PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K v. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6469/2018 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6395/2018 (MV-D) C/W IN MFA NO. 6469/2018 BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED T P HUB, REGIONAL OFFICE LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX NO.44/4 RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER …APPELLANT Digitally signed by NARAYANA UMA Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. B S UMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.SINDHU W/O LATE SENTHIL NATHAN V AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 2. KUM INCHARA V D/O LATE SENTHIL NATHAN V AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS MINOR AND HENCE REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 3. V SENJI LAKSHMI W/O VENUGOPAL G AGED ABUT 57 YEARS 4. VENUGOPAL G S/O GNANA SANBAMDHAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 ALL ARE R/AT NO.SF 202 GARUDA RESIDENCY (NEAR SOBHA ROSE) WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE – 560 066 5. LOKESH S/O RAMAPPA MAJOR RESIDING AT GUNNENAHALLI KAIWARA HOBLI CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 563 128 6. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NO.69, J P & DEVI, JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052 7. M S CHANDRASHEKHAR MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.924, 7TH MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK SRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K T GURUDEVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-R4; C/R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1; SRI.RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R-5 SERVED; NOTICE TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD:25.01.2021) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.160/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-19), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,08,71,952/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO.6395/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SINDHU S W/O SENTHIL NATHAN V AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 2. KUM.INCHARA V
Legal Reasoning
and age of the deceased, there is no dispute. 19. The Tribunal in para No.30 of its judgment though assessed income of the deceased at Rs.17,50,871/-, does not supply any reasons to say on what basis that amount is arrived at. Under the circumstances, it would be just and appropriate to rely on Ex.P48 Form No.16 last issued to the deceased. As per the said document, his annual income was Rs.20,17,794/-. 20. Having regard to the age of the deceased, nature of his employment and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi2 case, 40% has to be supper added to his income by way of future prospects which comes to (20,17,794 x 40%=)Rs.8,07,117.6/- rounded to Rs.8,07,118/- p.a. So his 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 total annual income would be (Rs.20,17,794/- + Rs.8,07,118=)Rs.28,24,912/-. 21. According to the Finance Act, 2014, tax payable on sum Rs.28,24,912/- is Rs.6,77,474/-. Therefore, income available to the deceased was (Rs.28,24,912 – Rs.6,77,474=)Rs.21,47,438/-. 22. It is true that claimant No.4/father of deceased claimed to be 62 years old. But he did not enter the witness box to say that he was financially depending on the deceased and he was without any employment or any income. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in considering only claimant Nos.1 to 3 for the purpose of assessing personal expenses of the deceased and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses from his income. Therefore, income available to the claimants is (Rs.28,24,912 – Rs.6,77,474=)Rs.21,47,438/- x 2/3rd =Rs.14,31,625/- per annum. Applicable multiplier is 16. Therefore, compensation payable on the head of loss of dependency is Rs.14,31,625 x 16 = Rs.2,29,06,000/-. 23. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra and Magma - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram3 case, each of the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- with escalation at 10%. Similarly, claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- on the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and transportation of death body with escalation at 10%. Therefore, just compensation payable in the case is as follows: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency 2,29,06,000/- Loss of consortium (44,000x4) Loss of estate Funeral transportation charges expenses and 1,76,000/- 16,500/- 16,500/- Total 2,31,15,000/- This is not a case of commercial transactions. Therefore, in view of Section 34 of CPC, the interest payable is at 6% per annum on the compensation. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei’s case referred to supra in para No.18(iii) held as follows: “18. ………………………………………………………………………………… (iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the court/tribunal in main case, one joint tort feasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. ” (Emphasis supplied) 25. In view of the aforesaid judgment, though respondents No.1, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, respondent No.4 shall pay the compensation and recover the share of liability of respondent No.1 arising out of accident from respondent No.1.
