Patna High Court - Orders
Nahida Anjum & Ors vs Anil Kumar Singh & Ors on 4 December, 2013
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.482 of 2006
======================================================
Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Ltd. Motijheel,
Muzaffarpur, Appeal through Administrative Officer, Regional Office, the
National Insurance Company Ltd. 4th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel
Marg, Patna
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Nahida Anjum wife of Late Aftab Alam
2. Laila Begum wife of Late Umrul Hassan M/o-deceased Aftab Alam
3. Rahila Anjum daughter of Late Aftab Alam.
4. Nayeela Anjum daughter of Aftab Alam.
5. Asar Aftab son of late Aftab Alam
6. Najis Aftab son of late Aftab Alam (respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are
minor under the guardianship of mother, respondent No.1), all the
above are resident of village Chainpur Bangara, P.S. Maniyari
District Muzaffarpur
7. Anil Kumar Singh, son of Shri Jawahar Prasad Singh, Balkanti
Hardha, Muazaffarpur at present residing at Mohalla Azad Colony,
Maripur, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur.
8. Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Motijheel, Muzaffarpur.
9. Mr. Abdul Khalique son of Abdul Sattar resident of Mohalla and
P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Campus, District Jamshedpur
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
With
Miscellaneous Appeal No.48 of 2007
======================================================
1. Nahida Anjum wife of Late Aftab Alam
2. Laila Begum wife of Umrul Hassan M/o-deceased Aftab Alam
3. Rahila Anjum (minor).
4. Asar Aftab(minor)
5. Nayeela Anjum(minor)
6. Nagis Aftab (minor), Serial No. 3 to 6 are minor sons and daugher
of Late Aftab Alam under the guardianship of their Nahida Anjum ,
appellant No.1, all are resident of village + P.O. Chainpur Bangra
P.S. Maniari, District Muzaffarpur
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Anil Kumar Singh son of Jawahar Prasad Singh, resident of Azad
Colony, Maripur, District /Town Muzaffarpur
2. Abdul Khalique, son of Md. At and P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Campus,
District Jamshedpur
3. Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.at
Motijheel, Muzaffarpur
4. Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Company Ltd. at
Motijheel, Muzaffarpur
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
2
P2 / 21
Appearance :
(In MA No.482 of 2006)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Krishna Kishore Sinha, Adv.
Mr.Mukesh Prasad Singh, Adv.
(In MA No.48 of 2007)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Krishna Kishore Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
15 04-12-2013These appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), are directed against the judgment and award dated 7.11.2006/18.11.2006 passed by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case No. 132 of 2002.
Whereas the National Insurance Company has filed M.A. No. 482 of 2006 being aggrieved by the judgment and award in so far as the Tribunal holding the accident to be a case of contributory negligence, has saddled the said Insurance Company with 50% of the compensation amount, M.A. No. 48 of 2007 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in the compensation amount.
The facts leading to the filing of the claim case, in brief is that the deceased Aftab Alam was travelling by a Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No. JH- 05E/0505 when near the Chatrapul at Imadpur within the Bhagwanpur Police Station of District 3 P3 / 21 Vaishali, a truck bearing registration No. BR-06G-4302 had a head on collision with the Indica car and Aftab Alam suffering fatal injuries, died on the spot. There were other injured also, who were taken to the hospital. The accident was registered by the police giving rise to Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2003. Whereas the Tata Indica car was insured by the appellant-National Insurance Company, the truck was insured by the respondent- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The claimants who are the wife, the mother and the minor children of the deceased, filed the claim case in question setting up a compensation claim of Rs. 4,25,000/-.
According to the claimants, the deceased was working in a private company at Jamshedpur and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. The claimants in support of the monthly income of the deceased filed a certificate issued by the employer „Shoe Mahal‟ led as Ext. 1 and also examined its proprietor Jaffar Hussain as applicant witness No.5 who in his evidence supported the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3000/-.
The written statements were filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. as well as the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. objecting to the compensation claim but neither of the two Insurance Companies led any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the claim on any of the grounds.
4
P4 / 21 The Tribunal on examination of the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence led by the claimants, admitted to the right of the claimants to claim compensation. The Tribunal holding the accident to be a case of the contributory negligence, divided the compensation amount between the two Insurance Companies.
