IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 6514 of 2012 c/w Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7925 of 2011 c/w Miscellaneous First Appeal No.87 of 2012 c/w Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7329 of 2012 in mfa no. 6514/2012 Between:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER NO.9, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS M G ROAD, BANGALORE REPRESENTING NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., (BY SRI. R. JAIPRAKASH., ADVOCATE) And:
1. SRI RAMESH S/O T. THIMMAIAH R/AT BHADAKERE VILLAGE AND POST CHALANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD REP BY BRANCH MANAGER 5TH FLOOR, 28 CENTINARY BLDG M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 1.
... APPELLANT 3. SRI SHIVASHANKAR.A AGED MAJOR, NO. 1898, 8TH MAIN 6TH CROSS, HAL 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE – 75.
4. SRI Y. M. YOGESH SON OF Y M MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YRS DRIVER OF THE CAR, R/A KUDALIPET POST, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT.
NOW R/A MADAKARA JYOTHI ROAD, 15TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.
5. JAGADEESH SON OF HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YRS DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-44-279 R/A GOPALANAGAR VILLAGE SHANKARI NAGAR, SASALU POST SHETTIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
6. SMT. SAROJAMMA WIFE OF MUTHANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
7. MUTHAMMA SON OF BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BUDDAIANAKOPPA, NEW CAMP VIJAYANAGAR POST SHIMOGA.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.D. NATARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR;
SRI. PREETHVI WODEYAR., ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7; SRI. H.S. LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1, R3, R4 & R5 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO. 209/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACT COURT-III, ADDITIONAL MACT-IV, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 3,57,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO. 7925/2011 Between:
SRI. HARISH KUMAR.M @ HARISH SON OF MAHALINGEGOWDA @ MAHALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT.VADYANAKOPA, VIDYANAGAR POST SHIMOGA 577 203.
(BY SMT. KAMALA D. K., ADVOCATE) AND 1. M/S NEW INDIA ASS CO LTD REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NO.9/2, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBER, M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI RAMESH GODEKERE VILLAGE AND POST C. N. HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
3. M/S.RELIANCE GENERAL INS CO LTD REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER 5TH FLOOR, 28, CENTENARY BUILDING, ... APPELLANT M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. SRI SHIVASHANKAR NO. 1898, 18TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN BANGALORE – 560 075.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. R. JAIPRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 & R4 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.06.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO. 8744/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDGE, PRINCIPAL MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 87/2012 Between:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027 REPRESENTING NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE.
(BY SRI. R. JAIPRAKASH., ADVOCATE) And:
1. SRI RAMESH BODAKERE VILLAGE & POST C.N. HALLY TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. RELIANCE GEN INS CO LTD REP BY BRANCH MANAGER ... APPELLANT 5TH FLOOR, 28 CENTINARY BLDG M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 1.
3. SRI. HARISH KUMAR M. @ HARISH SON OF MAHALINGAGOWDA @ MAHALINGAIAH AGED 22 YEARS, PERMANNEN RESIDENT OF VADYANAKOOPA, VIDYANAGAR POST SHIMOGA.
4. SRI SHIVASHANKAR AGED MAJOR, NO. 1898, 18TH MAIN 6TH MAIN, HAL 3RD STAGE, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 075.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. D.K. KAMALA., ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 & R4 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.06.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO. 8744/2007 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, & PRINCIPAL MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 57,638/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
IN MFA NO. 7329/2012 Between:
1. SMT. SAROJAMMA WIFE OF MUTHANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AGRICULTURE COOLIE, RESIDENT OF BADDINA KOPPA, NEW CAMP, VIDYANAGARA POST, SHIVAMOGGA.
2. MUTHANNA SON OF BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDENT OF BADDINA KOPPA NEW CAMP, VIDYANAGARA POST, SHIVAMOGGA.
(BY SRI. NATARAJ. C.D., ADVCOATE FOR; SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR., ADVOCATE) AND ...APPELLANTS 1. T. RAMESHA SON OF THIMMAIAH AGED: MAJOR RESIDENT OF GHADEKERE VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKANAIKANAHALLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG NO.KA-44-279.
2. JAGADEESH SON OF HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING REG NO.KA-44-279 RESIDENT OF GOPALANAGARA VILLAGE, SANKARI NAGARA, SASALU POST, SHETTYKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAIKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,. NO.9/2, MAHALAXMI CENTRE, M G ROAD, BANGALORE POLICY COVER NOTE NO.670300/31/95/01/00002543 VALID UPTO 15.5.2007 INSURER OF LORRY KA-44-279.
4 . SHIVASHANKAR. A NO.1898, 8TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, HAL 3RD PHASE, BANGALORE - 75.
OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING NO.KA-03/C-6018.
