Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1497 (MAD)

S. Lakshmi v. C. K. Shankar

2012-03-27

ARUNA JAGADEESAN

body2012
Judgment Common Judgement 1. As all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the same accident and the common Judgement and Decree, they are disposed of by this common judgement. 2. CMA.No.1908/2009 is filed by the claimants in MACT.OP.No.5621/2003, who are wife, daughters and son of the deceased K.S.Shanmugam, who died in the accident that had occurred on 2.10.2003, against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.11.2008 made in by the learned V Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai for enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,93,000/-awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. 3. CMA.No.1909/2009 is filed by the injured claimant S.Yesotha Mathi, in MACT.OP.No.5208/2003, who sustained grievous injuries in the same accident, against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.11.2008 made in MACT.OP.No.5208/2003 by the learned V Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai, for enhancement of compensation of Rs.89,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the injured claimant with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. 4. CMA.No.1910/2009 is filed by the injured claimant Punitha in MACT.OP.No.5874/2003, who sustained grievous injuries in the same accident, against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.11.2008 made by the learned V Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai for enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,40,500/-awarded by the Tribunal to the injured claimant with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. 5. CMA.No.1989/2009 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.11.2008 made in MACT.OP.No.5621/2003 by the learned V Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai, questioning the negligence aspect as well as the quantum of compensation. 6. The short facts are that on 2.10.2003 at about 05.30 hours, the deceased K.S.Shanmugam was proceeding in his TVS-XL Moped bearing Reg.No.TN-22-F-4718 with his daughter S.Yesotha Mahti, who is the claimant in MCOP.No.5208/2003 as a pillion rider from Pallikaranai to Medavakkam along the Velachery Main road in North to South Direction. 6. The short facts are that on 2.10.2003 at about 05.30 hours, the deceased K.S.Shanmugam was proceeding in his TVS-XL Moped bearing Reg.No.TN-22-F-4718 with his daughter S.Yesotha Mahti, who is the claimant in MCOP.No.5208/2003 as a pillion rider from Pallikaranai to Medavakkam along the Velachery Main road in North to South Direction. While they were proceeding near High Secondary School, Pallikkaranai, the lorry bearing Reg.NoTN-07-M-9402 driven in a rash and negligent manner coming from the opposite direction dashed against the TVS Moped, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injures, the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and another pedestrian Punitha, who is the claimant in MCOPO.No.5874/2003 also sustained grievous injuries. 7. According to the claimants, the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligence driving of driver of the offending lorry owned by the 1st Respondent in the claim petition and insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte. The Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claims on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased, who was riding the motor cycle, contributed to the negligence and that the quantum of compensation as claimed by the claimants are excessive. 8. On the side of the claimants, five witnesses were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P37 were marked. The Insurance Company neither examined any witnesses nor marked any document. PW.3 Yesodha Mathi who was a pillion rider in the motor cycle has deposed that when they were proceeding from Pallikkaranai to Medavakkam on the Velachery Main Road, the offending vehicle came in the opposite direction at a High Speed and dashed against the motor cycle driven by her father, due to which he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and she has further stated that after hitting the motorcycle, the lorry capsized, after hitting the road side vegetable shops and a small Vinayagar temple and causing damages to them. PW.2 Punitha, who was standing near the bus stop at Pallikkaranai Higher Secondary School, was dashed by the motor cycle, after it was hit by the offending lorry, due to which she sustained injuries. PW.2 Punitha, who was standing near the bus stop at Pallikkaranai Higher Secondary School, was dashed by the motor cycle, after it was hit by the offending lorry, due to which she sustained injuries. PWs.2 and 3 have spoken about the accident and their evidence indicated that the lorry had hit against the motorcycle, due to which impact, the motorcycle in turn hit the pedestrian Punitha causing grievous injuries to her. In the accident, the pillion rider PW.3 Yesodha Mathi sustained grievous injuries and her father K.S.Shanmugam suffered fatal injuries. Their