IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, R DHARWAD BENCH. DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL M.F.A.CROB.824/2011 IN MFA.NO.20448/2010 (MV) C/W M.F.A.NO.20448/2010 (MV) MFA CROB.No.824/2011 IN MFA.20448/2010: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. [ENTITY] S/O.HANAMANTAPPA TALAWAR @ HARIJAN, AGE:51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELGAUM 2. SMT. [ENTITY] W/O.[ENTITY] TALAWAR @ HARIJAN, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELGAUM. Cross Objectors (BY SRI.MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) A N D: 1. SRI. SURESH S/O [ENTITY], AGE: MAJOR, R/O: SAMPAGAON, TQ: BAILHONGAL-591102. DIST: BELGAUM. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO.KA-24/3987) 2. [ENTITY] A-2, I FLOOR, RELIANCE HOUSE, ISIDORIO BAPTISTA ROAD, PAJIFOND MARGOA - GOA, 2 THROUGH ITS HUBLI OFFICE, BHAVANI ARHADE NEAR BASAVA VANA P. B. ROAD HUBLI-580020. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE HEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE. AFL HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, LOKBHARTI COMPLEX, MAROL MAROSHI ROAD, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI - 400059. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. RESPONDENTS. (R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) (BY [ENTITY], ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA CROB IN MFA.NO.20448/2010 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., R/W SEC. 173(1) OF MV. ACT, 1988, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10-12-2009, PASSED IN [CASE NUMBER], ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDL.MACT, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. [CASE NUMBER]: BETWEEN: [ENTITY] A-2, I FLOOR, RELIANCE HOUSE, ISIDORIO BAPTISTA ROAD, PAJIFOND MARGOA - GOA, THROUGH ITS HUBLI OFFICE, BHAVANI ARHADE NEAR BASAVA VANA P. B. ROAD HUBLI. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE HEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE, AFL HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, LOKBHARTI COMPLEX, MAROL MAROSHI ROAD, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI - 400059. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY APPELLANT (BY [ENTITY], ADVOCATE) 3 A N D: 1. SRI. [ENTITY] S/O.HANAMANTAPPA TALAWAR @ HARIJAN, AGE:51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELGAUM 2. SMT. [ENTITY] W/[ENTITY], AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: KALLUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. SRI. SURESH S/O [ENTITY], AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: SAMPAGAON, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. RESPONDENTS (BY [ENTITY], ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) (R3-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER [SECTION] OF THE [ACT] AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10-12-2009, PASSED IN [CASE NUMBER], ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDL.MACT, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,80,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION. THESE MFA.CROB AND MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 5.12.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 4 JUDGMENT
Though the judgment was dictated on 21.11.2017 by partly allowing the appeal, before signing the said judgment, the learned counsel wanted to put forth some more arguments on question of law and as such the case was posted for "being spoken to" on 05.12.2017.
2. [CASE NUMBER] has been preferred by the insurer questioning the correctness of the judgment and award dated 10.12.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal in [CASE NUMBER] whereas [CASE NUMBER] has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this judgment.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.2007 at about 05.00 p.m. [ENTITY] was walking by the side of Belgaum-Bailhongal road, near Kallur cross, at that time a TATA 207 vehicle bearing registration No.KA-24/3987 came rashly and negligently and hit to the said [ENTITY] and as a result of the same she sustained injuries and died. A criminal case was registered in [CASE NUMBER] against the driver of the vehicle and having lost their daughter, the parents filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under [SECTION] of the [ACT] ('Act' for short) claiming compensation.
5. In pursuance of notice, respondent No.1 the owner of the vehicle did not appear and he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-insurer appeared and filed the written statement by denying the contents of the petition contending that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and as such there is a breach of policy condition and therefore they are not liable to pay the compensation. On these grounds it was prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, Tribunal framed following issues:-
"1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 09.09.2007 at about 5-00 p.m. near Kallur cross on Belgaum-Bailhongal road, within the limits of Bailhongal Police station in view of negligent use of TATA 207 vehicle No.KA- 24/3987 an accident took place resulting in the death of [ENTITY]?
2. Whether the petitioner are entitle for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. What order or award?"
7. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, first petitioner came to be examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and respondent No.2 produced the driving licence and got marked Ex.R1 and he has not led any evidence.
8. After hearing the parties to the lis, the impugned judgment and award came to be passed. Assailing the same insurer as well as the claimants are before this Court.
9. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Though he was holding a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle non-transport, he was not having an endorsement to drive the commercial vehicle which was involved in the accident and as such there is violation of the policy condition. Though the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver was not holding the effective driving licence as on the date of accident, it has erroneously passed an order as against the appellant to pay the compensation and recover the same from respondent No.1 by taking steps as per law. He further contended that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], wherein the conclusion of the decision of [ENTITY] and others V. Madan Mohan and another reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation by applying the multiplier of '15' and income of Rs.15,000/- per annum, assessment as indicated in the second schedule to the Act and in that light the Tribunal has to take the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as the deceased was aged about 6 years, since she was a non earning member. In order to substantiate the said fact, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [ENTITY] v/s Karan Arora and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 669.
