Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 684 (UTT)

Kashmir Singh v. Santosh Singh Patiner

2006-11-30

J.C.S.RAWAT, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2006
Judgment J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. Since these Appeals are arising out of the same accident which occurred on 2908-2004, as such, the appeals are being decided by the common judgment. 2. These appeals, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the award dated 30-05-2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge / IInd F.T.C.; Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. Nos. 62/2004 (AO. No. 393 of 2005) and 61/2004 (A.O. No. 395 of 2005) whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in M.A.C.P. No. 62 of 2004 (A.O. No. 393 of 2005) and Rs. 17,500/- in M.A.C.P. No. 61 of 2004 (A.O. No. 395 of 2005) respectively as compensation against the respondent No.2- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim 'petitions. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants- Kashmir Singh and Sri Mohan Singh had filed a claim petition Nos. 62/2004 (AO. No. 393 of 2005) and 61/2004 (AO. No. 395 of 2005) respectively before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- each alleging therein that on 29-08-2004 when they were travelling in Tata Sumo bearing No. DL 4CE 1488 from Rudrapur Court, an offending Tanker bearing No. HR 46/3055, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the Tata Sumo near Panchakki. The claimants sustained serious injuries on account of accident. It was further alleged that they had made an expenditure of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each towards their medical treatment. Hence, the claim petitions had been preferred by the appellant-injured before the Tribunal. 4. The opposite parties filed their' separate written statements and contested the case. The owner of the tanker- Santosh Singh / respondent NO.1 had alleged in his written statement that the accident did not occur by the offending tanker. It was further alleged that the offending tanker was having a valid permit and registration at the time of accident and it was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company / respondent No.2 and thus the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 5. The opposite party No. 2- Oriental Insurance Company alleged in its written statement that the claimants had not impleaded the owner and the insurer of Tata Sumo. 5. The opposite party No. 2- Oriental Insurance Company alleged in its written statement that the claimants had not impleaded the owner and the insurer of Tata Sumo. The accident occurred due to the negligence of Tata Sumo in which the injured were travelling. The owner and insurer of Tata Sumo are liable to pay the compensation, if any. It was further alleged that the driver of the Tata Sumo was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It was further alleged that the offending tanker was being plied against the conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the claim petitions filed by the claimants are liable to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers of the vehicle, i.e., Tata Sumo and Tanker and the liability was distributed 50:50 % on both the vehicles. The learned Tribunal further held that the claimants had filed the medical bills of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Rudrapur and Sai Hospital, Moradabad but these bills had not been proved in accordance with the law, as such the compensation cannot be awarded without proper proof of the bills. It was further held by the learned Tribunal that the evidence of the claimants did not disclose how many injuries were sustained by them in the accident and even the claimants had not filed X-ray plates for the perusal of the Tribunal from which it may be determined that how many fractures were found on the body of the injured. The Tribunal further held that the claimant- Kashmir Singh had filed the temporary disability certificate of 20%. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- in MAC.P. No. 62/2004 (A.O. No. 393 of 2005) and 35,000/- in M.A.C.P. No. 61/2004 (A.O. No. 395 of 2005) for the injuries sustained by the claimants and there was 50% contributory negligence of Tata Sumo on which the claimants were travelling. The owner and the Insurance Company of the Tata Sumo had not been impleaded as party in the claim petitions, as such, only Rs. 20,000/- and 17,500/- each were awarded against the respondent NO.2- Oriental Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending truck in each claim petitions. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the awards, the claimants have filed appeals before this Court for enhancement of the compensation. 8. 20,000/- and 17,500/- each were awarded against the respondent NO.2- Oriental Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending truck in each claim petitions. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the awards, the claimants have filed appeals before this Court for enhancement of the compensation. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Tanker as well as Tata Sumo in which the claimants were sitting at the time of the accident. The said finding had not been challenged by the Insurance Company, as such, it has attained the finality as no appeal has been filed by the insurance company. Perusal of the record reveals that the said findings do not require any interference. The reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal are cogent and clear. We are completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles at the time of the accident. 10. It was contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants / claimants that the learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation had not taken into consideration the relevant factor for computing the amount of compensation of the claimants. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the bills and receipts of the medical treatment filed by the claimants. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal had not considered the disability certificate filed by the claimant- Kashmir Singh by which it was established that there was shortening of lower limb of the claimants by 1/2 inch. Perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal had held that the medical bills filed by the claimants had not been proved in accordance with the law. It is not established by the evidence that how many fractures have been sustained by the claimants in the accident. The claimants did not file the X-ray plates before the Tribunal by which it could have been established that they sustained fractures in his body. The learned Tribunal had also observed that the medical bills submitted by the claimants had not been fully proved by cogent evidence. It was also observed that the prescriptions of the doctor had not been submitted by the claimants. The learned Tribunal had also observed that the medical bills submitted by the claimants had not been fully proved by cogent evidence. It was also observed that the prescriptions of the doctor had not been submitted by the claimants. It was further held that the evidence of doctor or any other employees of the hospitals had not been produced before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that it could not be held in absence of bills that the claimants spent Rs. 2,00,000/- each in their treatment. 11. Before proceeding to the factual scenario of this case, we would like to discuss the legal proposition with regard to the recording of the evidence by the Tribunal. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides as under : 169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal.- (1) In holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). 12. It is clear from the perusal of the above provisions that the Tribunal had to follow a summary procedure as it thinks fit subject to rules that may be made in this behalf. The Tribunal also possessed power of civil courts mentioned in the above provisions. In the conduct of an inquiry certain specific powers contemplated in the Civil Procedure Code have been conferred on Tribunal by the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules. The Claims Tribunal may be termed as Courts subordinate to the High Courts. The Tribunals had been constituted only to expedite the motor accident claims and this forum deals with the tortuous liability arising from the motor accident only. It is also well settled principle of law while deciding the matters by the Tribunal, it is essential to take the acceptable material facts in evidence. The Tribunals had been constituted only to expedite the motor accident claims and this forum deals with the tortuous liability arising from the motor accident only. It is also well settled principle of law while deciding the matters by the Tribunal, it is essential to take the acceptable material facts in evidence. The material must be germane and relevant to the facts in issue. The evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or speculation. The mind is prone to take pleasure to adopt circumstances little to force them to form parts of one connected whole. There must be evidence direct or circumstances to deduce necessary inference in proof of the facts in issue. There can be no inference unless there are objective facts, direct or circumstantial from which to infer the other fact which it would seek to be established. In some cases the other facts can be inferred with as much practical as if they had been actually observed. In other cases the inferences do not go beyond reasonable probability. If there are no positive proved facts, oral, documentary or circumstantial from which the inference can be made, the method of inference fails and what is left is mere speculation or conjecture. Therefore, when an inference of proof that a fact in dispute has been held established there must be some material facts or circumstance on record from which such an inference could be drawn. The standard of proof is not proved beyond reasonable doubt 'but' the preponderance of probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be more probable. Standard of proof cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. No mathematical formula could be laid on degree of proof. The probative value could be gazed on facts and circumstances in a given case. The standard of proof is the same both in civil cases and domestic enquiries. 13. It is well settled position of law that if a claimant files a claim petition before the Tribunal and he does not adduce any evidence thereof, the claim petition cannot be allowed without supporting evidence of the claimant. There may be cases where certain documents are produced. If those documents had not been connected by any oral evidence, it cannot be said that those documents are genuine. The Court or the Tribunal cannot rely thereupon. There may be cases where certain documents are produced. If those documents had not been connected by any oral evidence, it cannot be said that those documents are genuine. The Court or the Tribunal cannot rely thereupon. The general principle of evidence would guide the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition. The guiding principle had been incorporated in the Evidence Act. If the principles of the evidence were not made applicable in the cases of the motor accident claim, it would be very difficult for the Tribunal to decide the claim petition. For instance, a claim petition is filed by the claimant alleging therein that he sustained injuries and spent Rs. 2 lacs in the treatment and if no supporting evidence is produced and proved by the claimant that how many injuries have been sustained or whether he had sustained the injury in the accident, how the Tribunal can adjudicate the matter effectively. It is provided under the Evidence Act that the document forming the acts or records of the public officer are public documents. Supposing a certificate of medical board was produced before the Tribunal certifying the disability of the claimant and he did not pray for production of the certified copy or document and insists the Tribunal to read it in evidence without proving its genuineness. In case, the contention of the claimant is accepted the Tribunal would not only accept genuineness of the said document but also rely upon its contents without examining the doctors who allegedly issued such certificate. If any document