Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Mohini Kamila & Ors on 20 December, 2013
Author: Tapan Kumar Dutt
Bench: Tapan Kumar Dutt
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TAPAN KUMAR DUTT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI
F.M.A.329 of 2007
National Insurance Company Limited
Versus
Smt. Mohini Kamila & Ors.
FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. K.K.Das,
Mr. Sudeep Pal Chaudhuri.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Mr. Krishanu Banik.
Heard on: 03.08.2012, 13.12.2012, 17.12.2012, 08.02.2013,
05.07.2013.
Judgement on: 20.12.2013
TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J. :
This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and has considered the relevant materials on record.
The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:
The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and such application was placed before the Court of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Fast Track, 1st Court, Contai. The respondents/claimants have claimed compensation of Rs. 5,80,000/- plus costs and interest. It appears that on 15.06.2001 the driver of the offending bus concerned was driving at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit one Tarun Kamila (son of the claimants). The said Tarun Kamila succumbed to his injury and he was 25 years of age at the time of his death and during his lifetime he was an employee, as goldsmith, of M/s. Rajlakshmi Jewellers at Contai market and he was earning Rs. 4000/- per month. It also appears that the medical expenses which was incurred for the said victim was Rs. 8000/-. The appellant/insurance company contested the said claim by filing written statement. It appears that evidence was adduced in the said case and the learned Court below by judgment dated 17.03.2006 disposed of the said claim application being MAC case No.145 of 2004 (original case number was MAC case No. 153 of 2001) by ordering that the appellant/insurance company shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,48,500/- in equal share to the claimants Smt. Mohini Kamila and Sri Ardhendu Sekhar Kamila; in other words, Rs.
2,74,250/- to each of them within three months from the date thereof failing which the appellant shall have to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization of the awarded amount. The learned Court below found that the deceased Tarun Kamila was earning Rs. 4000/- per month during his life-time and that the multiplier 17 should be applied in the present case as the age of the victim was considered to be 25 years and that 1/3rd of the income of the said Tarun Kamila should be deducted towards the victim's personal expenses. The learned Court below made the calculation in the following manner: 2/3rd x Rs.4000/- x 12 months x 17 multiplier = Rs. 5,44,000/- Rs. 2000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- towards the loss of estate. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 5,48,500/-. It further appears from the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties that the said Tarun Kamila died as a bachelor.
The appellant/insurance company has challenged the said judgment/ award passed by learned Court below in the present appeal. No dispute has been raised with regard to the income of the victim during his lifetime. However, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the points to be considered in the present appeal are (1) as to whether or not the parents' age should have been considered in the present case while considering the question as to which multiplier should be applied for the purpose of calculating the compensation and (2) whether 50% of the income of the victim or 1/3rd of the income of the victim should have been considered to have been the personal expenses of the victim. The learned Advocate for the respondents/claimants was of the view that the question of future prospects of the deceased should also be taken into consideration.
According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the victim's parents' age should be considered for the purpose of fixing the multiplier and the learned Tribunal should have also held that 50% of the income of the victim should have been taken into consideration on account of the personal expenses of the victim and not one-third.
