Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Sri Raghugowda V on 29 March, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A.NO.9065/2019 (MV)
C/W
M.F.A.NO.3748/2019 (MV)
IN MFA.NO.9065/2019
BETWEEN:
RAGHUGOWDA V
S/O M. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/O CHANGAVARA AT POST
SIRA TALUK-572137
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
B.M.T.C., K.H.ROAD
BENGALURU-572 127
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC.NO.622/2017, ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL MACT, AT SIRA AND BE PLEASED TO MODFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.12.2018 BY ALLOWING THE
2
CLAIM PETITION, AS CLAIMED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN MFA.NO.3748/2019
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 572 127
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI RAGHUGOWDA V
S/O VENKATESH.M
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/O CHANGAVARA AT POST
SIRA TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
29.12.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.622/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA.
THESE MFAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
24.02.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
MFA.No.9065/2019 is filed by the petitioner seeking
enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal.
2. On the other hand, MFA.No.3748/2019 is filed by the
respondent-BMTC with a prayer to set aside the impugned
judgment and award and dismiss the claim petition.
3. Since these two appeals are arising out of the
common judgment and award, they are connected together and
disposed of by common judgment.
4. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred
to by their rank before the Tribunal.
5. Petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of
the MV Act seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-
with interest at 12% p.a. for the injury sustained by him in a
road traffic accident dated 31.08.2016.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that on 31.08.2016 at
about 7.45 p.m, after having meals in the house of their friend,
petitioner along with Goutham was proceeding on Honda Activa
scooter bearing registration No.KA 02/HG 1224 from Tavarekere
to Bengaluru. He was riding the two wheeler in question. When
they reached Shigehalli gate, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk, a BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA 01/F 3476
(hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), driven by its driver
in a rash or negligent manner came from the opposite direction
and by overtaking a car, it came on the wrong side and dashed
against the scooter.
7. As a result of the accident, petitioner sustained
injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Shri.Lakshmi Multi
Speciality Hospital, Sunkadakatte. He took treatment as in-
patient from 31.08.2016 to 08.09.2016. Due to the accidental
injuries, he has suffered permanent partial disability.
8. At the time of accident, petitioner was studying in 5th
semester i.e., Diploma in Civil Engineering at East-West College,
Bengaluru. He was also working part time under a Class-I
contractor and earning Rs.20,000/-p.m. The injuries sustained
by him has resulted in 100% functional disability. He is having
difficulty in sleeping, suffer from giddiness, headache, walking,
thinking, reading, writing, viewing and facing difficulty in day to
day work. He is dependent on others. Due to the injuries, he has
become crippled. Due to the accidental injuries, he lost his
valuable 5th semester in Diploma.
9. Respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and
it is having internal insurance adjustment and as such liable to
pay the compensation. Hence the petition.
10. In the written statement, respondent has denied that
accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving by the
driver of the offending vehicle. On the other hand it was the
petitioner who was rash or negligent and dashed his two wheeler
against the offending vehicle which was parked in the bus stop
from its hind side. As an after thought, a complaint came to be
filed after four days and in collusion with the police, petitioner
has managed to get the charge sheet filed against the driver of
the offending vehicle and as such the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
11. The respondent has disputed the age, occupation,
employment, monthly income of the petitioner, nature of injury
sustained and that it has resulted in permanent partial disability
and 100% functional disability. The petitioner shall be directed to
produce the PAN number, Aadhar card/Voter card/Ration card to
identify the petitioner and also his bank account with NEFT/RTGS
details and sought for dismissal of the petition.
12. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed
issues.
13. In support of his claim petition, petitioner has
examined himself as PW-1, the Doctor who has issued the
disability certificate as PW-2 and another witness as PW-3. He
has relied upon Ex.P1 to 17.
14. On the other hand, the driver of the offending
vehicle is examined as RW-1. No documents are marked on
behalf of the respondent.
15. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.13,74,000/-
with interest at 6% p.a as detailed below:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of future income 9,72,000
Pain and sufferings 50,000
Loss of income during treatment 27,000
Medical conveyance, Nutrition and 3,05,000
Attendant charges
Loss of future happiness and 20,000
amenities
TOTAL 13,74,000
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
Tribunal has committed error in taking the income of the
petitioner as Rs.9,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-, as the petitioner
was working under Class-I contractor Thimmanna and also
studying in the 5th Semester Civil Diploma, when the accident
took place.
