IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MFA NO.5205 OF 2013 (MV) CONNECTED WITH MFA NO.5204 OF 2013 (MV) MFA NO.7260 OF 2013 (MV) AND MFA NO.7259 OF 2013 (MV) MFA NO.5205 OF 2013 (MV):
BETWEEN M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.S-5, II FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. YOGESH @ YOGANANDA, NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. MAREGOWDA, R/O. NO.719/25, 10TH “A” MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE -560 011.
PERMANENT ADDRESS: HORALAGALLU VILLAGE & POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-571 511.
2. K.N. VENKATESH, MAJOR, S/O. NAGARAJU K.S., NO.26/3, AGRAHARA, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 511.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 R-2 SERVED) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.4954/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,99,500/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT MFA NO.5204 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN M/S. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.S-5, II FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. ROOPESH,, NOW AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. MUNISHIVANEGOWDA, R/O. NO.719/25, 10TH “A” MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE -560 011.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
HORALAGALLU VILLAGE & POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-571 511.
2. K.N. VENKATESH, MAJOR, S/O. NAGARAJU K.S., NO.26/3, AGRAHARA, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 511.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 R-2 SERVED) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.5021/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,02,800/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT.
MFA NO.7260 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN ROOPESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. MUNISHIVANEGOWDA, R/O. #719/25, 10TH “A” MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011.
PERMANENT ADDRESS: HORALAGALLU VILLAGE & POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 117.
(BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.S-5, II FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. BY ITS MANAGER.
2. K.N. VENKATESH, MAJOR, S/O. NAGARAJU K.S., #26/3, AGRAHARA, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.
... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.5021/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 16TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, CSC BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.7259 OF 2013 (MV):
BETWEEN YOGESH @ YOGANANDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. MAREGOWDA, R/O. #719/25, 10TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
HORALAGALLU VILLAGE & POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-582 117.
... APPELLANT [BY SRI. GIRIMALLAIAH, ADVOCATE] AND 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.S-5, II FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. BY ITS MANAGER.
2. K.N. VENKATESH, MAJOR, S/O. NAGARAJU K.S., #26-3, AGRAHARA, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.
... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1.
R-2 IS SERVED] THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.12.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.4954/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT., BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though these appeals are listed for admission, at the consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the appeals are taken up for final disposal.
MFA Nos.5205/2013 and 5204/2013 are filed by the Insurer, against the judgment and award dated 20.12.2012 passed in MVC No.4954/2011 and 5021/2011 respectively on the file of the XVI Addl. Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bengaluru thereby challenging the liability fixed on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants therein.
MFA Nos.7260/2013 and 7259/2013 are filed by the respective claimants in MVC No.5021/2011 and 4954/2011 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by the aforesaid judgment and award.
The appeals are being disposed off by this common judgment since the matter arise out of the same accident and common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants. Though Respondent No.2 – owner of Tata Ace vehicle is served, but he is unrepresented.
3. It is the case of the claimants that on 02.03.2011 at about 6.40 p.m., both the claimants in MVC Nos.4954/2011 and 5021/2011 were going on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-51-V-4542. The claimant in MVC No.5021/2011 was riding the motor cycle and claimant in MVC No.4954/2011 was a pillion rider. When they reached in front of one Shivappa’s house at Krishnaiahnadoddi Village, Kanakapura, at that time, one Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-42-265 came in a high speed from opposite direction and in the process of overtaking another vehicle, it came on its extreme right side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the said accident, the rider and the pillion rider of the motor cycle fell on the road and sustained severe injuries. Both the injured were shifted to Kanakapura Government Hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given and thereafter they were shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein they were treated as in-patients.
4. The claimants in MVC No.4954/2011 filed a claim Petition before the Tribunal, seeking a total compensation of Rs.6 Lakhs and the claimant in MVC No.5021/2011 filed a claim petition seeking a total compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs.
5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, they got examined themselves as PWs-1 and 2 and the doctor as PW-3 and got marked Exs.1 to 17. On behalf of the Insurance Company, RW-1 was examined and Exs.R-1 to R-10 were marked.
6. The Tribunal by its common judgment and award dated 20.12.2012 was pleased to award a total sum of Rs.1,99,300/- to the claimant in MVC No.4954/2011 and Rs.2,02,800/- to the claimant in MVC No.5021/2011 with interest at 6% per annum.
