replies and the evidence on record. The case of the
claimant before the Tribunal was that in the said
accident his truck got totally damaged and it was
insured with his own insurance company, i.e. Oriental
Insurance Company, which has granted only
Rs.2,02,000/- as assessed by the insurer. He has also
received Rs.60,000/- as salvage but claimed that he
was also entitled to balance amount as compensation
from the insured of the offending Tata Mobile, which
has not been paid to him by his own insurance
company, for the reasons that the vehicle was
damaged and market value of the vehicle was
Rs.3,50,000/- at the time of the accident but the
insurance agency restricted his claim to the tune of
Rs.2,02,000/-, as per the insurance cap read with the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He has
obtained the loan from the Corporation, as mentioned
supra, details of which is already given in para 21 of
the claim petition.
The Tribunal, after examining all the facts
of the case held that the insurer of the Tata Mobile has
to pay the said amount. Thus, it can be safely
concluded that the claimant has not made claim for the
loss of income. He has claimed damages and loss
suffered by him.
14. The Truck was insured and insurer has
granted the claim only viz-a-viz the risk covered, within
the insurance cap. The said amount plus the amount of
salvage cannot be claimed from another insurance
company. But at the same time he has suffered loss
because his vehicle has totally damaged and he is not
in a position to ply it and earn income, in order to adjust
the loan, the market value of which is stated to be
Rs.3,50,000/-. He has claimed the balance amount of
compensation from another insurance company which
is the insurer of Tata Mobile in terms of a different
insurance contract. Both the insurance contracts are
different and claimant has laid claim for difference of
amount and was entitled to the same. The insurance
contracts are different and the claimant has to claim
balance amount/difference of amount. My this view is
fortified by the judgment delivered by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in case United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. versus K. Chandrasekharachari and
another reported in 2008 ACJ 640. It is apt to
reproduce paras 13 and 15 of the said judgment
herein.
“13. From a reading of Sections 165 and 166 of the Act
it is clear that the State Government may constitute
Claims Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating claims
for compensation in respect of accidents involving the
death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the
use of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a
third party or both and such application can be filed by
person sustain injury or by the owner of the property. In
the present case, the claimant who is the owner of the
damaged van who is a third party, filed petition for
damages and in view of the above provisions, there
cannot be any dispute with regard to the claim petition
being filed under Section 166 of the Act and the same
is maintainable.
14. …… ……. …….
15. The Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the lorry by its driver. This being a finding of fact,
cannot be interfered within the appeal. Because of the
accident, the van of the claimant got damaged and the
insurer of the lorry is jointly and vicariously liable to pay
compensation along with the owner of the lorry and as
per Sections 165 and 166, the claimant is entitled to
claim damages. As the van of the claimant was
covered under a comprehensive insurance policy with
the National Insurance Company, the claim of the
claimant was settled. As rightly observed by the
Tribunal, with regard to the present accident, which
was the result of the negligent driving of the driver of
the lorry, the contract is between the insured and
insurer and the insurer has to indemnify the insured.
Further there is no contract between the National
Insurance Company, which is the insurer of the van
and the United Indian Insurance Company, which is the
insurer of the lorry that in case of settlement of claim by
the claimant with the National Insurance Company for
repairs, he is not entitled to claim damages from the
United India Insurance Company which is the insurer of
the lorry responsible for the accident. Both the
contracts are for different purposes and operate in
different fields. In view of this reasoning, I answer the
issue in favour of the claimant holding that the claimant
is not barred from claiming damages from the insurer of
the lorry which is responsible for the accident.”
[emphasis supplied]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
FAO (MVA) No. 3 of 2008.
Date of decision: 01.1.2016.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. V Shri Jhenta Ram and others
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief justice.
Citation;(2016) 3 ALLMR(JOURNAL)46
This appeal is directed against the
judgment and award dated 14.7.2006, made by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Solan, H.P. in MAC
Petition No. 13-S/2 of 2004, titled Shri Jhenta Ram
versus Sh. Abhay Singh and others, for short “the
Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,
07,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum was
awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer was
saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as “the
impugned award”, for short.
