IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MFA NO. 9393 OF 2011 (MV) CONNECTED WITH MFA NOS. 9394 OF 2011, 9395 OF 2011 AND 9396 OF 2011 (MV) IN MFA NO.9393/2011 BETWEEN SRI. TESERING DORGEE AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE LASEE GYAL JAIS NO.5, K. VILLAGE TIBETIAN SETTLEMENT GURUPURA, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. ABDUL KHALIK AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAZAK NO.1821, BAZAAR ROAD HUNSUR – 571 105 2. MAQSAD BAIG AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAZAK BEIG NO.1821, BAZAAR ROAD HUNSUR – 571 105 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1134 PRINCE OF WALES ROAD NEAR BALLAL CIRCLE CHAMARAJAPURAM MYSORE – 570 005 REP. BY IT’S MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. S. NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2 SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. FOR R3 V.O.D. 29.8.16 NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1077/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT – V MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.9394/2011 BETWEEN SMT. NGODUP WANGMO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O TENPA TSERING NO.18, K. VILLAGE TIBETIAN SETTLEMENT GURUPURA, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. ABDUL KHALIK AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAZAK NO.1821, BAZAAR ROAD HUNSUR – 571 105 2. MAQSAD BAIG AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAZAK BEIG NO.1821, BAZAAR ROAD HUNSUR – 571 105 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1134 PRINCE OF WALES ROAD NEAR BALLAL CIRCLE CHAMARAJAPURAM MYSORE – 570 005 REP. BY IT’S MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. FOR R3; SRI. B. S. NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2;
V.O.D. 29.8.16 NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1078/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT – V AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, MYSORE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.9395/2011 BETWEEN SMT. DAWA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS W/O LATE TSERING PHUNTSO NO.28, K. VILLAGE TIBETIAN SETTLEMENT GURUPURA, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. ABDUL KHALIK AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAZAK NO.1821, BAZAAR ROAD HUNSUR – 571 105 2. MAQSAD BAIG AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAZAK BEIG NO.1821, BAZAAR ROAD HUNSUR – 571 105 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1134 PRINCE OF WALES ROAD NEAR BALLAL CIRCLE CHAMARAJAPURAM MYSORE – 570 005 REP. BY ITS MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. S. NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. FOR R3;
V.O.D. 29.8.16 NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1079/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT – V AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, MYSORE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.9396/2011 BETWEEN SMT. LHAKPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O LATE PASONG GULPO K. VILLAGE, TIBETIAN SETTLEMENT GURUPURA, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. ABDUL KHALIK AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAZAK NO.1821, BAZAAR ROAD HUNSUR – 571 105 2. MAQSAD BAIG AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O ABDUL RAZAK BEIG NO.1821, BAZAAR ROAD HUNSUR – 571 105 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1134 PRINCE OF WALES ROAD NEAR BALLAL CIRCLE CHAMARAJAPURAM MYSORE – 570 005 REP. BY IT’S MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. S. NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. FOR R3;
V.O.D. 29.8.16 NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.01.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1080/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT – V AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MFA’S COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 22.01.2011 rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.1077/2009 pertaining to MFA No.9393/2011, MVC No.1078/2009 pertaining to MFA No.9394/2011, MVC No.1079/2009 pertaining to MFA No.9395/2011 and MVC No.1080/2009 pertaining to MFA No.9396/2011. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants/claimants are before this Court in these appeals.
2. The factual matrix of the appeals is that on 21.02.2009 at about 6.00 p.m. on B.M.Road, near Kothegala gate in Hunsur Taluk, while the claimants were going in the Maxi Cab bearing Regn.No.KA-02-B- 1452 from Periyapatna towards Hunsur, it dashed against the Toyota Innova Car bearing Regn.No.KA-02- MA-2909 which was coming from opposite direction from Hunsur side. As a result, the claimants who were inmates of the Maxi Cab, sustained severe injuries. Immediately thereafter, they were treated at the General Hospital, Hunsur and after first aid treatment, they were shifted to Apollo BGS Hospitals, Mysore and also B.M.Hospital, Mysore wherein they took treatment as inpatients for several days. They have spent huge amount towards medical expenses and incidental charges. Inspite of it, they are not able to recover and are suffering from permanent physical disability and inconvenience. Prior to the accident, all the petitioners were hale and healthy and by avocation were agriculturists and also running sweater business. On all these grounds, the claimants filed separate claim petitions before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
3. After service of notice, first and second respondent appeared through their counsel and filed common objection statements. Third respondent – insurer also entered appearance through its counsel and filed objection statement denying the petition averments and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.
4. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues for consideration. In order to substantiate their claim, claimants got themselves examined as PWs.1 to 4 and got examined a Neuro Surgeon by name Dr.Ramesh Ranganathan as PW.5. Besides they got exhibited documents as per Exs.P1 to P35. On behalf of respondents, RW.1 was examined and Ex.R1 was got marked. The Tribunal, after hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, rendered the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.1,58,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.89,000/- and Rs.1,51,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petitions till realisation, in MVC Nos.1077/2009, 1078/2009, 1079/2009 and MVC No.1080/2009 respectively. Hence, these appeals by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation by urging various grounds.
5. Sri P.Nataraju, learned counsel for the appellants in all these appeals contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is grossly inadequate as against the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants. Further, he contends that prior to the accident, the appellants were hale and healthy and doing agriculture work and also running sweater business. After the accident they are unable to do the work as they were doing earlier. But the Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation towards future loss of income which is grossly inadequate. Further, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of income during period of treatment, medical expenses and incidental charges are also on lower side and the same requires to be enhanced. In some of the claim petition, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities in life and future medical expenses.
6. He further contends that first respondent is the driver and the second respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The vehicle was insured with third respondent. The first respondent was authorised to drive motor cab also. But the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle stating that the driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending Maxi Cab. This finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ((2017) 14 SCC 663) wherein it is held that the absence of transport endorsement, it cannot be a ground to absolve the insurer from the award liability. On all these grounds he seeks for enhancement of compensation by allowing these appeals.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent – insurance company denies the age, occupation and income of the claimants. He also denies the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants, the period of treatment as inpatients and amount spent towards medical expenses and incidental charges. He contends that the driver of the offending Maxi Cab did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. He had licence to drive only LMV non – transport and had no specific licence to drive Maxi Cab. Hence, the respondent insurance company is not liable to indemnify the second respondent owner. It is further contended that the Tribunal on evaluation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record has awarded just and fair compensation and the same does not call for interference of this Court. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Having regard to these strenuous contentions as taken by learned counsel for the appellants and counter made by learned counsel for the respondent insurance company, it is relevant to state that there is no dispute that appellants sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maxi Cab bearing Regn.No.KA- 02-B-1452 by its driver. The oral evidence adduced by the appellants corroborates with the documentary evidence viz., Ex.P1 – FIR, Ex.P2 – complaint, Ex.P3 – spot mahazar, Ex.P4 – rough sketch of the spot, Ex.P5 – MVA report, Ex.P7 – final report/charge sheet.
9. The claimants in all these petitions are doing agriculture work and also running sweater business. There being no materials in proof of income, the Tribunal assessed the income of the petitioners at Rs.100/- per day and monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. But however, it is relevant to note that the accident is of the year 2009. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income that has to be taken as per the guidelines and illustration as per the Lok Adalath chart for the relevant year is Rs.4,500/-. Accordingly, it is just and proper to hold the monthly income of the claimants in all the petitions at Rs.4,500/- p.m.
10. In MVC No.1077/2009 pertaining to MFA No.9393/2011 the claimant by name Tesering Dorgee has filed the claim petition stating that he has sustained injuries in the accident. Ex.P6, 8 to 12 and Ex.P24 to 27 are the documents pertaining to this claimant. As per Ex.P6 – wound certificate issued by Casualty Medical Officer, Apollo BGS Hospitals, Mysore, the claimant/PW.1 has sustained mild head injury, multiple posterior rib fractures left side with haemothorax and brust compression fracture L2 vertebral with root compression and these injuries are grievous in nature. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in this petition, I deem it just and proper to award another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering.
11. PW.5 – Dr.Ramesh Ranganatha, Neuro Surgeon on examining this petitioner has assessed permanent disability of 20% to the whole body in view of the spine and head injury. While calculating the compensation towards loss of future income, as the age of this petitioner was 70 years, the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier of ‘5’ and accepting the evidence of PW.5 has rightly taken 20% permanent disability to the whole body and taking income of Rs.3,000/- p.m. has awarded Rs.36,000/- towards future loss of income. Now that in this appeal the income having been raised to Rs.4,500/-p.m., the compensation towards loss of future income would come to Rs.54,000/- ( Rs.4,500 x 12 x 5 x 20%). Further, the loss of income during laid up period would be Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500 x 3). Further, considering the nature of injuries as per Ex.P6 – wound certificate, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life for the inconvenience which the claimant has to undergo during the rest of life. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads appears to be just and reasonable and the same does not call for interference of this Court.
12. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:-
Particulars Compensation awarded by MACT Compensatio n by this Court Attendant’s charges, conveyance, food & nourishment Medical expenses & incidental charge 6,000 6,000 96,688 96,688 Pain & suffering 10,000 20,000 Loss of future income Loss of income during laid up period 36,000 54,000 9,000 13,500 Loss of amenities - 30,000 1,57,688 Total Rounded off to 1,58,000 2,20,188 Thus, in all, the appellant in MFA No.9393/2011 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,20,188/- as against Rs.1,58,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.62,188/-.
13. In MVC No.1078/2009 pertaining to MFA No.9394/2011, the claimant by name Ngodup Wangmo has filed the claim petition stating that she has sustained injuries in the accident. Initially she was treated at General Hospital, Hunsur and thereafter, at B.M.Hospital, Mysore. She has deposed before the Tribunal as PW.2. Exs.P13 to P16 are the documents pertaining to this claimant. As per Ex.P13 – wound certificate issued by the Authorities, B.M.Hospital, Mysore, the claimant/PW.2 has sustained one avulsion lacerated wound with loss of stem over the scalp-frontal region, depressed wounds over the maxillary area on both sides, mandible and dislocation TMJ, one depressed wound over the upper lip which has gone inside the mouth, maxilla both sides and alveaolor fractures. Further, the post-operative notes reveal that dislocation of the tempero – Mandibular joint was treated. Injuries No.1, 2 and 4 are grievous in nature and injury No.3 is simple in nature. She has not chosen to examine the Medical Officer who treated her. But got exhibited documents such as Ex.P14 – MRI Scan report, Ex.P15 – disability certificate and Ex.P16- medical bills. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and duration of treatment taken by the claimant in this petition, I deem it just and proper to award another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering.
14. The Tribunal in this petition has not awarded any compensation towards loss of future income on the ground that the treated Doctor has not been examined and evidence of Medical Officer is not available on record. But however, Ex.P15 – Disability certificate reveals that petitioner has sustained disability of 20% which is permanent in nature. The Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of future income in the absence of evidence of Medical Officer. Hence, in this appeal, the same requires consideration. At the time of accident, this claimant was aged 43 years. In view of observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘14’. As already held the income of claimant is assessed at Rs.4,500/- p.m. The disability as per Ex.P15 is taken at 20%. Accordingly, the compensation towards loss of future income would be Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.4,500x12x14x20%) Further, the loss of income during laid up period would be Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500 x 3). However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads appears to be just and reasonable and the same does not call for interference of this Court.
15. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:-
Thus, in all, the appellant in MFA No.9394/2011 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,15,453/- as against Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.1,65,453/-.
16. In MVC No.1079/2009 pertaining to MFA No.9395/2011 the claimant by name Dawa has filed the claim petition stating that she has sustained severe injuries in the accident. Initially she was treated at General Hospital, Hunsur and thereafter, was shifted to Apollo BGS Hospitals, Mysore. Ex.P17 to 20 and Ex.P28 to 31 are the documents pertaining to this claimant. As per Ex.P17 – wound certificate issued by Casualty Medical Officer, Apollo BGS Hospitals, Mysore, the claimant/PW.3 has sustained mild concussive head injury, communited fracture of nasal bone and these injuries are grievous in nature. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in this petition, I deem it appropriate to award another sum of Rs.24,000/- towards pain and suffering.
17. PW.5 – Dr.Ramesh Ranganatha, Neuro Surgeon has assessed permanent disability at 10% to the whole body in view of head injury. While calculating the compensation towards loss of future income as the age of this petitioner was 73 years, the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier of ‘5’ and accepting the evidence of PW.5 – Doctor, has rightly taken 10% permanent disability to the whole body and by taking income of Rs.3,000/- p.m. has awarded Rs.18,000/- towards future loss of income. Now that in this appeal the income having been raised to Rs.4,500/-p.m., the compensation towards loss of future income would come to Rs.27,000/- ( Rs.4,500 x 12 x 5 x 10%). Further, the loss of income during laid up period would be Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500 x 3). Further, considering the nature of injuries as per Ex.P17 – wound certificate, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life for the inconvenience which the claimant has to undergo during the rest of life. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads appears to be just and reasonable and the same does not call for interference of this Court.
18. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:-
Thus, in all, the appellant in MFA No.9395/2011 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,59,500/- as against Rs.89,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.70,500/-.
19. In MVC No.1080/2009 pertaining to MFA No.9396/2011 the claimant by name Lhakpa has filed the claim petition stating that she has sustained severe injuries in the accident. Initially she was treated at General Hospital, Hunsur and thereafter, was shifted to Apollo BGS Hospitals, Mysore. Ex.P21 to 23 and Ex.P32 to 35 are the documents pertaining to this claimant. As per Ex.P21–wound certificate issued by Casualty Medical Officer, Apollo BGS Hospitals, Mysore, the claimant/PW.4 has sustained Concussive head injury and degloving injury scalp with significant scalp loss and bone exposure in left temporal region and these injuries are grievous in nature. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in this petition, I deem it appropriate to award another sum of Rs.24,000/- towards pain and suffering.
20. PW.5 – Dr.Ramesh Ranganatha, Neuro Surgeon has assessed permanent disability at 15% to the whole body in view of head injury. While calculating the compensation towards loss of future income as the age of this petitioner was 59 years, the Tribunal has rightly adopted multiplier of ‘9’ and accepting the evidence of PW.5 – Doctor, has rightly taken 15% disability to the whole body and by taking income of Rs.3,000/- p.m. has awarded Rs.48,600/- towards future loss of income. Now that in this appeal the income having been raised to Rs.4,500/-p.m., the compensation towards loss of future income would come to Rs.72,900/- ( Rs.4,500 x 12 x 9 x 15%). Further, the loss of income during laid up period would be Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500 x 3). Further, considering the nature of injuries as per Ex.P21 – wound certificate, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life for the inconvenience which the claimant has to undergo during the rest of life. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads appears to be just and reasonable and the same does not call for interference of this Court.
21. In view of the discussion made above and with the altered factors, the compensation is re-worked out as under:-
Particulars Compensation awarded by MACT Compensatio n by this Court Attendant’s charges, conveyance, food & nourishment Medical expenses & incidental charge 5,000 5,000 85,450 85,450 Pain & suffering 6,000 30,000 Loss of future income Loss of income during laid up period 48,600 72,900 6,000 13,500 Loss of amenities - 30,000 1,51,050 Total Rounded off to 1,51,000 2,36,850 Thus, in all, the appellant in MFA No.9396/2011 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,36,850/- as against Rs.1,51,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation would be Rs.85,850/-.
22. The Tribunal while awarding compensation under different heads has saddled the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the Maxi Cab but only had driving licence to drive Motor Cab. The driver of offending vehicle had a licence to drive non-transport vehicle, but he was driving a transport vehicle without having necessary endorsement in the Driving Licence. As there was violation of policy conditions, the Tribunal held that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. However, the said issue has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 wherein it is held that the absence of transport endorsement per se cannot be a ground to absolve the insurer from the award liability and the Tribunal could not have let the insurer go free even in the absence of transport endorsement on the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the issue is no more res integra. The present case is clearly covered by the judgment of Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra). Hence, the entire liability has to be fastened on the respondent – insurance company.
For the aforesaid reasons and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeals are allowed in part.
Appellant/claimant in MFA No.9393/2011 is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.62,188/- with interest @ 6% from the date of petition till realisation.
Appellant/claimant in MFA No.9394/2011 is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,65,453/- with interest @ 6% from the date of petition till realisation.
Appellant/claimant in MFA No.9395/2011 is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.70,500/- with interest @ 6% from the date of petition till realisation.
Appellant/ claimant in MFA No.9396/2011 is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.85,850/- with interest @ 6% from the date of petition till realisation.
The liability saddled on the owner of offending vehicle is set aside and the entire liability is fastened on third Respondent – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in view of ratio of reliance in Mukund Dewangan’s case stated supra. The impugned common judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
The respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation including the compensation enhanced by this court, along with interest accrued, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and on such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the respective claimants, on proper identification.
Office to draw the decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE DKB/KS