Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Shri.Siddarth S/O Sambhaji Sarolkar on 20 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300
MFA No. 102484 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102484 OF 2019 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102290 OF 2019
IN MFA NO. 102484/2019:
BETWEEN
THE MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
SHIKSHAK BHAVAN, COLLEGE ROAD,
BELAGAVI-560001, NOW REPRESENTED
BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI. SIDDARTH S/O. SAMBHAJI SAROLKAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, (NOW NILL),
R/O. 5TH MAIN, 7TH CORSS, SADASHIV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-560005.
Digitally signed by 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
MANJANNA E
N.W.K.S.R.T.C, BELAGAVI DIVISION,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BELAGAVI-560005.
KARNATAKA
3. SHRI. SUDHIR S/O. VINAYAK RAJGOLKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.5312, II LAND, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA K. M, @ PAWAR, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R2;
APPEAL AGAINST R3 DISMISSED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE
APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 16.03.2019 PASSED BY I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300
MFA No. 102484 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, BELAGAVI AT: BELAGAVI IN MVC
NO.1172/2017, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN MFA NO 102290 OF 2019:
BETWEEN
SHRI. SIDDARTH S/O. SAMBHAJI SAROLKAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. 5TH MAIN , 7TH CROSS, SADASHIV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI- TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590010.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GEETHA K. M, @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.S.R.T.C, BELAGAVI DIVISION,
BELAGAVI-590010.
2. SHRI. SUDHIR S/O. VINAYAK RAJGOLKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H NO 5312, II LAND, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590001 TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
CORPORATION LIMITED, SHIKSHAK BHAVAN,
COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH,
NOTICE TO R3 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2019
PASSED IN MVC NO.1172/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION & SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 28.05.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300
MFA No. 102484 of 2019
C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the claimant and counsel for Insurance Company and the Corporation on admission in both the appeals. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. As these two appeals are arising out of a common judgment and award of the Tribunal, they are heard together and disposed of by this Court by common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the present appeals are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition.
4. M.F.A. No.102290/2019 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whereas M.F.A. No.102484/2019 is filed by the Insurance Company seeking reduction of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as liability to pay compensation.
5. Brief facts of the claimant's case before the Tribunal are as under:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 On 23.04.2017, the claimant had been to Jamboti Village on his Hero Honda Activa motorcycle bearing registered No.KA-
22/EN-9838, while he returning back from Jamboti to Belagavi, at about 09:15 a.m., the driver of NWKSRTC bus bearing registered No.KA-22/F-1950 came from opposite direction in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant. Due to the said impact, the right leg of the claimant was crushed and thus he was shifted to Vijay Hospital for treatment and his right leg amputated above knee. Thus, he spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses. As he was unconscious, he could not file complaint in time and only after his discharge, he lodged the complaint. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 27 years and his monthly income was Rs.40,000/-. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,24,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimant has preferred appeal in M.F.A. No.102290/2019 contending that the right leg of claimant is amputated and a femur bone is fractured. Thus, there is permanent physical disability due to crush injury, but the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head pain and -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 suffering. Further, the Tribunal has not considered the income of the claimant. Due to amputation, the claimant lost the job and he is suffering from 100% physical permanent disability.
But the Tribunal considered 70% disability which is not reasonable one. Further, the Tribunal has not considered fair compensation on other heads. Thus, he prayed to enhance further compensation. The counsel for the claimant relied upon the following decision:
"i. United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar and another in Civil Appeal No.9694/2013"
6. The Insurance Company has filed M.F.A. No.102484/2019, contending that there is head on collusion between two vehicles and thus, the claimant sustained injuries due to his own negligence and he himself tort-feasor, hence, he is not entitled to seek compensation and he cannot maintain the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hence, he is not entitled for further compensation.
7. The counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the primary responsibility of insured of motorcycle to pay -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 compensation to the third party victims of the accident, arising out of use of motor vehicle. Hence, the rider cannot step into the shoes of insured himself, thus, the appeal is not maintainable. Hence, the counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimant and prayed to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The counsel for Insurance Company has relied on the following decisions:
"i. Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Company in Civil Appeal No.3538/2009.
ii. Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2020) 2 SCC
550. iii. Smt.Sangeetha W/o. late Subramani and others vs. Sri.Krishna Chari S/o. Puttachari and another in MFA No.5537/2011 c/w MFA No.3182/2011 and 1658/2012.
iv. Appaji (since deceased) and another vs. M.Krishna and another in MFA No.5040/1998.
v. United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar and another in Civil Appeal No.9694/2013.-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 vi. National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow vs. Lavkush and another."
