MANUSHA SREEKUMAR & ORS. versus THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. on 17 October 2022

[2022] 18 S.C.R. 455

MANUSHA SREEKUMAR & ORS.

v.

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

(Civil Appeal No. 7593 of 2022)

OCTOBER 17, 2022

[SURYA KANT AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation– Income ofdeceased, fixed considering minimum wages notification – IndianEvidence Act, 1872 – s.57 – Kerala Motor Transport Workers’Payment of Fair Wages Act, 1971 – s.2 – Deceased met with a fatalaccident in 2015 while riding his motorcycle, offending car wasinsured by respondent-Insurance Company – Tribunal fixed the totalcompensation of loss of dependency along with other heads at Rs.32,39,000/- – High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.19,70,000/- – On appeal, held: There exists sufficient evidence toshow that the Deceased was a fish vendor-cum-driver with a validlicense – No reason to doubt that he was a driver at the time of hisdeath – In the absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wagesnotification along with some amount of guesswork that is notcompletely detached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determinethe income of the deceased – Thus, judicial notice of the KeralaFair Wages Act taken which classifies a driver as a “Skilled worker”– Reading this in conjunction with Notification prescribing minimumwages for skilled worker, that came into effect from 01.01.15amending the Kerala Fair Wages Act, a ‘driver’ in Kerala earned aminimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015 – Thus, final notional income ofthe Deceased fixed at Rs.15,600 /- (Rs. 1,87,200/- p.a) – Since theDeceased was 32 years old at the time of his death, the multiplierapplied is 16 – 40% of increase for future prospects added as hewas self-employed – One-third of the Deceased’s income deductedtowards his personal expense as he had three dependents – Hence,the compensation payable to the appellants under the head of lossof dependency is Rs.27,95,520/- – Upon adding the remainingamount granted by High Court under different heads, the totalcompensation comes to Rs. 29,73,520/-, to be paid by InsuranceCompany with 9% interest.

455

A

B

CDE

FG

H

AMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.168 – Held: s.168 makes itimperative to grant compensation that appears to be just – Adequatecompensation is considered to be fair and equitable compensation– Courts shoulder the responsibility of deciding adequatecompensation on a case-to-case basis.BMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Just compensation – Factors tobe established – Held: As laid down in Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTCand Ors., the three factors are: (a) age of the deceased; (b) incomeof the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents.

A

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Loss ofCdependency – Issues to be determined by Tribunal – Held: The issuesthat are to be determined to arrive at the loss of dependency are-additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; thededuction to be made towards the personal living expenses of thedeceased; and the multiplier to be applied with reference to the ageof the deceased.D

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation under non--conventional heads, if to be granted – Plea of Insurance Companythat the High Court ought not to have granted any compensation tothe appellants, under the ‘non-conventional heads’ which isimpermissible as per the dictum of Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi –EHeld: Insurance Company chose not to file any appeal against thejudgment of the High Court – Having acquiesced, the InsuranceCompany cannot turn around and question a paltry amount ofcompensation awarded under the said head – However, question oflaw kept open.FPartly allowing the appeal, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1.1 While determining compensation under theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 168 of the Act makes itimperative to grant compensation that appears to be just. TheAct being a social welfare legislation operates through economicGconception in the form of compensation, which renders way tocorrective justice. Compensation acts as a fulcrum to bringequality between the wrongdoer and the victim, whenever theequality gets disturbed by the wrongdoer’s harm to the victim. Italso endeavors to make good the human suffering to the extentpossible and to also save families which have lost theirH

breadwinners from being pushed to vagrancy. Adequatecompensation is considered to be fair and equitablecompensation. Courts shoulder the responsibility of decidingadequate compensation on a case-to-case basis. However, it isimperative for the courts to grant such compensation which hasnexus to the actual loss. This Court, in the case of Sarla Vermaand Ors. v. DTC and Ors., laid down an objective formula forcalculating just compensation. According to the dictum, the threefactors that need to be established are: (a) age of the deceased;(b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependents.Further, the issues that are to be determined by the Tribunal toarrive at the loss of dependency are: (i) additions/deductions tobe made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be madetowards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii)the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of thedeceased.” The purpose of standardising these determinants wasto bring uniformity to the decisions and settle claims withoutdelay. Applying the parameters to the instant case, there existssufficient evidence to show that the Deceased, undoubtedly, wasa fish vendor-cum-driver with a valid license. The certificateissued by the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare FundBoard, certifying the Deceased as the driver of light moto goodsvehicle bearing Registration No. KL-36-B-7822 under theownership of one ‘P’ has been proved on record. Further, theDeceased had also paid all his subscriptions to the Board fromApril 2012 until the month he died. The Court find no reason todoubt that the Deceased was a driver at the time of his death. Inthe absence of a salary certificate, the minimum wages notificationalong with some amount of guesswork that is not completelydetached from reality shall act as a yardstick to determine theincome of the deceased. In this context, keeping in view the importof section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, judicial notice istaken of the provisions of the Kerala Fair Wages Act, especiallysection 2 thereof. [Paras 16-19][464-C-G; 465-A-C]

Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram and Anr. v.Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors. (2022) 1 SCC 198 :2021 (9) JT 442 – relied on.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A1.2 Schedule B-Category III of the Kerala Fair Wages Actclassifies a driver as a “Skilled worker”. Reading this inconjunction with the Notification that came into effect from01.01.2015 which amended Schedule A of the Kerala Fair WagesAct, prescribing a minimum pay scale of the workers listed inSchedule B, it is apparent that a ‘driver’ in Kerala earned aBminimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015. It appears that the aforesaidAct and the notification issued thereunder were not brought tothe notice of the Tribunal or the High Court. As a result thereto,the High Court could not be cognizant of the statutory mandateprescribing minimum wages for a skilled worker like ‘driver’,Cand thus, erred in fixing the income of the Deceased at Rs.10,000/-. The final notional income of the Deceased must thus be fixedat Rs.15,600/- (Rs.1,87,200/- per annum). Since the Deceasedwas of 32 years old at the time of his death, the multiplierapplicable in the instant case would be 16, and 40% of increasefor future prospects deserves to be added as the Deceased wasDself-employed. One-third of the Deceased’s income would bededucted towards his personal expense as he had threedependents. Hence, the compensation payable to the Appellantsunder the head of loss of dependency would amount toRs.27,95,520/- (Rs. 15,600 x 140/100 x 12 x 16 x 2/3). Upon addingEthe remaining amount granted by the High Court under differentheads, the total compensation granted to the Appellant comes toRs. 29,73,520/- (Rs.27,95,520/- + Rs. 1,78,000/-). [Paras 20-22,25][466-B-D, F-G; 467-C]

Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal SundaramAlliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 :F[2011] 9 SCR 922; Syed Sadiq and Ors. v. DivisionalManager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC735 : 2014 (1) JT 569 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13SCR 100; Cholamandalam M/s General InsuranceGCompany Ltd. V. Aarifa & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6020/2019 vide order dt. 01.08.2019; The New IndiaAssurance Co. Ltd. V. Somwati & Ors SLP (Civil) DiaryNo. 30766/2019 vide order dt. 24.09.2019; SarlaVerma and Ors. v. DTC and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 121 :[2009] 5 SCR 1098 – referred to.

H

A

See Gregory C. Keating, ‘Distributive and CorrectiveJustice in the Tort Law of Accidents’ (2000) 74 S CalL Rev 193 – referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7593of 2022.

C

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2019 of the High Courtof Kerala at Ernakulam in M.A.C.A. No. 4102 of 2018.

Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Adv., Bijo Mathew Joy, Tom Joseph, VineethN., Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Advs. for the Appellants.

Pradeep Gaur, Sparsh Kant Nayak, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Advs. for the Respondent.

D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SURYA KANT, J.

1. Leave granted.

E

2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 23.07.2019passed by the High Court of Kerala, in an appeal preferred by theRespondent (hereinafter, “Insurance Company”) against the awarddated 26.07.2018 of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala(hereinafter, “Tribunal”). The High Court allowed the appeal and hasreduced the compensation amount of Rs. 32,39,000/- granted to theAppellants by the Tribunal to Rs. 19,70,000/-. The issue involved in theinstant matter primarily relates to the determination of quantum ofcompensation awarded under various heads by the Tribunal and the HighCourt.

F

G

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

3. On 21.02.2015, the dreams and aspirations of the 32-year-oldDeceased (Sreekumar) shattered when he met with a fatal accidentthat occurred while he was riding his motorcycle bearing RegistrationNo. KL-36-C-9198 through Thalayolaparambu to Ernakulam Road, H

AKerala. At the time of the accident, the offending car bearing RegistrationNo. KL-07-BB-5053 was insured by the Respondent InsuranceCompany and was allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner. Thecar came from the opposite direction and dashed into the motorcycledriven by the Deceased. As a result of the impact, Sreekumar fell andsustained serious injuries. Though concerted efforts were made to saveBthe Deceased’s life, unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries on theway to the hospital.