7. The Tribunal held the Insurer and the owner of the vehicle jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of Tata Ace vehicle was having valid Driving License, is not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and documents produced in the case. It is submitted that the driver of the Tata Ace was not holding a valid and effective driving license, as he was not entitled to drive transport vehicle. Learned counsel would submit that there is no Endorsement in the Driving License to drive a transport vehicle, since the driver of the said vehicle was holding a Driving License to drive only a light motor vehicle. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel that there is violation of condition in the policy and therefore fixing the liability on Insurance Company is erroneous. It is also submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.1,99,300/- to the claimant in MVC No.4954/2011 and Rs.2,02,800/- to the claimant in MVC No.5021/2011. It is contended that the compensation awarded under different heads are on the higher side. Accordingly, the learned counsel seeks to allow the appeals filed by the insurer.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tata Ace vehicle driven by its driver came in a high speed from the opposite side and in the process of overtaking another vehicle, which was proceeding ahead of the said vehicle, came on its extreme right side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle. He submitted that the accident was solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle and the driver of the said vehicle was possessing a valid and effective Driving License to drive the said vehicle. It is his contention that though there is no Endorsement on the Driving License, which is marked as Ex.R-2, however, the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s. Oriental Insurance Company reported in AIR 2017(6) SCW 3668 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagadish Kumar V/s. United India Assurance Company Limited and another in Civil Appeal No.240/2017.
10. It is not disputed by the appellant-Insurance Company that the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle which caused the accident was having the driving license. However, it is his contention that the driving license issued was in respect of a light motor vehicle and there is no endorsement in the said DL to drive a transport vehicle. He would contend that the driver who caused the accident was driving the Tata Ace vehicle which is a goods carrying commercial vehicle which would come under the category of ‘transport vehicle’ and therefore there is violation of the policy condition.
11. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is no longer resintegra as the same has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited’ (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at para-46 has held as under :
“Para 46 : Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre- amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of “light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’ and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.”
In Jagadish Kumar Sood V/s. United India Insurance Company and others (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in a similar circumstances, referring to Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra) held that the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation and set aside the order of the Tribunal wherein the Insurer was absolved from paying the compensation. In view of the above settled position of law, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation for the reason that there was no Endorsement on the Driving License to drive a transport vehicle, cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the MFA Nos.5205 and 5204 of 2013 stands dismissed.
IN MFA NO.7260/2013 This appeal is preferred by the claimant in MVC No.5021/2011. It is the case of the claimant that immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Kanakapura Government Hospital and after first aid, he was shifted to Sanjayagandhi Hospital, wherein he was treated as in-patient. Ex.P-10 is the wound certificate in respect of the claimant, which shows that the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature. He has examined PW-3 to substantiate the injuries sustained by him and the extent of disability suffered. PW-3 was working as an Ortho-surgeon in Sanjayagandhi Institution of Trauma and Orthopedic, Bengaluru. According to PW-3, the injured was admitted on 02.03.2011 with history of road traffic accident and sustained the following injuries:
1) Segmental fracture of right ulna 2) Radial shaft fracture 3) Distal and radius 4) 3rd and 4th metacarpal right hand.
He was treated by, ORIF with DCP for fracture of both bones of right forearm under Anaesthesia on 08.03.2011 and external fixaction application for fracture distal and end right radius, under anaesthesia on 15.03.2011. The injured was discharged on 25.03.2011 and he had follow up treatment. On 25.07.2012, he was again examined for the physical disability and it was assessed by PW-3 that the injured suffered permanent physical impairment of the whole body from right upper limb to an extent of 17% and PW-3 has deposed that the said disability is permanent in nature and the patient will have difficulty in doing manual work. Further that the patient would require one or more surgery for removal of implants which will cost Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-.
2. The claimant was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and he was an agriculturist. He was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and also by doing coconut vending business. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month and taking the multiplier as 17 and considering the disability at 15% to the whole body, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,22,400/- under the head ‘loss of earning capacity’. Considering the avocation of the claimant, the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- per month, is on the lower side. In view of the fact that the accident is of the year 2011, it is just and reasonable to take the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month.
3. Considering the nature of injury and the evidence of the doctor, I am of the view that the permanent disability to the whole body shall have to be taken at 17%. The claimant was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident and therefore the appropriate multiplier is 17. In view of the same, the ‘loss of earning capacity’ is arrived at Rs.2,08,080/- (Rs.6,000/-x12x17x17/100).
4. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’. However, considering the wound certificate and the permanent disability suffered by the claimant, the compensation awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’ is on the lower side and accordingly, the same is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.
5. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’. Admittedly, the claimant was an in- patient for a period of 23 days and considering that he has suffered fractures of right ulna and radius shaft, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs.18,000/- may be awarded under the head ‘loss of earning during laid up period’.
