Partly allowed

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Koukuntla Padma and 6 Others

Telangana HC6 Oct 2023MACMA/1817/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the Corporation's appeal on contributory negligence but allowed the claimants' appeal. The compensation was enhanced from Rs. 66.34 lakh to Rs. 83.46 lakh by applying a Supreme Court precedent on 15% future income for a 52-year-old government employee and adding consolation and estate expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 83,46,420/-; claim for the difference granted within 45 days.

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

M.A.C.M.A.Nos: 1817 ot 2018 & 734 ot 2022

¶8

M.A.C.M.A.No.I 817 ot 2018

¶9

Appeal under Section 173 of N4otor Vehrcles Act against the order and decree in l/.V.O.P.No.40 of 2017 dated 19-3-2018 on the file of the Court of the Chairman lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Joint lvlanaging Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

The Depot lvlanager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Kalwakurthy Depot, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶13

...Appellants/Respondents No.1 & 2 in MVOP.No.40 of 2017

¶14

AND

¶15

Koukuntla Padma, W/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, aged about 46^years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and lvlandai, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶16

2- Thirumani Jhansi Laxmi, D/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, W/o. T. Sekhar Goud, aged about 28 years, Occ- Housewife, Rl/o. H-No-1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶17

Thirumani Madhavi, D/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, Wo. T. Shashikumar Goud, aged about 26 years, Occ- Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶18

Koukuntla Bharath Kumar Goud, S/o. Late K- Satyan atayana Goud, aged about 23 years, Occ- Student, R/o. H.No.'1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and lvlandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶19

Koukuntla Balram Goud, S/o. Late K. Hanumanth Goud, aged aboul 80^years, Occ- Nil, Rt/o. H-No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and lvlandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶20

Koukuntla Balamma, W/o. K. Balram Goud, aged aboul 72 years, Occ- Nil, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, NagarkurnoolDistrict,TelanganaState. ...Respondents/Petitioners

¶21

Annepaka Krishnaiah, S/o. Latge A. Papaiah, age about- 50 years, OccDriver, AP 28 Z 3237, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Kalwakurthy Depot, Nagrkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶22

...RespondenURespondent No.3 in MVOP.No.40 of 2017

¶23

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondents: Smt. N. SASIKALA

¶25

M.A.C.M.A. No.734 of 2022

¶26

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in tV.V.O.P.No.40 of 2017 dated 19-3-2018 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Ivlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶27

Between:

¶28

Koukuntla Padma, W/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, aged about 46 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and lvlandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶29

Thirumani Jhansi Laxmi, D/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, W/o. T. Sekhar Goud, aged about 28 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and [t/andal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶30

Thirumani Madhavi, D/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, Wo. T. Shashikumar Goud, aged about 26 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H-No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and lrilandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶31

Koukuntla Bharath Kumar Goud, S/o. Late K. Satyan arayana Goud, aged about 23 years, Occ- Student, R/o. H.No-1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶32

Koukuntla Balram Goud, S/o. Late K. Hanumanth Goud, aged about BO years, Occ- Nil, Rl/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶33

Koukuntla Balamma, Wo. K. Balram Goud, aged aboul 72 years, Occ- Nil, R:/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶34

...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS/PETITIONERS

¶35

AND

¶36

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Joint lr4anaging Director, Bus Bhavan, Ivlusheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana Slate.

¶37

The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Kalwakurthy Depot, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶38

¶39

Annepaka Krishnaiah, S/o. Latge A. Papaiah,^{age about-50 years,Occ-} Driver, AP 28 Z 3237, Telangana State Road Transport^Corporation, Kalwakurthy Depot, Nagrkurnool^District, Telangana^State.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶41

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. C.M. PRAKASH

¶42

Counsel forthe Respondents: Mr.^THOOM SRINIVAS

¶43

The Court delivered the following:^{COMMONJUDGMENT}

¶44

TIIIi IION'T}I,E SIII .II-TSTICL, P.SAM KOSHY

¶45

ANT)

¶46

t"rI[] IION'BI,I., SIII J t.]STIC-E, LAXMI NAII.AYANA ALISHETI'Y M.A.C.M.A.NoS.l8l7 of 2018 &734 of 2022

¶47

COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Ht;tt b!t .9ri Justic'e P.SAltl I(ASHYt

¶48

l-hcsc ate thc two appcals tilcd assailing thc awald passed b1: tne Motor Accident Clainr^{'['rihunal-cLrm-} Chicl .ludgc,^(]itv Civil Cor-r;r. tlyderabad in M.V.O.P.No..10 of 2017 dccidcd on 19.03.21tt8

¶49

l. Vidc thc Luil.ru{rrcd arverd. the learnccl^'i'ribtrnll oii clcar applrcation unclcr Scclion 166 of thc N4otor' 'crticlc Act has au,alded conrpensalion of Rs. ei(r,3 4.500/- alollll $,ith irrtc,'csi (t 7 .5 '), t, i)cr anndlr -l'he liabilitl ol paynrcut o['cornpens;it.ion has becn sirddlcci upon the respondents bcfble t-hc l-ribunal.^'l hc rcspondents be fbrc thc. f ribunel are the 1-eiangana Statc R.oacl^'l lansport^{(-olptrrario;'r} ( ibr sholrthc I'SR'l L^' ) and thc respondent No.3 rvas 1bc dliver ot'the ofi'ending vchiclc invoived vvith tlrc accident

¶50

I\4.A.C.M.A.No. 1817 o1'20i8 is iin appeal fikd by the TSRI-Cassailing the arvard ol'rirc 1'ribunal and lyl.A.C.M.A.I."o. ,'i4 o1202-,. is an appeal iiled by thc claimants secking. lbr cnhanccrnent.

¶51

¶52

Given the fact that thc challenge is arising out of the same award and the sarne evidence have to be considered and appreciated, we al.e proceeding to decide the two appeals by this common judgment.

¶53

5 The brief facts which led to filing o1- the two appeals are that trre deceased K. Satyanarayana, was 52 years and was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector Police in the Special Branch of Veldanda Circle, Mahaboob Nagar District. on traveling on his tivo wheerer motor bikc bearing registration No.Ap 22 AM 7433,,vas hit by the bus beronging to thc^'fSR'fc beari,g registrar.ion No.Ap 2g z 3237. As resurr of the said accident, the deceased suffercd grievous injurics to which he later succurnbed. r'he matter was rep.fted 1., the police Station Amangal, Mahaboob Nagar, wherein criu.re No.296 of 2016 was registered and the driver of the offending bus namely, Annepaka Krishnaiah, S/o.Late A.Papaiah, was prosecuted for the offence under Section 304_4 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶54

The wife, children and also the parents of the deceased have filed the claim application before the I'r'ibunal berow which is registered as M.V.O.P.No.40 of 2017. After the conclusion of the evidence, the Tribunal has passed the award holding the corporation and the driver of the offending bus jointly and severely liable^'fbl' payment of

¶55

¶56

compensation to the tune ol Rs.66,34,500/- witl.r inrer.est (d 7.5./o. It is this award which is undcr challenge by both claimants as also by the respondents.

¶57

The appeal by the TSRTC i.e., M.A.C.M.A.No.i8l7 of 2018 has been iiled on the solitary ground that the J'ribunal below has not proper.[1, appreciated the evidence of RW-l i.e., driver of the ofTending vehicle. According to the learned counsel for the Corporation, the said witness RW- I has made a very categorical statement before the couft belo\4' that there: was a great element of negligcncc on the par1 ol- lhe cleceased rvho was driving the moror bike in a rash and r-regligent rnanner. This evidence, according to the counsel fbr thc Cotpor.ation has not been properll' considered and appreciated. The learned Tribunal therefbre. ought to have assessed contribulor.y negligence towards thc deceased and should have redr.rccd the liability so tar as the preseni appellanVcorporation is concerned accordingly.

¶58

However, on perusal of the pleadings and rhe evidence which has come before the Tribunal, there does nor appear to be any conoborative evidence lead by the Corporation so lar as the contention of their being a contributory negligence ou the paft of the dr:r:eased. Except lor the averment ol'the drivcr of thc otfencling vehiclc i.c., R. \/. I there does not

¶59

¶60

seern to bc any other- substantial evidcnce which has been led by the Corporation in supporl of theil contentior-r.

¶61

In view of the same, we do not find any substantiai ground made available for accepting the appeal filed by thc Corporatiou and lhe appeal of the Corporation i.e., M.A.C.M.A.No. 1817 ol 2018 therefore being devoid of merit and deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.

¶62

I 0. Coming to the appeal fi led by the claimants, t[.re learned counsel for the appellant have contended thaL the^'l-ribunal has not properly

¶63

appreciated the income of the dcceased r.vhile quantirying the compensation and has unnecessarily tal<en the net ir-rcorlc lcflccted in the salary cerlificate as the base lor quantification of compensation. According to the learned counsel except for the deduction ol income tax, there could not have been any other dcduction which would havc been made from the gross salary received by the deceased.

¶64

1 1. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal also has wrongly granted 10% as the luture income, whereas in the iight of the judgment of thc Hon'ble Supreme Courr in the case of National Insurance Corporation Vs. Pranay Sethir, the future

¶65

'1zorz alo^{27oo (sc))}

¶66

¶67

prospects in respect of governnrent e rnployce iu the age group of 50-60 ought to have been l5Yo rather than l0%o as has been awarded. lt was also the contention of the learned counsel for the clairnants thai the^'I'ribunal has also not granted consoftium to each of the claimants and to the said extent also the impugned award deserves to be interfered with

¶68

Having heard the contentions putforth on behall of counsel for the clairnants. it would be reievant to take a note of the Tribunal viz-a-viz. the ,iudgment^{olthe l{on'ble SuprcrneCourt in the case of PranaySethiand} aiso in case of the Sarla Verma Vs. Dclhi I'ransport Corporationr. if u'e look into the salary certificate ol thc deceased Ex-A7, admitredlr, the deceascd was getting a gross salarv of Rs.76.416/- and the lret pavable amount u,as Rs.65,406i-. Ilowever. from the documents which have been produced before this bench, it has been revealed that the deceased had paid an amounl of Rs.65,719i- towards income tax for the assessi-t-lcnt year 2016-2017 i.e., the year in which the decoased met with an accident and succurnbed. If we divide the said Rs.65,7291- by 12 months of the year it would come to Rs.5.4771- and if the said Rs.5.477l- is deducted from Rs.75,416i-, the salary amount would come to Rs.70.9391 which

¶69

',,R ZO09 SC 3tOa

¶70

¶71

would be [hc income that wourd bc raken as the base for the purpose of q uanlificat ion of the corrrpcnsation.

¶72

Similarly, if we apply the principles laid by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi, the fu1urc prospects in respect of a govelrlment employec which in the inslant case, the deceased r,r,as at his age i.e., 52 years would come to l5%o rather than |lok thathas been taken by the Tribunal, which '"vould come to Rs.10,640/-, if added, the said figure with Rs.70,9391-, it comes to Rs.g I ,5g0,/-. I.he said amounr if rnultiplied into l2 months of thc year r.vould cornc to I{s.9,7g,9601- which if'multiplied with thc rnultiplier ol I I which has becn rightly applied by the l-ribunal, the amount would corne to Rs. 1,07,6g,5601_ of which % is

¶73

deducted towards personal expenses, as the total dependents were six, the compensation amount would come to Its.80,7 6,420l_.

¶74

Takir.rg into consideration the decision of the tlon,bie Supreme Coun in the case of the Pranay Sethi, each of the claimants would also be entitled for an amount of compensation towards consortiu, at Rs.40,000/- i.e., 40,000 X 6 which comes to I1s.2,40,000/-. In addition, there will be an additional compensation towar-ds loss of estate and funeral expenses of Rs.30,000/,.^'lhus total conip-iinsatio, payabie to the

¶75

¶76

claimants would becorne Rs.83,,16,420l- which wor"rld be tlre

¶77

compensation payable to the clain.rants instead of Rs.66,34,500/-. The remaining paft of the award as granted by the Tribunal i.e., so far as the rate of interest, as also the apporlionment paft is concerned, the same would remain intact. The appellant corporation is expected to ensure that the difference of arnount is paid at the earliest or within a period of 45 days from today.

¶78

As a conscquence, the appeal of the Corporation i.e., M.A.C.M.A.No.18l7 of 2018 stands disrnissed and the appeaI ol claimants i.e.. M.A.C.M.A.No.734 ol 2022 stands allowed

¶79

16 Conscquently, misccllancous pctitions pending, if any. shall srand closed.

¶80

Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶81

To,

¶82

d SECTION OFFICER

¶83

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum_Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. (with records)

¶84

One CC to SRI THOOM SRIN|VAS, Advocate [OpUC]

¶85

One CC to SRI N. SAS|KALA, Advocate [OpUC]

¶86

One CC to Mr. C.M. PRAKASH, Advocate [OpUC]

¶87

Two CD Copies

¶88

KH/kam

¶89

HIGH COURT DATED:0611012023

¶90

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶91

MACMA.Nos.1817 of 2018 &734 of 2022

¶92

1 H G S TAI€
e ,((
oo5 2 3 JAN 2024 C)
4t.
* *
E P T uo
of 20182018
of 20222022
t ,LdJ1

¶93

DISMISSING THE MACMA No.1817 of 20182018 ALLOWING THE MACMA No.734 of 20222022

¶94

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶95

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶96

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶97

PRESENT

¶98

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶99

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶100

M.A.C.M.A.No: 1817 oI 2018

¶101

Between:

¶102

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Joint It/anaging Director, Bus Bhavan, lr,4usheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶103

The Depot lvlanager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Kalwakurthy Depot, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶104

...Appellants/Respondents No.1 & 2 in MVOP.No.4O of 2017

¶105

AND

¶106

Koukuntla Padma, Wo. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, aged about 46 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶107

Thirumani Jhansi Laxmi, D/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, W/o. T. Sekhar Goud, aged about 28 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool Drstrict, Telangana State.

¶108

Thirumani Madhavi, D/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, W/o. T- Shashikumar Goud, aged about 26 years, Occ- Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool Distr:ct, Telangana State.

¶109

Koukuntla Bharath Kumar Goud, S/o. Late K. Satyanaayana Goud, aged about 23 years, Occ- Student, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶110

Koukuntla Balram Goud, S/o. Late K. Hanumanth Goud, aged about 80 years, Occ- Nil, Rl/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶111

Koukuntla Balamma, W/o. K. Balram Goud, aged a6out 72 years, Occ- Nil, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, NagarkurnoolDistrict,TelanganaState. ...Respondents/Petitioners

¶112

Annepaka Krishnaiah, S/o. Latge A. Papaiah, age about- 50 years, OccDriver, AP 28 Z 3237, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Kalwakurthy Depot, Nagrkurnool District, Telangana State-

¶113

..RespondenURespondent No.3 in MVOP.No.40 of 2017

¶114

Appeal under Section 173 of lvlotor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in tttl.V.O.P.No.40 of 2017 dated^'19-3-2018 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶115

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material paper in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, Advocate for the Appellants and of Smt. N. SASIKALA, Advocate for Respondents.

¶116

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶117

That the l\4otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby rs dismissed.

¶118

Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

,LI

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The Chairman N/otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶124

Two CD Copies

KtVkam

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611012023

DECREE

MACMA.Nos.1817 of 2018

DISMISSING THE MACMA

<br>ry

[³³⁸⁶ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶134

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶135

PRESENT

¶136

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶137

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶138

M.A.C.M.A.No: 734 ot 2022

¶139

Between:

¶140

Koukuntla Padma, W/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, aged about 46 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and [/andal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶141

Thirumani Jhansr Laxmi, D/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, Wo. T. Sekhar Goud, aged about 28 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and trlandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶142

Thirumani lvladhavi, D/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Goud, Wo. T. Shashikumar Goud, aged about 26 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and lvlandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶143

Koukuntla Bharath Kumar Goud, S/o. Late K. Satyan atayana Goud, aged about 23 years, Occ- Student, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and [t/andal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶144

Koukuntla Balram Goud, S/o. Late K. Hanumanth Goud, aged about 80 years, Occ- Nil, Rl/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶145

Koukuntla Balamma, Wo. K. Balram Goud, aged aboul 72 years, Occ- Nil, R/o. H.No.1-49, Raghavendra Colony, Kalwakurthy Town and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶146

...APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS/PETITIONERS

¶147

AND

¶148

Telangana State Road Transport Corporalion, represented by its Joint Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶149

The Depot lvlanager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Kalwakurthy Depot, Nagarkurnool Diskict, Telangana State.

¶150

Annepaka Krishnaiah, S/o. Latge A. Papaiah, age about- 50 years, OccDriver, AP 2a Z 3237, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Kalwakurthy Depot, Nagrkurnool District, Telangana State.

¶151

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶152

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in I/.V.O.P.No.40 of 2017 dated 19-3-2018 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material paper in the case and upon hearing the arguments of tr/r. C.lvl. PRAKASH, Advocate for the Appellants and of NIr. THOOM SRINIVAS, Advocate for Respondents.

¶153

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶154

That the lvlotor Accident Civil l\4iscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed;

¶155

That the compensation payable to the claimants would become Rs.83,46,4201 which would be the compensation payable to the claimants instead of Rs.66,34,5001;

¶156

That the remaining part of the award as granted by the Tribunal i.e., so far as the rate of interest, as also the apportionment part is concerned, the same would remain intact;

¶157

That the appellant Corporation be and hereby is expected to ensure that the difference of amount is paid at the earliest or within a period of 45 days from loday; and

¶158