Since the claimants did not file the payment register or any voucher in support of the monthly income, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased relying upon the notional income given at paragraph 6 to the second schedule to the Act i.e. Rs.15,000/- per annum and since the deceased was stated to be aged about 35 years, hence applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation was determined at Rs. 2,55,000/- besides the amount of Rs. 2000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium.
After deducting 1/3rd therefrom towards personal living expenses of the deceased, the compensation payable to the claimants was computed at Rs. 1,77,000/- and after reducing the interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- paid by the two Insurance Companies in equal proportion, they were directed to make payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,27,000/- in proportion of 50% each together with interest at 9% from the date of filing of 5 P5 / 21 the claim case. Each of the Insurance Company thus was directed to make payment of Rs. 63,500/- together with interest.
As indicated at the outset, whereas the National Insurance Company is aggrieved by the verdict of the Tribunal in holding the accident to be a case of contributory negligence and imposing a liability of 50% of the compensation amount, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, has appeared on behalf of the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd., Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh has appeared on behalf of the appellant-claimants and Mr. Krishna Kishore Sinha has appeared on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh appearing for the appellant- National Insurance Company has raised a very limited issue to avoid the liability. He submits that unless there is any allegation against the driver of a vehicle who is involved in an accident and there is a charge of rash and negligent driving by the driver, no liability can be saddled on the owner of the said vehicle. He further submits that neither the F.I.R. charges the driver of the Indica car in which the deceased was travelling, of rash or negligent driving nor have the claimants made out any such case 6 P6 / 21 against the driver of the Indica car and thus despite the absence of evidence of rash or negligent driving by the driver of the Indica car yet the Tribunal holding the accident to be that of a contributory negligence of the driver of the Indica car as well as the truck, has apportioned the liability between the two Insurance Companies.
With reference to Rule 226 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992 framed under the Act, it was submitted that the F.I.R. is an integral part of the claim application and since it does not reflect any allegation against the driver of the Indica car, the finding of contributory negligence is presumptuous.
Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Minu B. Mehta reported in (1977) 2 SCC 441 in support of his submission that the Insurance Company is to indemnify only in circumstance where the owner of the vehicle concerned is found liable for payment of compensation for negligence of his servant. For the same proposition, learned counsel also relied upon a Bench decision of this Court passed in the case of "Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company"
reported in 2012(2)PLJR 510. It was submitted by Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh that the appellant- Insurance Company in absence of any allegation against his insured, was only a performa defendant, 7 P7 / 21 inasmuch as the F.I.R. led as Ext. 2, the chargesheet led as Ext. 3 only charges the truck driver for the rash and negligent driving. It was further the submission of learned counsel that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the Indica car and in absence of the policy issued by the National Insurance Company in relation to the Indica car, being led as an Ext., it is to be proved whether he was covered under the policy. Learned counsel while opposing the attempt of the Oriental Insurance Company to place on record the policy issued by the National Insurance Company at the appellate level, relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Prem Lata Sukla reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 for the proposition that the contents of a document are not automatically proved. Learned counsel with reference to the provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 112 (New India Assurance Company Vs. Bismillah Bai) submitted that the onus of the Insurance Company is only to indemnify the insured-owner and since no charge has been set up against the owner of the Indica car hence there was no question of indemnifying him. He further with reference to the judgment of Minu B. Mehta(supra) and Bismillah Bai (supra) submitted that a charge of rash and negligent driving and its proof 8 P8 / 21 is sine qua non to an imposition of liability and since the evidence on record do not even in a remotest manner point fingers towards rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Indica car, the Tribunal was in clear error in holding the accident to be a case of contributory negligence and saddling the owner of the Indica car also with a liability of payment of compensation.
Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh appearing for the claimants who are appellants in M.A. No. 48 of 2007, first chose to rebut the arguments of the counsel for the National Insurance Company to submit that a liability has been determined by the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record and since the National Insurance Company has accepted the liability while making payment of 50% amount of interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-, they cannot raise objection against the final determination. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon a judgment reported in 2004(2)PLJR 755 (Ram Vinod Roy Vs. Mostt. Ram Sumari Devi) to submit that the Court is fully within its jurisdiction to determine an issue on the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record. Learned counsel for the claimants has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of T.O. Anthony Versus Karvarnan & Ors. reported in (2008)3 SCC 748 paragraph 6 to submit that an 9 P9 / 21 aggrieved is at liberty to proceed against all or any of the vehicles involved in the accident. On the issue of enhancement, it was submitted by Mr. Singh that the deceased was working as a Munshi in the Shoe Shop and the claimants not only led the employer‟s certificate as Ext.1 to support their contention about the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/-, they even led the proprietor of the shop as A.W.5 in support of the certificate. With reference to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1999) 9 SCC 212 (State of U.P. Vs. Hemraj) it was submitted that the employer‟s certification of the income has been accepted by the Supreme Court. Relying upon another case of the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 9 SCC 167 (Dr. K.G. Poolvaiah Vs. General Manager/Managing Director) it was submitted that the Supreme Court has held that where no salary is produced nor the employer examined, if the salary claimed by the applicant is reasonable enough and not exaggerated, the same may be accepted. He submits that in the present case both the elements are present inasmuch as the salary of the deceased as claimed by the appellant is not exaggerated rather the same is supported by a certificate and which stands proved by the employer‟s certification as A.W.5. Learned counsel with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sarla Verma reported in 10 P10 / 21 (2009) 6 SCC 121 submits that since the number of the dependents are six, hence following the principle laid down at paragraph 30 of the judgment, a deduction of 1/4th is to be made by way of personal living expenses of the deceased and not 1/3 rd as held by the Tribunal. Learned counsel thus submits that the reliance on the notional income by the Tribunal in terms of the second schedule to the Act is erroneous in view of the evidence on record and the judicial pronouncement on the issue and even on the issue of deductions towards personal and living expenses, the Tribunal has committed an error.
Mr. Krishna Kishore Sinha, appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has opposed both the appeals to submit that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is on the basis of evidence on record and requires no interference at the instance of either the National Insurance Company or the claimants. Opposing the contention of the appellant-National Insurance Company, it was submitted that once the said Company has admitted the liability by sharing the amount of interim compensation, they cannot revert back to challenge the liability under the final judgment and award.
Mr. Sinha learned counsel relied upon the evidences led by the claimants as A.W. 3 and A.W.4 to submit that these witnesses 11 P11 / 21 are eye witnesses and have specifically deposed that the driver of the Indica car was driving rashly. It is submitted that since the claimants are not eye witness hence not much importance can be attached to their statement made in the claim application in so far as the fixation of liability is concerned. It was submitted that since it is a case of head on collision, the facts itself speak for themselves that there was a composite negligence by the drivers of both the vehicles. Learned counsel submit that in a similar circumstance arising in a case reported 1997(2)PLJR 391 (National Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Malti Devi), this Court held the head on collision to be a case of composite negligence of both the vehicles. Responding to the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-National Insurance Company regarding the deceased being a gratuitous passenger, learned counsel relied upon the copy of the policy placed on record vide Annexure-E to the supplementary show cause filed in M.A. No. 482 of 2006 relatable to the Indica Car, to submit that the policy was in the nature of a comprehensive package policy and covered the occupants of the car. Learned counsel relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1998(3)PLJR 9(SC) (Amrit Lal Sood Vs. Kaushlya Devi Thapar) submitted that the comprehensive policy would cover the deceased also. He thus submits that there was no 12 P12 / 21 reason to interfere with the judgment and award impugned.
Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh in reply to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. Sinha appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company, reiterated his submissions and concluded that in absence of the policy being led as Ext., and in absence of an appropriate application by either of the parties to lead the same as additional evidence before this Court, even if the policy is a package policy, yet the same cannot be looked into. He further submitted that in the circumstances the deceased would be rendered a gratuitous passenger and in any event, in absence of any allegation against the driver of the Indica car, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of any compensation. In response to the argument of Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh that in terms of the law laid down in the case of T.O. Anthony (supra), the choice lies upon the claimant to proceed against any of the two vehicles‟ owner in a case of head on collision, it was contended by Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh that the principle laid down in the case of T.O. Anthony also does not make any shift that unless the driver of vehicle concerned is held to be a wrong doer, he cannot be held liable for compensation.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record.
13
P13 / 21 The rival contentions advanced by the contesting counsel(s), requires this Court to determine the following issues raised:
(a) Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger ?
(b) Whether there is an absence of allegation against the driver of the Indica car ?
(c) Whether in absence of any allegation against the driver of the Indica car, the appellant-National Insurance Company could be saddled with a liability ?