6. The compensation awarded under the heads ‘food, conveyance and nourishment’, ‘medical expenses' and ‘future medical expenses’ are just and proper and no enhancement is called for under the said heads.
7. The appellant-claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,26,400/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.2,02,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.
IN MFA NO.7259/2013 This appeal arise out of M.V.C. No.4954/2011. The claimant is aged about 28 years at the time of the accident. He claims to be an agriculturist and also doing coconut vending business. According to the claimant, he sustained grievous injuries and he was an inpatient at Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bengaluru, from 02.03.2011 to 18.03.2011. He has sustained supracondylar fracture right femur and treated by ORIF with LCP under anesthesia on 08.03.2011. He has suffered permanent physical impairment to the whole body from right lower limb to an extent of 17%. It is stated that due to the injuries and disability, he is not able to do the normal work as he was doing earlier.
According to the claimant, he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. at the time of accident. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that in view of the nature of injuries and the permanent disability suffered by the appellant and considering his avocation, the percentage of disability taken at 15% by the Tribunal is on the lower side and submits that the doctor has assessed the physical impairment at the rate of 17%, which ought to have been taken by the Tribunal. It is his further contention that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the appellant at the rate of Rs.4,000/- p.m., which is also on the lower side. He would submit that no compensation is awarded for the loss of income during the laid-up period and even the compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side and seeks enhancement of compensation.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Insurance Company contended that the appellant/ claimant has not adduced any evidence to show that he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. and therefore, the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/- p.m. is just and proper. He contends that the percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal is also on consideration of the nature of injuries sustained and the permanent disability compared to the whole body. He further submits that the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the injured/claimant that immediately after the accident, the claimant/appellant was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bengaluru. He was treated by P.W.3. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate with regard to the claimant. Ex.P5 is the discharge summary issued by the Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orhtopaedic, Bengaluru. According to the discharge summary, the claimant got admitted on 02.03.2011 and he was discharged on 21.03.2011. According to P.W.3, the injured was admitted to the hospital with a history of road traffic accident and on examination, he found supra condylar fracture right femur. The injured was treated by ORIS with LCP under anesthesia on 08.03.2011. He was discharged on 21.03.2011. Thereafter, on 25.07.2012, the injured was examined for assessing the disability and it was found that his total permanent physical impairment to the whole body is 17%. P.W.3 has stated that the above disability is permanent in nature and with the said disability the patient will have difficulty in doing manual work. It is also stated that he require one more surgery for removal of implants which costs Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-.
3. The perusal of Ex.P4 shows that the claimant suffered comminuted fracture of right femur.
P.W.3 has assessed the permanent physical disability of lower middle as under:
Considering the evidence of P.W.3 and the material on record, I am of the view that the percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal at the rate of 15% to the whole body is slightly on a lower side. The percentage of disability as stated by the doctor at 17% to the whole body has to be taken.
4. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- p.m. According to the claimant, he was an agriculturist and also doing coconut vending business. Considering that the accident is of the year 2011, the income taken at the rate of Rs.4,000/- p.m. is on the lower side and accordingly, the notional income of the claimant/appellant is taken as Rs.6,000/- p.m. The claimant was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, ‘18’ is the proper multiplier. Hence, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,20,320/- [Rs.6,000 x 12 x 18 x 17/100] under the head ‘loss of earning capacity’.
5. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for pain and sufferings. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the compensation awarded under the said head cannot be held to be on the lower side.
6. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount for loss of income during the laid-up period. In the present case, the claimant has suffered one fracture i.e., comminuted fracture of right femur. Admittedly, he was an inpatient from 02.03.2011 to 21.03.2011. Considering the healing period for the fracture sustained by the claimant, I deem it proper to award a sum of Rs.18,000/- under this head. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards food, conveyance and other expenses during treatment period. Rs.19,700/- for medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- future medical expenses. The compensation awarded under the said heads does not call for any interference. Hence, the claimant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,08,020/- as against Rs.1,99,500/- awarded by the tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The MFA Nos.5205 and 5204 of 2013 are dismissed. The registry is directed to transmit. the amount in deposit before this court to the Tribunal.
The appeals in MFA Nos.7260/2013 and 7259/2013 are partly allowed.
The judgment and award dated 20.12.2012 passed by the XVI Addl. Judge, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC Nos.4954/2011 and 5021/2011 is hereby modified.
The appellant/claimant in MFA No.7260/2013 is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,26,400/- as against Rs.2,02,800/- and appellant-claimant in MFA No.7259/2013 is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,08,020/- as against Rs.1,99,500/- awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.
The Insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Ksm/snc Sd/- JUDGE