8. In view of the submissions made by both the parties, the following points that would arise for Court's consideration in these appeals are:
"1. Whether the Corporation proves that the claimant himself tort-feasor and hence, it is not entitled for any compensation?"
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement or for reduction?"
9. It is the contention of the Insurance Company that the claimant himself negligent in the accident, thus, he sustained injuries due to his own negligence and hence, petition of claimant not maintainable. In order to substantiate this contention, RW1 - the Authorized Officer of Corporation was examined on oath and reiterated the contentions as taken in the objections statement. RW1 relied upon Ex.R2 -
investigating report and Ex.R3 - photograph and CD.
10. On the contrary, the claimant relied upon Ex.P1 to P16 i.e., Ex.P1 - FIR, Ex.P2 - complaint, Ex.P3 - wound certificate, Ex.P4 - MVI report, Ex.P5 - spot panchanama, -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 Ex.P6 - charge sheet, Ex.P7 - x ray, Ex.P8 - radiologist report, Ex.P9 - disability certificate, Ex.P10 - copy of complaint, Ex.P11 - postal receipts and acknowledgment, Ex.P12 - two photograph and CD, Ex.P13 - discharge summary, Ex.P14 -
security medical bills, Ex.P15 - CC of driving licence, Ex.P16 -
letter of KLE with respect of costs.
11. From the perusal of charge sheet - Ex.P6 at column No.17, the Investigating Officer has concluded that the claimant being the rider of Honda Activa bearing registered No.KA-22/EN-9838 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the NWKSRTC No.KA-22/F-1950 and sustained injuries. The contents of charge sheet are not challenged by the claimant. From the perusal of FIR at column No.10, it is mentioned that the claimant being the rider of motorcycle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bus. It shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of claimant. Thus, it is just and necessary to analyze Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
"163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub- section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub- section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule."
12. From the perusal of the aforesaid proposition, Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, provided for payment
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 of compensation on structured formula basis by mandating that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorized insurer would be liable to pay compensation, as indicated in the second schedule in the case of death or permanent disability due to accident arising out of the use of the motorcycle, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be in a claim made under sub Section (1) of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In order to prove a claim of this nature, the claimant need not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligent or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned.
13. In the present case, the counsel for Insurance Company contended that claimant is not the third party and he himself is the tort-feasor. The counsel has relied upon the following decisions which are held as under:
"i. Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Company in Civil Appeal No.3538/2009.
"18. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 SCC 736, wherein one of us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha is a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in the said decision that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim, Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike.
19. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA."
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 ii. Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2020) 2 SCC
550.
"5.5 It is true that, in a claim under Section 163A of the Act, there is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence and/or that the death in respect of which the claim petition is sought to be established was due to wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. It is also true that the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is based on the principle of no fault liability. However, at the same time, the deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner/insurer of the vehicle which is borrowed by him as he will be in the shoes of the owner and he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. In the present case, the parties are governed by the contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. There cannot be any dispute that the liability of the insurance company would
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 be as per the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. As held by this Court in the case of Dhanraj (supra), an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. In the said decision, it is further held by this Court that Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.
5.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, as the claim under Section 163A of the Act was made only against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he would be in the shoes of the owner, the High Court has rightly observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and the claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or the insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. RJ 29 2M 9223 being a third party to the said vehicle."
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 iii. Smt.Sangeetha W/o. late Subramani and others vs. Sri.Krishna Chari S/o. Puttachari and another in MFA No.5537/2011 c/w MFA No.3182/2011 and 1658/2012.