is public document, in such a case, by production of a certified copy, the contents of the document or part of the document can be proved. It is also settled position by now that merely proving the handwriting of the person who had written a document, the veracity of the statement made in the said document cannot be proved. Such person must depose before the Court in support of the contents and would face cross examination of the opponent. Otherwise such document can merely be taken into consideration for the purposes of showing that such document was issued once its genuineness is proved. But whether the contents of the certificate are correct or not, such facts cannot go into the evidence unless the author of the document deposes before Court and faces cross examination. Otherwise such document can merely be taken into consideration for the purposes of showing that such document was issued once its genuineness is proved. But whether the contents of the certificate are correct or not, such facts cannot go into the evidence unless the author of the document deposes before Court and faces cross examination. The contents of a document without examining the author are worst pieces of hearsay evidence. 14. In the case of Sudhir Bhuiya Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2005(1) T.A.C. 66 (Cal.), the petitioner-claimant filed an application before the Tribunal for accepting the disablement, discharge certificate and a medical bill without calling any witness to prove the said documents. The Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected the said application holding that the said documents are not the public documents within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act. The rejection order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Calcutta High Court and the High Court had held that the contents of original disablement certificate must be proved by the author who certified that the petitioner suffered disablement. The contents of a document without examining the author are worst pieces of hearsay evidence. It was further held that the Tribunal rightly refused to mark the said documents unless the same was proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. 15. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P. SRTC Vs. P. Thirupal Reddy 2005(12) SCC 189, the vehicle of the Transport Corporation was involved in the accident and the scooterist and pillion rider died (sic) in the accident. They preferred a joint claim petition before the Tribunal. The Tribunal estimated the disability caused by injury to the pillion rider at 15% and awarded a sum of Rs. 34,552/- as compensation with 12% interest payable thereon. The Tribunal did not rely on the medical certificate of the doctor in which the physical disability was assessed 45% on the ground that the doctor who issued the medical certificate, was not examined in support of the certificate issued by him. The High Court while setting aside the award and placing reliance on the disability certificate issued by the doctor had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,53,867/-. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order of the Tribunal was restored and the order of the High Court was set aside. The High Court while setting aside the award and placing reliance on the disability certificate issued by the doctor had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,53,867/-. When the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order of the Tribunal was restored and the order of the High Court was set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that :"After hearing learned counsel for the respondent-claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court, we find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overlooking the fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non-examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K. M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing the same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 16. In view of the above proposition of law, we would scrutinize the evidence on record filed by the claimant in A.O. No. 393 of 2005. The claimant in M.A.C.P. No. 62 of 2004 (A.O. No. 393 of 2005) had adduced the evidence of himself (Kashmir Singh) as PW1. He had stated in para 1 and 2 of his affidavit as under: 17. Sri Harmail Singh- PW2 had stated in para 1 and 2 of his affidavit as under :- 20. The claimants had not stated in their deposition where they sustained the injuries. Nowhere they had stated that they had any fracture in their persons. It is revealed from the perusal that the charges for the operation have been charged in the bills. There is a report also alongwith the bills that some X-rays were also conducted but no X-ray plates were filed alongwith evidence before the Tribunal. The entire evidence of the claimants is vague and it did not connect the injuries and fractures in their person. There is a report also alongwith the bills that some X-rays were also conducted but no X-ray plates were filed alongwith evidence before the Tribunal. The entire evidence of the claimants is vague and it did not connect the injuries and fractures in their person. The entire evidence of the claimants reveals that they sustained certain injuries. The oral evidence of the claimants did not disclose the place and the nature of the injuries which the claimants had sustained. The claimants had tried to establish their injuries by way of providing invoices and bills of the medicine the bills are not connected with the evidence of the claimants either by himself or by any other persons. The claimants should have deposed in their evidence that they sustained the injuries at such and such place in their body and they should have proved that how many fractures they sustained on their body and at what places. They should have to further depose whether they were admitted in the hospital and the name of the doctor who attended them in the hospital. They should have deposed whether any medicine was prescribed to them and they should have produced the prescription alongwith the bills and it should have been stated that they purchased the medicines and they consumed it. They had not deposed in their deposition that any X-ray was conducted or any operation was performed. The claimants should have called the doctor who attended them in the hospital and who had prescribed the medicine. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be held that the claimants had established that they purchased the medicine from different places. It is not revealed from the record on whose prescription the medicines were purchased. The purchase should have been proved by cogent and credible evidence. The claimants should also have proved the prescription prescribed by the doctors for the medicine which had been purchased by him. Assuming that such purchases were made, it is not established that these medicines were only for the injured/claimants. 21. Harmail Singh- PW2 in both the claim petitions had categorically stated in his cross examination that he was working in the 'dhaba' of Kashmir Singh/claimant and he did not see the accident. Thus, perusal of the evidence clearly reveals that Harmail Singh- PW2 was not present at the spot. 21. Harmail Singh- PW2 in both the claim petitions had categorically stated in his cross examination that he was working in the 'dhaba' of Kashmir Singh/claimant and he did not see the accident. Thus, perusal of the evidence clearly reveals that Harmail Singh- PW2 was not present at the spot. He had not stated in his evidence that how many injuries have been sustained by the injured-claimant. This evidence very well can be said to be the 'hearsay evidence' and this evidence cannot be relied upon at all. In both the claim petitions, Swarn Singh- DW1 had stated in his statement that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo in which the claimant was sitting.. He had only stated that the passengers sitting in the Tata Sumo had sustained the injuries. In support of their case, the claimants had filed certain documents regarding their medical treatment of the injuries sustained by them in the alleged accident. It was also incumbent upon the claimants to call the doctor to prove these bills or reports which had been filed on record. Without leading any connecting and admissible evidence an inference cannot be drawn that these documents belong to the claimant and actually said amount was spent in treatment of the claimant and it cannot be held that those documents are genuine. 22. The link evidence connecting with the facts in issue is missing in this case. The learned Tribunal had rightly rejected the evidence of the claimants on the ground that the purchase of the medicine had not been proved by cogent evidence. We are completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in this regard. We are of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts' and circumstances of the case and we do not want to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in both the appeals. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 24. Before parting with the case, we would like to lay down certain guidelines for the Tribunal for hearing of the claim petition. We have noticed during the hearing of some cases that the bills filed by the claimants were not properly proved. 24. Before parting with the case, we would like to lay down certain guidelines for the Tribunal for hearing of the claim petition. We have noticed during the hearing of some cases that the bills filed by the claimants were not properly proved. Even in some cases the claimants had not produced the direct evidence to prove their claims. When we tried to scrutinize the bills, it was noticed in one case that the claimant had undergone heart surgery and he claimed the amount of such expenses in the claim petition. He did not adduce the evidence as to how the bills are connected with the claim. If we take the view that the connecting and admissible evidence under the principle of Evidence Act is not required, it would encourage the submission of fake bills to take the claim from the opposite parties. It would be just and proper, keeping in view the circumstances prevailing in the society, the parties should adhere the principle of the evidence for providing all the documents as well as for adducing of the evidence. It is made clear that the Tribunal shall adhere the principle of natural justice and the principle of evidence enshrined under the Evidence Act to prove the private and public documents while adducing the evidence. It is also made clear that the function of the Tribunal is quasi judicial and the Tribunal has to adjudicate upon the claims on the evidence of the parties. It is also essential for the Tribunal to take the acceptable evidence. Then the question arises What is the acceptable evidence. We have already answered this question in preceding para 11 of the judgment. For more elaboration, we can say for instance the. claimant has to prove that he sustained the injury or not in the accident. He did not adduce the oral evidence and he only filed X-ray plate and other reports. The genuineness of the said document was not proved by the claimant. The said document without proof, are worst piece of evidence. The general principle of evidence is that the fact must be proved by direct evidence. Thus, the hearsay evidence cannot be taken into account. If the theory of hearsay rule is accepted in evidence many possible deficiencies, suppressions, sources of error, untrustworthiness and fraudulent acts of the parties would take place. The general principle of evidence is that the fact must be proved by direct evidence. Thus, the hearsay evidence cannot be taken into account. If the theory of hearsay rule is accepted in evidence many possible deficiencies, suppressions, sources of error, untrustworthiness and fraudulent acts of the parties would take place. If the rules of the evidence are not adhered, the Tribunals would not come to just and proper conclusion. It may be pointed out that the claimant would be burdened on calling the doctors or other persons to prove the document and it would further burden the liability of the claimants. It is made clear that if the doctors and other persons are called in the evidence, their verified bills for the expenses occurred for calling him should be filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while awarding the cost against the opposite parties will consider to reimburse such cost to the claimant to the reasonable extent. 