The learned Advocate for the appellant cited a decision reported at 2003(1) TAC 659 (Cal) (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. -V- Sri Sitanath Chowdhuryn & Others). In Paragraph 15 of the said reports the Hon'ble Court held that applying the multiplier on the basis of the age of the parents, the multiplier is required to be assessed. The Hon'ble Court, after setting aside the award challenged in the said case sent back the matter to the learned Tribunal for the purpose of deciding the quantum of compensation only upon assessing respective ages of the two claimants and calculating the compensation applying the multiplier on the basis of the age of the younger of the two parents, maintaining the other findings of the Tribunal.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2007(10) SCC 1 (New India Assurance Company Ltd. -V- Shanti Pathak (Smt) & Ors). It appears from the said reports that the said case was decided by three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held in Paragraph 6 of the said reports that multiplier of five would be appropriate considering the fact that the mother of the deceased was about 65 years at the time of the accident and the age of the father was more than 65 years.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 1996 ACJ 831 (U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. -V- Trilok Chandra & Ors.) which was also decided by three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said learned Advocate referred to Paragraph 18 of the said reports wherein it was observed that the calculation of compensation and the amount worked out in the Schedule (of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) suffer from several defects and as such it can only be used as a guide. The said Hon'ble Court was further pleased to observe that the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased and there may be cases where the age of the parents would also be relevant in the choice of the multiplier.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2008(2) SCC 667 (Ramesh Singh And Another -V- Satbir Singh And Another). In the said reports the Hon'ble Court relied upon the principle that the selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased. According to the said Hon'ble Court if a young man is killed in the accident leaving behind aged parents who may not survive long enough to match with a high multiplier provided by the second Schedule, then the Court has to offset such high multiplier and balance the same with the short life expectancy of the claimants.
The said learned Advocate cited a decision reported at 2012(3) TAC 41 (Cal) ( Sk. Mafijul Islam and Another -V- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) wherefrom it appears that a deduction of 50% was allowed on account of personal expenses of the victim who was a bachelor and on the basis of the victim's mother's age (45 years) and the parents age the multiplier of 13 was applied.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2013(2) TAC 439 (Cal) ( Fatema Bibi and Another -V- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another). It appears from the said reports that the said case was decided by two Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble High Court and it was held, inter alia, that the 50% of the total income may be deducted from the total income of the victim on account of his personal and living expenses.
The said learned Advocate cited an unreported decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in FMA 983 of 2009 (order dated 28.01.2003) in support of his contention that 50% of the total income of the deceased should be deducted from the total income on account of the victim's personal and living expenses. The said learned Advocate also cited the said decision in support of his contention that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the future prospects of the deceased cannot be taken into consideration for assessing the actual loss of annual income since in the present case the claimants/respondents have failed to prove that the victim had a permanent job and there was any provision for annual increment for the deceased in his employment. According to the said learned Advocate, the mere fact that the victim was employed in a private firm as a goldsmith does not necessarily prove that there was any future prospects for the victim. It appears from the said decision that considering the age of the mother of the deceased the multiplier was fixed.
The said learned Advocate cited another unreported decision of an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in FMA 12 of 2011 vide order dated 30.01.2013 wherefrom it appears that the deceased was a bachelor and 50% of the total income of the deceased was deducted from such total income on account of the personal and living expenses of the deceased. It also appears from the said decision that the age of the mother and the father of the deceased was taken into consideration and the multiplier was fixed accordingly.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2006(3) SCC 242 (Bijoy Kumar Dugar -V- Bidya Dhar Dutta And Others). It appears from Paragraph 8 of the said reports that the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe that the mere assertion of the claimants that the deceased would have earned more than Rs. 8000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month in the span of his lifetime cannot be accepted as legitimate income unless all the relevant facts are proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence before the Tribunal concerned. The Hon'ble Court was further pleased to observe that the claimants have to prove that the deceased was in a trade where he would have earned more from time to time or that he had special merits or qualifications or opportunities which would have led to an improvement in his income. It appears from the said reports that it was found by the learned Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 4000/- per month. In paragraph 11 of the said reports the Hon'ble Court has found that there was no evidence brought on record by the claimants to show the future prospects of the deceased and thus the contention made in this regard was found to be not tenable to sustain it.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2009(6) SCC 121 (Sarla Verma (Smt) And Another -V- Delhi Transport Corporation And Another). In Paragraph 24 of the said reports the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc), the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In Paragraph 32 of the said reports the Hon'ble Court pleased to observe that even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. The Hon'ble Court further pleased to observe that where, however, the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2011(3) TAC 625 (S.C.)(National Insurance Co. Ltd. -V- Shyam Singh and Others) wherefrom it appears that the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe that Vijay Shankar's case (2008(2) SCC 670) was applicable to the said case in the said reports and it was held that the Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier of 8 by taking the average of the parents of the deceased who were 55 to 56 years. It further appears from the said reports that the victim in the said case was 19 years of age and the Tribunal concerned came to the finding that he was earning 3000/- per month. The learned Tribunal deducted 50% from the total income of the deceased towards the deceased's personal expenses as he was a bachelor and considering the age of the parents the learned Tribunal had fixed the multiplier of 8. The Hon'ble High Court concerned had enhanced the multiplier to 18. It also appears in the said reports that the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was allowed to extent indicated in the said reports and the award passed by the learned Tribunal was restored by observing that the Tribunal had rightfully applied the multiplier of 8 by taking the average age of the parents of the deceased.
