Karnataka High Court
National Ins.Co.Ltd. New Jehamahat vs Saleem S/O Babasab And Ors on 12 April, 2023
-1-
MFA No. 32207 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.32207 OF 2013 (MV-I)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.200018 OF 2014 (MV-I)
MFA NO.32207/2013:
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD.
NEW JEHAMAHAT, POLICE LINES,
HYDERABAD, THROUGH ITS
BRANCH OFFICE, NEAR GANDHI
CHOWK RAICHUR, NOW R/BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. S. RAGHAVENDDRA RAO
DIVISION OFFICE, MAIN ROAD,
GULBARGA-585102
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT BHADRASHETTY SANGEETA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
RAMYA D 1. SALEEM S/O BABASAB
Location: AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER ( NOW NIL),
High Court of
Karnataka R/O HIREBAVI, NEAR COTTON SANNA
BAZAAR, MANVI TALUK
DIST. RAICHUR-584123
2. MAQBOOL SHAIK
S/O SHABUDDIN SHAIK
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY,
BEARING NO.AP-29/TA-7213
R/O HARANGAL TQ.LATHUR
(MAH)-585302
3. MD. KHAN S/O NOOR KHAN
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
-2-
MFA No. 32207 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014
BEARING NO.AP-29/TA-7213
R/O H. NO. 193-17/4/4/D-7
JUHANAM HYDERABAD-500002
4. SYED JAFFAR S/O SYED JABBARSAB
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING NO.AP-29/TA-7213
R/O KARADIGUDDA CIRCLE, MANVI TALUK
DIST. RAICHUR-584123
5. HAZ MALLANG S/O CHUNNI MIYA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING NO.AP-29/TA-7213
R/O BEERON QUILLA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584101
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;
R2-SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN MVC NO.370/2011 DATED
02.04.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND
M.A.C.T AT RAICHUR.
MFA CROB. NO.200018/2014:
BETWEEN:
SALEEM S/O BABASAB
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER (NOW NIL),
R/O HIREBAVI, NEAR COTTON SANNA
BAZAAR, MANVI TALUK
DIST. RAICHUR-584101
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAQBOOL SHAIK S/O SHABUDDIN SHAIK
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF LORRY
NO.AP-9/TA-7213, R/O HARANGAL
TQ. LATHUR (M.H)-585302
2. MD. KHAN S/O NOOR KHAN
-3-
MFA No. 32207 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
NO. AP-9/TA-7213, R/O H. NO.
193-17/4/4/D-7 JUHANAM
HYDERABAD-500002
3. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD.
NEW JEHAMAHAT, POLICE LINES,
HYDERABAD, THROUGH ITS BRANCH
OFFICE, NEAR GANDHI CHOWK
RAICHUR-584101
4. SYED JAFFAR S/O SYED JABBARSAB
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
NO. KA-36-6243 R/O KARADIGUDDA
CIRCLE, MANVI TALUK
DIST. RAICHUR-584101
5. HAZ MALLANG S/O CHUNNI MIYA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
KA-36/6243 R/O BEERON QUILLA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED U/O 41 RULE 5 OF CPC ALLOW
THIS CROSS OBJECTION AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 02.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.370/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND M.A.C.T
RAICHUR, AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.7,43,596/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.14,99,000/- WITH
12% INTEREST AND ETC.
THE MFA AND MFA CROB., COMING ON FOR
ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-4-
MFA No. 32207 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014
JUDGMENT
Though matters are listed for admission, by the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties they are taken up together for final disposal.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-insurance company in MFA No.32207/2013 has submitted his arguments that impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and facts.
Respondent No.3 has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. On all these grounds sought for allowing this appeal.
3. As against this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimant and also cross objector in MFA Crob. No.200018/2014 has submitted his arguments that judgment and award passed by the tribunal is not in accordance with law and tribunal has -5- MFA No. 32207 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014 awarded meager compensation. Hence, respondent-
claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation.
Further it is submitted that the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. To substantiate this copy of DL in produced along with I.A.No.1/2015 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
Same is allowed by this Court as per order dated 12.4.2013. On all these grounds sought for allow this appeal.
4. Parties are referred to as per their ranks before the tribunal for the sake of convenience.
5. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records the following points would arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the cross objector in MFA Crob.
No.200018/2014 is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?
(2) Whether the appeal filed by the appellant-
insurance company in MFA No.32207/2013 deserves to be allowed?
-6- MFA No. 32207 of 2013C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014 (3) What order/award?
