MACA Nos. 1146 & 2534 of 2009

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS`** ``` WEDNESDAY,THE26[TH]DAYOFJULY2023/4THSRAVANA,1945 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 1146 OF 2009`** ``` OP(MV)457/2005OFMOTORACCIDENTsCLAIMSTRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR ``` ``` APPELLANT/PETITIONERINOP(MV)NO.457/2005: ``` ``` *1BABY.K.I.,S/O.ITTOOP,AGED35YEARS,KAITHARATH (H),VATHAKKAD,THURAVOORP.O.,ANGAMALY.[DIED] ``` ``` **ADDITIONALAPPELLANTS2TO4IMPLEADED: ``` ``` ADDLELSYITTOOP,W/O.ITTOOP,KAITHARATHHOUSE, A2:VATHAKKAD,THURAVURP.O.,ANGAMALY. ``` ``` ADDL. GIGI,S/O.ITTOOP,-DO--DO-. A3 ADDL. JOY,S/O.ITTOOP,-DO--DO-. A4 ``` ``` **ADDITIONALAPPELLANTS2TO4AREIMPLEADEDASLEGAL HEIRSOFDECEASED1STAPPELLANTASPERORDERDATED 05.07.2023INI.A.NO.2391OF2016INMACA NO.1146/2009. ``` ``` BYADVS. SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNAPILLAI SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 IN OP(MV)457/2005:`** ``` 1 THEMANAGINGDIRECTOR, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **2** ``` 2 IBRAHIM,S/O.MEERANKUTTY, ASARIPARAMBIL(H),PAREKAVALA,,UDAMPANNOORVILLAGE, IDUKKIDISTRICT. ``` ``` BYADVS. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(B/O,NOMEMO),SC,KSRTC SRI.BABUJOSEPHKURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC SRI.JOYGEORGE,SC,K.S.R.T.C. SRI.JOHNMATHEW,SC,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION SRI.ALEXANTONYSEBASTIANP.A. ``` ``` THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEEN FINALLYHEARDON05.07.2023,ALONGWITHMACA.2534/2009, THECOURTON26.07.2023DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **3** ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMRS.JUSTICESOPHYTHOMAS WEDNESDAY,THE26[TH]DAYOFJULY2023/4THSRAVANA,1945 ``` ## **`MACA NO. 2534 OF 2009`** ## **`OP(MV) 2123/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR`** ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV)2123/2004:`** - **`1 ANNIE JOY, W/O.LATE JOY, PARACKA HOUSE, ANGAMALY.`** - **`2 ROBIN JOY, S/O.JOY, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, ANNIE JOY, DO. DO. (MINOR).`** - **`3 JAINY JOY, D/O.JOY DO. DO. (MINOR).`** - **`4 ROSHMI JOY, D/O.JOY DO. DO. (MINOR).`** ``` BYADVSMT.ANUPAMAJOHNY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 &2 IN OP(MV)2123/2004:`** - **`1 IBRAHIM, S/O.MEERANKUTTY, ASARIPARAMBIL (H), PAREKAVALA, UDAMPANNOOR VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.`** - **`2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`** - **`#3 BABY K.I., S/O.ITTOOP, AGED 35 YEARS, KAITHARATH (H), VATHAKKAD, THURAVOOR P.O., ANGAMALY. [DIED)`** - **`4 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BR. OFFICE, ANGAMALY P.O.`** **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **4** ## **`## ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 IMPLEADED:`** ``` ADDL.ELSYITTOOP,W/O.ITTOOP,AGED68YEARS, R5KAITHARATHHOUSE,VATHAKKADKARA,THURAVOOR VILLAGE,ALUVATALUK. ``` ``` ADDL.GIGI,AGED47YEARS, R6S/O.ITTOOP,KAITHARATHHOUSE,VATHAKKADKARA, THURAVOORVILLAGE,ALUVATALUK. ``` ``` ADDL.JOY,AGED42YEARS, R7S/O.ITTOOP,KAITHARATHHOUSE,VATHAKKADKARA, THURAVOORVILLAGE,ALUVATALUK. ``` ``` ##ADDITIONALRESPONDENTS5TO7AREIMPLEADEDASPER ORDERDATED05.07.2023INI.A.NO.3776/2016INMACA 2534OF2009. ``` ``` BYADVS. ``` ``` SRIP.C.CHACKOSC,KSRTC SRI.JOYJOSEPH(MANAYATHU) SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH SRI.P.JAYASANKAR SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPALNAMBIAR,SC,KSRTC SRI.BABUJOSEPHKURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC SRI.JOYGEORGE,SC,K.S.R.T.C. SRI.ALEXANTONYSEBASTIANP.A. ``` ``` THISMOTORACCIDENTCLAIMSAPPEALHAVINGBEEN FINALLYHEARDON05.07.2023,ALONGWITHMACA.1146/2009, THECOURTON26.07.2023DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **5** ## **J U D G M E N T** These appeals arise out of the common judgment in OP(MV)Nos.2123 of 2004 and 457 of 2005 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. 2. On 10.10.2004, at about 7.00 p.m., while the claimant in OP(MV)No.457 of 2005 was riding his motorcycle from Vathakad to Angamaly carrying one Mr.Joy on its pillion seat, KL-15-4626 KSRTC bus dashed against their motorcycle near Angamaly Junction, and both of them were thrown down on the road and they sustained serious injuries. Sri.Joy, who was the pillion rider succumbed to the injuries on the same day. 3. The rider of the motorcycle Sri.Baby K.I. filed OP(MV)No.457 of 2005 claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him, and the legal heirs of deceased Joy filed OP(MV)No.2123 of 2004 claiming compensation on his death. Both cases were tried together and learned MACT allowed their claim in part. Learned Tribunal found that the rider of the motorcycle contributed towards the accident and his negligence was found to be 20% and so, compensation was deducted by 20% in OP(MV)No.457 of 2005 filed by the rider of the motorcycle. In OP(MV)No.2123 of 2004, 20% of the compensation awarded was directed to be realised from the rider of the motorcycle, and the **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **6** ## balance 80% only from KSRTC. 