(d) Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement ?
Issue No.(b) and (c) are interlinked and thus I shall be taking up these two issues before proceeding to determine the other issues.
Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh is absolutely correct when he submits that an allegation of rash or negligent driving by a driver of a vehicle involved in any accident is a sine qua non to fixation of a liability.
The judgment of Minu B. Mehta(supra) has been quoted with approval in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of „Reshma Kumari‟ reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65. There is thus no dispute to the proposition that there has to be a case of negligence for holding a vehicle owner liable for payment of compensation.
14
P14 / 21 The proposition advanced by Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh having been accepted, it is to be seen whether the accident in question exempts the driver of the Indica car of any negligence or there is evidence present in that regard and whether a mere absence of allegation by itself would be sufficient to exempt the driver of the Indica car of any negligent driving.
The F.I.R. was led as Ext. 2 and admittedly charges the truck of causing the accident by rash and negligent driving. The chargesheet has also been submitted against the driver of the offending truck and not against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claim application also charges the truck of rash and negligent driving but mentions a head on collision. The oral evidence of the widow and the mother of the deceased who admittedly are not eye witnesses, merely reiterate what is mentioned in the claim application and thus their statement or their deposition are hardly relevant for deciding the issue of contributory negligence. What is relevant is the evidence of applicant witness No.3, namely Pramod Kumar who claims to be an eye witness and charges the driver of the Indica car of driving at a high speed while charging the driver of the truck of driving rashly and negligently. Similar ocular evidence has been given by applicant witness No. 4 namely, Santosh Singh. Both these eye witnesses were cross- 15
P15 / 21 examined by the National Insurance Company Ltd. on their evidence but nothing could be extracted to raise doubts on their evidence or to prove that they were tutored.
Apart therefrom, a factor which gains significance in so far as the objection raised by the appellant-National Insurance Company is concerned, is that they never made any attempt before the Tribunal to establish that the driver of the Indica car was not at fault. In fact, no evidence either oral or documentary was led by them in this regard nor did they even bother to examine the driver of the Indica car. In such circumstance, the attempt on the part of the appellant-National Insurance Company in reading between the lines of the materials available on record to avoid liability by contending that there is no allegation against the driver of the Indica car and thus it cannot be a case of contributory negligence, does not hold substance.
There is a presumption of negligence on the part of the drivers of the two vehicles involved in a head on collision and though the presumption is rebutable but unless the circumstances available at the accident suggests anything to the contrary or it is proved by aid of evidence, the presumption would hold the field.
A similar opinion was expressed by this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Malti Devi(supra) and the relevant 16 P16 / 21 portion of paragraph 6 is extracted herein below.
"6............................................................ ..........When there were two version of the same accident bringing the counter allegation of rash and negligent driving against both the vehicles, the learned Court below considering the entire materials available on record has rightly applied the principles of res ipsa loquitur and held that as there was head on collision just near Barhi bridge, the accident must have been caused due to composite negligence of both the vehicles."
Even in case of T.O. Anthony(supra), in a similar case of head on collision, the Supreme Court observed as such:
"8............................................................ the inference is that the appellant was on the right side of the road and the private bus came partly to the wrong side of the road. But the fact that there was a head on collision could not be ignored. The evidence shows that the appellant was not diligent, as he neither slowed down the bus nor swerved to his left, on seeing the oncoming bus. On the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the appellant was also partly responsible for the accident............."
While on the issue of contributory negligence, I am tempted to refer to a judgment rendered in the case of PramodKumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri versus Karmasey Kunwargi Tak & Ors. reported in (2002) 6 SCC 455 and paragraphs 8 to 10 of the judgment makes a discussion on the issue and reads as follows:
"8. We do not think that these two reasons given by the High Court fully justify the accepted principles of contributory negligence. The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant‟s part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as "negligence". 17
P17 / 21 Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression "contributory negligence" it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an "author of his own wrong."
