Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manju Devi And Ors vs Saleem And Ors on 25 April, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4557/2017
1. Manju Devi W/o Late Dayaram, R/o Village Gandura,
Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar.
2. Kumari Apoorva D/o Late Dayaram, R/o Village Gandura,
Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar. Minor Through Their
Mother And Natural Guardian Manju Devi W/o Late
Dayaram
3. Gagan S/o Late Dayaram, R/o Village Gandura, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Alwar. Minor Through Their Mother
And Natural Guardian Manju Devi W/o Late Dayaram
4. Manohari Lal S/o Tekaram, R/o Village Gandura, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Alwar.
5. Laxmi W/o Manohari Lal, R/o Village Gandura, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Alwar.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Saleem S/o Kutubbuddin, R/o Village Adbar, District
Gurgaon, Haryana Driver Truck No. Hr-55-V-7264
2. M/s Sdh Logistics, R/o Sariya Ka Rasta, Behind Prince
Valita Sector-5, Mata Mandir Road, Near Petrol Pump,
Gurgaon, Haryana Owner Truck No. Hr-55-V-7264
3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Division Office At 70,
Panchawati, Raghu Marg, Alwar, Having Its Regional
Office At Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur
Through Its Regional Manager Insurance Company Truck
No. Hr-55-V-7264
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinjay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
25/04/2022
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM)
(2 of 12) [CMA-4557/2017]
Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants-
appellants against the judgment and award dated 29.06.2017 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Laxmangarh, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Claim Case No.111/2016 whereby an amount of 43,71,560/- was awarded as compensation on account of death of Daya Ram in the accident occurred on 22.03.2016.
Learned Tribunal after framing the issues and evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-appellants and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.43,71,560/- under various heads in favour of the claimants-appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased Daya Ram was working on the post of Teacher at Government Primary School, Village Jakhopur, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar and at the time of his death, his age was 43 years 8 months and 10 days and his monthly salary was Rs.43,510/-.
Counsel further submitted that in order to prove the income of the deceased, salary certificate (Ex.17) issued by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Tehsil Ramgarh District Alwar produced on the record, which clearly indicates that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.43510/-. Learned counsel further submitted that under various heads i.e. GPF, State Insurance, LIC, PMFI and Tax, deductions of Rs.12055/- have been made.
Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal while passing the award, has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.31455/- only, while it is the settled principle of law that except income tax, other deductions i.e. GPF, State Insurance, LIC and PMFI, are the components of salary/income of (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM) (3 of 12) [CMA-4557/2017] the employee and while assessing the income of the deceased, these components should be added in the income of the deceased, so, under these circumstances, after deducting the income tax, monthly salary of the deceased should have been assessed as Rs.41,450/-, but the Tribunal has erred in assessing the salary of the deceased as Rs.31455/- per month.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Indira Srivastaba & Ors. reported in 2008(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 359, Sunil Sharma & Ors. Vs. Bachitar Singh & Ors.
reported in 2011 (2) KLT 451 wherein in identical situation, the deductions were treated as components of the salary of the deceased and the compensation was awarded accordingly.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not granting future prospects in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Learned counsel further submitted that recomputation of the award in the present case may be done in the light of the judgments referred above.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the claimant-appellant has rightly taken into consideration all the factors while calculating the award in this case on the anvil of the evidence produced before it. Thus, the judgment dated 29.06.2017 does not call for any interference by this Court. Learned counsel, however, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM) (4 of 12) [CMA-4557/2017] appellants and the settled position of law on the issue raised in this appeal with respect to assessment of income of and with respect to recomputation of the award in the present case in the light of judgments Indira Srivastaba (supra), Sunil Sharma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra).
I have considered the submissions made at Bar and gone through the judgment dated 29.06.2017 as well as the other relevant documents available on record.
Admittedly, the deceased was 43 years of age at the time of accident and was working on the post of Government Teacher in Government Primary School at Village Jaffopur, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar and his monthly salary was Rs.43510/- and in order to prove the income of the deceased, the salary certificate (Ex.17) issued by the Block Elementary Education Officer was placed on record.
