Kerala High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Benazir on 8 August, 2025
M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020
1
2025:KER:59687
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 172 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.02.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.2507 OF
2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE O.P.(M.V.):
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P.CELL, 4TH FLOOR, JOS TRUST BUILDING,
CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
COCHIN, PIN- 682 035,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE OF UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
AT HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1, 3, ADDL. 4 AND 1ST RESPONDENT IN
THE O.P.(M.V.):
1 BENAZIR,
AGED 38 YEARS, ( 25 YEARS AGE IN THE YEAR 2006),
W/O. LATE JOWSHAR, HOUSE NO. 13/1003 B, JIBU,
MYTHRI NAGAR, KARUVELIPADY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN - 682 005.
2 P.Z. JESIF,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O. LATE ZAINUDEEN, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.13/1003 B,
JIBU, MYTHRI NAGAR, KARUVELIPADY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN - 682 005.
3 JAMNAZ,
AGED 44 YEARS,
M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020
2
2025:KER:59687
D/O. LATE ZAINUDEEN, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.13/1003 B,
JIBU, MYTHRI NAGAR, KARUVELIPADY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN - 682 005.
*4 SRI. ABDUL RAUF,
S/O. GAFOOR BAVA, VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KACHERIPADY, PALLURUTHY,
COCHIN - 682 006.
*RESPONDENT NO.4 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT
THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED
12/02/2021 IN I.A. NO. 3/2020 IN THE MACA.
(2ND RESPONDENT IN THE O.P.(M.V.) DIED DURING THE
PENDENCY OF THE CLAIM PETITION AND HENCE HER LEGAL
HEIR WAS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.3RD PETITIONER)
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAHUL SASI
SMT.NEETHU PREM
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 08.08.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.3317/2020, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020
3
2025:KER:59687
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
MACA NO. 3317 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.02.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.2507 OF
2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
APPELLANT/PETITIONERS 1, 3 AND 4:
1 BENAZIR,
AGED 39 YEARS,
W/O. LATE JOWSHAR, HOUSE NO.13/1003 B, JIBU, MYTHRI
NAGAR,KARUVELIPPADY, COCHIN 5.
2 P.Z. JESIF,
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O. LATE ZAINUDHEEN, HOUSE NO. 13/1003B, JIBU,
MYTHRI NAGAR, KARUVELIPPADY, COCHIN 5.
3 JAMNAZ,
AGED 45 YEARS,
D/O LATE ZAINUDHEEN, HOUSE NO.13/1003 B, JIBU,
MYTHRI NAGAR, KARUVELIPPADY, COCHIN-5.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAHUL SASI
SMT.NEETHU PREM
SHRI.VIVEK.P.K
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
T.P. CELL, 4TH FLOOR, JOS TRUST BUILDING,
CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 035,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020
4
2025:KER:59687
BY ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 08.08.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.172/2020, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020
5
2025:KER:59687
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of August 2025
JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the second respondent/insurer and the claim petitioners 1, 3 and 4 respectively in O.P.(MV) No.2507/2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakualm, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 11/02/2019. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. The claim petitioners are the wife, mother and brother of the deceased. According to the claim petitioners, on 12/08/2006 at about 09:15 p.m., while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/AL-6793 through Chullikkal-Thoppumpady road, motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-7/BB-7971 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 6 2025:KER:59687 negligent manner collided with the bike of the deceased, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries, to which he succumbed. A sum of ₹1,50,00,000/- was claimed by the claim petitioners as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner-cum-rider remained ex parte.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent/rider of the offending vehicle. It was also contended that the petition was not maintainable as the claim was filed with a delay of eight years for which no reasons has been furnished.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A26 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/rider of the offending vehicle M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 7 2025:KER:59687 resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹1,11,21,204/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the second respondent/insurer and the claim petitioners have come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer relying on the dictum in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Jojo, 2019 (4) KLT 127 that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding compensation, though the claim was a stale one. The accident took place on 12/08/2006. But the claim petition was filed in the year 2014 only, that is, after a period of 8 years, for which no reason(s) has been given. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the claim petition or awarded compensation. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that in M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 8 2025:KER:59687 the absence of any time limit prescribed under the Act, a claim petition cannot be rejected on the ground that it is belated. It is also pointed out that there is no dispute regarding the insurance coverage or regarding the occurrence. There has been no unjust enrichment for the claim petitioners as the Tribunal has awarded interest only from the date of the claim petition. The claim petitioners can also not be accused of adopting any delaying tactics. The first claim petitioner, the wife of the deceased, was only 25 years old when she lost her husband. The third claim petitioner, her brother-in-law, was quite young at that time and also a dependent of the deceased. Hence, there was no one to take steps for filing the claim petition in time. Initially, the family had engaged a lawyer to file appeal. However, no appeal was filed. As the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, a lenient view and a liberal approach or interpretation has to be adopted by the Court. A highly technical approach should not be adopted, which would cause injustice to the party. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no reason or justification for this Court to interfere with the Award of the Tribunal, goes the argument . In support of the M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 9 2025:KER:59687 argument, reference is made to the dictum of a Single Bench of this Court in Branch Manager v. Rajamma Prasad, 2025 KHC Online 10279.