evidence is corroborated by the averments made in Ex.P1 First Information Report, which was registered on the complaint given by one Anandan, who is said to have witnessed the accident. The narration made regarding the manner of the accident in Ex.P1 is in consonance with the evidence adduced by PW.2 and PW.3. Ex.P2 rough sketch clearly shows that the motorcycle was on the road, whereas the lorry had gone off the road and was found in a capsized position. All these documents clearly demonstrated that the lorry was driven at a high speed and that is why after hitting the motorcycle the driver could not control the vehicle and had gone to a considerable distance and capsized, after hitting the road side vegetable shops and the small temple. The evidence led by the claimants has not been challenged or impeached by the Insurance Company by letting in any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the Insurance Company to disprove the negligence attributed to the offending lorry driver, the irresistible conclusion that could be arrived at is that the entire negligence was on the part of the lorry driver. There is absolutely no material to infer or indicate that the deceased contributed to the accident. On proper analysis of evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the entire negligence was on the lorry driver and I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said finding, which is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, confirmed. 9. The claimants in MCOP.No.5621/2003 are the wife, daughters and son of the deceased. In the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased was 49 years old and he was a mason by profession and claimed to have earned Rs.10,000/- per month. 9. The claimants in MCOP.No.5621/2003 are the wife, daughters and son of the deceased. In the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased was 49 years old and he was a mason by profession and claimed to have earned Rs.10,000/- per month. Ex.P4 driving licence is the document available to prove the age of the deceased, which shows that his date of birth is 3.6.1952 and he was aged about 51 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, taking note of the fact that there was no evidence to prove his avocation or income, fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 13 arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.4,68,000/-. To this, Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- for love and affection have been added and thus, totally a sum of Rs.4,93,000/- has been awarded as total compensation. 10. Mr.N.M.Muthurajan, the learned counsel for the Appellants/ claimants contended that the monthly income of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side ignoring the fact that on the date of the accident, even a manual labourer would get not less than Rs.300/- per day. To support his submission, he relied on the unreported judgement of the Division Bench of this court made in CMA.Nos.3215 to 3749/2010 dated 4.1.2012, wherein the Division Bench of this court has observed that no manual labourer is available for salary less than Rs.300/-per month and thus fixed his income at Rs.9000/- per month. 11. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and her evidence indicated that her husband was a building maistry and her entire family consisting of about four members were dependant on his income. Taking note of the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2003 and also the present day wages paid to a Maistry, it could safely be held that the deceased as a mason would have earned not less than Rs.250/-per day and thus monthly income could be arrived at Rs.7500/-. In view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2009-6-SCC-121 (Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, 1/4th could be deducted for the family expenses. In view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2009-6-SCC-121 (Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another), where the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, 1/4th could be deducted for the family expenses. Thus, the monthly income is arrived at Rs.5625/-and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.67,500/-. Having regard to the age of the deceased, who was 51 years old at the time of the accident, the proper multiplier would be 11 and therefore, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.7,42,500/-. No amount has been awarded for the loss of consortium by the Tribunal. As the deceased has left his widow who was aged 45 years old at the time of the accident, Rs.20,000/-is awarded for loss of consortium. To this, Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/-for the loss of love and affection awarded by the Tribunal are retained. In all, the claimants in MCOP.No.5621/2003 are entitled to a sum of Rs.7,87,500/-with interest at 7.5 p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization as detailed below:- 12. The injured claimant S.Yesoda Mathi in MCOP.No.5208/ 2003, who is the daughter of the deceased, sustained multiple injuries, moderate head injury with right