6. My answer to the above points are:
(1) Partly affirmative
(2) Negative
(3) As per final order
RE. POINT No.1:
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JAKIR HUSSEIN v. SABIR AND OTHERS reported in 2015 KAR M.A.C 554(SC), wherein it is held at paragraph No.15 as under;
"15. Further, with respect to the permanent disablement suffered by the appellant. Mr. K. Parameshwar, the learned amicus curiae, has rightly submitted that the appellant was examined by Dr. PK. Upadhyay in order to prove his medical condition and the percentage of permanent disability. The doctor who has treated him stated that the appellant has one long injury from his arm upto the wrist. Due to this injury, the doctor has stated that the appellant had great difficulty to move his shoulder, wrist and elbow and pus was coming out of the injury even two years after the accident and the treatment taken by him. The doctor further stated in his evidence that the appellant got delayed joined fracture in the humerus bone of his right hand with wiring and nailing and that he had suffered 55% disability and cannot drive any motor -7- MFA No. 32207 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014 vehicle in future due to the same. He was once again operated upon during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and he was hospitalised for 10 days. The appellant was present in person in the High Court and it was observed and noticed by the High Court that the right hand of the appellant was completely crushed and deformed. In view of the doctor's evidence in this case, the Tribunal and the High Court have erroneously taken the extent of permanent disability at 30% and 55% respectively for the calculation of amount towards the loss of future earning capacity. No doubt, the doctor has assessed the permanent disability of the appellant at 55% however, it is important to consider the relevant fact namely that the appellant is a driver and driving the motor vehicle is the only means of livelihood for himself as well as the members of his family. Further, it is very crucial to note that the High Court has clearly observed that his right hand was completely crushed and deformed. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kuniar (supra), this Court specifically gave the illustration of a driver who has permanent disablement of hand and stated that the loss of future earnings capacity would be virtually 100% Therefore, clearly when it comes to loss of caring due to permanent disability, the same may be treated as 100% loss caused to the appellant since he will never be able to work as a driver again.
The contention of the respondent-Insurance Company that the appellant could take up any other alternative employment is no justification to avoid their vicarious liability. Hence, the loss of earning is determined by us at Rs. 54,000/- per annum. Thus, by applying the appropriate multiplier as per the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Dell Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (2) TAC 677:
(2009) 6 SCC 121, the total loss of future earnings of the appellant will be at Rs. 54,000 x 16 = Rs.
8,64,000/-."
-8- MFA No. 32207 of 2013C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014
8. Further he has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of JAGDISH v. MOHAN AND ORS. in Civil Appeal No.2217/2018 wherein at para 8 and 9 the Apex Court has held as under:
"18 In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." (Id at page 693) (2012)12SCC274 (1990) 3 SCC 723 (2011) 6 SCC 420 (2011) 10 SCC 683 (1995) 1 SCC 551 (2009) 6 SCC 1 (2009) 13 SCC 422 (2010) 10 SCC 254 (2011) 1 SCC 343 These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Subulaxmi v MD Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation 12 delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was).
9 Having regard to these principles, it would be now appropriate to assess the case of the appellant for enhancement of compensation. The accident took place on 24 November 2011. The appellant was a skilled carpenter and self-employed. The claim of the appellant that his earnings were Rs. 6,000/- per month cannot be discarded. This claim cannot be regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a realistic assessment of the situation on the date of the accident. 10 In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), this -9- MFA No. 32207 of 2013 C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014 Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs. 2400/- towards loss of future prospects."
9 A perusal of the impugned judgment in paragraph Nos.8 to 15 the tribunal has observed as under:
"ISSUE NO.3:
8. It is the contention of the respondent no.3 that the claimant wa not possessing valid and effective DL to drive the lorry. RW-1 ha contended that the respondent no,2 has not produced the DL o respondent no.I inspite of issue of notice. Per contra the counsel for claimant has argued that the police did not file charge sheet U/s 3 of the MV Act and hence it can be presumed that R-1 had valid and effective DL to drive the offending lorry as on the date of accident.
With regard to DL and permit of the offending vehicle R-3 has not taken any further action to obtain the same from the authorities concerned except issuing notice to R-2. It has simply kept quiet after issuing legal notice. If the insurance company is serious about its contentions raised in the written statement, it would have well put its efforts to prove its contentions by producing the relevant documents obtained from the authorities concerned. Hence, I am of the opinion that the respondent no.3 failed to prove this issue. Accordingly, answer this issue in the negative.
ISSUE NO.4 AND 5:
9. Since the claimant has proved issue no.1 about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-
29/TA-7213 by respondent no.1 and R-3 has failed to
- 10 -
MFA No. 32207 of 2013C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014 prove issue No.3, and the liability is fixed on R-1 to R- 3, 1 am of the opinion that there is no necessity to answer these issues.