Bare perusal of the salary certificate (Ex.17) indicates that the monthly salary/income of the deceased was Rs.43510/- and there were total deductions of Rs.12055/- under various heads.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indira Srivastaba (supra) has dealt with the issue in question in Para Nos. 8 to 25, which reads as under:-
"8. The term 'income' has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetory terms.
9. Section 168 of the Act uses the word 'just compensation' which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. We cannot, in determining the issue involved in the matter, lose sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory Provident Fund, Gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. Different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family. If some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, in (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM) (5 of 12) [CMA-4557/2017] our opinion, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. For the aforementioned purpose, we may notice the elements of pay, paid to the deceased :
"Basic : 63,400.00 Conveyance : 12,000.00 Allowance Rent Co Lease : 49,200.00 Bonus (35% of : 21,840.00 Basic) Total : 1,45,440.00
In addition to above, his other entitlements were :
Con. to PF 10% Basic Rs. 6,240/- (p.a.) LTA reimbursement Rs. 7,000/- (p.a.) Medical reimbursement Rs. 6,000/- (p.a.) Superannuation 15% of Basic Rs. 9,360/- (p.a.) Gratuity Cont.5.34% of Basic Rs. 3,332/- (p.a.) Medical Policy-self & Family @ Rs.55,000/- (p.a.) Education Scholarship @ Rs.500 Rs.12,000/- (p.a.) Payable to his two children Directly"
10. There are three basic features in the aforementioned statement which require our consideration :
1. Reimbursement of rent would be equivalent to HRA;
2. Bonus is payable as a part of salary; and
3. Contribution to the Provident Fund.
11. We may furthermore notice that apart therefrom, superannuation benefits, contributions towards gratuity, insurance of medical policy for self and family and education scholarship were beneficial to the members of the family.
12. We have, however, no doubt in mind that medical reimbursement which provides for a slab and which keeping in view the terminology used, would mean reimbursement for medical expenses on production of medical bills and, thus, the same would not come within the purview of the aforementioned category.
13. The question came for consideration before a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Padmavathy & Ors. [CMA No.114 of 2006 decided on 29.1.2007], wherein it was held :
"Income tax, Professional tax which are deducted from the salaried person goes to the coffers of the government under specific head and there is no return. Whereas, the General Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, L.I.C., Contribution are amounts paid specific heads and the contribution is always repayable to an employee at the time of voluntary retirement, death or for any other reason. Such contribution made by the salaried person are deferred payments and they are savings. The Supreme Court as well as various High Courts (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM) (6 of 12) [CMA-4557/2017] have held that the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory and that the deferred payments made to the employee are contractual. Courts have held that there cannot be any deductions in the statutory compensation, if the Legal Representatives are entitled to lumpsum payment under the contractual liability. If the contributions made by the employee which are otherwise savings from the salary are deducted from the gross income and only the net income is taken for computing the dependancy compensation, then the Legal Representatives of the victim would lose considerable portion of the income. In view of the settled proposition of law, I am of the view, the Tribunal can make only statutory deductions such as Income tax and professional tax and any other contribution, which is not repayable by the employer, from the salary of the deceased person while determining the monthly income for computing the dependancy compensation. Any contribution made by the employee during his life time, form part of the salary and they should be included in the monthly income, while computing the dependency compensation."