hemiparesis and broca's aphasis, fracture of clavicle right and she was admitted in the MIOT Hospital on 3.10.2003 and discharged on 13.10.2003. After injury, she has lost consciousness and she has suffered traumatic amnesia for 24 hours and nausea was present. On X-Rays being taken fracture of right clavicle had been noted. She also sustained abdominal injury. On CT Scan of brain in the MIOT Hospital for the head injury being taken, axial 5mm thickness sections through the posterior fossa and 10mm thickness sections through the rest of the brain were done, but no bony injury is visualized. It was noted that right sylvian fissure is slightly less defined than the left, lateral ventricles (frontal horns) were found to be small and no subdural or epidural haemorrhage was found. The Doctor has opined that there is possible minimal cerebral oedema. She has taken continuous treatment for the head injury in the Government Hospital and Ex.P26 disclosed that she has taken treatment in the Government Hospital, Royapettah till 24.2.2004. 13. The Doctor has opined that there is possible minimal cerebral oedema. She has taken continuous treatment for the head injury in the Government Hospital and Ex.P26 disclosed that she has taken treatment in the Government Hospital, Royapettah till 24.2.2004. 13. PW.5 Dr.M.Saravanabhavanandam,, who assessed the disability of the claimant Yesodha Mathi, has stated that due to the head injuries, there is partial paralysis in her right face, due to which she is suffering with incoherent speech. It is pertinent to note that even at the time of treatment in the MIOT Hospital, the Doctor has given treatment for incoherent speech. PW.5 has further stated that there was weakness in right upper limb and lower limb by Grade 4/5 and for those disablements, assessed her disability at 10 per cent. She was also suffering with post injury headache, which is permanent and the same is assessed at 10 per cent. She was suffering with minimal cerebral edema, which is evident from CT Scan and was undergoing anti-convulsion therapy and the said disablements is assessed at 10 percent and thus, PW.5 has assessed her total disability at 30 per cent as partial and permanent and he has given valid reasons for such assessment. 14. According to the claimant S.Yesodha Mathi, she was employed as a Machine Operator in Igarshi Motors (India) Limited, MEPZ, Sanatorium and as per Ex.P17 salary certificate, she was earning Rs.2800/-per month. According to her, she was not able to attend duty for 20 months. Though she has stated that she was unable to do the work, but no evidence placed on record to substantiate the same. The medical records indicated that she was taking continuous treatment in MIOT Hospital and in the Government Hospital and also in London Neruo Clinic, as seen from Ex.P8. As it is seen that she was earning Rs.2800/-per month and for twenty months she was unable to attend duty, a sum of Rs.56,000/-for the loss of income during the period of treatment is awarded. 15. Considering the evidence of the Doctors that she has suffered permanent and partial disablements and she is getting headache frequently and also suffered minimal cerebral edema, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.2000/-per percentage. Thus, a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded for the loss of earning due to the disability suffered by her. 15. Considering the evidence of the Doctors that she has suffered permanent and partial disablements and she is getting headache frequently and also suffered minimal cerebral edema, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.2000/-per percentage. Thus, a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded for the loss of earning due to the disability suffered by her. The photographs exhibited by her shows that she has got ugly scars on her face. Therefore, for disfiguration of her face, Rs.25,000/-is awarded. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, Rs.25,000/-for pain and suffering is awarded. Apart from this, a sum of Rs.10,000/- for transportation expenses and Rs.10,000/-for extra nourishment are awarded. The sum of Rs.5,000/-awarded for medical expenses which is borne out by records Ex.P21 by the Tribunal is retained. Further, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded for the loss of amenities. In all, the claimant in MCOP.No.5208/2003 is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,11,000/-as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization as detailed below:- 16. The injured claimant Punitha in MCOP.NO.5874/2003 sustained head injury, compound comminuted fracture both bones right leg, compound comminuted fracture both bones right forearm lower and she has undergone various surgical treatments for external fixation and bone grafting. She was treated as an inpatient on several occasions such as from 2.10.2003 to 21.11.2003, from 1.12.2003 to 10.12.2003, from 8.1.2004 to 17.1.2004, from 18.5.2004 to 22.5.2004, from 1.7.04 to 9.7.2004, from 14.8.2004 to 16.8.2004 and from 17.7.2007 to 18.7.2007. The treatment undergone by her on several occasions