Arguments
D/O SENTHIL NATHAN V AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT SMT.SINDHU S 3. V SENJI LAKSHMI W/O VENUGOPAL G AGED ABUT 57 YEARS 4. VENUGOPAL G S/O GNANA SAMBANDHAM AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.SF.202 GARUDA RESIDENCY (NEAR SOBHA ROSE) WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE – 560 066 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.T.GURUDEVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LOKESH S/O RAMAPPA GUNNENAHALLI KAIWARA HOBLI CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 860 014 2. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LIMITED NO.69, J P & DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCADE 3RD FLOOR, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 3. M S CHANDRASHEKAR NO.924, 7TH MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 050 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LIMITED T P HUB, REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.44/4, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS BENGALURU - 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER … RESPONDENTS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 (BY SRI.RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.B.S.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD: 25.10.2021; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD: 15.02.2021) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.160/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-19), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) These two appeals arise out of judgment and award in MVC No.160/2015 passed by XV Additional Small causes Judge & XXIII A.C.M.M, Member, MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. 2. Appellant in MFA No.6469/2018 was respondent No.4. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the said appeal were claimant Nos.1 to 4. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 were respondent Nos.1 to 3 in MVC No.160/2015. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 3. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and minor daughter, Claimant Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of deceased Senthil Nathan V. On 29.12.2014 at about 10:30 a.m. when Senthil Nathan was riding his Honda Activa motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-03-ET-9386 near L & T junction within the limits of Whitefield Traffic Police Station, TATA Ace bearing registration No.KA-13-A-5182 driven by its driver, hit Senthil Nathan’s scooter and Senthil Nathan fell on the ground. By that time TATA Sumo bearing registration No.KA-41-A-3034 hit him and ran over him. Senthil Nathan suffered grievous injuries. He succumbed to the injuries when he was being shifted to hospital. At the time of accident, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were registered owner and insurer of TATA Ace bearing registration No.KA-13-A-5182. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were registered owner and insurer of TATA Sumo bearing registration No.KA- 41-A-3034. 4. Claimants filed MVC No.160/2015 contending that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of drivers of TATA Ace bearing registration No.KA-13-A-5182 and TATA Sumo bearing registration No.KA-41-A-3034. They further contended that TATA Ace bearing registration No.KA.13- A-5182 was insured with respondent No.2 at the time of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 accident. They further contended that deceased was aged 33 years and working with Tegile Systems Pvt. Ltd., Whitefield, Bengaluru as Engineer, earning Rs.26,00,000/- per annum. They contended that they were all dependent on his income, due to untimely death of deceased, they have suffered damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,00,000/- and respondents are liable to compensate the said damages. 5. Respondent No.1 did not contest the petition. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 contested the petition. Respondent No.2 contended that policy in respect of TATA Ace bearing registration No.KA-13-A-5182 covered only period of 30.03.2014 to 29.03.2015 and same had expired. It was contended that as on the date of accident, respondent No.2 had not issued any policy covering risk of TATA Ace bearing registration No.KA-13-A-5182. Respondent No.3 did not dispute the accident, but contended that as on the date of accident the risk was covered by the policy issued by respondent No.4 and driver of vehicle was holding valid driving licence. Though respondent No.3 denied age, occupation and income of the deceased, ultimately it was contended that the liability, if any, is payable by respondent No.4. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 6. Respondent No.4 contested the petition denying actionable negligence on the part of driver of TATA Sumo bearing registration No.KA-41-A-3034. It was contended that there was no actionable negligence on the part of driver of TATA Sumo, in fact driver of TATA Ace was rash and negligent and hit the victim. When victim fell on the road, TATA Sumo which was coming behind him ran over him. Thus, for TATA Sumo, it was unavoidable accident and not due to actionable negligence on the part of TATA Sumo. They contended that deceased was riding vehicle without wearing helmet. Therefore, he has also contributed for head injury and consequential death. It was found that the chargesheet was filed against driver of TATA Sumo in collusion with claimants to make wrongful gain for claimants and loss to the said insurance company. Thus, respondent No.4 sought dismissal of the petition against him. 7. The Tribunal framed the necessary issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1, staff of the employer of the deceased was examined as PW.2. Respondent No.4 got examined Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation in criminal case as RW.1. Employee of respondent No.4 was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 examined as RW.2. Employee of respondent No.2 was examined as RW.3. On behalf of claimants, PWs.1 & 2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P51 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked. 8. The Tribunal on hearing both side by the impugned award held that the accident occurred due to composite negligence on the part of driver of TATA Ace as well as TATA Sumo. The Tribunal considered age of the deceased as 33 years. Based on the income tax returns of 2013-14 and other evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased was working as Senior Software Engineer, considered his income at Rs.13,84,952/- per annum, added 40% to the same by way of future prospects, deducted 1/3rd out of the same for his personal expenses, applied 16 multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.2,06,81,952/- on the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal in all awarded compensation of Rs.2,08,71,952/- on different heads as per the table below: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Loss of dependency Loss of consortium 2,06,81,952/- 40,000/- Towards Love and affection 1,20,000/- - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 funeral Towards obsequies ceremonies Towards loss of estate and 15,000/- 15,000/- Total 2,08,71,952/- 9. The Tribunal held that aforesaid amount is payable with 9% interest per annum. The Tribunal further held that the policy of TATA Ace had expired, therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation and respondent Nos.1,3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal directed respondent No.4 to deposit the amount. The said award is challenged by respondent No.4 in MFA No.6469/2018. Claimants have challenged the said award in MFA No.6395/2018 questioning adequacy of compensation. Submissions of Sri B.S Umesh, appellant/respondent No.4 in MVC No.160/2015: learned Counsel for 10. PW.1 was not the eyewitness. None of the eyewitness or the complainant were examined. Evidence of Investigating Officer-RW1 shows that there was no eyewitness to the accident and he has not examined any eyewitness. Whereas chargesheet shows that PW.1 and two others were the eyewitness. Complaint itself states that complainant is not eyewitness and his statement in complaint was hearsay one. The evidence on record shows that driver of TATA Ace vehicle - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 hit the victim and on he falling down TATA Sumo which was coming behind him inevitably ran over him. Therefore, driver of TATA Sumo was not at all responsible for the accident. Income of the deceased considered by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Claimant No.4/father of deceased cannot be considered as his dependant, therefore, deduction of 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased is just one. Compensation awarded on the other heads is on the higher side. Even assuming that there is contributory negligence, the Tribunal committed error in fastening composite negligence to the driver of TATA Sumo and ultimately to respondent Nos.3 and 4. Hence, claim petition against respondent No.4 should have been dismissed. Submissions of Sri K.T Gurudevaprasad, learned Counsel for claimants: 11. On investigation, chargesheet was filed against drivers of both vehicles. RW.1 himself having filed chargesheet before the Tribunal deviated for his own document chargesheet, therefore, his evidence regarding non examination of eyewitness etc., cannot be relied. None of the respondents examined the driver of TATA Sumo and driver of TATA Ace to impute negligence to either of the vehicles. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 actionable negligence on the part of drivers of both of the vehicles. The Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased as per salary slips Exs.P43 and 44 i.e., for the month of October and November, 2014. Father of the deceased was aged 62 years, therefore, he was also dependent on the deceased. The Tribunal was in error in deducting 1/3rd for the personal expenses of the deceased. Deduction should have been 1/4th. Compensation awarded on the other heads is on the lower side. The order of the Tribunal that composite negligence and insurer shall deposit the amount is in accordance with judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and others1. Thus, appeal of the insurer is liable to be dismissed and appeal of the claimants shall be allowed enhancing compensation. Submissions of Sri Ravi S Samprathi, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 in MVC No.160/2015: 12. Evidence adduced by respondent No.2 shows that policy issued regarding TATA Ace had expired on 29.03.2013 i.e., much before accident. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in exonerating respondent No.2. 1 2015 ACJ 1441 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 13. On hearing the submissions of both sides and on examining the materials on record, the questions that arise for determination of the Court are: i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident and death of Senthil Nathan occurred due to composite negligence of the driver of the TATA Ace registration No.KA-13-A-5182 and TATA Sumo registration No.KA-41-A-3034 is sustainable? ii. Whether compensation awarded is just and fair? ANALYSIS: Reg. Point No.1: 14. None of the respondents disputed the relationship of the claimants with victim/Senthil Nathan. It was not disputed that on 29.12.2014 at about 10:30 a.m when Senthil Nathan was proceeding on Honda Activa vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03-ET-9386, there was an accident involving TATA Ace No.KA-13-A-5182, TATA Sumo No.KA-41-A-3034 and he died in the said accident. Respondent No.1/owner of TATA Ace No.KA- 13-A-5182 did not contest the petition at all. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, though contested the petition denying actionable negligence on the part of TATA Sumo No.KA-41-A-3034, did - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 not choose to examine the driver of the said TATA Sumo vehicle. 15. The evidence on record shows that regarding the accident, one Keshav Prasad, colleague of Senthil Nathan filed complaint before Whitefield Traffic Police against the drivers of both the vehicles. The evidence on record shows that on investigation, RW.1 filed chargesheet as per Ex.P1 alleging that both drivers of TATA Ace and TATA Sumo vehicles drove the same in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of Senthil Nathan leading to his death. It was further alleged in the chargesheet that drivers of both vehicles without attending to the injured, sped away. Thus chargesheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A IPC and Sections 134(A) &(B) R/w Section 187 of MV Act. 16. Spot mahazar-Ex.P2, sketch of scene of occurrence- Ex.P2(a) and Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report-Ex.P5 show that both vehicles were involved in the accident. As per Ex.P5/Motor vehicles Accident Report, TATA Sumo vehicle’s front right side door and front right side fender were damaged. There were scratches on the front right side shape of the TATA Ace vehicle and scratches found on front right side corner of Honda Activa - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 motorcycle. Ex.P2(a) sketch of scene of occurrence shows that the driver of TATA Ace was proceeding on the middle of the road and he has taken his vehicle on his extreme left side at the junction, hit the deceased, at that time TATA Sumo which was proceeding on left side suddenly diverted on it’s right side and hit the victim. 17. It may be true that RW.1-Investigating Officer has stated that he has not examined eyewitness. However, Exs.P2, P2(a) and P5 speak for themselves that in occurrence of accident, the drivers of TATA Sumo and TATA Ace vehicle both contributed equal culpable negligence. The Tribunal should have specified the share of contribution of each of the drivers of the offending vehicle, even if liability to pay compensation was to be made composite. Though respondent Nos.2 and 4 tried to attribute the negligence totally to the other vehicle, they did not choose to examine drivers of those vehicles to improbabilise Exs.P1, P2, P2(a) and P5. Therefore, Tribunal’s finding requires to be modified apportioning negligence to the driver of TATA Ace and driver of TATA Sumo at the ratio of 50% each. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 Reg. Quantum of compensation: 18. To prove occupation and income of the deceased, claimants relied on evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P19 to P23 salary slips and Form No.16 issued by employer of the deceased, Exs.P42 to P45 salary slips and Exs.P47 to P49 Form No.16 issued by Employer of the deceased. About qualification
Decision
ORDER MFA No.6469/2018 & MFA No.6395/2018 are partly allowed. The impugned award in MVC No.160/2015 is modified as follows: (i) Claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,31,15,000/-with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of its realization. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 (ii) Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. (iii) Respondent No.4 is liable to pay 50% of aforesaid compensation as insurer of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA-41-A-3034. (iv) In view of the finding on composite negligence, respondent No.4 shall deposit the aforesaid compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal, on adjusting the amount already deposited, if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (v) Liberty is reserved to respondent No.4 to recover 50% liability of respondent No.1. (vi) Out of the amount, Claimant Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to the share at the ratio of 45%, 45%, 5% and 5%. (vii) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall digitally release 60% share of claimant No.1 and entire shares of claimant Nos.3 and 4 on furnishing required documents. Invest the share of claimant No.2 in Fixed Deposit till he/she attains majority. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:11009-DB MFA No.6469/2018 C/W MFA No.6395/2018 (viii) 40% share of claimant No.1 shall be invested in her name in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank of her choice. (ix) Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit, if any and the trial Court records to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39