5. Y M YOGESH SON OF Y M MAHESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE CAR RESIDENT OF KUDLIPETE, POST, SOMAVAR-PETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT NOW RESIDENT OF MADAKAR JYOTHI ROAD, 15TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANAGALA, BANGALORE.
6. RELIANCE GENERLA INSURANCE CO ., 5TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTURI BUILDING, M G ROAD, BANGALORE - 01 POLICY COVER NOTE NO.140162324001659 VALID UPTO 14.11.2007 INSURER OF CAR BEARING NO.KA.03/C-6018.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. JAIPRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. H.S. LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R6;
NOTICE TO R1 , R2, R4 & R5 DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO. 209/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDNG OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-3, MACT-4, SHIVAMOGGA, PATLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment The appeals in MFA No. 7925/2011 and MFA No.87/2012 are filed calling in question the judgement and award dated 28.6.2010 in MVC No. 8744/2007 on the file of the Chief Judge of Small Causes and Principal MACT, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”). The appeal in MFA No.7925/2011 is by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement in the compensation, and the appeal in MFA No.87/2012 is filed by the Insurer of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-44-0279. The injured claimant – the appellant in MFA No. 7925/2011 is awarded the total compensation in a sum of Rs.57,638/–.
2. The other appeals in MFA No.6514/2012 and MFA No.7329/2012 are filed calling in question the judgement and award dated 28.12.2011 in MVC No.209/2008 on the file of the Court of the Fast Track-III and Additional MACT-IV, Shivamogga (also for short, “the Tribunal”). The appeal in MFA No.6514/2012 is filed by the Insurer of the aforesaid lorry bearing registration No. KA-44-0279, and the appeal in MFA No. 7329/2012 is filed by the claimants who are the parents of the deceased Ms.Shilpa. The claimants-appellants in MFA No.7329/2012 are awarded a sum of Rs.3,57,000/–.
3. The learned counsel for the parties submit that there is no dispute that in a road accident on 13.1.2007 between the lorry bearing registration No. KA-44-0279 and Maruti car bearing registration No. KA-03-CA-6018, the claimant-appellant in MFA No.7925/2011 suffered injuries and the deceased Ms Shilpa died because of the in]juries suffered in such accident. The learned counsel also submit that the liability of the respective Insurers to pay just and reasonable compensation is undisputed, however, the Insurer has filed its appeals because both the Tribunals have fastened the liability to pay compensation only on the Insurer of the lorry bearing registration No. No. KA-44-0279 holding that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent. The claimants-appellants have filed their respective appeals seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunals.
4. The injured claimant - appellant in MFA No. 7925 of 2011 (Sri Harish Kumar), the deceased Ms Shilpa and their friends were travelling in the Maruti car bearing registration No. KA-03-CA-6018 on 13.1.2007 from Bangalore to Kudlipete on National Highway No. 48, and their friend, Sri Y M Yogesh was at the steering wheel. When they were near Haasan By-pass Road, the car met with the accident involving the aforesaid lorry bearing registration No. KA-44-0279. Sri Harish Kumar suffered contusion injuries in the accident, and Ms. Shilpa succumbed to the injuries suffered.
5. The parents of the deceased Ms. Shilpa, the claimants-appellants in MFA No. 7329 of 2012, have filed the claim petition in MVC No. 209/2008. The Tribunal by the impugned judgement and award dated 28.12.2011 has partly allowed the claim petition granting a total sum of Rs.3,57,000/- under the following heads:
Loss of dependency - Rs. 2000x 12x 13 Multiplier Conventional heads-loss of expectancy, loss of estate and funeral and other expenses Rs.3,12,000 Rs. 45,000 TOTAL Rs.3,57,000 The claim petition filed by Sri Harish Kumar in MVC No.8744/2007 is partly allowed by the impugned judgement and award dated 28.6.2010 granting a total sum of Rs.57,638/-under the following heads:
Pain and Suffering Rs. 25,000 Loss of income during treatment period for two months (Rs.3000 x2) Rs. 6000 Medical expenses Rs.24,638 Conveyance charges Rs.1000 Attendant charges Rs.1000 Total Rs.57,638/-
6. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company viz., the insurer of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-44-0279 submits that the appeals in MFA No. 87/2012 and MFA No. 6514/2012 are because the Tribunals have concluded that the driver of the lorry is negligent and the accident is because of such negligence. However, the evidence on record is that the lorry was travelling in the front and Sri Y.M.Yogesh, who was driving the car, hit the lorry from behind. The driver of the lorry had to slow down the lorry because of the rumble strips, and as Sri Y. M.Yogesh did not maintain the sufficient distance from the lorry, he could not control the car and hit the lorry from behind. The police have filed charge sheet against Sri Y.M.Yogesh, the driver of the car for rash and negligent driving and not against the driver of the lorry.