The said learned Advocate for the appellant cited another decision reported at 2011(1) TAC 4 (Supreme Court) (Shakti Devi -V- New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another) in support of his contention that since the deceased was a bachelor 50% of the deceased's total income should be treated as the personal and living expenses of the said bachelor. It appears from Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said reports the Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold that in a case where the age of the claimant is higher than the age of the deceased, the age of the claimant and not the age of the deceased has to be taken into consideration for capitalization of the loss of dependency. It is so because the choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant, whichever is higher.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2009(1) TAC 794(SC) (Syed Basheer Ahamed And Others -V- Mohd. Jameel and Another) wherein it was observed, inter alia, (Paragraph 15 of the said reports) that a bare argument by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the deceased had a potential of expanding his business, cannot be accepted as sufficient material to determine the future prospects of the deceased. The said learned Advocate also cited the said reports in support of his contention that since the victim in the instant case was a bachelor 50% of the total income of the deceased should be treated as the personal and living expenses of the deceased. He referred to Paragraph 17 of the said reports in this regard.
The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondents submitted that he supports the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal but he submits that the learned Tribunal should have also taken into consideration the loss of future prospects of the deceased. According to the said learned Advocate, the learned Tribunal erred in not adding to the income of the deceased the future prospects of the deceased and thus the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the aspect of loss of future prospects.
The said learned Advocate referred to the certificate (Page 28 of the paper book) granted by the Proprietor of the Jewellery shop where the deceased was employed as a goldsmith and submitted that the said certificate indicated that the deceased was a reputed and efficient employee. The said learned Advocate also referred to the evidence of the said proprietor (Page 11 of the paper book) wherein the said witness deposed that the deceased was a good goldsmith and on the basis of such evidence on record the said learned Advocate submitted that the future prospects of the deceased should also have been taken into consideration.
It may be noted here that even though the learned Advocate for the claimants/respondents has argued on the point of future prospects no appeal has been filed by the claimants/respondents challenging the impugned judgment/award in this regard and the learned Tribunal also could not consider this point as this point was not argued on behalf of the claimants/respondents before the learned Tribunal.
The learned Advocate for the claimants/respondents cited a decision reported at 2012 ACJ 1428 (Santosh Devi -V- National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others). It appears from the Paragraph 15 of the said reports that the Hon'ble Court (case decided by two Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court) was pleased to observe that it will be impossible for a person whose monthly income is Rs.1500/- to spend 1/3rd on himself and leaving 2/3rd for the family consisting of five persons as such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself and leave the rest for his family. In Paragraph 14 of the said reports the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe, inter alia, that it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self- employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2012 ACJ 2002 (Amrit Bhanu Shali and others -V- National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others). In paragraph 17 of the said reports, as referred to by the said learned Advocate, the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to observe that the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependant.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2009 ACJ 2359 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. -V- Deo Patodi and others). In support of his contention that the learned Tribunal was right in deducting one-third of the total income of the deceased on account of personal expenses of the deceased.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2008 ACJ 1357 (Bilkish -V- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another) in support of his contention that the learned Tribunal was right in deducting one-third of the total expenses of the deceased towards personal expenses of the deceased.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2011 ACJ 13 (Mohd. Ameeruddin and Another -V- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another) in support of his contention that one- third of the total income should be deducted from such total income on account of personal income of the deceased.