10. The accident in the case on hand took place on 12/08/2006. The claim petition is seen filed before the Tribunal concerned on 24/12/2014, that is, after more than 8 years. Column no.26 of the claim petition reads thus-
"26. Where the application is not made within six months of the occurrence of the accident, the cause thereof . : Not applicable"
11. In the written statement filed by the second respondent/insurer a contention was taken that the claim is not maintainable as it has been filed after a long delay of 8 years, for which no reasons have been given. Despite the said contention being taken up in the written statement, no pleading(s) by way of amendment to the claim petition is seen made explaining the reasons for the long delay. It is true that when the accident occurred on 12/08/2006 there was no provision in the Act prescribing the period within which the claim ought to have been filed. But, would that M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 10 2025:KER:59687 mean that the claim can be filed as and when the claim petitioners think fit? Here it would be apposite to refer to the dictum of the Apex court in Purohit & Co. v. Khatoonbee, (2017)4 SCC 783. In the said case, the accident took place 02/02/1997. A claim under section 166 of the Act was filed on 23/03/2005, that is, after a period of more than 28 years. The High Court upheld the justiciability of the claim petition, on the ground that no period of limitation was provided for raising a claim under the Act. The Apex Court noticed that the period of limitation provided under Section 166(3) had been completely done away with effect from 14/11/1994, as the said Sub Section came to be deleted from the Act. Therefore, the question that arose for consideration was the consequence of the aforesaid omission from the Act and whether the said omission would have the effect of allowing a claimant to file a claim petition at any time, and whenever he chooses. It was held that a claim can be considered to be genuine so long as it is a live and surviving claim. But it is not as if, it can be open to all and sundry to approach a Tribunal to raise a claim for compensation at any juncture, after the accident had taken place. M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 11 2025:KER:59687 The individual concerned must approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time. The question of reasonability would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the said case, the claim petitioners had contended that their financial instability ; their ignorance of law and the failure of the insurer to pay any amount towards compensation were the reasons for the delay. The reasons furnished were rejected and it was held that the claim petition filed after a period of 28 years ought to have been treated as a dead claim and the Tribunal ought not to have allowed it.
12. In Jojo (Supra) relied on by the second respondent/insurer, a learned single Judge of this Court followed the dictum in Purohit & Co. (Supra) and held that when a claim petition was filed after a delay of 9 years, the claim ought not to have been considered and allowed by the Tribunal as the claim had become stale. Holding so, the appeal filed by the insurer against the Award of the Tribunal was allowed.
13. I also refer to the dictum in Rajamma Prasad (Supra) relied on by the claim petitioners wherein a learned single M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 12 2025:KER:59687 Judge of this court condoned delay of 14 years in filing the claim. The Award was challenged by the insurer on the ground that it was a stale claim. During the course of arguments it was submitted on behalf of claim petitioners that the accident had occurred in Maharashtra ; that it took several years to get all the documents ; that the documents which were in Marathi had to be translated, which was a time consuming process and that the family of the deceased, which consisted of the wife and two minor children were solely dependent on the deceased and the wife was also jobless and hence the delay. Accepting the reasons furnished during the course of the arguments before this court as sufficient, the contention of the insurer that the claim was stale was rejected and the Award of the Tribunal was upheld.
14. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that though the claim petition is silent regarding the delay, the same has been explained by the third claim petitioner when examined as PW2 and therefore the argument of the insurer that no reasons have been given for condoning the delay is not tenable. This M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 13 2025:KER:59687 argument advanced is against the basic principle that no amount of evidence can be looked into regarding a plea that has never been put forward. There cannot be any doubt that pleadings and evidence in a case of this nature require a liberal interpretation. But that would not mean that no law need to be followed or adhered to. I will assume for a moment that despite the absence of pleadings, evidence can be adduced explaining the delay and then see whether any explanation has been furnished by the third claim petitioner, when examined as PW2. The proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reads thus:
"1. I am the 3rd claimant in the above claim petition and I am conversant with the facts of the case. I am swearing this affidavit for and on behalf of me and on behalf of other claimants herein also.