2. Claimant Jhenta Ram filed claim petition
before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation to the
tune of Rs.2,71,142/-, as per the break-ups, given in
the claim petition, on the ground that he is owner of
truck No. HP-18-A-0476 financed by the Himachal
Pradesh Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
Corporation Solan by raising loan of Rs.3,86,000/-. It is
averred that on 14.5.2003, this truck was being driven
by its driver Shri Dharam Vir from Giankot Tehsil
Rajgarh to Solan and when it reached near Amar Koti
near Dharja at about 11.10 A.M. the driver parked the
truck on the left side of the road. It is averred that a
vehicle Tata Mobile bearing registration No. HP-07-
4774, loaded with goods came from Giripul and the
driver parked the said vehicle in front of the said Truck.
Tata Mobile suddenly and abruptly started moving
backwards and it struck with full force with the truck, as
a result of which truck fell into the gorge and offending
Tata Mobile turned turtle on the road side.
3. FIR of the said incident was registered with
the police Station Solan. It is averred that the market
value of the said truck was Rs.3,50,000/- at the time of
accident and also Rs.10,000/- was spent to retrieve the
truck for bringing the salvage to the road side. In
addition, a sum of Rs.1,73,142/- is due to the Himachal
Pradesh Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
Corporation Solan as balance loan amount. It is stated
that Rs.2,02,000 was paid to him by his own insurance
company and a sum of Rs.60,000./- only on account of
salvage, meaning thereby that he has received total
amount of Rs.2,62,000/- against actual loss of
Rs.3,50,000/-. The claimant has claimed the balance
amount of Rs.88,000/-, Rs.10,000/- on account of
retrieving expenses of the salvage and Rs. 1,73,142/-
being the balance due to the loan account, details of
which is given in the claim petition. It is apt to quote
para 21 of the claim petition herein.
“21.A sum of Rs. 2,71,142/- is claimed as special and
specific damages on different counts detailed hereinafter.
After from his specific and special damages, the applicant is
also entitled to General Damages for the loss, pain and
suffering caused to him on account of the total loss/damage
to his vehicle in the accident dated 14.05.03.
The vehicle no. HP-18A-0476, a Swaraj Mazda
Open Truck, June 2001 Model had a total market value of
Rs. 3,50,000/- at the time of the accident. The said vehicle
was got financed by the Applicant from H.P.S.C. and S.T.
Corporation Solan after taking a loan of Rs. 1.93 lacs at the
interest rate of 7% compound repayable in quarterly
installments w.e.f. 31.12.2001 to 31.03.2006.
In the unfortunate accident on 14.05.03, the vehicle
of the Applicant was totally and completely damaged and the
same was virtually reduced to scrap. Apart from the total
and complete loss of the vehicle valuing Rs. 3,50,000/- the
applicant spent Rs. 10,000/- as retrieving charges
(Chainkupi) for brining the salvage of the vehicle to the
roadside. In addition to the above, a sum of Rs. 1,73,142/- is
still due and payable by the Applicant to the Financers of the
Vehicle i.e. H.P.S.C. and S.T. Development Corporation in
the loan account of the said vehicle.
The Applicant has received the payment of Rs.
2,02,000/- only from his own insurer i.e. The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. Nahan as against his claim of Rs.
3,50,000/- on account of the total loss/total damage of the
vehicle in question and this amount has been credited/paid
by the Insurance Company directly into the loan account of
the Applicant. The Applicant has further sold the salvage of
the vehicle for Rs. 60,000/- and thus, has received payment
of only Rs. 2,62,000/- as against the actual loss of Rs.
3.50,000/-
The Applicant claims the balance amount of Rs.
88,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- on account of retrieving expenses of
the salvage and Rs. 1,73,142/- being the balance due to the
loan account of the Financers inclusive of all taxes upto
31.12.03. Thus, the total compensation claimed by the
Applicant from the respondents jointly and severally comes
to Rs. 2,71,142/-.
Appropriate and adequate General Damage are also
claimed by the Applicant against the Respondent.”
4. Respondents No. 2 and 3 contested and
resisted the claim petition whereas respondent No.1-
owner was proceeded against ex parte.
5. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings
of the parties, framed the following issues.
“1. Whether the accident and consequent
damage caused to the truck bearing No.
HP-18-A-0476 was attributed to rash and
negligent driving of the offending Tata
Mobile bearing No. HP-07-4774 on 14-5-
2003 at about 11.15 AM at place Amarkoti
near Dharaja as alleged?
….OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation, if so to what extent and from
whom?
….OPP
3. Whether the offending Tata Mobile bearing
No. HP-07-4774 is not duly insured with the
respondent No. 3 as alleged?
…OPR-3
4. Whether the respondent No. 2 Gian Singh
was not having valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the accident. If so, its
effect?
….OPR-3
5. Whether the offending Tata Mobile bearing
No. HP-07-4774 is not duly registered with
R.L.A. as alleged, if so what its effect?
…..OPR-3
6. Relief.
6. Claimant examined as many as six
witnesses, namely Jeet Ram (PW1), Satish Kumar
(PW2), Satinder Singh (PW3), Madan Singh (PW4),
Devi Dayal (PW5) and Dharam Vir truck driver stepped
into the witness box as (PW6).
7. On the other hand, respondents examined
three witnesses, namely Lekh Ram (PW2), Arun
Ahauliwaila (PW3) and Gian Singh driver of Tata
Mobile appeared in the witness-box as PW1.
8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence
and the documents on the file held that the claimants
have proved that the accident was outcome of rash
and negligent driving of driver Gian Singh who had
driven the offending vehicle Tata Mobile rashly and
negligently. The said findings are not in dispute and
have attained the finality.
9. I have gone through the evidence and
perused the record. I am of the considered view that
the claimant has proved issue No.1. It is apt to record
herein that the driver, owner and insurer-appellant
herein have not questioned the findings returned on
issue No.1 thus, the same have attained the finality.
Accordingly the findings returned on this issue are
upheld.
10. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it
proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 5, at the first
instance. Though the learned counsel for the appellant
has not questioned the findings returned on these
issues however, onus was on the appellant-insurer to
discharge, has not led any evidence to prove that the
driver of offending vehicle Tata Mobile was not insured
with it, driver Gian Singh was not having a valid license
and the offending vehicle was not registered with
Registration and Licensing Authority. Thus, the findings
recorded on these issues are upheld.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant
argued that the claimant had claimed compensation on
two counts, i.e., (i) damages and; (ii) loss of income.
12. I have gone through the claim petition,
replies and the evidence on record. The case of the
claimant before the Tribunal was that in the said
accident his truck got totally damaged and it was
insured with his own insurance company, i.e. Oriental
Insurance Company, which has granted only
Rs.2,02,000/- as assessed by the insurer. He has also
received Rs.60,000/- as salvage but claimed that he
was also entitled to balance amount as compensation
from the insured of the offending Tata Mobile, which
has not been paid to him by his own insurance
company, for the reasons that the vehicle was
damaged and market value of the vehicle was
Rs.3,50,000/- at the time of the accident but the
insurance agency restricted his claim to the tune of
Rs.2,02,000/-, as per the insurance cap read with the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He has
obtained the loan from the Corporation, as mentioned
supra, details of which is already given in para 21 of
the claim petition.
13. The Tribunal, after examining all the facts
of the case held that the insurer of the Tata Mobile has
to pay the said amount. Thus, it can be safely
concluded that the claimant has not made claim for the
loss of income. He has claimed damages and loss
suffered by him.
14. The Truck was insured and insurer has
granted the claim only viz-a-viz the risk covered, within
the insurance cap. The said amount plus the amount of
salvage cannot be claimed from another insurance
company. But at the same time he has suffered loss
because his vehicle has totally damaged and he is not
in a position to ply it and earn income, in order to adjust
the loan, the market value of which is stated to be
Rs.3,50,000/-. He has claimed the balance amount of
compensation from another insurance company which
is the insurer of Tata Mobile in terms of a different
insurance contract. Both the insurance contracts are
different and claimant has laid claim for difference of
amount and was entitled to the same. The insurance
contracts are different and the claimant has to claim
balance amount/difference of amount. My this view is
fortified by the judgment delivered by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in case United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. versus K. Chandrasekharachari and
another reported in 2008 ACJ 640. It is apt to
reproduce paras 13 and 15 of the said judgment
herein.
