Judgment The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Appellant/2nd Respondent/Insurance Company, being aggrieved against the award dated 04.09.2010 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham. 2. The Respondents 1 to 6 have filed a Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District claiming a compensation of Rs.32,00,000/-for the death of Kannaiyan against the Appellant/Insurance Company, 7th & 8th Respondents/1st & 3rd Respondents with a direction to pay the same with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident along with costs. The short facts leading to the present Appeal are narrated as under: 3. On 21.06.2006 at about 7.35 a.m. the deceased Kannaiyan and 3rd Respondent/3rd Claimant were proceeding in the direction of west to east in a T.V.S. Centro two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-49-T-5112 from Kumbakonam to Mayiladuthurai. The vehicle was driven by the deceased Kannaiyan. The 3rd Respondent/3rd Claimant was a pillion rider. The 3rd Respondent/3rd Claimant and his father Kannaiyan were proceeding near Thirubuvanam Industrial Estate and at that time, the Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN-50-B-8199 belonging to the 7th Respondent/1st Respondent [insured with the Appellant/2nd Respondent] was driven by a driver in a rash and negligent manner without adhering to the traffic rules endangering human safety and dashed against the TVS Centro two wheeler, as a result of which, Kannaiyan sustained grievous and multiple injuries on his head. Immediately, Kannaiyan was admitted in Government Hospital, Kumbakonam for treatment. But he died on 23.06.2006, inspite of efforts taken by the doctors at Kumbakonam Hospital to save his life. 4. As against the driver of the Tata Sumo vehicle was charged under Section 279, 337 I.P.C. Subsequently, the FIR was altered into Section 304 (A) I.P.C. The 7th Respondent/1st Respondent, being the owner of the offending vehicle and the Appellant/Insurance Company, being the insurer of the said vehicle are therefore jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to them. 5. The Appellant/Insurance Company filed a counter by denying the happening of accident as stated by the Respondents 1 to 6/ Claimants and also further stated that the driver of the Tata Sumo had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. 5. The Appellant/Insurance Company filed a counter by denying the happening of accident as stated by the Respondents 1 to 6/ Claimants and also further stated that the driver of the Tata Sumo had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. Moreover, the R.C. Book stood in the name of 7th Respondent/ 1st Respondent and the Insurance Policy for the offending Tata Sumo stood in the name of 8th Respondent/3rd Respondent and the said transfer was not brought it to the notice of the Appellant/Insurance Company. As such, the Appellant/Insurance Company was not liable to pay the amount claimed. Also, the deceased Kannaiyan had no valid and effective driving licence and that the motor cycle had no insurance. Further, the deceased Kannaiyan should not have used the vehicle in a public place and the age of the deceased was more than 55 years to the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants had shown the age of the deceased as 50 years to lay an exorbitant claim. 6. Before the Tribunal, Respondents 7 & 8/Respondents 1 and 3 were set exparte. 7. On the side of the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.13 were marked. On the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company, witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. 8. The Claims Tribunal viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, after appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has passed an award on 04.09.2010 awarding a compensation of Rs.10,01,000/- [Rupees Ten lakh one thousand only] to the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of deposit with costs. Three months time was granted by the Tribunal for depositing the award amount. 9. Three months time was granted by the Tribunal for depositing the award amount. 9. In regard to the aspect of negligence, the Claims Tribunal by placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.2 (3rd Respondent/3rd Claimant) that his deceased father drove the TVS Centro bearing Registration No.TN-49-T-5112 from Kumbakonam to Police Quarters to Mayiladuthurai and he was a pillion rider and at about 7.30 a.m. The motor cycle while nearing Thirubuvanam Industrial Estate, a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN-50-B-8199 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the TVS vehicle in which they were proceeding and both of them fell down and also that the said offending vehicle dashed against the cyclists of Thirubuvanam Shanmugam etc. coupled with Ex.P.1-F.I.R. in and by which in Crime No.180 of 2006 a case under Section 279 and 307 I.P.C. was registered against the driver of the Tata Sumo, had come to a resultant conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Tata Sumo driver bearing Registration No.TN-50-B-8199. The said finding rendered by the Tribunal is not the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 10. Inasmuch as there is no infirmity or illegality in regard to the finding of rash and negligent driving on the part of offending Tata Sumo driver bearing Registration No. TN-50-B-8199, this Court holds that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Tata Sumo vehicle driver and the point is so answered. 11. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company, the Claims Tribunal had passed an excessive award of compensation not inconsonance with the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company that the Tribunal had incorrectly adopted a multiplier of 13' brushing aside the retirement age of the 50 year old deceased Head Constable Kannaiyan. 13. On behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company, a plea is taken that the Claims Tribunal ignored the principles laid down in the decisions in (i) K. Rengasamy & another V. Revathi & 3 others [ 2008 (1) TLNJ 683 ] and (ii) M/s. National Insurance Company Limited V. Shanthi Pandian & others [2008 (2) TN MAC 73 (DB)], adopting a lesser dependency after retirement of the deceased. 14. 14. The plea of the Appellant/Insurance Company is that the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 coupled with Exs.R.1 to R.6 have been wrongly rejected by the Claims Tribunal. 15. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company that the Tribunal should have held that the deceased Kannaiyan was guilty of contributory negligence since he was not possessed of valid driving licence at the time of accident. 16. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company that the award of Rs.10,01,000/- under different heads passed by the Tribunal is an excessive and exorbitant one. 17. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company cites the decision of this Court in K. Rengasamy& another V. Revathi & 3 others [ 2008 (1) TLNJ 683 ] wherein it is held that 'in determination of compensation arising of motor accidents, the future prospects of advancement of life and career should be considered in terms of money to augment the multiplicand and the multiplier is to be determined by two factors, namely the rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy and age of the deceased or claimant which ever is higher and many factors have to be put into scales to evaluate the contingencies of the future'. 18. Yet another decision of this Court in M/s. National Insurance Company Limited V. Shanthi Pandian & others [2008 (2) TN MAC 73 (DB)] is cited on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company, wherein it is, inter alia, observed as f6ollows: "Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has disputed the same and contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the salary of the deceased and it ought to have deducted 10% towards tax payable by the deceased. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants has not seriously disputed the same. Considering the above facts, we feel that it would be appropriate to modify the award amount (See 2008 (2) L.W.457). Accordingly, taking into consideration Ex.P10 Salary Certificate, the monthly salary of the deceased is fixed at Rs.22,000/-. If 10% tax is deducted i.e. Rs.2,200/-, the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- is to be taken as the monthly salary and thus, the annual income works out to Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.20,000 x 12). Out of the said amount, if 1/3 towards Personal Expenses viz., 80,000/-is deducted, the annual contribution of the deceased works out to Rs.1,60,000/-. If 10% tax is deducted i.e. Rs.2,200/-, the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- is to be taken as the monthly salary and thus, the annual income works out to Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.20,000 x 12). Out of the said amount, if 1/3 towards Personal Expenses viz., 80,000/-is deducted, the annual contribution of the deceased works out to Rs.1,60,000/-. If 8 multiplier is adopted, the total contribution till his retirement would be Rs.12,80,000/-(Rs.1,60,000 x 8). After retirement, if the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,500/-for a period of three years, the Loss of income arrived at would be Rs.1,80,000/-(Rs.7,500 x 12 x 3) and the total Pecuniary Loss to the family thus works out to Rs.14,60,000/- (Rs.12,80,000/- + 1,80,000/-). The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards Transport Charges, Rs.2,000/-towards Damages to Clothing and Articles, Rs.5,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards Loss to Estate, Rs.10,000/- towards Loss of Consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards Loss of Love and Affection. There is no dispute regarding these amounts. Hence, the amounts awarded towards conventional damages are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded interest at 7.5% per annum, which we feel is very reasonable and the same is confirmed. The details of the modified compensation as per the above discussion are as under:- Pecuniary Loss : Rs.14,60,000 Transport Charges : Rs.5,000 Damage to Clothing and Articles : Rs.2,000 Funeral Expenses : Rs.5,000 Loss to Estate : Rs.5,000 Loss of Consortium : Rs.10,000 Loss of Love and Affection : Rs.10,000 Total : Rs.14,97,000 (rounded off to Rs.15,00,000)" In the aforesaid decision, the Appellant/Insurance Company has been directed to deposit the modified award