14. Similar view was expressed by a learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Narayanamma & Ors. V. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunications and Ors. [2002 ACC 582], holding :
"In this background, now we will examine the present deductions made by the tribunal from the salary of the deceased in fixing the monthly contribution of the deceased to his family. The tribunal has not even taken proper care while deducting the amounts from the salary of the deceased, at least the very nature of deductions from the salary of the deceased. My view is that the deductions made by the tribunal from the salary such as recovery of housing loan, vehicle loan, festival advance and other deductions, if any, to the benefit of the estate of the deceased cannot be deducted while computing the net monthly earnings of the deceased. These advances or loans are part of his salary. So far as House Rent Allowance is concerned, it is beneficial to the entire family of the deceased during his tenure, but for his untimely death the claimants are deprived of such benefit which they would have enjoyed if the deceased is alive. On the other hand, allowances, like Travelling Allowance, allowance for newspapers/periodicals, telephone, servant, club-fee, car maintenance etc., by virtue of his vocation need not be included in the salary while computing the net earnings of the deceased. The finding of the tribunal that the deceased was getting Rs.1,401/- as net income every month is unsustainable as the deductions made towards vehicle loan and other deductions were also taken into consideration while fixing the monthly income of the deceased. The above finding of the tribunal is contrary to the principle of 'just compensation' enunciated by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Helen's case (1 supra). The Supreme Court in Concord of India Insurance Co. v. Nirmaladevi and Ors., 1980 ACJ 55 (SC) held that determination of quantum must be liberal and not niggardly since law values life and limb in a free country 'in generous scales'."
15. We may, however, notice that a Division Bench of this Court in Asha & Ors. v. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [2004 ACC 533], whereupon reliance has been placed by Mr. Satija, was considering a case where, like the present one, several perks were included in salary. We may reproduce the salary certificate hereto below : "This is to certify that Shri A.M. Raikar was working as AG 111 in this organisation has been paid the following Pay & Allowances for the month of May, 1995:
Earnings Amount Deductions Amount Basic 3420.00 CPF (S) 488.00 Special Pay 70.00 CPF (Add) (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM) (7 of 12) [CMA-4557/2017] FDA 350.00 GIS 3.75 VDA 1040.00 LIC/GIS 509.10 CCA 100.00 HRA HRA 1047.00 MSPI 60.00 Washing All. 75.00 Society 576.00 Conv. 225.00 Union 3.00 Cant.Sub. 265.00 HBA 340.00 C.E.A. 2040.00 B.Fund 10.00 Total 8632.0 Total 1989.85 0 Net Payable Rs. 6642.00 (Rupees six thousand six hundred forty two only)." In that case, this Court held :
"Lastly it was submitted that the salary certificate shows that the salary of the deceased was Rs.8,632/-. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in taking the salary to be Rs.6,642/-. It was submitted that the High Court was wrong in deducting the allowances and amounts paid towards LIC, Society charges and HBA etc. We are unable to accept this submission also. The claimants are entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered by them. The loss suffered by them is the amount which they would have been receiving at the time when the deceased was alive. There can be no doubt that the dependents would only be receiving the net amount less l/3rd for his personal expenses. The High Court was therefore right in so holding." This Court in Asha (supra) did not address itself the questions raised before us. It does not appear that any precedent was noticed nor the term 'just compensation' was considered in the light of the changing societal condition as also the perks which are paid to the employee which may or may not attract income tax or any other tax. What would be 'just compensation' must be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The basis for considering the entire pay packet is what the dependents have lost due to death of the deceased. It is in the nature of compensation for future loss towards the family income.
16. In Rathi Menon v. Union of India [(2001) 3 SCC 714], this Court, upon considering the dictionary meaning of compensation held : "In this context a reference to Section 129 of the Act appears useful. The Central Government is empowered by the said provision to make rules by notification "to carry out the purposes of this Chapter". It is evident that one of the purposes of this chapter is that the injured victims in railway accidents and untoward incidents must get compensation. Though the word "compensation" is not defined in the Act or in the Rules it is the giving of an equivalent or substitute of equivalent value. In Black's Law Dictionary , "compensation" is shown as "equivalent in money for a loss sustained; or giving back an equivalent in either money which is but the measure of value, or in actual value otherwise conferred; or recompense in value for some loss, injury or service especially when it is given by statute." It means when you pay the compensation in terms of money it must represent, on the date of ordering such payment, the equivalent value.