The said learned Advocate cited a decision reported at 2004(1) WBLR (SC) 589 (Fakeerappa & Anr. -V- Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory & ors.) also in support of his contention. It appears from Paragraph 8 of the said reports the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe that in the said case the ages of the parents as disclosed in the claim petition were totally unbelievable. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe that if the deceased was aged about 27 years as found at the time of post mortem, the father and mother could not have been aged about 38 years and 35 years respectively as claimed by them in the claim petition and in such circumstances considering the special features of the case it would be appropriate to restrict the deduction for personal expenses to one-third of the monthly income. However, in Paragraph 7 of the said reports the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe that what would be the percentage of deduction for personal expenditure cannot be governed by any rigid rule or formula of universal application and it would depend upon circumstances of each case.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2009 ACJ 2660 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. -V- Gurumallamma and another) and referred to Paragraph 8 of the said reports wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe, inter alia, that the "Multiplier stricto sensu is not applicable in the case of fatal accident. The multiplier would be applicable only in case of disability in non-fatal accidents as would appear from the serial No.5 of the Second Schedule. Thus, even if the application of multiplier is ignored in the present case and the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 3,300 per month, the amount of compensation payable would be somewhat between Rs. 6,84,000 and Rs. 7,60,000. As the Second Schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under section 166 would not arise. Tribunal in a proceeding under section 163-A of the Act is required to determine the amount of compensation as specified in the Second Schedule. It is not required to apply the multiplier except in a case of injuries and disabilities."
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarala Verma and others -V- Delhi Transport Corporation and another) in connection with the submission made on the point of application of an appropriate multiplier.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at I 2011 ACC 659 ( P.S. Somanathan & Ors. -V- District Insurance Officer & Anr.) in support of his contention that the age of the deceased should be considered while fixing the appropriate multiplier.
The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 2013 ACJ 1253 (Reshma Kumari and others -V- Madan Mohan and another). It appears from the said reports that three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided the said case. The learned Advocate for the claimants/respondents submitted that Sarla Varma's case (supra) has been relied upon in the said reports and the said reports is in agreement with the view taken in Sarla varma's case.
Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record and the decisions cited at the Bar this Court is of the view that in the instant case the claimants/respondents are not entitled to any amount on account of loss of future prospects of the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was a permanent employee in the jwellery shop where he was working or that the deceased had any scope to have his salary increased. The employer of the deceased adduced evidence but he never even stated that the deceased could have earned more in future or there was any chance of any promotion or increment in salary. In cross-examination the employer of the deceased stated that he will not be able to produce the register concerned wherein the deceased used to allegedly sign after receiving salary. Thus even though the deceased was 25 years of age at the time of his death the actual income of Rs. 4000 per month which he earned will have to be taken into consideration. In Sarala Varma's case (supra), which was also considered in Reshma Kumari's case (supra) with approval, it was held that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.) the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and that a departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. This court does not find any such special or exceptional circumstances in the present case.
It is true that in Sarala Varma's case the age of the deceased was taken into consideration but it has to be remembered that the question as to whether the age of the parents should be considered or whether the age of the deceased son of such parents should be considered was not involved in Sarala Varma's case (supra). In Sarala Varma's case (supra) the application of the relevant multiplier was in question and it was held in paragraph 42 of the said reports as quoted below:
"42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age group of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."
Thus we find that in terms of the table concerned that the Hon'ble Court fixed the multiplier in the said case as 15. In Trilok Chandra's case (supra) it was observed (para 18 of reports) that the "selection of multiplier cannot in all cases be solely dependent on the age of the deceased" and that there may be circumstances where the age of the parents of the deceased may be relevant. In Shanti Pathak's case (supra) the age of the parents of the deceased was taken into consideration while selecting the multiplier. In Shyam Singh's case (supra) it was observed, inter alia, that the Tribunal concerned rightly applied the multiplier 8 by taking the average age of parents of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it can be said that the age of the mother of the victim fell within the age group 51-55 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, the multiplier 11 should be applied as would appear on a perusal of para 42 of Sarala Varma's case(supra). As already noted above in Ramesh Singh's case (supra) the Hon'ble Court was of the view that even if a young man is killed in an accident leaving behind aged parents who may not survive long enough to match with a high multiplier the court may have to consider the shorter life expectancy of the claimants.