7. The learned counsel for this Insurer also argued that Rule 23 of the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989 stipulate that the driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall maintain ‘sufficient distance’ from the other vehicle to avoid any collision if the vehicle in the front should suddenly stop or slow down. The driver of the car, Sri Y.M.Yogesh, was driving in violation of this Rule. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in similar set of circumstances, in the case of Nishan Singh vs. Oriental insurance Co Ltd.1, has absolved the Insurer of the vehicle travelling in the front from any liability because it was factually established that the driver of the vehicle travelling behind did not maintain ‘Sufficient Distance’ from the vehicle in the front. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that the thumb rule of ‘Sufficient Distance’ in the context would be in the least a safe distance of 2 to 3 seconds gap in ideal conditions to enable the driver of the vehicle at the back to respond. The enunciation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case would squarely apply in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the Insurer of the lorry must be absolved and the Tribunals have erred in this regard.
8. The learned counsel for the Insurer of the car bearing registration No. KA-03-C-6018, supported by the learned counsel for the claimants -appellants, argued that 1 AIR 2018 SC 2118 even according to the charge sheet filed by the jurisdictional police, the driver of the lorry cannot be absolved of the liability for the accident. Though the charge sheet is against Sri Y.M.Yogesh, it is opined by the Investigating Officer that when the lorry abruptly slowed down, Sri Y.M.Yogesh tried to move the car to the right but he could not entirely avert the collision. The fact that Sri. Y.M.Yogesh tried to swerve to the right to avoid collision, which is undisputed, not only demonstrates that Sri Y.M Yogesh maintained sufficient distance allowing him time to respond but he also tried to avoid the collision, and because the driver of the lorry was abrupt, he could not entirely avoid collision. As such, the Tribunals are justified in concluding that the accident is because of the negligence of the driver of the lorry.
9. The learned counsel further submits that in any event, the driver of the lorry cannot be entirely absolved of negligence, and at the most, it could be a case of contributory negligence by both Sri Y.M. Yogesh and the driver of the lorry.
In the event this Court is persuaded to conclude that both Sri Y.M.Yogesh and the driver of the lorry are negligent, the contributory negligence must be equally apportioned between them.
10. The learned counsel for Sri Harish Kumar, the appellant in MFA NO.7925/2011, arguing in support of the appeal for enhancement in compensation, submitted that the medical evidence on record is that he suffered head injuries and was hospitalised for over two weeks. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards ‘Pain and Suffering’ and another paltry sum of Rs.1000/- each towards ‘Conveyance and Attendant charges’. The injured Sri Harish Kumar is entitled for enhancement in the compensation towards ‘Pain and Suffering’ as well as ‘Attendant and Conveyance charges’.
11. Insofar as the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the parents of the deceased Ms. Shilpa, the learned counsel submitted that the undisputed evidence on record is that Ms. Shilpa, as of the date of the accident, was an Air Hostess trainee. She was being paid a stipend of Rs.5000/- per month. She had completed her graduation with good academic credentials and she was also a good sportsperson. But the Tribunal has taken the notional income at only Rs.3,000/- per month, and it should be much higher. The Tribunal has not provided for addition towards ‘Future Prospects’, and in the light of the undisputed evidence, the claimants-parents would be entitled for such addition. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier of ‘13’ based on the age of the mother, but it is settled that the appropriate multiplier, even in the case of an unmarried person, should be based on the age of such person. If the compensation is re-computed subject to the aforesaid changes, the appellants- claimants will be entitled for much higher sum than the sum of Rs.3,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. In the light of the rival submissions, the questions that arise for consideration in these appeals are as follows:
(i) Whether the finding by the Tribunals that the accident between the lorry bearing registration No. K-44-0279 and Maruti car bearing registration No. KA- 03-C-6018 was because the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record.
(ii) Whether Sri Harish Kumar, the claimant-appellant in MFA No. 7925/2011 is entitled for enhancement in the compensation awarded in his favour by the Tribunal.
(iii) Whether the claimants-appellants, the parents of the deceased Ms. Shilpa, are entitled for enhancement in the compensation awarded in their favour by the Tribunal.
13. The parents of the deceased Ms. Shilpa have not examined any eyewitness to establish the reason for the accident, but they have relied upon the police records viz., the Police Notice, the First Information Report, the Complaint and the Charge Sheet including Spot Mahazar, IMV report and Post-mortem Report. The mother of the deceased Ms. Shilpa is examined as PW.1, but she is not an eye witness. However, Sri Harish Kumar has examined himself as PW.1 in support of his claim petition, and he has stated that he was travelling in the rear of the Car. He has also stated in his chief- examination that the driver of the lorry stopped abruptly and took the lorry in reverse without any further explanation. But, in his cross-examination he has stated that the driver of the lorry abruptly stopped without any signal. The driver of the lorry has not been examined by any of the parties. The parties do not dispute the spot mahazar or the spot sketch.