"35. To sum up, in the opinion of this Court, a claim petition seeking payment of compensation in a road accident, by the owner of the vehicle or by any other person driving the vehicle and not being an employee, is not maintainable under Section 163A or Section 166 of the M.V.Act, before MACT. This position holds good even where the vehicle is insured for own damages and premium is paid to cover the risk of "owner-cum-driver" under comprehensive policy or contract policy. The basis for maintaining a petition, both under Sections 163A and 166 of the M.V.Act is provided under Section 147 of the M.V.Act. The difference between Sections 163A and 166 is, the need to prove negligence under Section 166 and non-requirement of proving negligence under Section 163A. The other difference is unlimited liability on the Insurer under Section 166 and payment of compensation on structured formula basis as indicated in the Second schedule of M.V.Act in case of a claim made under Section 163A. The only exception in Section 163A is that a claim petition could be maintained by an employee (or his legal heirs) being a driver/rider
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 having to plead and prove that the motor vehicle accident was caused during the course of employment. As stated earlier, in the context of chapter XI of the MV Act, wherever the word "employee" is used, it is impliedly referable to the meaning it receives under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."
iv. Appaji (since deceased) and another vs. M.Krishna and another in MFA No.5040/1998.
"24. We may before parting make it clear that the accident in the instant case had taken place while the deceased was himself riding a two- wheeler. No other vehicle was involved in the accident against whose driver or owner could the claimant make a claim for payment of compensation on no fault basis under Section 163- A of the Act. There was no possibility of even accusing another vehicle or its driver of negligence or rashness. In cases where the accident involves two vehicles one accusing the other of negligence, it may be open to both to maintain a claim on no fault basis under Section 163-A of the Act. That is because such a claim will be permissible no matter the driver or the owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident may dispute his negligence in the matter. The argument that while the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 claimant may not be required to prove fault, the respondents can prove that the accident had not occurred on account of any fault on their part must fail for once the respondent is allowed to set up that defence, the claimant will have to necessarily lead evidence to rebut the same by proving that the accident had indeed occurred on account of the fault of the respondents. Any such requirement of proving the fault having been dispensed with by Sub- section (2) to Section 163-A, permitting the respondents to set up the defence that the accident was without their fault would amount to negating the effect of the statutory provision dispensing with proof of fault."
v. United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar and another in Civil Appeal No.9694/2013.
"8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under faction 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163 of the act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention."
14. In the instant case, the claimant had been to Jamboti village on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 22/EN-9838. At that time, the driver of NWKSRTC bus came from opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle of claimant though the Investigating Officer made claimant as accused, it shows that claimant contributed negligence and in this case, two vehicles are involved. In cases, where the
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 accident involves two vehicles, one accusing the others negligence, it may be opened to both to maintain a claim on no fault basis under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, that is because such a claim will be permissible, no matter the driver or the owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident may dispute his negligence in the matter.
15. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163A of the Act on the basis of the structure formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver / owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable. So the Corporation and Insurance Company are held liable to pay 50% each of the compensation.
16. So far as quantum is concerned, counsel for the claimant has contended that the Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation under the head pain and suffering, as the claimant had knee amputation of the right middle 1/3rd
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 thigh and femur bone. He has spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses and still he is under follow up treatment. However, the amount awarded under the head medical expenses is also on lower side. Hence, she prayed to allow the appeal filed by the claimant and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
17. As per Ex.P.7-X ray and Ex.P8 radiologist report, the amputation is done on right lower limb to distal to the mid thigh region. Ex.P12 two photographs showing amputation done with CD and Ex.P13 discharge summary sheet of KLE Hospital and Ex.P9 disability certificate issued by PW2 Doctor, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation under the heads pain and suffering a sum of Rs.5,000/- which is reasonable one and no interference is called for in that regard. Insofar as medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- which is reasonable one and no interference is called for in that regard and towards loss future earning capacity, a sum of Rs.5,04,000/- is awarded, which is just and reasonable one and no interference is called for by this Court in that regard. Accordingly, I pass the following;
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8300 MFA No. 102484 of 2019 C/W MFA No. 102290 of 2019 ORDER
i) M.F.A. No.102484/2019 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
ii) M.F.A. No.102290/2019 filed by the Claimant is dismissed.
iii) The judgment and award dated 16.03.2019 passed in MVC No.1172/2017 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi is hereby confirmed.
iv) The Insurance Company and the Corporation are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of order towards their apportionment i.e., 50% each.
v) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal within two weeks from today.
vi) The Registry is directed to send copy of judgment alongwith Trial Court records to the Tribunal. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSH/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 96