9. Subject to non-requirement of the existence of duty, the question of contributory negligence is to be decided on the same principle on which the question of defendant‟s negligence is decided. The standard of reasonable man is as relevant in the case of a plaintiff‟s contributory negligence as in the case of a defendant‟s negligence. But the degree of want of care which will constitute contributory negligence, varies with the circumstances and the factual situation of the case. The following observation of the High Court of Australia in Astley Vs. Austrust Ltd.1 is worthy of quoting:
"A finding of contributory negligence turns on a factual investigation whether the plaintiff contributed to his or her own loss by failing to take reasonable care of his or her person or property. What is reasonable care depends on the circumstances of the case. In many cases, it may be proper for a plaintiff to rely on the defendant to perform its duty. But there is no absolute rule. The duties and responsibilities of the defendant are a variable factor in determining whether contributory negligence exists and, if so, to what degree. In some cases, the nature of the duty owed may exculpate the plaintiff from a claim of contributory negligence; in other cases, the nature of the duty may reduce the plaintiff‟s share of responsibility for the damage suffered; and in yet other cases the nature of the duty may not prevent a finding that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for the safety of his or her person or property. Contributory negligence focuses on the conduct of the plaintiff. The duty owed by the defendant, although relevant, is one only of many factors that must be weighed in determining whether the plaintiff has so conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable care for the safety of its person or property."
10. It has been accepted as a valid principle by various judicial authorities that where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger, which 18 P18 / 21 compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence if that other acts in a way, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty. In Swadling V. Cooper2 AC at p. 9 Lord Hailsham said: (All ER p. 260 D-E) "Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution does not in itself constitute negligence. The plaintiff has no right to complain if in the agony of the collision the defendant fails to take some step which might have prevented a collision unless that step is one which a reasonably careful man would fairly be expected to take in the circumstances." Applying the principles laid down in the judgments referred to above to the case in hand and considering the circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is any infirmity on the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence available on record that the head on collision was attributable to the contributory negligence of both the drivers of the two vehicles. Issue No.(b) and (c) are answered accordingly.
Issue no.(a) is relatable to the contention of Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh appearing for the National Insurance Company that the deceased was gratuitous passenger in the Indica car. Surprisingly even when the appellant-National Insurance Company is trying to avoid its liability on the anvil that the Insurance policy did not cover the occupant of the car, it never 19 P19 / 21 bothered to lead the policy as evidence before the Court below and even when the learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company has very fairly tried to assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion by bringing the said policy on record vide Annexure-E to the supplementary show cause filed in M.A. No. 482 of 2006, the attempt was sought to be thwarted on the technicalities of the procedural law. It is by now well settled that procedural law are hand maid of justice and not mistress thereof. The technicalities so raised by the appellant counsel would not prevent this Court in examining the document which is necessary for arriving at a just conclusion and the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 (1)(b) and (2) amply empowers this Court to permit such evidence to be brought on record. This Court for the ends of justice does permit the same here and now. In fact, it is the appellant-Company who ought to have come forward with this fairness rather than raising objections which border on technicalities and are attempted to prevent disclosure of correct position.
In view of the terms of the policy which is a comprehensive package policy and indisputably covers the occupants, it is held that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger in the Indica car and the Issue No.(a) is answered accordingly. 20
P20 / 21 The two issues raised by Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh in support of his appeal bearing M.A. No. 482 of 2006 having been rejected, M.A. No. 482 of 2006 stands dismissed.
Re: M.A. No. 48 of 2007 Although this appeal was heard along with M.A. No. 482 of 2006 and orders were reserved on 27.8.2013 but at the stage of passing final order, this Court discovered that this appeal has been admitted vide order passed on 17.1.2008 and although vide order passed on 30.11.2010 and 14.3.2013 in M.A. No. 482 of 2006, this appeal was directed to put up for analogous hearing but it so appears that neither the attention of the Court passing the said order(s) was invited towards the fact that the present appeal stands admitted for hearing nor was this Court apprised of this fact. The appeal having been admitted, it cannot be disposed of at the stage of order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with M.A. No. 482 of 2006.
In the circumstances, let this appeal be listed for hearing at the top of the list on 6.12.2013 along with the records of M.A. No. 482 of 2006. Issue No. (d) is answered thus.
In consequence of the order passed in M.A. No. 482 of 2006, let the statutory amount deposited by the appellant- Insurance Company be remitted to the 9th Additional Motor 21 P21 / 21 Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur for its disbursement in accordance with law.
Let Lower Court Records received in connection with Claim Case No. 132 of 2002 in M.A. No. 482 of 2006 be retained until disposal of M.A. No. 48 of 2007.
Ordered accordingly.
(Jyoti Saran, J.) Bibhash/-