“13. From a reading of Sections 165 and 166 of the Act
it is clear that the State Government may constitute
Claims Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating claims
for compensation in respect of accidents involving the
death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the
use of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a
third party or both and such application can be filed by
person sustain injury or by the owner of the property. In
the present case, the claimant who is the owner of the
damaged van who is a third party, filed petition for
damages and in view of the above provisions, there
cannot be any dispute with regard to the claim petition
being filed under Section 166 of the Act and the same
is maintainable.
14. …… ……. …….
15. The Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the lorry by its driver. This being a finding of fact,
cannot be interfered within the appeal. Because of the
accident, the van of the claimant got damaged and the
insurer of the lorry is jointly and vicariously liable to pay
compensation along with the owner of the lorry and as
per Sections 165 and 166, the claimant is entitled to
claim damages. As the van of the claimant was
covered under a comprehensive insurance policy with
the National Insurance Company, the claim of the
claimant was settled. As rightly observed by the
Tribunal, with regard to the present accident, which
was the result of the negligent driving of the driver of
the lorry, the contract is between the insured and
insurer and the insurer has to indemnify the insured.
Further there is no contract between the National
Insurance Company, which is the insurer of the van
and the United Indian Insurance Company, which is the
insurer of the lorry that in case of settlement of claim by
the claimant with the National Insurance Company for
repairs, he is not entitled to claim damages from the
United India Insurance Company which is the insurer of
the lorry responsible for the accident. Both the
contracts are for different purposes and operate in
different fields. In view of this reasoning, I answer the
issue in favour of the claimant holding that the claimant
is not barred from claiming damages from the insurer of
the lorry which is responsible for the accident.”
[emphasis supplied]
15. Again, in National Insurance Co. Ltd.
versus Bilaspur Gramudhyog Association and others
reported in 2008 ACJ 2058, this High Court has
discussed the word “damages” It is apposite to
reproduce para 15 of the judgment herein.
“15.The petitioner has also claimed damage to the
building due to accident. Learned counsel for the
insurer has submitted that under the policy and the Act,
the insurer is liable to pay only Rs. 6,000 on account of
third party property damage. She has relied on section
147 (2) (b) of the Act for advancing this argument. No
doubt, under the Act, the statutory liability of the insurer
is only to the extent of Rs. 6,000 but there is no bar to
the insurer to cover more risk on account of third party
property damage while insuring the vehicle. In the
present case, the insurer has charged Rs. 75 extra for
third party property damage. Insurer has not explained
why even after charging Rs. 75 extra, the insurer is not
liable to pay more than Rs. 6,000 for third party
property damage resulting from the accident involving
vehicle covered by policy, Exh. PC. In Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balwant Singh (supra) the
insurance company had charged Rs. 75 extra and in
those circumstances, the learned single Judge of this
court has allowed third party property damage amount
to Rs.42,454 in favour of the owner of the truck No. HIB
4653 which was damaged by truck No. HP 34-0421
insured with the insurance company. Therefore, in my
view the insurer is liable to pay damage to the
petitioner on account of damage to the building caused
by truck No. HIA 6835.”
16. It is profitable to reproduce para 6 of the
judgment delivered by the apex Court in National
Insurance Company Ltd. versus Sebastian K.
Jacob reported in (2009) 4 SCC 778.
“5. It conceded that if there is difference of amount the
appellant has to pay the same, but that is not the case
in the present scenario. The claimant claims the whole
amount. The earlier payment is not disputed. In fact,
the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has clearly
accepted that the vehicle collided with the stage
carriage on 13.7.1995 and the damage claim was
settled for Rs. 21,700/- on 6.12.1995. The High Court
does not appear to have considered this aspect in the
proper perspective. Therefore, we set aside the
impugned order of the High court and remit the matter
to it for fresh consideration.”
