 9,79,099/-. The average of these amounts comes up toRs. 10,92,765.50/-, which is rounded off to Rs 10,93,000/- and the sameis awarded to the Appellants as loss of income derived under ‘Incomefrom Business Ventures and other Investments’.

FC.2.2 – Treatment of Income from House Property andAgricultural Land

19. As per the audit reports, the Deceased used to draw all hisrental income from the share he held in commercial building known as‘Lakshmi Complex’ and the remaining income was from his agriculturalGlands, which have been bequeathed to his legal heirs on his death. Theaudit reports indicate the amounts under the ‘Income from HouseProperty and Agricultural Land’ as per follows – (i) for FY 2000-2001 isRs. 6,90,396/- (ii) for FY 2001-2002 is Rs. 6,47,127/- (iii) for FY 2002-2003 is Rs. 6,14,329/- and (iv) for FY 2003-2004 is Rs. 4,78,240/-. Theaverage of these amounts comes up to Rs. 6,07,523/-.H

20. At this juncture, we must note the decision in Shashikala vGangalakshmamma[12] whereby this court deducted the entire amountearned as income from house property while determining thecompensation under the Act. The decision in Shashikala[13]was splitdecision because of disagreement between the bench on whether futureprospects are to be considered for awarding compensation when thedeceased is self-employed person. Accordingly, the matter was taggedand heard along with Pranay Sethi[14] , wherein this court had conclusivelydecided the abovementioned issue regarding future prospects. After that,the matter was remitted back to three-judge bench for redeterminationof compensation, wherein this court again deducted the entire amountearned as income from house property.[15]

21. Now, the sole issue which remains before this court is whetherthe entire amount under ‘Income from House Property and AgriculturalLand’ should be deducted or not. In this respect, we are guided by theobservations of this court in State of Haryana v Jasbir Kaur[16] whereinit was noted that –

8. x-x-x-x

The land possessed by the deceased still remains with hislegal heirs. There is however possibility that the claimantsmay be required to engage persons to look after agriculture.Therefore, the normal rule about the deprivation of income isnot strictly applicable to cases where agricultural income isthe source. Attendant circumstances have to be considered.

(Emphasis Applied)

In our opinion, the abovementioned observations, though made inthe context of agricultural land, would also be applicable to rent receivedfrom leased out properties as the loss of dependency arises mainly outof loss of management capacity or efficiency. As rule of prudence,computation of any individual’s managerial skills should lie between 10to 15 per cent of the total rental income but the acceptable range can beincreased in light of specific circumstances. The appropriate approach,

12 Shashikala v Gangalakshmamma (2015) 9 SCC 150.

13 ibid.

14 Pranay Sethi (n 1).

15 Shashikala v Gangalakshmamma (Civil Appeal No 2836 of 2015, 14 February2019).

16 State of Haryana v Jasbir Kaur (2003) 7 SCC 484.

Atherefore, is to determine the value of managerial skills along with anyother factual considerations.

22. In the instant case, documents produced on record indicatetwo salient aspects with respect to ‘Lakshmi Complex’, which was thesole source of rental income for the deceased. The partition deed relatedBto the land on which the commercial building is situated, highlights thatthe building was constructed on account of the joint investment made bythe Deceased and his partners. Furthermore, as per the rental records,‘Lakshmi Complex’ was leased out to more than ten different commercialentities. Hence, keeping in mind that – first, the rental amount which issought to be deducted partakes the character of investment; and second,Cthat the managerial skills required for supervising the said building wouldrequire sophisticated contract management skills and goodwill amongthe business community, it is necessary that we determine the value ofmanagerial skills of the Deceased on the higher side.

23. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to award Rs 2,50,000/-Das the amount for the Deceased’s managerial skills. It is clarified thatthe said amount would also include the amount for the managerial skillsin respect of the Deceased’s agricultural lands. It is further clarified thatthe remaining amount which has been deducted by us includes the taxwhich has to be deducted in terms of the decision in Pranay Sethi[17].

ED. CONCLUSION

24. In light of the above discussion, income of the Deceased iscomputed by adding the amount awarded under the two parts(Rs 10,93,000/- + Rs 2,50,000/-), which comes to Rs 13,43,000/-. Interms of Pranay Sethi[18], forty per cent of the income has to be addedFtowards future prospects, which would come to Rs 18,80,200/-. Afterdeducting one-fourth towards personal expenses as per Sarla Verma[19],the net amount comes to Rs 14,10,150/- per annum. Applying the multiplierof 16, the total loss of dependency on account of the Deceased’s incomeis calculated at Rs 2,25,62,400/-. We further grant compensation underGthe remaining conventional heads as per the decisions in Pranay Sethi[20]and Satinder Kaur[21].

17 Pranay Sethi (n 1), para 59.3.

18 Pranay Sethi (n 1), para 59.3.

19 Sarla Verma v DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121.

20 Pranay Sethi (n 1), para 59.8.

H21 United Insurance Company Ltd. v Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780, para(s) 33-37.

25. Hence, the compensation is determined as per follows -

26. We also direct that the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annumshall be payable on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing theclaim petition till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall bepaid to the claimants within three months from today. Needless to say,that the amount already paid or deposited shall be adjusted while depositingthe enhanced compensation awarded by this court.

27. Hence, the judgment under appeal of the High Court is setaside and the Appellants are held entitled to enhanced compensation asdetermined above.

28. The appeal stands disposed of along with any pendingapplications in above terms.

Nidhi Jain and Anurag Bhaskar

Appeal disposed of.