16.2 The compensation granted under various heads is on
the lower side and no compensation is granted under the head
future medical expenses.
17. In support of the grounds urged, the petitioner has
relied upon the following decisions:
1) (2011) 4 SCC 6931
2) AIR 2019 SC 9942
3) MFA.No.102268/2019(MV)3
4) MFA.No.103473/2017(MV)4
5) (2018) 4 SCC 5715
6) (2014) 14 SCC 3966
7) AIR 2020 SC 42847
8) AIR 2021 SC 53828
9) (2011) 1 SCC 3439
18. On the other hand learned counsel representing the
respondent argued that as on the date of alleged accident,
petitioner was a minor. As per the Aadhar card, he was born
during the year 1999 and as such during the year 2016 he was
below 18 years. Therefore, petition filed by the petitioner without
the assistance of the natural guardian is not maintainable.
18.1 Even though respondent has pleaded that no
accident has taken place involving the offending vehicle in
question, without appreciating this aspect the Tribunal has
erroneously fixed the liability on the respondent, especially when
Ravi Vs.. Badrinarayan & Ors
Sunita & Ors. Vs.Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Anr
Chetana & Ors. Vs. Babuji M & Ors
Basavaraj Vs. Umesh and Anr
Jagdish Vs. Mohan and Ors
Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr
Erudhaya Priya Vs. state Express Transport Corporation Ltd
Jithendran Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd & Anr
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr
the petitioner has not examined any of the eyewitnesses to the
alleged accident.
18.2 Since the petitioner was 16 years of age when the
alleged accident took place, he was not having a valid driving
license and he was also not wearing helmet and therefore, he
himself is negligent and responsible for the accident. Without
appreciating this fact, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the
entire negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle.
18.3 Learned counsel for the respondent further
submitted that intentionally the petitioner has not produced the
sketch and IMV report of the offending vehicle which would have
thrown light as to how actually the accident has taken place. At
least 50% of the negligence should have been saddled on the
petitioner. The compensation granted is highly exorbitant.
18.4 He would further submit that the nature of the
injury sustained by the petitioner indicate that he has not at all
suffered any disability let alone partial permanent disability or
functional disability as contended by the petitioner. Examination
of evidence of the petitioner itself goes to show that he is not
having any mental disorder or disability and only to claim higher
compensation, he has obtained a false disability certificate.
Without appreciating this fact, the Tribunal has granted
exorbitant compensation in a sum of Rs.9,72,000/- towards
physical disability and loss of future income. It is highly
excessive. PW-2 who has issued the disability certificate is not
the treating Doctor. He has only made assessment of disability.
He has given false evidence to the effect that the petitioner has
sustained 48.6% cognitive deficits. He has not at all assessed
the whole body disability.
19. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the
record.
20. The points that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether the petitioner has made out any
justifiable grounds to enhance the
compensation.
(ii) Whether respondent proves that the
petitioner has not at all sustained any
disability and as such the compensation
granted is on the higher side and it
requires re-consideration.
(iii) What order?
21. My findings to the above points are:
Point No.(i): Negative
Point No.(ii): Affirmative
Point No.(iii): As per the final order for the
following:
REASONS
22. Point Nos.(i) and (ii): Since these points involve
common discussion, they are considered together.
23. In the claim petition, petitioner has shown his age as
18 years. The respondent has disputed that as on the date of the
accident, the petitioner was aged 18 years. On the other hand
according to the respondent, petitioner was a minor and as such
was not holding a valid driving license and therefore, he has also
contributed towards the accident. Respondent has also
contended that if as on the date of accident, petitioner was not a
major, then compensation is to be calculated as per
Mallikarjuna's case referred supra and not as per Sarala
Verma's case.
24. It is pertinent to note that in the written statement,
the respondent has specifically requested the Court to direct the
petitioner to produce Aadhar card/Voter's ID/Ration card to
identify the petitioner and also his bank account details. In fact a
specific suggestion is made during the cross-examination of
petitioner i.e., PW-1 that as on the date of accident, he was aged
only 16 years. Inspite of the respondent taking a specific
contention regarding the age of the petitioner, for reasons best
known to him, he has not chosen to produce any document in
proof of his age. He could have just produced the SSLC marks
card or his driving license etc. In the absence of the same, an
adverse inference is required to be drawn against the petitioner
and that such evidence would be unfavourable to him.