The remaining question that needs to be considered is as to whether 50% of the income of the victim or 1/3rd of the income of the victim should be considered to be the personal and living expenses of the victim. In Sarala Varma's case (supra) it was held (paragraph 31 of the reports) that where the deceased is a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, normally 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. It has been held in the said reports that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers, sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married or dependent on the father. It was also held in Paragraph 32 of the said reports that even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. In the present case, we find that the only claimants are the parents of the deceased. It may be noted that the said Sarala Varma's case (supra) was considered with approval in a three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that is, in Reshma Kumari's case (supra) where in Paragraph 39 of the said reports it was observed that the standards fixed in Sarala Varma's case on the aspect of deduction for personal and living expenses must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure is made out. Thus, we find that the principle laid down in Sarala Varma's case on the aspect of personal and living expenses can be applied to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and 50% of the income of the deceased when he was living may be considered to be the personal and living expenses of the deceased during his life-time. If the income of the deceased is taken to be Rs.4000/- per month then the annual income comes to Rs. 48000/-. If 50% of such income is considered to be the personal and living expenses of the deceased then the loss of dependency comes to be Rs. 24000/- per year. If the multiplier of 11 is applied then the amount comes to Rs.2,64,000/-. General damages may be considered to be Rs.4500/-. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,68,500/-. The claimants/respondents are also entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the said amount of Rs.2,68,500/- in respect of the period commencing from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of deposit. It appears that the learned Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,48,500/- as compensation in favour of the claimants/appellants. It has also been stated in the impugned judgement/award that the said learned Tribunal below refrained from passing any order on interest on the awarded compensation subject to the condition that the appellant/insurance company shall pay the said compensation amount within three months from the date of the order failing which the appellant/insurance company shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim application till realization of the awarded amount.
It is made clear that the appellant/insurance company shall calculate interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the principal amount of compensation of Rs. 2,68,500/-, as indicated above, and thereafter if the appellant/insurance company finds that the said principal amount plus the amount of the interest, as may be calculated by the appellant/insurance company, is lesser than the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal below and the appellant/insurance company has already deposited the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal below and the claimants/respondents have already withdrawn the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal below, then in that event the appellant/insurance company shall be entitled to proceed against the claimants/respondents for recovery of such balance amount. If, on the other hand, the appellant/insurance company finds, after making the necessary calculations as indicated above, that the respondents/claimants have not withdrawn any amount in terms of the impugned award and that compensation money along with interest amount is payable to be respondents/claimants, then in that event the appellant/ insurance company shall make payment of the aforesaid Rs.2,68,500/- plus the interest, as aforesaid, to the respondents/claimants in equal share by issuing the appropriate account payee cheques in favour of the respondents/claimants in equal share and deposit such account payee cheques before the learned Court below within six weeks. After such account payee cheques are deposited (in case such deposits becomes necessary in the facts of the case) the same shall be disbursed in favour of the respondents/claimants in accordance with law and upon proper identification. In case the respondents/claimants have already received any amount under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act then in that event such amount has to be adjusted against the principal amount of Rs. 2,68,500/- and the interest in that event will have to be calculated accordingly after the adjustment, if any, It appears from the records that the appellant/insurance company has made statutory deposit of Rs. 25000/- only. In such circumstances appellant/insurance company shall be entitled to withdraw such statutory deposit and interest, if any, accrued on such statutory deposit. If the appellant/insurance company makes any application in this regard before learned Registrar General of this court, the learned Registrar General of this court shall verify the records and do the necessary in accordance with law.
The impugned judgment/award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Let the lower courts records be sent back to the learned Court concerned immediately.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified xerox copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be given to the parties on compliance of usual formalities.
( TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J. ) I agree.
(DR. MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI, J.)