4. The claimants in OP(MV) No.2123 of 2004 filed MACA No.2534 of 2009 assailing the impugned award on the ground of inadequacy of compensation, as well as the direction to recover 20% of the compensation, from the rider of the motorcycle. The claimants in OP(MV)No.457 of 2005 filed MACA No.1146 of 2009 challenging the finding of contributory negligence to the extent of 20%, as well as inadequacy of compensation. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the offending KSRTC bus. In MACA No.2534 of 2009, respondents 3 and 4, i.e., the owner and Insurer of the motorcycle are also parties. 6. Pending appeal, the appellant in MACA No.1146 of 2009, who is the 3rd respondent in MACA No.2534 of 2009, passed away. His legal heirs were impleaded as additional claimants 2 to 4 in MACA No.1146 of 2009, and additional respondents 5 to 7 in MACA No.2534 of 2009. Respondents 2 and 4 are two branches of the very same Insurance Company and they filed written statement, opposing the claim of the claimants. According to the 2nd respondent, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the 3rd respondent, the **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **7** appellant in MACA No.1146 of 2009. But according to the 4th respondent/Insurer of motorcycle, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by the 1st respondent. 7. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A14 and B1 were marked before the Tribunal. On analysing the facts and evidence, learned Tribunal found that the rider of the motorcycle tried to overtake the KSRTC bus, through the left side and then it happened to hit on the left side of the bus and the accident occurred. To support that contention, learned Tribunal relied on Exts.A6 and A7 AMVI Reports. Exts.A6-the AMVI Report of the motorcycle shows that the damages were on its right side, and the damages found on the KSRTC bus was on its left side. But Ext.A3-charge sheet says that the accident occurred when the KSRTC bus was suddenly swerved towards left side, and the motorcycle, which was going in the same direction was hit by the bus. If the KSRTC bus tried to overtake the motorcycle and suddenly swerved it towards left, there is every possibility of hitting the left side of the bus on the right side of the motorcycle. So, the finding of the learned Tribunal that the motorcycle tried to overtake the bus through its left side may not be correct. Ext.A2 **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **8** scene mahazar will show that the accident occurred 5.90 metres west from the eastern road margin. Both the vehicles were proceeding towards south. The scene mahazar shows that the place where the accident occurred was the junction at Angamaly town, from where the MC Road starts. The KSRTC bus was coming from north, and it was proceeding towards Thodupuzha, and so, it had to turn towards left to enter the MC Road. The charge sheet will clearly show that, when the KSRTC bus turned towards left abruptly, the bike which was proceeding towards south in the same direction was hit by the bus. So learned Tribunal could not be justified in finding that the rider of the motorcycle contributed towards the accident, and there is no factual foundation to fix the contributory negligence on the appellant to the extent of 20%. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that when there is a Final Report against the KSRTC bus driver, after a full fledged investigation, the Tribunal could not be justified in entering into another finding relying on the scene mahazar, or AMVI Reports. ## 9. In **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal** [2011 (3) KLT 648], this Court held that ‘ _as a general rule it can be accepted that production of charge sheet is prima facie_ **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **9** _sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under S.166. If any of the parties do not accept such charge sheet, burden must be on such party to adduce evidence. If Court feels that charge sheet is collusive, Tribunal can record that, charge sheet cannot be accepted and call upon the parties, at any stage, to adduce oral evidence of accident and alleged negligence. In such case, issue of negligence must be decided on other evidence, ignoring charge sheet_ ’. 