# The National Insurance Company Ltd. Lko v. Sri Ram Prakash & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 295
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-09-21
- **Case number:** FAFO Defective No. 171 of 2020
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-national-insurance-company-ltd-lko-v-sri-ram-prakash-ors-45201
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil law - mere absence, fake or
invalid
driving
license
or
disqualification
of
the
driver
for
driving at the relevant time, are not in
themselves defences available to the
insurer against either the insured or
the third parties - onus of proving that
the
driving
license
was
fake
and
invalid
lay
upon
the
insurance
company. (Para -17,18)

Respondents - legal heirs of the deceased -
Claim Petition - claim has been allowed -
National
Insurance
Company
Limited,
(Appellant) - directed to pay Rs.4,73,200/- along
with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per
annum to the opposite parties - award - ground
- driver of the motorcycle was not holding valid
and effective driving license at the time of the
incident - Appellant Insurance company is liable
to be absolved of its liability to indemnify the
deceased.(Para-2,3)

HELD:- The appellant have failed to discharge
the onus by adducing any credible evidence to
enable
this
Court
to
return
a
contrary
finding.(Para-23)

First
Appeal
from
order
defective
dismissed at admission stage. (E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

10 All. The National Insurance Company Ltd. Lko. Vs. Sri Ram Prakash & Ors.
295
(2020)10ILR A295
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

FAFO Defective No. 171 of 2020

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Lko.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Sri Ram Prakash & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Satyajit Banerji

Counsel for the Respondents:
-----

(A) Civil law - mere absence, fake or
invalid
driving
license
or
disqualification
of
the
driver
for
driving at the relevant time, are not in
themselves defences available to the
insurer against either the insured or
the third parties - onus of proving that
the
driving
license
was
fake
and
invalid
lay
upon
the
insurance
company. (Para -17,18)

Respondents - legal heirs of the deceased -
Claim Petition - claim has been allowed -
National
Insurance
Company
Limited,
(Appellant) - directed to pay Rs.4,73,200/- along
with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per
annum to the opposite parties - award - ground
- driver of the motorcycle was not holding valid
and effective driving license at the time of the
incident - Appellant Insurance company is liable
to be absolved of its liability to indemnify the
deceased.(Para-2,3)

HELD:- The appellant have failed to discharge
the onus by adducing any credible evidence to
enable
this
Court
to
return
a
contrary
finding.(Para-23)

First
Appeal
from
order
defective
dismissed at admission stage. (E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swarna Singh,
(2004) 3 SCC 297

2. Nirmala Kothari Vs United India Insurance
Company Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 49

3. Rakesh Kumar Vs United Insurance Company
Ltd., (2016) 17 SCC 219

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. This appeal has been filed with a
delay of 151 days. The delay has been duly
explained by the appellant stating that the
same has been occasioned on account of
obtaining the documents and also on
account of on ongoing Pandemic of Covid
19.
The
delay
has
been
explained
satisfactorily. The delay is condoned.

2. National Insurance Company
Limited, Lucknow (Appellant) is in appeal
against the judgment and order dated
15.1.2020
passed
in
Claim
Petition
No.805/2015 which was filed by the
respondents, who are legal heirs of the
deceased, and the claim has been allowed
and the appellant has been directed to pay
Rs.4,73,200/- along with interest at the rate
of 8 per cent per annum to the opposite
parties.

3. The award has been assailed
primarily on the ground that driver of the
motorcycle was not holding valid and
effective driving license at the time of the
incident, therefore, Appellant Insurance
company is liable to be absolved of its
liability to indemnify the deceased.

4. As per undisputed facts of the case,
the said incident took place on 15.10.2015
when the deceased Smt. Rajrani alias
Ganga Dei was returning from the temple
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to her house and was walking along 2
village kachchi road when at around 7 p.m,
the offending motorcycle bearing No. UP
32 GF 2868 being driven by Sarvesh
Kumar Verma who was driving on the
wrong side, hit the deceased Smt. Rajrani,
who was severely injured and was admitted
in Galaxy Hospital where she succumbed
to her injuries and died. At the time of the
incident the deceased was 45 years old and
was earning about Rs.6000/- per month by
selling vegetables.

5. Sarvesh Kumar Verma, opposite
party No.7 was driver of the motorcycle.
By means of the present appeal only
solitary point which has been urged by
learned counsel for the appellant is that the
finding returned by the Tribunal with
regard to the validity of the driving license
No.RA 2646/UNO issued to respondent
No.7 is incorrect and perverse and is liable
to be set aside.