2. The above claim petition is filed for the recovery of compensation from the respondents for the death caused to my brother in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 12/8/2006 at about 9.15 P.M. at Chullickal.
3. On 12/8/2006 at about 9.15 P.M. my brother Jowshar was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No. KL-07/AL 6793 from south to north through the western extremity of the Chullickal- M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 14 2025:KER:59687 Thoppumpady Road, very slowly and obeying the traffic rules. When he reached infront of Chullickal Kallu godown, the offending Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No. KL-07/BB 7971 being ridden by the 1st respondent through the same road in such a rash manner so as to endanger the human life and in high speed, came from north to south, went off its side and violently hit Jowshar's Motor Cycle and threw him on the hard surfaced road, inflicting grievous injuries. Soon after the accident he was taken to Gautham Hospital, Panayappilly and referred to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam and admitted there. But on 21/8/2006 at about 4.15 P.M. he was succumbed to the grievous injuries in spite of all possible treatment at Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam.
4. The 1st claimant is the wife, 2nd claimant is the mother and 3rd claimant is the brother of the deceased. 2nd claimant mother died and one of her legal heir Jamnaz, who is the sister of the deceased is impleaded as the additional 4th claimant. We are the legal representatives, dependants and beneficiaries to the estate of the deceased who are entitled to get the compensation claimed in this petition.
5. The offending vehicle was ridden rashly, negligently and in high speed by the 1st respondent rider. The accident and resultant death of my brother were all due to the direct result of the rash and negligent acts, omission and commission on the part of the 1st respondent rider. The 1st respondent is the owner- cum-rider of the offending vehicle and 2nd respondent is the M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 15 2025:KER:59687 insurer of the offending vehicle.
6. We, the claimants were looked after by the deceased for all our requirements and by the reasons of the sudden death of the deceased caused in consequence of the accident, we have been deprived from the source of maintenance, expectation, support, companionship, guidance, Love and affection, loss of expectation of life, loss of consortium, service income and other losses including future loss of increase in income etc.
7. My brother was aged 33 years at the time of accident and was working as AB (Able Body-Sea Man) at MT IVER Prosperity in Fleet Management Limited, Hongkong Laison Office: 101, The Great Eastern Calleria, 1 st Floor, Sector 4, Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400706 and earn US $ 1,136/- (Rs.70,552/-) per month.
8. All the contentions raised in the written statement filed by the respondents are denied by us as it is baseless and without any bonafides. The Police charge sheeted against the 1 st respondent owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle as Crime No. 4098/2006 of City Traffic Police Station, Cochin City. All the police records in connection with this case are filed before this Hon'ble Court. There was no negligence from the part of the deceased. The deceased was working as a Seaman and was getting the above mentioned income. His job was a permanent one and he would get promotions if he could continue the above post. We the claimants are the only legal heirs of the deceased.
M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 16 2025:KER:59687
9. All the facts stated in the claim petition may be considered and allow the claim petition as prayed for. The claim amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- with interest from the date of filing the claim petition till realization may be allowed.
10. The 1st respondent is the owner-cum rider of offending vehicle and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation."
15. As is evident on a reading of the aforesaid affidavit, there is not a whisper about the delay or the reasons for the same. PW2 in the cross examination deposed that pursuant to the accident, they had initially entrusted a lawyer to file the claim petition. Referring to this statement in the testimony of PW2, it is submitted that explanation has been furnished that the lawyer concerned did not take steps for filing the appeal in time. I am unable to accept this argument because no further questions were put on the point and PW2 did not elaborate on the point that the lawyer did not take steps to file the claim or the reason(s) as to why after the lawyer was engaged, the claim petition could not be filed within a reasonable time. No re-examination is also seen on the point. Therefore, there is neither pleadings nor evidence on record to explain the delay in filing M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 17 2025:KER:59687 the claim petition.