ISSUE NO.6:
a) Pain and suffering: To prove this issue the injured PW-1 has deposed that immediately after the accident he was shifted to the Govt. Hospital, Manvi and thereafter shifted on the advise of the doctors he was shifted to the Deccan Hospital, Hyderabad in a hired vehicle and he was treated as an inpatient from 2.10.2010 to 6.10.2010 due to compound fracture of middle lower 1/3rd right femur above knee amputation of right leg was done for vascular injury, comminuted fracture surgery was done under spinal anastesia on 3.10.2010. Due to the amputation of right leg above knee he is unable to walk and stand.
He is also unable to do his avocation as driver and he has to suffer through out his life. He has produced wound certificate Ex.P5, which discloses the following injuries-
1) CLW over the R leg 5" x 1"x"
2) CLW over the R knee 2" x 1"
3) Comminuted fracture of lower 1/3rd of R femur.
The doctor has opined that injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury no.2 is simple in nature. The injured/claimant was shifted to The Deccan Hospital at Hyderabad, where he was admitted on 2.10.2010 and discharged on 6.10.2010 and the doctor has diagnosed the injury "Comminuted fracture right femur with vascular injury and gangrene". He has produced discharge summary as per Ex.P8 which shows that the claimant was done above knee amputation right done for vascular injury and comminuted fracture right femur was done under spinal anesthesia on 3.10.2010. elverison
9. After carefully considering all these aspects and documents on hand coupled with oral evidence of PW- 1, prolonged period of treatment and amputation of his leg, I find it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner under the head pain and suffering.
- 11 -
MFA No. 32207 of 2013C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014
b) Loss of income during treatment period: The claimant claims that he has taken treatment as in patient in The Decan Hospital, Hyderabad from 2.10.2010 to 6.10.2010. Prior to the accident he was working as driver under respondent no.4 and earning Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs. 100/- per day as batta. To prove the same he has not produced any documents. Further it is a fact that one has to work and earn a considerable income in order to survive and to look after the family. Even in case of housewives Hon'ble Supreme court has held that Rs.5,000/- per month income can be considered to be services rendered by her towards her family. Hence, considering this aspect, the claimant must have been earning at least Rs.5,000/- per month. This claimant had sustained fracture injuries and amputation also done for vascular injury and comminuted fracture right femur was done. Ex.P8 discharge summary and Ex.P7 photograph reveals the said injuries. I carefully perused the documents produced by the petitioner. Ex P8 reveals that he was in patient for 5 days in the said hospital. So, from the available materials on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner must have taken treatment, follow up treatment and rest only for nearly 2 months due to amputa Right done for Vasculat injury and comminuted fracture of Right femur. So, I am inclined to award Rs.10,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 2 months) towards loss of income during the period of treatment.
Medical Bills: The claimant claims Rs.2,28,302/- under this head and he has produced 20 medical bills. But he has not produced the prescriptions. Verification of the medical bills produced few of the bills are included in Ex P14 and is repeated in the said bill is no explanation to that effect: ExP9 to P13 are advance receipts are included in the IP detailed bill ExP14. Therefore, I decline to award the entire amount claimed under medical bills. However, Im inclined to allow only the amounts claimed under ExP14, EXP Ex P21, Ex P24 to 28 and rest of the bills are rejected as they are t worthy of belief Therefore, I am inclined to award only Rs. 1,23,986. under this bend
- 12 -
MFA No. 32207 of 2013C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014
d)Loss of future earning: With regard to this claim the petitioner has produced disability certificate as per ExPS1: The claimant is a kry driver working under respondent no.4. Now, the Tribunal is heavily burdened with the responsibility of awarding compensation under this -head. It is clear established from the records on hand such as wound certificate and discharge summary that he has sustained fracture injuries and his leg was also amputated and he took treatment as inpatient The injuries were grievous in nature. Now, the court base award compensation under the of loss of future earning With regard to this the claimant has not examined the doctor who the claimant. However, the disability certificate issued by de Medical Superintendent of RIMS hospital, Raichur, the claimant is suffering from physical disability amounting to 80% in respect of the whole body. Further my attention is drawn to the decision reported in 2004 (3) KLJ 288 (DB) laid down by our own Hon'ble high court, wherein Lordships have held that -
" If a person is disabled for work he was doing before accident and has no skill or talent for any other work, loss of earning capacity has to be taken as 100% and he has to be compensated on the basis of total loss".
Further, it is well settled law if the injured person is unable to do his earlier job and is unable to attend to his normal activities as he was doing prior to the accident even though there is no 100% physical disability it should be considered 100%.