6. The Tribunal has held that the
license held by the driver was valid from
30.5.2008 to 29.5.2028 and respondent
No.7 had also produced information
obtained under Right to Information Act
before the Tribunal, on the basis of which,
the Tribunal concluded that the driving
license of Sarvesh Kumar Verma was valid
and effective on the date of alleged
occurrence.

7. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that as per the
information acquired by the insurance
company from its inspector, who conducted
the
investigation
and
submitted
an
inspection report, the said license of
Sarvesh Kumar Verma could not be
verified. The appellants are solely relying
upon this investigation report and have
pleaded and vehemently urged that the
license of Sarvesh Kumar Verma was 3
invalid and, therefore, insurance company
does not have any liability towards the
heirs of the deceased.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the
appellant at the admission stage and have
perused the judgment under appeal.

9. The said issue as raised by the
appellant has been dealt with by the
Tribunal at issue No.2. Before the Tribunal
it was contended by the insurance company
that the license produced by Sarvesh
Kumar Verma was not valid and the
Regional Transport Officer has not issued
the said license. The entire contention of
the Insurance company was based on the
inspection report of Sandeep Kumar Gaur
who is stated to have conducted an enquiry
and also visited the office of the Regional
Transport Officer to verify the driving
license. He has stated that the license could
not be verified as the dealing clerk after
perusing the record informed him orally
that the said license is not in their record
but refused to give anything in writing.

10. Learned counsel for respondent
No.7 submitted a copy of license before the
Tribunal and also produced information in
evidence
obtained
under
Right
to
Information Act which was marked as
exhibit C-30.

11. A perusal of the reply obtained
under Right to Information Act provided by
the Regional Transport Officer with regard
to the said driving license, clearly indicates
that the license was valid and a copy of
same was annexed with the said reply. It
has been clearly recorded by the Tribunal
that the insurance company did not file any
objection
to
the
application
seeking
information under Right to Information Act
10 All. The National Insurance Company Ltd. Lko. Vs. Sri Ram Prakash & Ors.
297
filed by Sarvesh Kumar Verma with regard
to driving license. He also submits that the
said Sarvesh Kumar Verma who was
driving the vehicle on the fateful day was
in possession of the aforesaid driving
license on the date of the incident.

12. The appellant Insurance Company
by means of this appeal seeks setting aside
of the finding recorded by the Tribunal
with regard to the driving license of
respondent no. 7 after holding the same to
be perverse, and also that sufficient
opportunity was not given to them to prove
that the said license was fake.

13. Considering the aforesaid factual
aspects the Tribunal returned a finding that
Sarvesh Kumar Verma was holder of a
valid and effective license on the date of
the incident.

14. A perusal of the impugned
judgement passed by the Tribunal clearly
indicates that the burden of proof was duly
discharged by respondent no.7 when he
produced before the Tribunal a copy of the
driving License, as well as a reply obtained
under the Right to Information Act, where
the said driving lessons was annexed along
with the reply which clearly proved beyond
doubt the existence of a valid driving
license in favour of respondent no.7.

15. In case the appellant insurance
company wanted to prove that the said
driving licence was fake, then the onus
clearly laid upon the Insurance company to
place such material and evidence before the
Tribunal so as to enable the Tribunal to
take a contrary stand, rather than the one on
which the claim has been allowed.

16. In this regard, in case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarna Singh,
reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 a three
Judge Bench of Supreme Court has
elaborately discussed the issue as under:

(i)
that
the
Parliament
deliberately used two different expressions
'effective licence' in Section 3 and 'duly
licensed' in sub-section (2) of Section 149
of the Act which are suggestive of the fact
that a driver once licensed, unless he is
disqualified, would continue to be a duly
licensed person for the purpose of Chapter
XI of the Act.

(ii) Thus, once a person has been
duly licensed but has not renewed his
licence, the same would not come within
the purview of Section 149 and thus would
not constitute a statutory defence available
to the insurer in terms thereof. Only in the
event of lapse of five years from the date of
expiry of the licence, such statutory defence
may be raised.

(iii)
Once
a
certificate
of
insurance is issued in terms of the
provisions of the Act, the insurer has a
liability to satisfy an award. It has been
pointed that a major departure has been
made in the 1988 Act insofar as in terms of
Section 96 (2) (b) of the 1939 Act all the
statutory defences were available in terms
of sub-section (3) thereof provided that the
policy
conditions
other
than
those
prescribed therein had no effect; whereas
in the new Act, Section 149 (2) (a)
prescribes that the policy is void if it is
obtained by nondisclosure of material fact.
Section 149 (4) confines to only clause (b)
and states that the conditions of policy
except as mentioned in clause (b) of subsection (2) are of no effect and, thus, after
the amendment, except in cases which are
covered under clause (b) of Section 149,
the insurance companies are liable to pay
to the third parties. In other words, the
right of insurer to avoid the claim of the
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
third party would arise only when the
policy is obtained by misrepresentation of
material fact and fraud and in no other
case.