10. The second contention of appellant/insurer is that in case of young children of tender age there will be uncertainties and they will not be the earning members. Per contra the expenses are going to be incurred for bringing them up and to build up their career and as such even taking the notional income at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per annum is also not correct, as the child is incapable of giving any financial assistance and there will not be any financial loss. On these grounds he prayed for allowing the appeal and fastening the liability on respondent No.1 and confirming the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Per contra the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants vehemently argued by contending that though in the case of [PRECEDENT] (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has approved the conclusions arrived at in [ENTITY]'s Case (cited supra), in [ENTITY]'s Case the matter was not referred with reference to calculation of the income in case of non earning members, but reference was made to Larger Bench regarding the assessment of the multiplier and as such the income which has been arrived in the case of [ENTITY] and another v/s Lala and others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244, has to be applied and adequate compensation has to be given as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted supra. He further contended that the deceased was aged about 6 years and as such the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. In that contest he prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
12. Occurrence of the accident, death of the deceased, involvement of the offending vehicle and insurance of the offending vehicle with the respondent-insurer are not in dispute.
13. As could be seen from the judgment and award, respondent No.2-insurer has contended in his objection that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, there is breach of policy condition, as such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
14. As could be seen from the judgment and award of the Trial Court by considering the fact that both parties have not produced documents to show that as on the date of accident driver Mr.[ENTITY] had licence to drive light motor vehicle (Transport) has come to the conclusion that there is breach of policy condition and insurer is not liable, but however by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the respondent No.2/insurer to pay the compensation with a liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1/owner.
15. As could be seen from the Xerox copy of the driving licence produced as Ex.R1, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle (non-transport) and the same was in currency from 22.05.2007 to 21.05.2027, but the driver is not having a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle the Tribunal has fixed the liability on respondent No.1 and directed the insurer to pay the same and recover the same from respondent No.1 in accordance with law.
16. In this connection, I feel it just and necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], wherein at paragraphs 45 and 46, it has been observed as under:-
"45. Transport vehicle has been defined in [SECTION] of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in [SECTION] to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in [SECTION] to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994.
46. [SECTION] of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of [SECTION] as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in [SECTION] and the provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION] of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in [SECTION] of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in [SECTION] and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in [SECTION] of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in [SECTION] and [SECTION]. Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of [ACT]
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in [SECTION] is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under [SECTION] continues to be valid after [ACT] 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting [SECTION] which contained "medium goods vehicle" in [SECTION], medium passenger motor vehicle in [SECTION], heavy goods vehicle in [SECTION] and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in [SECTION] with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in [SECTION] related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of [SECTION] by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle"
continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
17. On going through the above said decision, it makes it clear that, if a person is holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle registered for a private use, who is driving similar vehicle, which is registered or insured for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It further made it clear that, if a driver holding a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport) and if he is not holding a driving license to drive a transport vehicle, he can drive the transport vehicle. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and on perusal of the documents it clearly indicates the fact that driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence from 22.05.2007 to 21.05.2027 for light motor vehicle (non-transport), then under such circumstances, he is competent to drive a transport vehicle. When admittedly, the policy was in force and the driver was holding driving licence, the insurer cannot escape from its liability. Though the Tribunal has passed an order for pay and recover, now in view of the decision quoted supra, the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation. In the light of the discussion held by me above, there is no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant- insurer, the same is rejected.
18. The second fold argument which has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants is that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The learned counsel for the claimants has drawn my attention to the decision in [ENTITY]'s Case. He also relied upon the decision in [ENTITY]'s Case (quoted supra) and contended that the notional income of Rs.30,000/- has to be taken and adopted to the present facts of the case and adequate compensation has to be awarded.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [ENTITY] v/s Karan Arora and others (quoted supra) contended that, in case of death of a boy or a minor girl, below the age of 15, they will not be the earning members, then under such circumstances, the Court cannot presume and assess the income, as the child is incapable of assessing the income and there will not be any financial loss suffered by the parents. He has drawn my attention to paragraph No.10 in the case of [ENTITY] (quoted supra), which reads as under:
10. In case of the death of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit derived by his parents during the child's lifetime. But this will not necessarily bar the parent's claim and prospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child had lived. This principle was laid down by the House of Lords in the famous case of [PRECEDENT], and Lord [ENTITY] said thus:
' all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact - there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can I think, be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them.' (See [PRECEDENT])
20. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer also drew my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the [PRECEDENT] (quoted supra) at paragraph No.42 and further contended that in view of the decision confirming the judgment of [ENTITY]'s Case (quoted supra) the compensation which has to be awarded is by taking the notional income @ Rs.15,000/- and nothing more than that. He further contended that the decision in [ENTITY]'s Case (quoted supra) is per incuriam and as such same is not acceptable. He further contended that no ratio has been laid down in the said decision regarding notional income.
21. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the decisions which have been quoted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
22. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- is accordance with the dictum laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT]. As could be seen from the said decision therein, by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], awarded Rs.2,25,000/- wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.15,000/- per annum in view of the second schedule (income of the non-earning member) and applied multiplier of '15'.
23. As could be seen from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (quoted supra) at paragraph 42 wherein the conclusion arrived at and summed up in [ENTITY]'s Case (quoted supra) at paragraph 43.2. has been approved, which reads as under:
43.2. In cases where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years, irrespective of [SECTION] or [SECTION] under which the claim for compensation has been made, multiplier of 15 and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule subject to correction as pointed out in Column(6) of the Table in [ENTITY] should be followed.
24. On a close reading of the decision in [ENTITY]'s case, at paragraph 43.2. and 42 of the above cited decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, where the age of the deceased is up to 15 years irrespective of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act under which, the claim of compensation has been made, multiplier of '15' and the assessment as indicated in the Second Schedule, subject to correction as pointed out in column (6) of the table in the case of [ENTITY] and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, to be followed.
25. For the purpose of brevity, I extract second schedule of [ENTITY]'s Case (cited supra) and Second Schedule of the Act:
Schedule as per [ENTITY]'s case:
Age of Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Multiplie the deceased scale as scale as scale in specified in r envisaged in adopted in [ENTITY] second actually [ENTITY] as column in the used in [ENTITY] clarified in Table in II Second Charlie Schedule to Schedule MV Act to MV Act (as seen from the quantum of Compens ation) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) [THE SECOND SCHEDULE OF THE [ACT]) (See [SECTION]) SCHEDULE FOR COMPENSATION FOR THIRD PART FATAL ACCIDENT/INJURY CASES CLAIMS
1. Fatal Accidents :
Annual Income Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.
3000 4200 5400 6600 7800 9000 10200 11400 12000 18000 24000 36000 40000 Age of the deceased Multiplier Rupees in Thousands (Compensation in case of death) Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Up to 15 yrs. 15 60 84 108 132 156 180 204 228 240 360 480 720 800 Above 15 yrs. but not exdg. 20 yrs. 16 57 79.8 102 125.4 148.2 171 193.8 216.6 228 342 456 684 760 Above 20 yrs. but not exdg. 25 yrs. 17 54 75.6 97.2 118.8 140.4 162 183.6 205.2 216 324 432 648 720 Above 25 yrs. but not exdg. 30 yrs. 18 51 71.4 91.8 112.2 132.6 153 173.4 193.8 204 306 408 612 680 Above 30 yrs. but not exdg. 35 yrs. 17 50 67.2 86.4 105.6 124.8 144 163.2 192.4 192 288 384 576 640 Above 35 yrs. but not exdg. 40 yrs. 16 50 63 81 99 117 135 153 171 180 270 380 540 600 Above 40 yrs. but not exdg. 45 yrs. 15 50 58.8 75.6 92.4 109.2 126 142.8 159.6 168 252 336 504 560 Above 45 yrs. but not exdg. 50 yrs. 13 50 50.4 64.8 79.2 93.6 108 122.4 136.8 144 216 286 432 480 Above 50 yrs. but not exdg. 55 yrs. 11 50 50 54 66 78 90 102 114 120 180 240 360 400 Above 55 yrs. but not exdg. 60 yrs. 8 50 50 50 52.8 62.4 72 81.6 91.2 96 114 192 286 320 Above 60 yrs. but not exdg. 65 yrs. 5 50 50 50 50 50 54 61.2 68.4 72 108 144 216 240 Above 65 yrs. 5 50 50 50 50 50 50 51 57 60 90 120 180 200
Note. - The amount of compensation so arrived at in the case of fatal accident claims shall be reduced by 1/3rd in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive.
1. Ins. by [ACT], [SECTION] (w.e.f. 14-11.1994)
26. On going through the above Schedules and the decision quoted supra, it is clear that in case of death of minors below 15 years, notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and multiplier of '15' has to be applied that too when the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision quoted supra has directed to follow the said guidelines issued in [ENTITY]'s case which is precedent and ratio.
27. I have also gone through the decisions quoted by the learned counsel for the claimants. But in view of the recent decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court they will not help the case of the claimants.
28. In the light of the above discussion and on perusal of the judgment and award, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be on the lower side and it requires to be enhanced. In that light, if notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum is taken and after applying the multiplier of '15' the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- (towards loss of dependency) + Rs.50,000/- on other Conventional heads. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- which is inclusive of the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 50% of the award amount shall be deposited in any nationalized bank of the claimants' choice for a period of two years and the remaining amount shall be released to them on proper identification and acknowledgment. Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the accrued interest from time to time.
In view of the above, [CASE NUMBER] is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Additional MACT, Bailhongal, in [CASE NUMBER] is modified as indicated above.
[CASE NUMBER] is dismissed as devoid of merits.
The amount in deposit made by the insurer may be transmitted to the Jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and additional compensation awarded by this Court with up-to-date interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly.
JUDGE RHR/ck/-