10. In the case on hand, PW1 the injured in OP(MV)No.457 of 2005 deposed before the Tribunal that while he was riding his motorcycle carrying Mr.Joy in its pillion seat, the KSRTC bus abruptly swerved towards left side and it hit against his motorcycle. He further stated that the accident occurred at Angamaly Junction from where the M.C.Road proceeds towards Perumbavoor. The KSRTC bus was coming out from Angamaly bus stand for proceeding towards Thodupuzha. The damages found on the vehicles will probabilise the incident as stated in the charge sheet. Ext.A6 AMVI Report of the motorcycle shows that the damages were not only on the front right side, but also on the luggage box on the right side back, rear mudguard, seat bracket etc. One cannot infer that those damages could have been caused **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **10** only if the motorcycle overtook the bus through the left side. It can happen even when the bus overtakes the motorcycle and on swerving it towards left so as to hit on the motorcycle. 11. In **Fazal Mahmood v. Rasheed** [2015 (2) KLT 266], this Court held that ‘ _when final report is available as the concluding material following the investigation by the police, the Tribunal, without any further material, could not have relied on the contents of the scene mahazar to contradict that final report of the investigator to say that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was pillion riding.’_ 12. In **Kolavan v. Salim** [2018 (1) KLT 489], this Court held that _‘once the charge-sheet is filed, the Tribunal will not be justified in finding negligence, contrary to the finding in the charge-sheet merely relying on the scene mahazar prepared in the case, in the absence of any evidence against the finding in the charge-sheet.’_ The practice of attributing negligence to any person merely relying on the recitals in the scene mahazar, in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, must be deprecated. Though the 2nd respondent/KSRTC contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **11** motorcycle, no evidence whatsoever was adduced by them to controvert the Final Report filed by Police, after investigation. When the 2nd respondent was alleging negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, they should have adduced evidence to substantiate their contention. The testimony of PW 1 was also to the effect that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by the 1st respondent. No evidence to the contra was adduced by the respondents to arrive at a conclusion, deviating from the Final Report submitted by Police. So, the learned Tribunal could not be justified in finding that the rider of the motorcycle contributed towards the accident and there was no factual basis for fixing contributory negligence to the extent of 20% on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. 13. Now coming to the compensation aspect, let us examine each case separately. 14. In MACA No.1146 of 2009, the appellant is no more. His legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants 2 to 4. According to them, the compensation awarded was inadequate and the reduction of 20% on account of contributory negligence was also not proper. We have already found that learned Tribunal went wrong in finding contributory negligence from the part of the **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **12** rider of the motorcycle, in the absence of any evidence controverting the charge sheet. Learned Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs.1,07,840/-, but after deducting 20%, awarded only Rs.86,280/-. The finding of contributory negligence is hereby set aside, and hence the additional claimants are entitled to get the entire compensation assessed, and so they will get back the 20% reduced by the Tribunal, which amounts to Rs.21,560/-. 15. Now coming to the other part of compensation, according to the claimants, the original claimant Sri.Baby was an Accountant in a private firm, earning monthly income of Rs.3,500/-. But learned Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.2,500/-, which is too low. They relied on the decision **Ramchandrappa** vs. **Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited** (AIR 2011 SC 2951), to say that even a Coolie could have earned monthly income of Rs.4,500/- in the year 2004. Since his claim for monthly income was only Rs.3,500/-, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @ Rs.3,500/-. He was admitted to hospital for 12 days. He sustained injuries on his right elbow and forehead and suffered disability of 4%. Learned Tribunal assessed loss of income for four months only. According to the appellants, Sri.Baby was not able to do any **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **13** job for six months. So his loss of earning could be assessed for six months @ Rs.3,500/-, which will come to Rs.21,000/-. Since he was already paid Rs.10,000/- by the Tribunal, he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.11,000/-. 