(iv) Sub-section (1) of Section 149
makes it clear that the insurer should pay
first to the third parties and recover the same
if they are absolved on any of the grounds
specified in sub-section (2) thereof. Reliance,
in this connection, has been placed on BIG
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Captain Itbar Singh
and Others [AIR 1959 SC 1331] and New
India Assurance Company Vs. Kamla &
Others [(2001) 4 SCC 342].

(v) The burden to prove the
defence raised by the insurers as regard the
question as to whether there has been any
breach of violation of policy conditions of
the insurance policy has been issued or not,
would be upon the insurer.

(vi) The breach on the part of the
insured must be a wilful one being of
fundamental condition by the insured himself
and the burden of proof, therefore, would be
on the insurer.

..........

(i) Chapter XI of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory
insurance of vehicles against third party risks
is a social welfare legislation to extend relief
by compensation to victims of accidents
caused by use of motor vehicles. The
provisions of compulsory insurance coverage
of all vehicles are with this paramount object
and the provisions of the Act have to be so
interpreted as to effectuate the said object.

(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a
defence in a claim petition filed under
Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of
Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the said Act.

(iii)
The
breach
of
policy
condition e.g., disqualification of driver or
invalid driving licence of the driver, as
contained in subsection (2)(a)(ii) of section
149, have to be proved to have been
committed by the insured for avoiding
liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake
or
invalid
driving
licence
or
disqualification of the driver for driving at
the relevant time, are not in themselves
defences available to the insurer against
either the insured or the third parties. To
avoid its liability towards insured, the
insurer has to prove that the insured was
guilty of negligence and failed to exercise
reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling
the condition of the policy regarding use of
vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who
was not disqualified to drive at the relevant
time.

(iv) The insurance companies
are, however, with a view to avoid their
liability must not only establish the
available defence(s) raised in the said
proceedings but must also establish
'breach' on the part of the owner of the
vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor
would be on them.

(v) The court cannot lay down
any criteria as to how said burden would
be discharged, inasmuch as the same would
depend upon the facts and circumstance of
each case.

(vi) Even where the insurer is
able to prove breach on the part of the
insured concerning the policy condition
regarding holding of a valid licence by the
driver or his qualification to drive during
the relevant period, the insurer would not
be allowed to avoid its liability towards
insured unless the said breach or breaches
on the condition of driving licence is/ are
so fundamental as are found to have
contributed to the cause of the accident.
The Tribunals in interpreting the policy
conditions would apply "the rule of main
purpose" and the concept of "fundamental
breach" to allow defences available to the
insured under section 149(2) of the Act.
10 All. The National Insurance Company Ltd. Lko. Vs. Sri Ram Prakash & Ors.
299

(vii) The question as to whether
the owner has taken reasonable care to find
out as to whether the driving licence
produced by the driver, (a fake one or
otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements
of law or not will have to be determined in
each case.

(viii) If a vehicle at the time of
accident was driven by a person having a
learner's licence, the insurance companies
would be liable to satisfy the decree.

(ix)
The
claims
Tribunal
constituted under Section 165 read with
Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all
claims in respect of the accidents involving
death or of bodily injury or damage to
property of third party arising in use of
motor vehicle. The said power of the
Tribunal is not restricted to decide the
claims inter se between claimant or
claimants on one side and insured, insurer
and driver on the other. In the course of
adjudicating the claim for compensation
and to decide the availability of defence or
defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has
necessarily the power and jurisdiction to
decide disputes inter se between insurer
and the insured. The decision rendered on
the claims and disputes inter se between the
insurer and insured in the course of
adjudication of claim for compensation by
the claimants and the award made thereon
is enforceable and executable in the same
manner as provided in Section 174 of the
Act for enforcement and execution of the
award in favour of the claimants.

(x) Where on adjudication of the
claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at
a
conclusion
that
the
insurer
has
satisfactorily
proved
its
defence
in
accordance with the provisions of section
149 (2) read with sub-section (7), as
interpreted by this Court above, the
Tribunal can direct that the insurer is
liable to be reimbursed by the insured for
the compensation and other amounts which
it has been compelled to pay to the third
party under the award of the Tribunal.
Such determination of claim by the
Tribunal will be enforceable and the money
found due to the insurer from the insured
will be recoverable
on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to
the Collector in the same manner under
Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land
revenue. The certificate will be issued for
the recovery as arrears of land revenue
only if, as required by sub-section (3) of
Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to
deposit the amount awarded in favour of
the insurer within thirty days from the date
of announcement of the award by the
Tribunal.