amount of Rs.15,00,000/-less the amount already deposited, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order etc.' 19. The term 'dependency' means the measure of maintenance support which the dependents have received from the deceased. It is ordinarily calculated on an annual basis. An average Indian life span can safely be fixed at between 70 to 75 years based on numerous circumstances including the family heritage, health of the deceased or beneficiary, whether he was suffering from any infirmity, the nature of his work and the extent of his income as per the decision in Srisailam Devasthanam, AIR 1983 AP 297 . An average Indian life span can safely be fixed at between 70 to 75 years based on numerous circumstances including the family heritage, health of the deceased or beneficiary, whether he was suffering from any infirmity, the nature of his work and the extent of his income as per the decision in Srisailam Devasthanam, AIR 1983 AP 297 . Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the span of life of a person at 65 as per decision in Manju Shri Raha, AIR 1977 S.C. 1158 . The life expectation cannot be decided by precedents, as opined by this Court. However, each case has to be decided on its own facts. 20. At this stage, this Court cites the meaning of word 'Compensation' with reference to injuries or loss and the same has been defined in Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. No.15 at page 652, 653 which runs thus: "In the sense of an act, the word has been defined as meaning an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another, in order that thereby the person indemnified may receive equal value for his loss or be made whole in respect of his injury: the giving back an equivalent in either money which is but the measure of value or in actual value or otherwise conferred; indemnification making amounts, payment of damages or the rendering an equivalent in value of amount ... a recompense or reward for some loss; injury, or service especially when it is given by statute; that return which is given for something else. More specially with reference to injury or loss. 'Compensation' has been defined as meaning amounts, an equivalent given to property taken or for an injury done to another or an equivalent in money for a loss sustained." 21. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended up to date) is admittedly a welfare legislation. The Legislature in our country has purposely not used the English term of 'Damages'. But, has used the term 'Compensation' (vide O' connell's International Law Vol.2 at page 1115). 22. Indeed, the damages to be awarded must be calculated in such manner that the demise of the victim of a motor vehicles accident should not have made any difference to the living dependents. 23. But, has used the term 'Compensation' (vide O' connell's International Law Vol.2 at page 1115). 22. Indeed, the damages to be awarded must be calculated in such manner that the demise of the victim of a motor vehicles accident should not have made any difference to the living dependents. 23. When the measure of damages is considered, the amount awarded is normally based solely on the extent of plaintiff's loss and degree of defendant's fault is not taken into account. 24. Coming to the aspect of quantum of fair compensation to be awarded to the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants, it is to be pointed out that the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants have claimed a total compensation of Rs.32,00,000/-. Admittedly, the Respondents 1 to 6/ Claimants are the wife, sons, father and mother of the deceased Kannaiyan. 25. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that at the time of accident, her husband Kannaiyan served as Head Constable attached to the Kumbakonam East Police Station. At the time of accident, deceased Kannaiyan's age was 46 years, as spoken to by P.W.1-wife. Ex.P.4-Postmortem Report also mentions the age of the deceased Kannaiyan is 46 yeaRs.However, as seen from Ex.P.9-Pension Proposals, the date of birth of deceased Kannaiyan was mentioned as 04.05.1956 meaning thereby that he was 50 years of age at the time of death. Ex.P.9-Pension Proposal overrides Ex.P.4-Postmortem Certificate and by accepting the date of birth of the deceased Kannaiyan as 04.05.1956 as per Ex.P.9-Pension Proposal, this Court determines the age of deceased Kannaiyan at the time of accident as 50 yeaRs. 26. If the deceased Kannaiyan had not died due to the accident, certainly he would have served the Police Department till his retirement. Since he was 50 years of age at the time of his death, one can safely concluded that he had another 8 years of service but for the untimely death. As per Ex.P.8-Pay Certificate of deceased Kannaiyan, his gross monthly pay was Rs.9,022/-. His monthly deductions were Rs.2,870/-. The take home/net home salary was Rs.6,152/- per month. If deceased Kannaiyan had not died due to accident, in the considered opinion of this Court, he would have lived atleast up to the age of 65 yeaRs.The loss of income per year to the Respondents/ Claimants (owing to the death of Kannaiyan) works out to Rs.9022 x 12 = Rs.1,08,264/-. The take home/net home salary was Rs.6,152/- per month. If deceased Kannaiyan had not died due to accident, in the considered opinion of this Court, he would have lived atleast up to the age of 65 yeaRs.The loss of income per year to the Respondents/ Claimants (owing to the death of Kannaiyan) works out to Rs.9022 x 12 = Rs.1,08,264/-. For his 8 years of remaining service, the loss of dependency to the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants comes to Rs.1,08,624 x 8 = Rs.8,66,112/-. 