25. In this context we may look at Section 128(1) also. It says that the right of any person to claim compensation before the Claims Tribunal as indicated in Section 124 or 124-A shall not affect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under any other law for the time being in force. But there is an interdict that no person shall be entitled to claim compensation for more than once in respect of the same accident. This means that the party has two (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM) (8 of 12) [CMA-4557/2017] alternatives, one is to avail himself of his civil remedy to claim compensation based on common law or any other statutory provision, and the other is to apply before the Claims Tribunal under Section 124 or 124-A of the Act. As he cannot avail himself of both the remedies he has to choose one between the two. The provisions in Chapter XIII of the Act are intended to provide a speedier remedy to the victims of accidents and untoward incidents. If he were to choose the latter that does not mean that he should be prepared to get a lesser amount. He is given the assurance by the legislature that the Central Government is saddled with the task of prescribing fair and just compensation in the Rules from time to time. The provisions are not intended to give a gain to the Railway Administration but they are meant to afford just and reasonable compensation to the victims as a speedier measure. If a person files a suit the amount of compensation will depend upon what the court considers just and reasonable on the date of determination. Hence when he goes before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation the determination of the amount should be as on the date of such determination."
17. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.
18. The term 'income' in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd Ed.) has been defined as under :
"The value of any benefit or perquisite whether convertible into money or not, obtained from a company either by a director or a person who has substantial interest in the company, and any sum paid by such company in respect of any obligation, which but for such payment would have been payable by the director or other person aforesaid, occurring or arising to a person within the State from any profession, trade or calling other than agriculture."
It has also been stated :
'INCOME' signifies 'what comes in' (per Selborne, C., Jones v. Ogle, 42 LJ Ch.336). 'It is as large a word as can be used' to denote a person's receipts '(per Jessel, M.R. Re Huggins, 51 LJ Ch.938.) income is not confined to receipts from business only and means periodical receipts from one's work, lands, investments, etc. AIR 1921 Mad 427 (SB). Ref. 124 IC 511 : 1930 MWN 29 : 31 MLW 438 AIR 1930 Mad 626 : 58 MLJ 337."
19. If the dictionary meaning of the word 'income' is taken to its logical conclusion, it should include those benefits, either in terms of money or otherwise, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of income-tax or profession tax although some elements thereof may or may not be taxable or would have been otherwise taxable but for the exemption conferred thereupon under the statute.
20. In N. Sivammal & Ors. v. Managing Director, Pandian Roadways Corporation & Ors. [(1985) 1 SCC 18], this Court took into consideration the pay packet of the deceased.
21. We may notice that in T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya & Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 236], this Court held : "8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM) (9 of 12) [CMA-4557/2017] up to the estimated remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together.
9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self-maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase.
10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered."
22. Yet again in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie & Anr [(2005) 10 SCC 720], the same view was reiterated. However, therein although the words 'net income' has been used but the same itself would ordinarily mean gross income minus the statutory deductions. We must also notice that the said decision has been followed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana (Smt.) & Ors. [(2007) 3 SCC 538].
23. The expression 'just' must also be given its logical meaning. Whereas it cannot be a bonanza or a source of profit but in considering as to what would be just and equitable, all facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration.
24. In view of our finding abovementioned, the appeal is to be allowed in part in so far as the High Court had directed deduction of medical reimbursement and tax elements on the entire sum which according to the statute constitute income. But we decline to do so for two reasons. Firstly, the accident had taken place as far back as on 1st September, 1997 and secondly the Tribunal as also the High Court failed to take into consideration rise in income of the deceased by way of promotion or otherwise.
25. For the aforementioned reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
In the case of Sunil Sharma & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para No. 11 to 20 that:-
"Based on the aforementioned judgments, we are of the view that deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA, CCA and medical allowance are done on an incorrect basis and should have been taken into consideration in calculation of the income of the deceased. Further, deduction towards EPF and GIS should also not have been made in calculating the income of the deceased.