25. However, from the records, a photocopy of the
Aadhar card of petitioner is available according to which, his year
of birth is 1999. As per this document, as on the date of
accident, the petitioner was aged 17 years. In the absence of
any other material, having regard to the fact that this is
summary proceedings, reliance could be placed on the said
document. Therefore, based on the same, this Court comes to
the conclusion that as on the date of accident, the petitioner was
aged 17 years.
26. When once the Court comes to the conclusion that as
on the date of accident, petitioner was not a major and he was
just 17 years old, the next question would be whether
compensation is required be calculated in accordance with
Mallikarjun's case referred to supra or as per the normal
procedure relying upon the Sarala Verma's case.
Mallikarjuna's case referred to supra deals with compensation
in case of accidents of child resulting in disability. With reference
to different enactment, the age of the child is fixed differently. It
is relevant to note that in Sarala Verma's case, upto the age of
15 years no multiplier is specified. Only from the age of 15
years, the multiplier begins. Therefore, one can have a clue from
this that till the person completes the age of 15 years, the
provisions of Mallikarjun's case referred to supra is applicable
and in other cases, one has to follow the decision of the Sarala
Verma's case. Since from the Aadhar card of the petitioner, it is
established that he was aged 17 years as on the date of
accident, it could be safely held that Sarala Verma's case is to
be followed and not the Mallikarjun's case.
27. Even though the petitioner has claimed that as on
the date of accident, he was 18 years old and was holding a
driving license to drive the two wheeler, he has not produced the
same. It appears since he was aged 17 years as on the date of
accident, petitioner was not holding a driving license to drive the
two wheeler and in order to avoid he being questioned about the
driving license, he has not chosen to produce these documents
and consciously he has withheld these documents.
28. Keeping this fact in mind, it is to be examined
whether the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent
driving by the driver of offending vehicle or the accident
occurred when petitioner himself drove the two wheeler in a rash
or negligent manner and dashed against a stationery bus from
its behind. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not
produced the IMV report in respect of the offending vehicle. Only
the IMV report in respect of two wheeler is produced which state
that the two wheeler had sustained damages as detailed in the
said report. According to the spot mahazar and also case of the
petitioner after the accident, the offending vehicle did not stop
and its driver drove it away. However, it was not difficult for the
Investigating Officer to secure the offending vehicle and get it
examined through the Inspector of Motor vehicle. For reasons
best known to him, the Investigating Officer has also not chosen
to do his job properly.
29. In the charge sheet, he has stated that the offending
vehicle is scrapped. Unfortunately, the learned counsel who was
representing the respondent before the Tribunal has not cross-
examined the petitioner properly with regard to these aspects.
No suggestions are made to the petitioner that since the
offending vehicle was not damaged on its front side or there was
no damage on its back side, intentionally the Investigating
Officer has not got it examined through the Motor Vehicles
Inspector. On the other hand, throughout the cross-examination
of PW-1, it is suggested that the offending vehicle is not at all
involved in the said accident. In fact during the course of written
statement also, a specific defence is taken by the respondent
that the vehicle is not at all involved and only to claim
compensation, the offending vehicle is being falsely implicated.
30. Only during the course of evidence of RW-1 it is
stated that the offending vehicle was stopped at the Seegehalli
bus stop of BMTC and the petitioner while driving his two
wheeler in a rash or negligent manner came and dashed against
a stationery bus from its backside. In view of the contradictory
stand taken by the respondent, no effective cross-examination of
PW-1 has been done. When the petitioner is guilty of
suppression of material facts and as respondent has not taken a
specific defence and conducted the same in accordance with the
said defence, the Court is not in a position to know the exact
things which transpired at the spot. It is also not clear whether
the offending vehicle was scrapped as shown in the charge sheet
and no suggestions are made to PW-1 on this aspect.
Consequently, I hold that respondent has failed to establish that
on account of petitioner being 17 years of age at the time of
accident and not holding driving license and it has contributed to
the accident.
31. Thus from the above discussion, I hold that in the
absence of proper assistance from the respondent and on the
available material on record, the Tribunal has come to a correct
conclusion that accident occurred due to the rash or negligent
driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.
32. In the absence of petitioner establishing that he was
aged 18 years as on the date of accident and on the basis of
available material on record, it is established that he was aged
17 years, it cannot be accepted that petitioner in addition to
being a student was also working part time and earning
Rs.20,000/-. In fact even where the petitioner is held to be a
major as on the date of accident, he has not produced any
documents to show that he was working part time with any
contractor and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. A suggestion is made to
PW-1 during his cross-examination that the person with whom
he was allegedly working part time is his relative, which he has
admitted. If at all the petitioner was working part time and also
earning Rs.20,000/-p.m, there was no impediment for him to
produce the evidence to that effect. He could have also
examined the person with whom he was employed and who in
turn would have produced documents to prove the said fact. In
the absence of the same, compensation is required to be
calculated on notional basis provided petitioner prove that he
has sustained permanent partial disability.