24. Normally, towards personal expenses of the deceased, 1/3rd of his earnings would be deducted. But, in the instant case on hand, the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants (being the wife, sons, father and mother of the deceased) were solely depending on the monthly income of the deceased Kannaiyan [slightly larger family]. Considering the fact that the deceased Kannaiyan had left behind Respondents 1 to 6/ Claimants as his Legal Representatives and they depended on him solely and heavily for their sustenance, this Court finds it equitable to deduct 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Accordingly, if 1/4th is deducted from and out of Rs.8,66,112/- (calculated loss of income), then, it works out to Rs.8,66,112/- x ¼ = Rs.2,16,528/-. If this sum of Rs.2,16,528/- is deducted (towards ¼th personal expenses of deceased), from and out of the loss of income of Rs.8,66,112/-, then, it comes to Rs.8,66,112/- – Rs.2,16,528/- = Rs.6,49,584/-, being the loss of income to the family of Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants. Accordingly, the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.6,49,584/- towards loss of dependency/loss of income. 25. On the side of Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants, Ex.P.9-Family Pension Payment Order issued in respect of 1st Respondent/1st Claimant dated 16.10.2006 has been produced in and by which it is evident that the enhanced family pension is Rs.3525/- [for the period from 24.06.2006 to 23.06.2013]. If Kannaiyan had not died [breadwinner of the family] due to accident, certainly to support a 7 members family [including himself] definitely, he would have gainfully employed elsewhere atleast for a period of another five years and would have earned a minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month, per year the same works out to Rs.3000/- x 12 = 36,000/-. For 5 years, it works out to Rs.1,80,000/-(Rs.36,000/- x 5) and contributed the said sum to his family. For 5 years, it works out to Rs.1,80,000/-(Rs.36,000/- x 5) and contributed the said sum to his family. Again, out of Rs.1,80,000/-, ¼th is deducted towards his personal expenses [had he been alive], then, it works out to Rs.1,80,000 x ¼ = Rs.45,000/-. If this sum of Rs.45,000/- is deducted from and out of Rs.1,80,000/-, then, it comes to Rs.1,35,000/- [Rs.1,80,000 – Rs.45,000] and this sum of Rs.1,35,000/- is entitled to be received by the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants as future probable loss of income. 26. Towards funeral expenses, this Court awards a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Towards loss of consortium, this Court awards a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the 1st Respondent/1st Claimant. Towards medical expenses, as per Ex.P.12-Medical Bills and also towards payment of doctors fee, theater charges etc. [although in the absence of necessary receipts to that effect], this Court awards a wholesome amount of Rs.20,000/-, since the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants would have certainly spent on deceased Kannaiyan. For loosing wisdom and guidance of deceased Kannaiyan, this Court awards a sum of Rs.35,000/- as global compensation. Towards loss of estate, this Court grants a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, in aggregate, the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.9,14,584/- as compensation for the death of Kannaiyan, being the amount assessed as loss of income/loss of dependency. 27. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company projects an argument that R.W.2 (Junior Assistant of Kumbakonam RTO Office) had deposed that Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. TN-50-B-8199 was driven by one Rangadurai, S/o.Thambusami, No. 24b, Sarangapani South Street, Kumbakonam and that he obtained renewal of driving licence on 01.08.2006 and that the driving licence issued to the said driver got expired on 10.08.2002 and therefore, as per R.W.2's evidence, on the date of accident viz., 26.01.2006, the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence. Another argument has been projected on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company that the deceased Constable Kannaiyan, who drove the two wheeler, had no driving licence and that the driving licence of the two wheeler was not produced at the time of inspection report. Moreover, the policy copy of two wheeler was also not submitted to the RTO Office. Ex.R.3-copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report was marked. 28. Moreover, the policy copy of two wheeler was also not submitted to the RTO Office. Ex.R.3-copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report was marked. 