12. Thus, we calculate the income of the deceased by taking the abovementioned allowances into consideration. However, the computer advance should not form a part of the monthly income. The monthly income of the deceased thus amounts to Rs.15,351/-. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would amount to Rs. 1,84,212/-.
b. Deduction for Personal Expenses
13. The Tribunal deducted 40% from the income of the deceased by way of personal expenses and the same was upheld by the High Court. We are of the view that both courts erred in doing the same in light of the judgment in (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM) (10 of 12) [CMA-4557/2017] the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., [(2009) 6 SCC 121], wherein this Court held:
"we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six."
14. Hence, we hold that as the deceased was married, a deduction of 1/3rd should be made to her income by way of personal expenses. After such deduction, the income of the deceased would thus amount to Rs.1,22,808/-, which we round off to Rs.1,22,800/-.
c. Revision in Pay Scale
15. In Sarla Verma (supra), this Court laid down a `rule of thumb' with respect to addition in income due to future prospects. This Court observed that the addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.
16. In the present case, the deceased was aged 41 years. Thus, we allow an addition of 30% by way of future prospects. The annual income of the deceased would thus be Rs.1,59,640/-. Considering the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 14 is to be applied. Accordingly, annual dependency comes to Rs.22,34,960/-.
d Compensation for Loss of Love and Affection, Consortium, Funeral Rites
17. In cases of fatal motor accidents, some amount must always be awarded by way of compensation for loss of love and affection and consortium. It is of course impossible to compensate for the loss of a life, in the present case, that of a wife and mother, in terms of money. However, we can make an attempt to do so. Accordingly we award Rs.25,000/- for loss of love and affection and consortium.
18. Thus, total compensation payable to the claimants-appellants is Rs.22,59,960/- which is rounded off to Rs.22,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing the claim petition.
19. Accordingly the appeal of the claimants-appellants is allowed to the extent indicated above.
20. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to make the aforesaid payment, after adjusting payment, if any, is made. Such payment is to be made within three months. No costs."
Based on the above mentioned judgments, this Court is of the view that the deductions made by the Tribunal in the head of GPF, State Insurance, LIC and PMFI are done on incorrect basis and these components should have been taken into consideration in calculation of the income of the deceased. Further, deductions towards GPF, State Insurance, LIC and PMFI should also not have been made in calculating the income of the deceased.
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM)(11 of 12) [CMA-4557/2017] Thus, this Court calculates the income of the deceased by taking the above mentioned allowances into consideration and after deducting the income-tax of Rs.1700/-, the monthly income of the deceased is treated and determined as Rs.41450/-.
It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head of future prospects. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to get 30% future prospects on the income of the deceased. Thus, the award is recomputed as under:-
Monthly income Rs. 41,450/-
Annual income Rs. 41,450 x12 = Rs.497,400/- per
annum
Multiplier to be applied 14
497,400 X 14 = 69,63,600/-
Less 1/4th towards personal Rs.69,63,600/- - Rs.17,40,900 =
expenses Rs. 52,22,700/-
Add 30 per cent towards Rs. 52,22,700/- + Rs. 15,66,810/-
future prospects = Rs. 67,89,510/- Towards consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs.25000/- Total compensation Rs. 69,14,510/- awardable
Less amount awarded by the Rs. 69,14,510/- Rs.43,71,560/- = Rs.
Tribunal 25,42,950/- Enhanced amount of Rs. 25,42,950/- compensation
In view of the above, the appellants-claimants would be entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 25,42,950/-.
Consequently, the appeal is disposed of. Insurance company is directed to pay additional amount of Rs.25,42,950/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The learned Tribunal shall disburse Rs.2,00,000/- in (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM) (12 of 12) [CMA-4557/2017] the Joint Saving Bank Account of the claimants and the balance amount of the enhanced compensation be invested in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years and interest accrued on the deposit shall be paid to the appellants-claimants on monthly basis.
All pending application(s) stand disposed of.
Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J HEENA GANDHI /4 (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 07:47:26 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)