4. Swaddled in the grief of the untimely death of their breadwinner,Appellants approached the Tribunal seeking compensation for their loss.It may be noted that the first Appellant is the wife of the Deceased, theCsecond Appellant is their minor son, and the third Appellant is the motherof the Deceased. Appellants jointly preferred a claim petition undersection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act”)seeking compensation of Rs. 64,15,000/- with interest. The InsuranceCompany confuted the claim contending that the accident occurred dueDto negligence of the Deceased. The amount of compensation claimedunder various heads was also alleged to be excessive.

5. The Appellants stood their ground by stating that they wereentitled to compensation for ‘loss of dependency’ as the Deceased wasa self-employed man who donned multiple hats so as to provide aEcomfortable living for his family. According to the Appellants, theDeceased was a fish vendor-cum-driver and was earning at least Rs.25,000/- per month. Appellants produced various documentary pieces ofevidence before the Tribunal to prove the Deceased’s financial capacitywhile he was alive. These were - (i) a course certificate showing thatthe Deceased had completed two years course in electronic mechanicFtrade; (ii) a job training certificate at Sun Generic Cables Pvt. Ltd.; (iii)Passport of the Deceased indicating that he was employed in the Sultanateof Oman between 18.11.2007 and 17.11.2011; (iv) a certificate to showthat the Deceased received rent from a shop in the Municipal marketshopping complex; (v) a job offer letter dated 11.12.2014 from the UnitedGKingdom, offering the position of a Telecom Rigger; (vi) bank statementsof the Deceased and (vii) certificate of Kerala Motor Transport WorkersWelfare Fund Board.

6. Taking into consideration the aforementioned documentaryevidence concerning the Deceased’s income, the Tribunal concludedthat he was a skilled labourer. It was also observed that the DeceasedH

was earning from the rent he received from the room leased out toconduct fish vending business. The Tribunal opined that the Deceasedwas a driver and accordingly fixed his monthly income at Rs.14,000/-.Additionally, assuming that the Deceased received at least Rs.3,500/- asrent, the Tribunal calculated his final notional income as Rs.17,500/- (Rs.14,000 + Rs. 3,500). The Tribunal fixed the total compensation of loss ofdependency along with various other heads at Rs. 32,39,000/- andawarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing ofpetition till the realisation of awarded compensation.

7. The Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Courtchallenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. Thoughthe High Court concurred with the Tribunal in finding that the Deceaseddied in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the carwhich was insured by the Insurance Company, it disagreed with theTribunal primarily on three counts. Firstly, compensation granted underthe head of ‘loss of dependency’; secondly, compensation under thehead of ‘pain and suffering’ and finally, compensation under the head of‘loss of love and affection’. For ease of reference, the table suppliedbelow elucidates the compensation granted by the courts below undervarious heads:-

8. In relation to the first count, the High Court was swift inconcluding that in the absence of any evidence to establish the incomeof the Deceased, the Tribunal had erroneously fixed his notional income A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aat Rs. 14,000/- per month. The High Court viewed that in the decisionsof Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram AllianceInsurance Company Ltd.[1] and Syed Sadiq and Ors. v. DivisionalManager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[2], this Court, in situationswhere the monthly income of persons could not be established usingindependent evidence, fixed it at Rs.4,500/- and Rs. 6,500/- for accidentsBthat took place in the years 2004 and 2008, respectively. On thatpremises, the High Court posited that since the accident took place in2015, the maximum monthly income that could have been reckoned isRs. 10,000/-. The compensation under the head of ‘loss of dependency’was thus reduced to Rs. 17,92,000/-.C

9. Regarding the second count, the High Court scaled down thecompensation granted by the Tribunal under the head of ‘pain andsuffering’ from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. The reasoning employed bythe High Court for this was that except in cases wherein the death wasnot instantaneous, the conventional amount to be granted would be Rs.D15,000/-.

10. In relation to the third count, the High Court granted Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’ to thesecond and third Appellants respectively, which was denied by theTribunal.E11. Consequently, the High Court substantially reduced thecompensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 32,39,000/- to Rs.19,70,000/-. The aggrieved Appellants are now before this Court.

B. CONTENTIONS:

F12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerablelength and meticulously perused the documents on record. The liabilityof the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is not in disputehere. Nor there is any discordant concerning the compensation awardedunder various heads save and except for ‘loss of dependency’ and/orunder the non-conventional heads.G

13. Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, learned senior counsel for theAppellants vehemently argued that the High Court erred in placingreliance on the decisions of this Court to assess the ‘loss of dependency’

1 (2011) 13 SCC 236.H2 (2014) 2 SCC 735.

based on notional income as, in all those cases, not even a single piece ofevidence was led regarding the income of the victim. However, in theinstant case, the Appellants produced sufficient documentary evidenceto prove the income of the Deceased. Moreover, it is trite that the powerof the Appellate Court to undertake a fact-finding exercise and interferewith the reasoning of the Tribunal is limited. The same is done onlywhen the findings are perverse or there is a material omission on thepart of the Tribunal. He also brought to our notice, Schedule B of theKerala Motor Transport Workers’ Payment of Fair Wages Act, 1971(hereinafter, “Kerala Fair Wages Act”) as per which a ‘driver’ isclassified as a ‘Skilled worker’ under Category III-Skilled-B. This Actwas supplemented with the notification G.O.(Ms.) No. 123/2015/LBRdated 04.09.2015 issued by the Government of Kerala (hereinafter,“Notification”) wherein, the pay scale for the year 2015 for eachcategory of workers in Schedule B of the Act has been stipulated. LearnedSenior Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Deceased being aregistered transport motor driver, was entitled to be considered as a‘driver’ as defined under the Kerala Fair Wages Act and his incomewas to be fixed in terms of the Notification, referred to above.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance company urgedthat the High Court was right in reducing the compensation amount inthe absence of any definite proof of income and such a finding of factdoes not call for any interference. He further argued that the High Courterred in granting compensation of Rs.90,000/- under the head of ‘loss oflove and affection’ as this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.[3], has not granted any sum under suchlike ‘non-conventional head’. Learned counsel relied on the decision ofthis Court in Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Company Ltd.V. Aarifa & Ors.[4] and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Somwati& Ors.[5], wherein no amount under the head of ‘loss of love and affection’has been held payable.

C. ANALYSIS

15. From the aforesaid discussion, two issues arise for considerationof this Court:

3 (2017) 16 SCC 680.

4 Civil Appeal No. 6020/2019 vide order dt. 01.08.2019.

5 SLP (Civil) Diary No. 30766/2019 vide order dt. 24.09.2019.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(i)Whether the High Court was right in reducing the monthlyincome of the Deceased from Rs. 17,500/- to Rs.10,000/-,for want of sufficient documentary evidence?

(ii) Whether the High Court was right in awardingcompensation under the ‘non-conventional heads’ which isBimpermissible as per Pranay Sethi?

C.1 Determination of Compensation for loss of dependency.

16. While determining compensation under the Act, section 168of the Act makes it imperative to grant compensation that appears to bejust. The Act being a social welfare legislation operates through economicCconception in the form of compensation, which renders way to correctivejustice.[6] Compensation acts as a fulcrum to bring equality between thewrongdoer and the victim, whenever the equality gets disturbed by thewrongdoer’s harm to the victim. It also endeavors to make good thehuman suffering to the extent possible and to also save families whichhave lost their breadwinners from being pushed to vagrancy. AdequateDcompensation is considered to be fair and equitable compensation. Courtsshoulder the responsibility of deciding adequate compensation on a case-to-case basis. However, it is imperative for the courts to grant suchcompensation which has nexus to the actual loss.

17. This Court, in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v. DTC andEOrs.[7], laid down an objective formula for calculating just compensation.According to the dictum, the three factors that need to be establishedare: (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) thenumber of dependents.

18. Further, the issues that are to be determined by the Tribunal toFarrive at the loss of dependency are: “(i) additions/deductions to be madefor arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards thepersonal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to beapplied with reference to the age of the deceased.” The purpose ofstandardising these determinants was to bring uniformity to the decisionsand settle claims without delay.G

19. Applying the above parameters to the instant case, there existssufficient evidence to show that the Deceased, undoubtedly, was a fish 6 See Gregory C. Keating, ‘Distributive and Corrective Justice in the Tort Law ofAccidents’ (2000) 74 S Cal L Rev 193.H7 (2009) 6 SCC 121.

vendor-cum-driver with a valid license. The certificate issued by theKerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board, certifying theDeceased as the driver of light motor goods vehicle bearing RegistrationNo. KL-36-B-7822 under the ownership of one Shri Prakashan has beenproved on record. Further, the Deceased had also paid all his subscriptionsto the Board from April 2012 until the month he died. We find no reasonto doubt that the Deceased was a driver at the time of his death. ThisCourt in Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram and Anr. v.Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Ors.[8], has aptly held that in the absence ofa salary certificate, the minimum wages notification along with someamount of guesswork that is not completely detached from reality shallact as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased. In thiscontext, keeping in view the import of section 57 of the Indian EvidenceAct, 1872, we take judicial notice of the provisions of the Kerala FairWages Act, especially section 2 thereof which defines the followingexpressions:- “2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwiserequires,- (a) “employer”means in relation to any motor transportundertaking, the person who or the authority which, has theultimate control over the affairs of the motor transportundertaking, and where the said affairs are entrusted to anyother person whether called a manager, managing director,managing agent or by any other name, such other person ; (b) “motor transport undertaking”means a motor transportundertaking including a private carrier engaged in carryingpassengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward ;

(c) “motor transport worker”means a person who is employedin a motor transport undertaking directly or through anagency, whether for wages or not, to work in a professionalcapacity on a transport vehicle or to attend to duties inconnection with the arrival, departure, loading or unloadingof such transport vehicle and includes a driver, conductor,cleaner, station staff, line checking staff, booking clerk; cashclerk, depot clerk, time keeper, watchman, or attendant ; A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(d) “fair wages”means the rate of wages payable to the motortransport workers specified in the Schedule to this Act or theagreed rate of wages whichever is higher.”

(emphasis applied)

20. Schedule B-Category III of the Kerala Fair Wages ActBclassifies a driver as a “Skilled worker”. Reading this in conjunctionwith the Notification that came into effect from 01.01.2015 whichamended Schedule A of the Kerala Fair Wages Act, prescribing aminimum pay scale of the workers listed in Schedule B, it is apparentthat a ‘driver’ in Kerala earned a minimum of Rs. 15,600/- in 2015. ItCappears to us that the aforesaid Act and the notification issued thereunderwere not brought to the notice of the Tribunal or the High Court. As aresult thereto, the High Court could not be cognizant of the statutorymandate prescribing minimum wages for a skilled worker like ‘driver’,and thus, erred in fixing the income of the Deceased at Rs.10,000/-. Weare therefore inclined to fix the income of the Deceased notionally atDRs. 15,600/- per month.

21. As regard to the rental income of the Deceased from leasingout a room for the conduct of fish vending business, notionally fixed atRs.3,500/- by the Tribunal, we find no valid reason for making suchadditions to the income of the Deceased as the rental income would beEtransferred to his legal heirs, who will continue enjoying the benefitsderived from it.

22. The final notional income of the Deceased must thus be fixedat Rs.15,600 /- (Rs. 1,87,200/- per annum). Since the Deceased was of32 years old at the time of his death, the multiplier applicable in theFinstant case would be 16, and 40% of increase for future prospectsdeserves to be added as the Deceased was self-employed. One-third ofthe Deceased’s income would be deducted towards his personal expenseas he had three dependents. Hence, the compensation payable to theAppellants under the head of loss of dependency would amount toGRs.27,95,520/- (Rs. 15,600 x 140/100 x 12 x 16 x 2/3).

C.2 Determination of compensation under non-conventional heads.

23. In all fairness, it may be noted that, Ld. Counsel for theInsurance Company has urged that the High Court ought not to haveHgranted any compensation to the Appellants, under the ‘non-conventional heads’ which is impermissible as per the dictum of this Court in PranaySethi (supra). We are however, not inclined to entertain this plea forthe simple reason that the Insurance Company has not chosen to fileany appeal against the judgment of the High Court. Having acquiesced,the Insurance Company cannot turn around and question a paltry amountof compensation awarded to the Appellants under the ‘non-conventionalheads’. However, question of law, in this regard, is kept open.

D. CONCLUSION:

24. In light of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed in part.

25. We grant Rs. 27,95,520/- as the total ‘loss of dependency’on account of the income of the Deceased being calculated at Rs. 15,600/-i.e. Rs.1,87,200/- per annum. Upon adding the remaining amountgranted by the High Court under different heads, the total compensationgranted to the Appellant comes to Rs. 29,73,520/- (Rs.27,95,520/- +Rs. 1,78,000/-).

26. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhancedcompensation amount of Rs. 29,73,520/- to the Appellants along withinterest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claimpetition till the date of realisation. The aforesaid amount shall beapportioned among the Appellants in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal in theaward. The Insurance Company shall pay the said amount either byway of demand draft in favour of the Appellants or deposit the samebefore the Tribunal, after deducting the amount already paid by it, if any,within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

27. The judgment under appeal of the High Court is, thus, setaside. The appeal is disposed of along with any pending applications inabove terms.

Divya Pandey(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

Appeal partly allowed.

AB

C