So, in the light of the discussions made above though any amount of compensation awarded does not compensate the loss sustained by the petitioner, court has to award compensation to reduce the financial burden to the petitioner and to place him in the same economical structure with best human possible efforts and also after carefully considering the records on hand and the evidence of PW-1, I hold that the petitioner is suffering from at least 60% disability to the whole body. The petitioner has stated that he is aged 35 years at the time of accident but he has not produced any documents to prove the same. However, basing upon the medical records, I consider the of the claimant as 36 years. Therefore, if the multiplier the inclined applied as per latest decision of Sarla Verma case, the multiplier applicable is 15. It is already held
- 13 -
MFA No. 32207 of 2013C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014 by me that the claimant was s Rs.5,000/- per month to maintain himself and his family d survive. If that is the case, the future loss of income works out as under
5,000/- x 12 x 15 x 60/100 = Rs.5,40,000/-"
e) Loss of future amenities, attendant's charges, nourishment and dict: After considering the evidence of PW-1 and hospital documents and the period of treatment to the petitioner, it is a case that the tribunal has to think of denial of basic amenities to the petitioner in future and it is a rare case where facts and circumstances demand that the petitioner should be awarded amount of compensation under the head loss of future amenities. As discussed above PW-1 has deposed that he is not able to do his avocation as driver. He is also facing difficulty in walking, sitting etc., and to attend to his normal activities as he was doing prior to the accident. Hence, considering the grievousness of the injury he must be compensated for loss of future amenities considerably. Hence, I am inclined to award Rs.20,000/- towards loss of future amenities. Further as discussed above, he was admitted in hospital and was treated for quite a few period and he was admitted in hospital and was attending to follow up treatment. So definitely he must have depended on an assistant for all his needs and spent a considerable amount towards his conveyance, nourishment, attendant charges etc. Hence, considering this aspect, I am inclined to award Rs.10,000/-.
Thus in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to award compensation to the petitioner under the following heads:
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000-00
2. Loss of income during treatment period Rs. 10,000-00
3.Medical bills Rs.1,23,596-00
4.Loss of future earning Rs. 5,40,000-00
5. Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000-00
- 14 -MFA No. 32207 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014
6. Conveyance, nourishment & diet Rs. 10,000-00 Total Rs.7.43.596-00 10 In the case on hand, the tribunal has observed that there is amputation of leg above the knee and due to amputation of right leg above the knee he is unable to walk and stand and unable to work as driver as he has to suffer throughout his life.
11 It is observed by the tribunal that disability certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent of RIMS Hospital, Raichur, the petitioner is suffering from physical disability amounting to 80% in respect of whole body.
Considering the nature of amputation of leg above the knee and also keeping in mind the above said decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is just and proper to assess the disability at 100%.
12. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JAGADISH vs. MOHAN AND OTHERS, in Civil Appeal No.2217/2018 arising out of
- 15 -
MFA No. 32207 of 2013C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014 SLP (C) No.7739/2017, the loss of future prospects would be added at 40%. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for compensation under the head loss of earning capacity;
Rs.7,700 x 12 x 16 x 100% = 14,78,400/-
13 In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JAKIR HUSSEIN's case, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head pain and suffering so also Rs.1,50,000/- under the head loss of amenities.
14. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment, disability and medical expenses, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be re-determined and re-calculated as under:-
- 16 -
MFA No. 32207 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014
Sl. Awarded by Enhanced by
Heads
No the Tribunal this Court
01 Towards pain and Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
suffering
02 Loss of income Rs.10,000/- -----
during treatment
period
03 Medical bills Rs.1,23,596/- Rs.1,23,596/-
04 Loss of future Rs.5,40,000/- Rs.14,78,400/-
earning due to
amputation of leg
above knee
05 Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
06 Conveyance, Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/-
nourishment and
diet
Total Rs.7,43,596/- Rs.19,16,996/
-
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.19,16,996/- as against
Rs.7,43,569/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the
claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.11,73,400/-. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in partly affirmative.
16. With regard to liability of the insurance is concerned, as per order dated 12.04.2023 this Court has allowed the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of
- 17 -MFA No. 32207 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014 CPC and respondent No.1 is permitted to produce the additional documents i.e., the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident.
Accordingly, the owner of the offending vehicle has proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.
Accordingly, insurance company has failed to make out grounds to allow their appeal - MFA No.32207/2013.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.2 in the negative.
RE. POINT NO.3:
17. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
(a) MFA Crob. No.200018/2014 filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.
(b) MFA No.32207/2013 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
(c) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.
(d) The petitioner is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.19,16,996/- as against
- 18 -
MFA No. 32207 of 2013C/W MFA.CROB No. 200018 of 2014 Rs.7,43,596/- awarded by the tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(e) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the tribunal within a period of eight weeks from date of the receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
(f) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact.
(g) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the tribunal forthwith for disbursement to the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE DR,MSR LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 51