28. In regard to the plea taken on behalf of the Appellant/ Insurance Company that the rider of the two wheeler viz., deceased Kannaiyan's driving licence was not produced at the time of inspection and also in regard to the other plea that the deceased Kannaityan had no valid and effective driving licence and that the motor cycle had no insurance, it is to be pointed out that the deceased Kannaiyan viz., two wheeler rider was not at fault and also not being a tort-feasor and therefore, the said plea pales into no significance. 29. In regard to the other stand taken in the counter of the Appellant/Insurance Company that the name transfer of the Tata Sumo vehicle was not brought to the notice of the company, it is to be pointed out that so long as Ex.P.2-Insurance Policy is in subsistence and the policy is not expired notwithstanding the fact the name transfer has not been brought to the knowledge of the Insurance Company, yet, the Appellant/Insurance Company, as an insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay the compensation to the Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants for the tortious act of the driver of the offending vehicle. 30. It is pertinent for this Court to point out that R.W.2 in his evidence (in cross examination) had stated that the person mentioned in Ex.R.1 (in fact, it should be Ex.R.2-Copy of D.L Extract) had taken to L.M.V. Driving licence and further he had taken H.M.V. Driving licence and at the time of obtaining L.M.V. licence, the same would be valid for 50 years from the date of his birth and that L.M.V. is also applied to non commercial vehicles and he does not know at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was used for a commercial purpose. 31. Ex.R.4-Xerox Copy of Driving Licence relates to the offending vehicle driver T. Rengadurai. In Ex.R.4, it is mentioned hereunder: "Orgl. DL. No.965/TN-49Z/1987 Licensed to drive throughout India, vehicles of the following description and valid upto 31/07/2009 LMV -10/04/1987/TN-49Z HPV -21/01/1988/TN-49Z. Pre DL. Exp. Date : 10/08/2002 Authorised to drive Transport Vehicle Badge No.27276 dt. 30/12/1987/Saidapet. Signature/L.T.I. Asst. Licensing Authority of the Holder Kumbakonam 32. In Ex.R.4, it is mentioned hereunder: "Orgl. DL. No.965/TN-49Z/1987 Licensed to drive throughout India, vehicles of the following description and valid upto 31/07/2009 LMV -10/04/1987/TN-49Z HPV -21/01/1988/TN-49Z. Pre DL. Exp. Date : 10/08/2002 Authorised to drive Transport Vehicle Badge No.27276 dt. 30/12/1987/Saidapet. Signature/L.T.I. Asst. Licensing Authority of the Holder Kumbakonam 32. At this juncture, this Court relevantly points out that the Appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to take all available defences in a Claim Petition as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed either under Section 163A or under Section 166. Undoubtedly, the deceased Kannaiyan is a third party to the Ex.P.2-Insurance Policy dated 16.09.2005 and also admitted by R.W.1 (employee of the Appellant/ Insurance Company). Inasmuch as on the date of accident and also because of the fact that the deceased Kanniayan was a third party to the Ex.P.2-Insurance Policy and because of the fact that the Appellant/ Insurance Company was the insurer of the offending vehicle, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the Appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation of a sum of Rs.9,14,584/-[Rupees Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Four Only] together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of realisation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment and the point is so answered accordingly. 33. This Court fixes the Lawyer's Fee at Rs.17,646/-payable by the Appellant/Insurance Company. 34. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. 35. Earlier, this Court, on 10.06.2011 in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in C.M.A.No.1347 of 2011, passed an order of interim stay on condition that the Appellant/Petitioner (Insurance Company) deposits the entire award amount together with accrued interests and costs, less the amount already deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On 09.02.2012 in M.P.No.1 of 2012, this Court, while making the interim stay absolute, has permitted the Respondents /Claimants to withdraw 50% of the award amount, lying to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2006, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, without furnishing security. On 09.02.2012 in M.P.No.1 of 2012, this Court, while making the interim stay absolute, has permitted the Respondents /Claimants to withdraw 50% of the award amount, lying to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2006, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, without furnishing security. Further, the balance amount has been directed to be invested in any one of the Nationalised Banks proximate to the residence of the claimant initially for a period of three years, renewable thereafter pending disposal of the appeal. It is open to the Respondents/Claimants are entitled to receive the balance amount [in terms of this final Judgment], to which they are entitled to, from the Tribunal by filing appropriate application as per Civil Rules of Practice. Equally, liberty is given to the Appellant/Insurance Company to receive the amount, which they are entitled, by filing necessary application as per Civil Rules of Practice in accordance with law.