(xi) The provisions contained in
sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and
sub-section (5) which are intended to cover
specified contingencies mentioned therein
to enable the insurer to recover amount
paid under the contract of insurance on
behalf of the insured can be taken recourse
of by the Tribunal and be extended to
claims and defences of insurer against
insured by relegating them to the remedy
before regular court in cases where on
given facts and circumstances adjudication
of their claims inter se might delay the
adjudication of the claims of the victims.
For the reasons aforementioned, these
petitions are dismissed but without any
order as to costs."

17. From perusal of the aforesaid
judgment it is clear that mere absence, fake
or invalid driving license or disqualification
of the driver for driving at the relevant
time, are not in themselves defences
available to the insurer against either the
insured or the third parties. To avoid its
liability towards insured, the insurer has to
prove that the insured was guilty of
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
negligence
and
failed
to
exercise
reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling
the condition of the policy regarding use of
vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who
was not disqualified to drive at the relevant
time.

18. It is relevant to consider the
judgment of Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.s 1999-2000 of 2020 ( Nirmala
Kothari Vs. United India Insurance
Company Limited, 2020 (4) SCC 49) in
which in para 8 and 9 it has been held as
under:-

"8. Having set forth the facts of
the present case, the question of law that
arises for consideration is what is the
extent of care/diligence expected of the
employer/insured
while
employing
a
driver? To answer this question, we shall
advert to the legal position regarding the
liability of the Insurance Company when
the
driver
of
the
offending
vehicle
possessed an invalid/fake driving licence.
In the case of United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Lehru & Ors.1 a two Judge Bench
of this court has taken the view that the
Insurance Company cannot be permitted to
avoid its liability on the ground that the
person driving the vehicle at the time of the
accident was not duly licenced. It was
further held that the willful breach of the
conditions
of
the
policy
should
be
established. The law with this respect has
been discussed in detail in the case of
Pepsu RTC vs. National Insurance Co.2 We
may extract the relevant paragraph from
the Judgment: (Pepsu case, SCC pp. 22324, para10) 1 (2003) 3 SCC 338 : 2003
SCC (Cri) 641 2 (2013) 10 SCC 217 7 "In
a claim for compensation, it is certainly
open to the insurer under Section
149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the
driver of the vehicle involved in the
accident was not duly licensed. Once such
a defence is taken, the onus is on the
insurer. But even after it is proved that the
licence possessed by the driver was a fake
one, whether there is liability on the
insurer is the moot question. As far as the
owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he
hires a driver, he has to check whether the
driver
has
a
valid
driving
licence.
Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to
the competence of the driver. If satisfied in
that regard also, it can be said that the
owner had taken reasonable care in
employing a person who is qualified and
competent to drive the vehicle. The owner
cannot be expected to go beyond that, to
the extent of verifying the genuineness of
the driving licence with the licensing
authority before hiring the services of the
driver. However, the situation would be
different if at the time of insurance of the
vehicle
or
thereafter
the
insurance
company requires the owner of the vehicle
to have the licence duly verified from the
licensing authority or if the attention of the
owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to
the allegation that the licence issued to the
driver employed by him is a fake one and
yet the owner does not take appropriate
action for verification of the matter
regarding the genuineness of the licence
from the licensing authority. That is what is
explained in Swaran Singh's case (supra).
If despite such information with the owner
that the licence possessed by his driver is
fake, no action is taken by the insured for
appropriate verification, then the insured
will be at fault and, in such circumstances,
the insurance company is not liable for the
compensation."

9. While the insurer can certainly
take the defence that the licence of the
driver of the car at the time of accident was
invalid/fake however the 8 onus of proving
that the insured did not take adequate care
10 All. The National Insurance Company Ltd. Lko. Vs. Sri Ram Prakash & Ors.
301
and caution to verify the genuineness of the
licence or was guilty of willful breach of
the conditions of the insurance policy or
the contract of insurance lies on the
insurer. "

19.

Considering
the
aforesaid
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex court it
is clearly borne out that the onus of proving
that the driving license was fake and invalid
lay upon the insurance company. The
insurance company was under an obligation
to lead sufficient credible evidence before the
Tribunal which could show that the diving
license off respondent No.7 was fake. A
perusal of the impugned judgement would
indicate that apart from producing the report
obtained by them from their agent, no other
evidence was led by the appellant Insurance
Company. Even the report only records
hearsay evidence of the dealing clerk in the
office of the Transport Authority. It was open
for the insurance company to have applied for
and also obtained and verified the driving
licence from the Transport Authority, but
they failed to do so nor did they place any
evidence before the Tribunal to take any
contrary view in the matter.

20. The Insurance Company in its
overwhelming zeal to avoid payment of
compensation has acted in the most
irresponsible manner in the present case by
firstly not producing any evidence in support
of their contention before the Tribunal and
secondly persisting with their untenable stand
in the present appeal. With regard to issue
No.2 the Tribunal has clearly recorded a
finding that the appellant insurance company
did not oppose or deny the validity of the
licence.

21. In exercise of its appellate powers,
this Court can certainly look into questions
pertaining to perversity of findings recorded
by the Tribunal, and only when examining
the record which may indicate existence of
overwhelming evidence adduced by one
party, and recording of a contrary finding of
fact by the Tribunal, this Court would have
sufficient powers to reverse such a finding. In
the present case not an iota of evidence has
been led by the appellant so as to give an
occasion to this Court to embark on an
exercise for re-examination of the evidence
with regard to the driving licence of
respondent no.7. This Court after examining
the entire record of the case as produced by
the appellant in the instant appeal, disposes of
the same at the admission stage itself as the
Court does not find any material or ground to
entertain the appeal.

22. In this regard, it would also be
relevant to refer the judgement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in
Rakesh Kumar Vs. United Insurance
Company Ltd., 2016 (17) SCC 219
wherein in paras 19 and 20 it was held as
under:-

"19. In our considered opinion,
the Tribunal was right in holding that the
driver of the offending vehicle possessed a
valid driving license at the time of accident
and that the Insurance Company failed to
adduce any evidence to prove otherwise.
This finding of the Tribunal, in our view,
should not have been set aside by the High
Court for the following reasons:

20. First, the driver of the
offending vehicle (N.A.-2) proved his
driving license (Exhibit- R1) in his
evidence. Second, when the license was
proved, the Insurance Company did not
raise any objection about its admissibility
or manner of proving. Third, even if any
objection had been raised, it would have
had no merit because it has come on record
that the original driving license was filed
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the driver in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First class, Naraingarh in a
criminal case arising out of the same
accident. Fourth, in any event, once the
license was proved by the driver and
marked in evidence and without there being
any objection by the Insurance Company,
the Insurance Company had no right to
raise any objection about the admissibility
and manner of proving of the license at a
later
stage
(See
Oriental
Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors.,
(2007) 13 SCC 476) and lastly, the
Insurance Company failed to adduce any
evidence to prove that the driving license
(Ex.R1) was either fake or invalid for some
reason."

23.

Considering
the
aforesaid
judgments the onus clearly lies upon the
Insurance Company to prove that driving
licensee of Sarvesh Kumar Verma was either
fake or invalid. The appellant have failed to
discharge the onus by adducing any credible
evidence to enable this Court to return a
contrary finding. Apart from the report of the
investigating officer who seems to have only
met the concerned dealing clerk in the office
of Regional Transport Officer, who orally
told him that the said license was not in his
record, no other material has been placed by
the appellant so as to return a finding of fact
in favour of the appellant.

24. The Tribunal has considered all the
evidence, including the evidence adduced by
respondent no. 7 with regard to the validity of
the driving license and also the information
obtained under Right to Information Act from
the transport authority which also confirmed
the existence of valid and effective driving
license, and therefore there is no occasion for
this Court to interfere with the judgment
passed by the Tribunal.

25. The appeal is without merits and is
dismissed at the admission stage itself.
----------
(2020)10ILR A302
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.02.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

FAFO No. 691 of 2017

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow
 ...Appellant
Versus
Phoolmati & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Avadhesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
-----

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 146 - necessity for insurance
against third party risk , Section 147 -
Requirements of policies andlimits of
liability, section 163-A - Special provisions
as
to
payment
of
compensation
on
structued formula basis - where the owner
of the motor vehicle is himself involved in
the accident, the provisions of Section
163-A have no application, Section 173 -
Appeals - impugned award cannot be
sustained .(Para-12)

Respondent no. 1 , father of sarvesh kumar -
owner of the said car - car was insured with
National Insurance Comapny( Appelant) for the
period 31.08.2014 to 31.08.2015 - accident -
car driven by Sarvesh kumar - suffered
grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries
on the way to the hospital - Respondent No. 1,
the mother of the deceased and Respondent no.
2, the wife of the deceased - filed an application
under Section 163-A of the Act - claiming
compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen
lakhs only) - for the death of the deceased.
(para-2,3)