would indicate that she was taking treatment though intermittently. The medical records Ex.P6 to Ex.P12 would demonstrate that she has been taking treatment continuously in MIOT Hospital. On one such occasion, she has suffered urinal track infection and was treated for the same, as she had high fever. These documents would clearly show that she was put to lot of sufferance during the period of treatment. PW.4 Dr.K.J.Mathiazhagan, who examined and assessed the disability, has stated that during the course of treatment, implants were fixed at right hand and right leg and bone grafting was also done. When she was admitted on 17.7.2007, implants in right hand was removed. But, however, implants in the right leg has to be removed in future. PW.4 Dr.K.J.Mathiazhagan, who examined and assessed the disability, has stated that during the course of treatment, implants were fixed at right hand and right leg and bone grafting was also done. When she was admitted on 17.7.2007, implants in right hand was removed. But, however, implants in the right leg has to be removed in future. He has also stated that her right leg is deformed and there is shortening of leg by 2cms in length. She cannot walk freely and she finds it difficulty to stand continuously for more than 10 minutes and she will not be able to squat and her knee movements and ankle movements are also restricted from 0 degree to 20 degrees. She is unable to carry more than 5 kgs using her right hand and she will not be in a position to write and her elbow movements and wrist movements are restricted. Considering those disablements, he has assessed her disability at 55 per cent as partial and permanent. 17. She was employed as a Machine Operator in Igarshi Motors (India) Limited, MEPZ, Sanatorium and she was earning a salary of Rs.2800/-per month as per Ex.P16, pay slip. According to her, she has resigned the job, as she was unable to do the work as a Machine Operator. To substantiate the same, she has filed Ex.P18 letter given by her employer relieving her from the job. Ex.P18 indicates that on request made by the claimant, she had been relieved from service. 18. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that due to the injuries suffered by the claimant Punitha in the accident, she is permanently disabled which had affected her future earning capacity as machine operator. 19. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company has submitted that there is no total permanent disablement and it cannot be taken that she was totally incapacitated to do any work. 20. The compensation is usually based upon the loss of the claimants' earning or earning capacity. The term 'disability' as is used, ordinarily means loss or impairment of earning power and has been held not to mean loss of a part of the body. The compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. 21. In Ramesh Chandra Vs. The compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. 21. In Ramesh Chandra Vs. Randhir Singh (1990-ACJ-777-SC), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as under:- "7.) The incapacity or disability to earn a livelihood would have to be viewed not only in praesenti but in futuro on reasonable expectancies and taking into account deprival of earnings of a conceivable period. This head being totally different cannot in our view overlap the grant of compensation under the head of pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. One head relates to the impairment of a person's capacity to earn, the other relates to the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself..." 22. In Dr.K.G.Poovaiah Vs. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (2002-ACJ-1867-SC) the Appellant was a medical practitioner and was aged about 36 years and had met with an accident in which his hand was crushed. The Honourable Supreme Court, while considering the nature of his profession and income, has enhanced the amount of compensation for loss of future earnings. The Honourable Supreme Court has observed:- "5.) There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the Appellant so far as his monthly income is concerned. Being a medical man aged about 36 years on the date of the accident, the monthly salary received by him cannot be said to be exaggerated. He has candidly admitted that he was not assessed to tax. A salary of Rs.3000 per month to a medical practitioner cannot be said to be on the higher side. We, therefore, accept his statement in this behalf. We also accept the assessment atRs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. However, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity is very much on the lower side. Injury to the right hand, which has left a permanent disability and which has affected the functioning of the limb and in particular the fingers, is a serious handicap to a medical practitioner. Patients would be reluctant to go to him for treatment and therefore, the loss of earning capacity would be substantial. Injury to the right hand, which has left a permanent disability and which has affected the functioning of the limb and in particular the fingers, is a serious handicap to a medical practitioner. Patients would be reluctant to go to him for treatment and therefore, the loss of earning capacity would be substantial. Even if we were to assume that it would reduce his earning capacity by 50 per cent and even if we go by his earnings at the date of the accident, the monthly loss would come to Rs.1,500/- i.e. Rs.18,000/-per annum. If this monthly loss of earnings is multiplied by 10 years purchase factor, the compensation would work out to Rs.1,80,000/-. To that, must be added the compensation allowed under certain other heads, namely, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical expenses, etc. The total amount comes to Rs.2,38,000/-. 23. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011-ACJ-1-SC) the Honourable Supreme Court while considering the award of compensation to the victim of the motor accident for loss of future earnings due to some permanent physical disability, has observed:- "8.) Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently if the evidence produced show 45 per cent as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45 per cent loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine the loss of dependency. We may, however, note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. See example, the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Limited (2010-ACJ-2867-SC) and Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Limited (2010-ACJ-2713-SC)." 24. Now we have to decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so to what extent. 25. The Doctors' evidence and the other documents placed on record would establish that she had suffered permanent disability and according to the Doctors, it is to an extent of 55 per cent. She was working as a machine operator and due to the permanent disability suffered by her, she quit the job. Ex.P18 indicates that on her request, she had been relieved from the employment. She was earning Rs.2800/-p.m., which is also evident from Ex.P16 pay slip. Though she cannot do the work as machine operator, but that does not disable her or incapacitated from doing any other work. Taking note of the above factors and bearing in mind the principles enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the functional disability can be assessed as the same as the percentage of permanent disability assessed by the Doctor, that is 55 per cent. As she was 24 years old at the time of the accident, the proper multiplier is 17. Thus, the loss of income due to the permanent disability suffered by her is arrived at Rs.3,14,160/- (Rs.2800x55/100x17x12). 26. As she was 24 years old at the time of the accident, the proper multiplier is 17. Thus, the loss of income due to the permanent disability suffered by her is arrived at Rs.3,14,160/- (Rs.2800x55/100x17x12). 26. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5000/-and considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. A sum of Rs.23,500/- for medical expenses which is borne out by medical records, Rs.25,000/- for attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/-for transportation expenses and Rs.10,000/-for extra nourishment are awarded. In all, the injured claimant in MCOP.NO.5874/2003 is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,37,660/-as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization as detailed below:- 27. In the result, CMA.No.1989/2010 filed by the Appellant Insurance Company is dismissed. 28. CMA.No.1908/2009 filed by the claimants in MACT.OP.No.5621/ 2003 is partly allowed. The impugned award is enhanced to Rs.7,87,500/- from Rs.4,93,000/-. In all, the claimants in MACT.OP. No.5621/2003 are entitled to a sum of Rs.7,87,500/-(Rupees seven lakhs eighty seven thousand and five hundred only) with interest at 7.5 p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimants 1 to 4, who are the wife, daughter, son and daughter of the deceased, are entitled to withdraw Rs.3,37,500/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively with proportionate interest. 29. CMA.No.1909/2009 filed by the injured claimant in MACT.OP.No.5208/2003 is partly allowed. The impugned award is enhanced to Rs.2,11,000/- from Rs.89,000/-. In all, the claimant in MACT.OP.No.5208/2003 is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,11,000/-(Rupees two lakhs and eleven thousand only) with interest at 7.5 p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimant in MACT.OP.No.5208/2003 is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with interest. 30. CMA.No.1910/2009 filed by the injured claimant in MACT.OP.No.5874/2003 is partly allowed. The impugned award is enhanced to Rs.4,37,660/- from Rs.1,40,500/-. In all, the claimant in MACT.OP. No.5874/2003 is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,37,660/-(Rupees four lakhs thirty seven thousand six hundred and sixty only) with interest at 7.5 p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimant in MACT.OP.No.5874/2003 is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with interest. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.