16 Despite the absence of pleadings or evidence to explain the delay, I will consider whether the submissions made at the time of arguments on behalf of the claim petitioners are sufficient cause for the delay to be ignored. As noticed earlier, the first claim petitioner is the wife and the third claim petitioner, the brother of the deceased. The second claim petitioner, the mother of the deceased, passed away during the pendency of the proceedings and her daughter has been impleaded as the additional fourth claim petitioner as her legal heir. PW2 in the cross examination deposed that the first claim petitioner remarried about 4 to 5 years after the accident and that she has two children in the said wedlock. He also admitted that the first claim petitioner had never appeared before the Tribunal in connection with the case, but she is aware of the case and that he is in touch with her. In the claim petition filed in the year 2014, the third claim petitioner is stated to be 32 years and the first claim petitioner, 33 years. Therefore, when the accident occurred in the year 2006, the third claim petitioner must have been around 24 years, an age mature M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 18 2025:KER:59687 enough to comprehend and do the needful. Hence, the argument advanced that since PW2 at the time of the accident was of a tender age, he was unable to take steps to file the appeal in time does not appear to be true. The first claim petitioner has remarried after the accident. That probably might be the reason why she lost interest in the matter. The reasons cited for the delay at the time of arguments are neither cogent nor sufficient.
17. The argument that no prejudice or injustice has been caused to any person by the impugned Award as there has been no unjust enrichment also cannot be accepted because as held by the Apex Court, even if there be no period prescribed for filing the claim at the relevant time, the claim ought to have been filed within a reasonable time and not as and when the claim petitioner thinks fit to do so. As held in Jojo (Supra) the principles behind the rule of practice that a stale claim shall not be entertained by a Court are that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them ; that one with a good cause would pursue the action in natural course of events within a reasonable time ; that it is unfair to expect one to keep M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 19 2025:KER:59687 and maintain proof of all that is happening in life indefinitely for the mere chance of litigations at some point of time, and that it is unfair to expect a person to lead a life with a claim hanging over him for an indefinite period.
17.1. Further, the necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him; secondly to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant, without asserting them in a court of law. The laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep. Therefore the, object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his right to action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims (See Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 1971(2) SCC 860). M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 20 2025:KER:59687
18. I also refer to the dictum of the Apex Court in Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash, 2024 KHC OnLine 6651, in which case, the appeal was filed with a delay of 534 days. The issue that arose for consideration was whether negligence or carelessness of an advocate can be the sole ground to condone the long and inordinate delay. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads -
"10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief." (Emphasis supplied) 18.1. In Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd., (1993)2 SCC 185, it has been held thus -
M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 21 2025:KER:59687 "8. The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal ie. the party who engage him. It is true that in certain situations, the court may, in the interest of justice, set aside a dismissal order or an ex parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and / or misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is no such absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be recognized. Such an absolute rule would make the working of the system extremely difficult. The observations made in Rafiq (AIR 1981 SC 1400) must not be understood as an absolute proposition. As we have mentioned hereinabove, this was an on-going suit posted for final hearing after a lapse of seven years of its institution It was not a second appeal filed by a villager residing away from the city, where the court is located. The defendant is also not a rustic ignorant villager but a private limited company with its head office at Calcutta itself and managed by educated businessmen who know where their interest lies. It is evident that when their applications were not deposed of before taking up the suit for final hearing they felt piqued and refused to appear before the court. May be, it was part of their delaying tactics as alleged by the plaintiff. May be not. But one thing is clear they chose to non-co-operate with the court. Having adopted such a stand towards the court. the M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 22 2025:KER:59687 defendant has no right to ask its indulgence. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted." (Emphasis supplied)
19. Therefore, even assuming that the allegation that the lawyer concerned who was initially entrusted with the file did not take steps to file the appeal is true, nothing prevented the claim petitioners from engaging another lawyer instead of waiting for an unduly long period of 8 years and then filing the appeal. The claim petitioners cannot put the entire blame on the lawyer and explain the delay by saying that it was solely due to the fault of the counsel, the delay had occurred.
20. In the light of the dictum in Purohit & Co. (Supra), I find that though there was no period of limitation prescribed for filing the claim petition, the claim petitioners ought to have filed it within a reasonable period of time. As it has been filed after a long delay of 8 years, which has not been explained, I find that the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the claim, a stale one, and passed the Award.
M.A.C.A.Nos.172 of 2020 & 3317 of 2020 23 2025:KER:59687 In the result, MACA No.172/2020 is allowed and MACA No.3317/2020 is dismissed. The appellant in MACA No.172/2020 is entitled to the refund of the deposits if any made towards the Award amount pursuant to the impugned award.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
SD/-
C.S. SUDHA JUDGE ak