33. The petitioner has contended that on account of the
accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent partial disability
of 50% and though the disability is calculated at 50%, it has
affected his functional disability to 100% and therefore, the
compensation is required to be paid based on 100% disability.
His grievance is that the Tribunal has taken his functional
disability only at 50% and it should have been 100%. He has
also contended that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration
the future prospects while granting compensation and therefore,
based on loss of future prospects, compensation is required to
be enhanced.
34. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing
the respondent argued and submitted that in fact the petitioner
has not at all sustained any disability and only for the purpose of
claiming higher compensation, a false report has been obtained
and PW-2 has also given false evidence. The learned counsel for
respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence
of PW-1 and the manner in which he has withstood the cross-
examination and pointed out that the very examination of his
evidence goes to show that he is a normal person and he has not
suffered any disability let alone 50% or 100% functional
disability as claimed by the petitioner.
35. In order to examine whether the petitioner has
suffered any disability and if so whether such disability has
affected his functional ability to lead a normal life and earn, it is
necessary to examine the case pleaded by him. It is pertinent to
note that at the earliest available opportunity i.e., when the
claim petition was filed, the petitioner has not pleaded that on
account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in
question, he has suffered any disability let alone 100%
functional disability. Even though at Column No.14 of the claim
petition, petitioner has pleaded that on account of the injuries
sustained by him, he has suffered total and permanent disability
to the whole body, at column No.22, page-5 he has pleaded that
due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has lost
his valuable 5th Diploma year. It appears it should have been 5th
semester because Diploma consists of three years. Petitioner has
not pleaded that on account of the injuries, he had to leave his
studies in the middle and on account of permanent partial
disability or 100% functional disability, he was not able to
continue his studies.
36. What he pleads is only that during that year he lost
valuable 5th semester. In fact as per Ex.P13, which is the Neuro
behavioral and Cognitive Assessment report given by PW-2
Dr.Sridhar, he has given his occupation before road traffic
accident as a student and he does not state that he was also
employed and earning. He has also given his income before road
traffic accident as nil, which goes to show that he has falsely
pleaded of doing part time job and earning Rs.20,000/-. In
Ex.P13, at page-133, petitioner has given his educational
qualification as Diploma final year. Whether the petitioner has
lost his valuable 5th semester or he was not able to pursue his
education on account of suffering any disability, the best
evidence which he could have produced was the marks cards of
the semesters in Diploma which he was pursuing. That could
have been the best evidence to establish that he has suffered
some disability.
37. During the course of his evidence, PW-2 Dr.Sridhar
has deposed that petitioner has sustained 50% disability. His
report at Ex.P13, page-2 of 11 reads as follows:
"Now patient has behavioral changes -
irritable, emotional liability present.
Forgetfulness - forgets names, conversations.
Gets head ache and giddiness on and off. Feels
tired all the time. Finds it difficult to
understand conversations, needs repetition.
Has blurring of vision and decreased eye sight
in both the eyes. Needs help for some of the
ADL (activities of daily living). Sleep is
disturbed at night. Has decreased hearing and
left ear has a sound constantly."
38. Perusal of this report indicate as though the
petitioner is not at all a normal person after the accident and on
account of he having suffered injury to his brain it has become
almost impossible for him to lead a normal life. This evidence of
PW-2 and his report at Ex.P13 are to be tested in the light of the
cross-examination of PW-1. It is pertinent to note that petitioner
has filed the petition on his own. Neither in his capacity as a
minor nor having suffered any permanent partial disability or
100% functional disability on account of brain injury, petitioner
has chosen to take the assistance of either his guardian or a
next friend to prosecute the petition. As a normal person he has
prosecuted the petition. In fact he has given his evidence on his
own. His testimony more particularly his cross-examination
makes it evident that he is a normal person with normal
intellect.