[Emphasis added]
17. The point for discussion in Jacob’s case
referred to above, was when the damage is caused to
the vehicle by another vehicle, the damages have to be
paid by its own insurer, as per the terms and conditions
contained in the insurance policy but difference of
amount has to be paid by the insurer of the offending
vehicle by which the damage has been caused and the
Court held that the High Court has not decided the
issue and remanded the case, in order to determine,
whether the claimant can claim from both the insurance
agency, but if there is difference that has to be paid by
the insurer of the vehicle by which the damage has
been caused.
18. In another case titled G. Md. Masoom vs.
S.K. Khader Vali and another reported in 2005 ACJ
1802, the word “damages” is discussed. In this case,
the Court held that the claimant is entitled to damages
and also incidental loss. The word “damages” has been
discussed in para 10 of the judgment. In the case in
hand, the claimant has not claimed loss of income or
business. He has claimed damages which he has
suffered because of the accident. It is apt to reproduce
para 10 of the said judgment herein.
“10. In all the aforesaid decisions, it is clearly stated
that the owner is entitled to claim damages for the
vehicle involved in the accident. The Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to award compensation after the amended
provisions of Sections 165 and 166 of the Act which
have come into force after the motor vehicle accident of
1988 as there is express bar of entertaining by Civil
Court and the Civil Court cannot entertain a claim in
respect of damage caused to the vehicle involved in the
accident. The owner has been conferred with a right of
presenting an application for compensation under
Section 166 of the Act in respect of damages. The only
thing that has to be decided is whether computation
can be made in respect of business loss, which is part
of the policy of insurance and whether the Tribunal has
got jurisdiction under the head - Damages of
compensation. It is clear from the principles laid down
by the decisions rendered by the English Courts that
the loss occasioned due to nonavailability of the vehicle
under repair can be awarded during the period of
repair. It is not stated in those decisions that the entire
business loss of income can be entertained on
awarded. What is contemplated under the law is that
the loss of income sustained during the period of
vehicle under repair is an incidental loss, which
resulted due to the damages to the vehicle, and it can
be awarded and the Tribunal alone can entertain such
a thing. Section 166 mentioned about the application to
be made for compensation. Section 165 says that
compensation can be claimed for damages to any
property of a third party so arising out of the use of
motor vehicle. Does it cover the loss of incidental
income of the owner? It must be held that loss of
incidental income due to non-availability of vehicle,
which is under repairs is covered. That has to be taken
into consideration while awarding compensation. It
cannot be stated that the incidental loss sustained by
the owner due to the damage to the vehicle and due to
non-availability of the vehicle cannot be taken into
consideration. The Court has to take into consideration
about the ousting of Civil Courts jurisdiction for claiming
compensation in respect of damages to any property.
The incidental loss of income has to be taken into
consideration while awarding compensation for
damages to the property. The Single Judge of this
Court has rightly observed that there cannot be two
forums for claiming compensation. The incidental loss
of income is part of the damages to be awarded by way
of compensation. The same view has been taken by
the English Courts. The method that has to be adopted
is to calculate the loss of income due to nonavailability
of the vehicle. If the vehicle is insured with the
Insurance Company, it is liable to pay damages which
inclusive of incidental loss of income due to
nonavailability of the vehicle. The incidental loss of
income differs from business loss. The business loss
has to be arrived at after taking into consideration of
non-availability of the vehicle on the particular period
and its availability after repairs. We are of considered
view that just compensation has to be arrived at by
calculating the compensation towards damages
including the incidental loss occasioned during the
period of non-availability of the vehicle. On a
consideration of the entire law, we are of the view that
the owner of the vehicle is entitled to claim incidental
loss of income under the head Damages caused to the
vehicle before the Tribunal and the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction. We also state that the Insurance Company
is liable to pay compensation towards damages caused
to the vehicle, which includes the incidental loss of
income being part by business loss.”