16. Towards extra nourishment and bystander expenses, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,000/- each. Since he was hospitalised for 12 days, this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,000/more, each under the head ‘extra nourishment’ and ‘attendant charges’. As per Ext.A11 disability certificate, Sri.Baby had suffered disability of 4%. PW2-Doctor was also examined to prove that certificate. Learned Tribunal accepted 4% disability, but the notional income taken was only @Rs.2,500/-. Since we have fixed his notional income @ Rs.3,500/-, the compensation for 4% disability has to be reworked. The multiplier applicable is 16 as he was aged only 35 as on the date of accident. So, the compensation for disability can be assessed as Rs.26,880/(3,500x12x16x4/100). He was already awarded Rs.19,200/- by the Tribunal. So he is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.7,680/- under the head compensation for disability. 17. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be reasonable and it needs no interference. **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **14** ||||||||||||||||||||| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ||||||||**Amount **||**awarde**|||**Amount award**||||**Difference to**|||| |||||**Head of claim**||||**by **|**the**|||**in appeal**||||**be drawn as**|||| |||||||||**Tribunal**||||||||**enhanced**|||| |||||||||||||**(3)**||||**compensation**|||| |||||**(1)**||||**(2)**||||||||**(4)**|||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||Loss|of earning|||Rs.10,000/-|||||Rs.21,000/-||||Rs.11,000/-|||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||Extra nourishment|||||Rs.1,000/-||||Rs.2,000/-||||Rs.1,000/-|||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||Bystander expenses/||||||||||||||||| ||||Attendant charges|||||Rs.1,000/-||||Rs.2,000/-||||Rs.1,000/-|||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||Compensation||for|||Rs19,200/-||||Rs.26,880/-||||Rs.7,680/-|||| ||||disability||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| |||||**Total**||||||||||||**Rs20,680/-**|||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||Total|||amount awarded by||||the Tribunal||||||||Rs.1,07,840/-|||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||Total|||amount|awarded|||after|20%|reduction||||||Rs.86,280/-|||| ||contributory negligence||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||Difference to be drawn on|||||||setting aside||||the||||**Rs**.**21,560**/-|||| ||finding of contributory negligence||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| ||||**Enhanced **||**compensation **||||**is Rs.42,240/-**|||||**(20,680+21,560)**|||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| 18. The additional appellants 2 to 4, who are the legal heirs of deceased appellant, are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.42,240/- (20,680+21,560). 19. In MACA No. 2534 of 2009, the legal heirs of deceased Joy would contend that Sri.Joy was a 44 year old Tailor earning monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. But learned Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.2,000/-. They relied on **Ramchandrappa’s** case cited _(Supra)_ , to say that even a Coolie **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **15** worker could have earned monthly income of Rs.4,500/- in the year 2004. So going by that decision, this Court is inclined to fix his notional income @ Rs.4,500/-. He was a Tailor aged only 44 years and so, 25% enhancement could have been given towards future prospects. So, his monthly income could have been assessed as Rs.5,625/- (4,500 + 25%). He was having four dependents. So ¼ has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. So the balance income would have been Rs.4,219/-. The multiplier applicable was 14 as he was aged 44. So, the loss of dependency could have been assessed as Rs.7,08,792/- (4,219 x 12 x 14). Learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,40,300/- towards loss of dependency. So the appellants are entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.4,68,492/- towards loss of dependency. 20. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. The wife and children of the deceased are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium as per the decision **National Insurance Company Ltd.** vs. **Pranay Sethi and Others** [AIR 2017 SC 5157], So they are eligible to get Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000 X 4) in total towards loss of consortium. Since learned Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- in total under the **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **16** head loss of love and affection and loss of consortium, they are eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.1,30,000/(1,60,000-30,000). 21. Towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,500/- each. Going by **Pranay Sethi’s** case cited ( _Supra_ ), they are entitled to get Rs.15,000/- each under those heads. So they are eligible to get the balance amount of Rs.12,500/- each, under the head ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘loss of estate’. 22. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- under the head pain and suffering. Since Sri.Joy died on the date of accident itself, the legal heirs are not eligible to get any amount towards pain and suffering of the deceased. So Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head pain and suffering is liable to be deducted. 23. The compensation awarded under all other heads seems to be reasonable and hence, it needs no interference. |**Head of claim**|**Amount**<br>**awarded by**<br>**the Tribunal**|**Amount**<br>**awarded**<br>**in appeal**|**Amount**<br>**deducted**<br>**in appeal**|**Difference**<br>**to be drawn**<br>**as enhanced**<br>**compensation**| |---|---|---|---|---| |Loss of<br>dependency|Rs.2,40,300/-|Rs.7,08,792/-|-|Rs.4,68,492/-| **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **17** |Loss of love and<br>affection & loss of<br>consortium|Rs.30,000/-<br>(15,000 + 15,000)|Rs.1,60,000/-|-|Rs.1,30,000/-| |---|---|---|---|---| |Funeral expenses|Rs.2,500/-|Rs.15,000/-|-|Rs.12,500/-| |Loss of estate|Rs.2,500/-|Rs.15,000/-|-|Rs.12,500/-| |Pain and suffering|Rs.5,000/-|-|Rs.5,000/-|-| |**Total**|||**Rs.5,000/-**|**Rs.6,23,492/-**| |**Enhanced compensation is Rs.6,18,492/- (6,23,492 - 5,000)**||||| 24. In the result, the appellants are entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.6,18,492/- [(4,68,492 + 1,30,000 + 12,500 + 12,500) - 5,000] as enhanced compensation. 25. We have already set aside the finding of the learned Tribunal that the rider of the motorcycle contributed towards the accident. In OP(MV)No.2123 of 2004, learned Tribunal had directed the rider of the motorcycle to pay 20% of the compensation awarded as if the Policy of the motorcycle was not covering the pillion rider. But Ext.B1 Policy of the motorcycle ridden by the 3rd respondent/Baby K.I. will show that it was having a package Policy, covering the pillion rider also. Learned Tribunal lost sight of that fact and directed the 3rd respondent to make payment of 20% of the compensation. We have found that the finding of contributory negligence on the rider of the **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **18** motorcycle was not correct, and the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus by the 1st respondent. So, the liability to compensate the legal heirs of the appellant in MACA No.1146 of 2009, and the appellants in MACA No.2534 of 2009 is on the 2nd respondent/Managing Director, KSRTC, as he is vicariously liable for the rash and negligent act of the driver of the KSRTC bus. 26. In MACA No.1146 of 2009 additional appellants 2 to 4 are the mother and siblings of deceased Baby. The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapurm is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.42,240/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Forty only) in the Bank Account of the additional appellants 2 to 4 in the ratio 80:10:10 with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the additional appellants 2 to 4 towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. **MACA Nos.1146 & 2534 of 2009** **19** 27. In MACA No.2534 of 2009 the 2nd respondent/Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, is directed to deposit enhanced compensation of Rs.6,18,492/- (Rupees Six Lakh Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Two only) in the Bank Account of appellants 1 to 4 in equal proportion with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit (except 231 days of delay in filing the appeal) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit must be in terms of the directives issued by this Court in Circular No.3 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 and clarified in O.M.No.D1/62475/2016 dated 07/11/2019 after deducting the liabilities, if any, of the appellants 1 to 4 towards Tax, balance court fee and legal benefit fund. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed to the extent as above, and no order is made as to costs. Sd/- ## **SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE** DSV/-