39. The examination of his evidence makes it evident
that he has not at all suffered any disability and only with a view
to get higher compensation, he has chosen to produce a false
report and in fact PW-2 being a responsible Doctor has not only
given a false report but also given evidence on oath based on
such false report. If at all the petitioner was irritable, emotional
liability was present, forgetfulness - he forgets names,
conversation, he gets head ache and giddiness on and off, feels
tired all the time, finds it difficult to understand conversations,
needs repetition, has blurring of vision and decreased eye sight
in both the eyes, needs help for some of the ADL (activities of
daily living), sleep disturbance at night, has decreased hearing
and left ear has a sound constantly, he would not have withstood
the test of cross-examination. In fact there is no observation
made by the Tribunal that he has any difficulty in facing the
cross-examination. His answers given in the cross-examination
makes it evident that he is 100% normal and only after
completion of his evidence, the report of the Doctor has been
obtained, that too of a Doctor who has not treated him and
based on it the petitioner has claimed higher compensation.
40. Even though as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rajkumar's case referred to supra, the disability
certificate issued by certificating Doctor could be relied upon,
having regard to the fact that the disability certificate at Ex.P13
is inconsistent with the material placed on record, especially the
testimony of PW-1, I have no hesitation to hold that it is a false
certificate issued by the Doctor at the instance of petitioner to
enable him to get higher compensation. The Tribunal has failed
to note this aspect and mechanically proceeded to accept the
evidence of PW-1 and 2 and come to the conclusion that
petitioner has suffered 50% disability and based on it granted
the compensation.
41. Thus, from the above discussion, I hold that
petitioner has failed to prove that on account of accidental
injuries suffered by him he has sustained any disability.
Therefore, compensation is required to be calculated only on the
basis of actual injury sustained by the petitioner and he is not
entitled for any compensation on the ground of loss of earning
capacity or loss of future prospects.
42. Pain and suffering: The Tribunal has granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head pain and
suffering. As per Ex.P5 - Wound certificate the petitioner has
suffered overline fracture of left Parieto Occipital EDH which is
grevious in nature. He has also suffered two simple injuries viz.,
irregular muscle deep laceration over the right lumbar region
and abrasion over the right hand measuring 3 x 2 cms. He has
also undergone operation. Taking into consideration these
aspects, I hold that grant of compensation in a sum of
Rs.50,000/- under the head pain and suffering is on the lower
side. Increasing the same by another Rs.30,000/- would meet
the ends of justice. Accordingly, it is increased to Rs.80,000/-.
43. Loss of income during treatment: The Tribunal has
rightly taken the laid up period as three months and at the rate
of Rs.9,000/- granted compensation in a sum of Rs.27,000/-.
Since the accident is of the year 2016, the notional income is
required to be taken at Rs.9,500/-. Therefore, petitioner is
entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.28,500/- as against
Rs.27,000/- granted by the Tribunal.
44. Medical conveyance, Nutrition and Attendant
charges: Based on the medical bills and also the nature of injury,
period of treatment, the Tribunal has rightly granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- and I find no reason to
interfere with the same.
45. Loss of amenities: The Tribunal has granted
compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/- under this head. Having
regard to the nature of injury and period of treatment, I hold
that it is on the lower side. Therefore, the same is increased to
Rs.50,000/-.
46. Thus in all petitioners are entitled for compensation
in a sum of Rs.4,63,500/- with interest at 6%p.a., as against
Rs.13,74,000/- granted by the Tribunal as detailed below:
Heads Amount granted by Amount granted by
the Tribunal in Rs. this Court in Rs.
Loss of future income 9,72,000 -
Pain and sufferings 50,000 80,000
Loss of income during 27,000 28,500
treatment
Medical conveyance, 3,05,000 3,05,000
Nutrition and
Attendant charges
Loss of future 20,000 50,000
happiness and
amenities
TOTAL 13,74,000 4,63,500
47. In the result the appeal filed by the petitioner fails
and the appeal filed by the respondent deserves to be allowed in
part and accordingly, point No. (i) is answered in the Negative
and point No.(ii) is answered in the Affirmative.
48. Point No.(iii): In view of findings on point Nos. (i)
and (ii), I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) MFA.No.9065/2019 filed by the petitioner is
dismissed.
(ii) MFA.No.3748/2019 filed by the respondent - BMTC is
allowed in part.
(iii) The impugned judgment and award is modified
reducing the compensation granted by the Tribunal
in a sum of Rs.13,74,000/- to Rs.4,63,500/-, with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization.
(iv) If the compensation deposited by the respondent-
BMTC is in excess of the entitlement of the
petitioner, the balance is ordered to be refunded to
it.
(v) The registry is directed to transmit the trial Court
record along with the copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