14. It is seen from these exhibits, and more particularly the spot mahazar that the accident is on a railway over-bridge which has rumble strips at its both ends. The accident is at the centre of the bridge after both the vehicles had crossed the first of the rumble strips. The opinion of the investigating officer is that Sri Y.M. Yogesh, the driver of the car, took the car to the right to avert collision and therefore, the left side of the car hit the right rear side of the lorry. If these circumstances are conjointly read, the only reasonable inference would be that both driver of the lorry and the car are negligent in putting out the necessary signals for the other. The Tribunals have concluded that because the car is severely damaged, the driver of the lorry is negligent, but have not considered the aforesaid circumstances. Therefore, the finding by the Tribunals that the driver of the lorry was only negligent cannot be accepted. Further, it is opined that both the drivers are negligent, and in the facts and circumstances afore-discussed, the contributory negligence between the drivers would be in equal proportion. The first of the questions is accordingly answered.
15. The injured claimant had, according to the medical evidence on record, suffered left temporal depressed fracture with contusion. He was hospitalized for four days from 15.1.2007 to 19.1.2007. The doctors opined that he was, at the time of discharge, conscious, alert and oriented with no neurological deficits. They also opined that he may require intervention for resolving left temporal resolving hematoma. However, there is no evidence of Sri Harish Kumar having taken further treatment much less involving any intervention. Therefore, the tribunals are justified in awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’ apart from actual medical expenses and a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards ‘loss of income during laid up period’. However, a sum of Rs.1000/- each towards ‘conveyance and attendant charges’ would be very meagre, and that a global sum of Rs.20,000/- under these two heads would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the second of the questions is answered.
16. The deceased Ms. Shilpa was aged 21 years and she was undergoing Airhostess training receiving a stipend of Rs.5000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken notional income at Rs.3000/- per month. Though there is no evidence that Ms. Shilpa was being paid Rs.5000/- as stipend, given the undisputed academic credentials and distinction in the extra curricular activities, including as a sportsperson and NCC candidate, there cannot be any dispute about her earning ability if she had not met with the untimely demise. The notional income in cases of accidents during the year 2008–2009 is taken between Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- as per the schedule evolved for settlement in Lok Adalaths. This schedule is adopted in granting compensation for reasons of consistency and uniformity. This Court is of the considered view that a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month would be more appropriate sum. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects, and for the reasons discussed supra, the parents of Ms.Shilpa would be entitled for addition towards future prospects. The future prospects, in the circumstances of the case, should be 40% of Rs.4000/. Further, the Tribunal has taken the multiplier of ‘13’ based on the age of the mother, but the appropriate multiplier would have to be based on the age of the deceased. As Ms.Shilpa was aged 21 years, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘18’. Furthermore, the appropriate deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Ms. Shilpa should be taken at 50% of the notional income and the future prospects. The parents would also be entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards conventional heads. If the compensation is reworked subject to these changes, the claimants- appellants in MFA No.7329/2012 would be entitled for the following amount:
Heads Compensation in Rupees (i) Income 4,000/-
(ii) Future Prospects 1,600 /- ( 40% of Income) Personal Expenses
For the foregoing the following order:
i. The appeals by the insurer of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-44-0279 in MFA No.87/2012 and MFA No.6514/2012 are allowed in part. The judgement and award in MVC No. 8744/2007 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Principal MACT, Bengaluru and in MVC No.209/2008 on the file of the Court of the Fast Track-III and Additional MACT-IV, Shivamogga are modified directing the appellant – Insurance Company, M/s New India Assurance Company Limited and the Insurer of the Maruthi car bearing registration No. KA-03-C-6018, each to pay 50% compensation with proportionate interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
ii. The appeal in MFA No.7925/2011 is allowed in part further modifying the compensation awarded to the Claimant in MVC No. 8744/2007 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes and Principal MACT, Bengaluru enhancing the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.57,638/- to a sum of Rs.77,638/-.
iii. The appeal in MFA No.7329/2012 is also partly allowed further modifying the judgement and award in MVC No.209/2008 on the file of the Court of the Fast Track-III and Additional MACT-IV, Shivamogga enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.3,57,000/- to Rs.6,34,800/-.
iv. The Insurance Companies as aforesaid shall deposit their part of the compensation and the corresponding interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the respective claim petitions till the date of deposit.
v. The Insurance Companies shall make such deposits within a period of 8 (Eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgement. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the respective Tribunals for disbursement to the claimants.
nv* ct:sr Sd/- Judge