25. It should be the practice in the Tribunals that while framing the issues, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal should ask the parties to admit or to deny the document produced by the other party before the court. The Presiding Office should also indicate in the order sheet that the parties had filed so many documents in support of his claim and he should also satisfy how many documents had been admitted by the other side and how many documents have not been admitted by the opponent. 26. A document the genuineness of which is admitted by the party against whom it is sought to be used does not require to be proved, and if admitted to be relevant and otherwise admissible should be endorsed in the manner prescribed by Order XIII, rule 4 of C.P.C. and marked with an exhibit mark. 27. If the admissibility of a document is denied on the ground of irrelevance or for any other cause (e.g. want of registration or of proper stamp, etc.) the court should proceed at once to determine the question. If the document is held to be admissible it should be retained, subject to proof being given of it in cases where its genuineness has been denied. When such proof has been given the document should be admitted. 28. If the document is held to be admissible it should be retained, subject to proof being given of it in cases where its genuineness has been denied. When such proof has been given the document should be admitted. 28. When a certified copy of any private document is produced in court, inquiry shall be made from the opposite party whether he admits that it is a true and correct copy of the document which he also admits, or whether it is a true and correct copy of the document which he denies, or whether it is a true and correct copy of the document the genuineness of which he admits without admitting the truth of its contents, or whether he denies the correctness of the copy as well as of the document itself. 29. Admission of the genuineness of a document is not to be confused with the admission of the truth of its contents or with the admission that such document is relevant or sufficient to prove any alleged fact. 30. Admission of a document by a party shall be indicated by the endorsement "Admitted by the claimants" or "Admitted by the respondent". Admission of a document in evidence by the court shall be indicated by the endorsement "Admitted in evidence". 31. Documents produced by a claimant and duly admitted in evidence shall be marked with a number, and documents produced by a respondent shall be marked with a number, and the letter A, or, whether there are more than one set of respondents, by the letter A for the first set of respondents, by the letter B for the second, and so on. Where a document is produced by order of the court and is not produced by any party, the serial number shall be preferred by the words "Court Exhibit" or an abbreviation of the same. 32. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal should record that which documents has not been admitted. If any public document has been denied by any party, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal will record that it being the public document though not admitted does not require proof and it should be exhibited. While appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal should adhere the general principles of the natural justice and evidence enshrined under the Evidence Act. If any public document has been denied by any party, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal will record that it being the public document though not admitted does not require proof and it should be exhibited. While appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal should adhere the general principles of the natural justice and evidence enshrined under the Evidence Act. However in the proceeding of the Motor Accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act the technicalities of the Evidence Act will not stand in the way of Tribunal in giving appropriate relief to litigant. But at the same, it does not mean that the Tribunal will not follow the principle of natural justice and evidence. For instance, the principle of exclusion of hearsay evidence as provided under the Evidence Act is, however, not a technical rule of evidence, but this principle of exclusion of hearsay evidence is based on the general principle of evidence that the evidence must be direct whose version will be forced to pay the amount of compensation must face the cross examination of the party against whom such evidence will be used. If the private documents filed by the parties are taken into evidence without its proper proof it will be worst than the hearsay evidence. The other party if denies the existence of any relevant fact, he should specifically deny the fact in his evidence. If the documents are private documents within the meaning of Evidence Act, these documents should be proved by cogent and credible evidence in accordance with law. 33. It is made clear that if the parties desire to file further documentary evidence before the conclusion of the case, it would be incumbent to the parties to file application alongwith the papers and to seek permission of the Tribunal to file the papers. The Tribunal shall refuse or grant permission after hearing both the parties. The Tribunal shall call upon the opposite party to admit or deny the documents filed by the claimant. The other party should be given opportunity to rebut the ~aid documents. 34. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal. Both the appeals for enhancement of the compensation, filed by the claimants, fail and are hereby dismissed. 35. No order as to costs. 36. The other party should be given opportunity to rebut the ~aid documents. 34. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal. Both the appeals for enhancement of the compensation, filed by the claimants, fail and are hereby dismissed. 35. No order as to costs. 36. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send the copy of this judgment to all the Presiding Officers of the M.A.C.T. and all the judicial officers posted in the State.