19. In Harkhu Bai and others versus Jiyaram
and others reported in 2005 ACJ 1332, it has been
held that if the payment has been made as full and
final settlement without any reservation by the
company with which the vehicle was insured, second
claim cannot be made against the insurer of the
offending vehicle by which damage has been caused
but if it is pleaded and proved by the material brought
on record that only part payment was made by the
insurer with which the vehicle was insured and rest of
the claim has to be paid by the insurer of the offending
vehicle by which the damage has been caused. It is
apt to reproduce para 6 of the said judgment herein.
“6. That leaves us with the claim in M.V.C. No. 3 of
1990. The Tribunal has rejected the said claim on two
grounds. Firstly, because no negligence on the part of
the offending vehicle is proved and secondly, because
the claimant, owner of the vehicle, has already received
from the insurance company with which the vehicle was
insured an amount representing the loss suffered by
him. While the finding on the first of the said questions
has been reversed by us, we see no reason to interfere
with the view taken by the Tribunal on the second
question. It is not in dispute that the vehicle owned by
the claimant in M.V.C. No. 3 of 1990 had suffered
extensive damage on account of the collision but it is
also admitted that the vehicle being insured with one of
the other insurance companies, the damage was
assessed and paid. The order passed by the Tribunal
further shows that the payment was received by the
claimant in full and final settlement of his claim without
any reservation or demur. In the absence of any
material to show that the claim paid by the other
insurance company represented a part only of the total
damage, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim
for any further payment. We, therefore, see no merit in
the appeal filed by the owner which shall have to be
dismissed.”
[emphasis supplied]
20. Applying the tests in this case, the claimant
has specifically pleaded damages, details of which has
been given in para 21 of the claim petition which is
reproduced supra.
21. It is also apt to reproduce paras 9 and 10 of
the judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court in
case titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus
Sekhara Marar reported in 2013 ACJ 1279.
“8.The learned counsel for the claimant would argue
that the contract of the claimant with the insurer of the
elephant is a separate contract and if any claim is
received under the said contract, the same cannot be
deducted from the compensation claimed from the
owner or insurer of the offending vehicle/it is true that
the claim amount realised by the claimant under a
separate contract with the insurer of the property shall
not be a bar from claiming compensation from the
insurer of an offending vehicle, if the claimant could not
receive just compensation from the insurer of the
property. It is a settled law, that in cases claiming
compensation for the death of individuals, the amount
received by the claimants under a life insurance policy
of the deceased shall not be taken into account while
awarding compensation. However, in cases relating to
damage to property, the amount received by the
claimant under a separate policy insuring the property
in question, has some relevance. This is because, in
such cases, the compensation shall be subject to a
cap, which is the actual value of the property.
Otherwise, it will lead to an unjust enrichment. The
claimant is also entitled to get other reasonable
incidental expenses incurred by him. There may be
instances, where the sum assured would be less than
the actual value of the property. This may be because
of the inability of the insured to pay a higher premium.
In such cases, the amount which the claimant receives
from his insurer may not be adequate compensation for
the loss suffered and the same will not debar the
claimant from realising the balance from the insurer of
the offending vehicle as a third party.
9. In this case the appellant/claimant could not recover
the full amount which he is entitled to from the insurer
of the elephant. Thus, he is entitled to get the balance
amount from the insurer of the offending vehicle. The
Tribunal has assessed the actual value of the elephant
at Rs. 3,65,000/-, on the basis of Ext. A11 sale deed
under which, the claimant purchased the elephant
From this amount, the amount of compensation which
the claimant has received from the insurer of the
elephant was deducted. Such a deduction is legally
permissible.”
[Emphasis added]
22. Viewed thus, the insurer/appellant is liable
to pay the difference of amount, as claimed by the
claimant.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion and
reasoning, the insurer/appellant is liable to pay the said
amount as compensation along with interest, as
awarded by the Tribunal.
24. The insurer/appellant is directed to deposit
the entire amount in the Registry within six weeks from
today, if not already deposited.
25. The Registry is directed to release the
same in favour of the claimant, through payees’
cheque account, strictly as per the terms and
conditions contained in the impugned award.
26. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld
and the appeal is dismissed.
27. Send down the records forthwith, along
with copy of this judgment.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) January 01, 2016. Chief Justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment