Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 519 (KER)

S. Sudha v. Union of India

2013-06-24

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2013
Judgment :- Ramakrishna Pillai, J. 1. Under challenge in these first appeals filed by the unfortunate legal representatives of the victim of an aircraft accident on 22.2.1997, the State of Kerala, the State of Karnataka and the Union of India, is the verdict of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.S.No.79 of 1999. For convenience of discussion, the parties can be referred as they are arrayed in the original suit. 2. The first plaintiff is the mother, the second plaintiff is the widow and the third and fourth plaintiffs are the children of late Captain Raj Kumar, who was the Chief Flight Instructor of the Kerala Aviation Training Centre (KATC), the fourth defendant. The fourth defendant is under the administrative control of the State of Kerala, the second defendant. The fourth defendant is managed by a Committee consisting of the President, the Vice President, the Honorary Secretary and other members. 3. Formerly, the fourth defendant was known as Trivandrum Flying Club, a private limited company under the Companies Act, 1956. In the year 1980, the Government of Kerala decided to take over the company and changed its name into 'The Kerala Aviation Training Centre'. The rules and regulations regarding flying and engineering sections are put forth by Director General of Civil Aviation, the sixth defendant. 4. Late Captain Raj Kumar joined the service as Assistant Flight Instructor under the fourth defendant on 26.4.1980 and he was in-charge of the flying activities as Flight Instructor, since 1.1.1989. There were complaints of delayed promotion, however, his minimum pay was fixed by the sixth defendant as per Circular dated 9.9.1991, which according to the plaintiffs is much lower than that prevalent in other flying clubs. Allegedly, Late Captain Raj Kumar had a credit record of 17 years continuous flying. Though he was offered a higher pay by other flying clubs, he opted to continue with the fourth defendant; it was alleged by the plaintiffs. 5. In February 1997, an air show was organised by the Government Flying Training School, Bangalore, the fifth defendant and Agni Aero Sports Adventures Private Limited, Bangalore, the seventh defendant. The aircraft 'CESSENA FA 152' which late Captain Raj Kumar was piloting, was owned by the Aero Club of India and was operated by the fourth defendant. 5. In February 1997, an air show was organised by the Government Flying Training School, Bangalore, the fifth defendant and Agni Aero Sports Adventures Private Limited, Bangalore, the seventh defendant. The aircraft 'CESSENA FA 152' which late Captain Raj Kumar was piloting, was owned by the Aero Club of India and was operated by the fourth defendant. On 22.2.1997, the aircraft took off at 16.25 hours with late Captain Raj Kumar as the Pilot and late Captain Satheesh Radhakrishnan as Co-Pilot, for demonstration. While carrying out a 'Wing Over Manoeuvre' the aircraft somehow hit the ground and burst into flames. Both the occupants sustained fatal injuries. 6. According to the plaintiffs, the death of late Cap.Raj Kumar was due to the negligence and breach of duty and obligations of the defendants. 7. The second defendant (Government of Kerala) and the third defendant (Government of Karnataka) filed a joint written statement before the trial court. They admitted that late Cap.Raj Kumar, the Chief Flight Instructor, died in an air crash at Bangalore on 22.2.1997 during the course of the program 'Fly-in 1997' conducted by the training establishment wherein, all flying clubs in India participated. The mishap occurred while this aircraft was doing a 'Wing Over Manoeuvre'. They stated in their written statement that they have done everything possible to get maximum reliefs to the plaintiffs. It was pointed out that on the recommendation of the fourth defendant, a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs was given as ex gratia payment to the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of the victim. It was further pointed out that the fourth defendant had taken an insurance policy from the Oriental Insurance Company which covered the risk of the aircraft and the crew. The fourth defendant had preferred a petition before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressel Commission, which was considered along with the claim petitions preferred by the legal representatives of both the deceased. Allowing the petitions filed by the plaintiffs, the Commission awarded a sum of Rs.6 lakhs to them. Aggrieved by that, the Insurance Company took the matter in appeal to the National Commission and the same is pending. The stand, therefore, taken by these defendants was that they are not liable to pay any further sum as compensation to the plaintiffs. 8. In the written statement filed by the fourth defendant, they have admitted the incident. Aggrieved by that, the Insurance Company took the matter in appeal to the National Commission and the same is pending. The stand, therefore, taken by these defendants was that they are not liable to pay any further sum as compensation to the plaintiffs. 8. In the written statement filed by the fourth defendant, they have admitted the incident. They also re-iterated the stand that a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs was paid as ex gratia and the fourth defendant has taken care to assist the family of the deceased to the maximum as possible under the given circumstance. The fourth defendant also stated that the training centre had taken insurance policy for the beneficiary and accordingly, the plaintiffs had lodged the claim with the insurance company. 9. The sixth defendant filed a written statement for and on behalf of the first defendant also. They challenged the maintainability of the suit itself, for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to them, as per the log book, all the maintenance inspection schedules were complied with and other relevant works were carried out on routine basis and the aircraft did not exhibit any defect or malfunction which could lead to accident. According to them, after investigation, the inspector of accidents concluded that the accident was due to 'pilot error'. According to them, the report was bona fide and it was prepared after taking into account the statements of the eye witnesses. The stand taken by this defendant was that as they are not responsible for the accident directly or indirectly, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs. These defendants also stated that the aircraft was insured by the fourth defendant with the Oriental Insurance Company and the plaintiffs got an order in their favour from the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressel Commission for an amount of Rs.6 lakhs as compensation. 10. In the full fledged trial which followed, the trial court examined PWs.1 and 2 as well as DW1. Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B4 were marked. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident did not happen due to the negligence of late Cap.Raj Kumar and it happened while the aerobatic incident was carried out, for which the defendants are liable. 11. Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B4 were marked. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident did not happen due to the negligence of late Cap.Raj Kumar and it happened while the aerobatic incident was carried out, for which the defendants are liable. 11. Regarding the question of compensation, it was found by the trial court that though the plaintiffs had claimed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as consolidated amount of damages, they are entitled to get only a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation, as they have received an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs as ex gratia and Rs.6 lakhs under the insurance policy taken by the fourth defendant. 12. In R.F.A No.366 of 2012, the plaintiffs are challenging the adequacy of compensation awarded to them by the trial court. In R.F.A No.814 of 2011, defendants 1 and 6 and in R.F.A No.263 of 2012, defendants 2 and 4 are challenging the decree and judgment. Defendants 3 and 5 are the appellants in R.F.A No.932 of 2012 in which the the decree and the judgment are under challenge. 13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. The judgment and the lower court records were perused. 14. The contentions put forward by the plaintiff in R.F.A No.366 of 2012 is as follows:- (i) Whatever claimed by the plaintiffs as compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act is over and above the amount of insurance covered for the deceased. (ii) The ex gratia payment by the second defendant, the State of Kerala, is only out of their goodwill in order to support a family out of an emergent contingency. Therefore, the said amount cannot be set off against the compensation claimed. (iii) The total compensation claimed was Rs.22 lakhs and it was limited to Rs.10 lakhs only for the purpose of saving court fee. (iv) The court below failed to take note of the fact that the plaintiffs have received the amount awarded by the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressel Commission, after executing a security bond and offering their immovable properties as security and the sum was received subject to the final disposal of their appeal pending before the National Commission. (v) The quantum of compensation fixed by the court is very low. (v) The quantum of compensation fixed by the court is very low. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A No.814 of 2011 is as follows:- (i) The Director General of Civil Aviation, the sixth defendant, the authority functioning under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India is only a regulatory authority which regulate the flight operations in India. It has no role in the management and administration of the airways companies and corporation. The flight operations are regulated by the regulation issued by the authorities under the provisions of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and the Aircraft Rules, 1937. (ii) The fourth defendant is a company registered under the Companies Act and it is a legal person having its own legal entity and it is not working under the technical control of the sixth defendant. There exists no principal-agent relationship between the fourth defendant and the sixth defendant. The air show was organised by the fifth defendant and the seventh defendant. Sixth defendant had no part in the show. (iii) There was no negligence or breach of duty on the part of defendants 1 and 6. The incident happened due to the pilot's error, as the aerobatics was performed at a low attitude in clear violations of the requirements of Aircraft Act and Rules and instructions in the Pilot's operating handbook. (iv) Since the plaintiffs have obtained compensation from the insurer of the aircraft, their further claim on the same cause of action is barred. (v) The deceased Cap.Raj Kumar as the Chief Flight Instructor must have been aware of the fact of risk and danger involved in aerobatics. (vi) The interest rate allowed by the trial court is on the higher side. The arguments advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader in R.F.A No.263 of 2012 is as follows:- (i) No evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to show that the defendants were negligent. Also, there is no evidence to show that the defendants were vicariously liable for the accident. (ii) These defendants had prohibited the use of Cessna aircraft for aerobatics, as the same was not designed for the same. Therefore, these defendants were not responsible for the accident. (iii) The accident had occurred due to the Pilot's error and the aircraft did not exhibit any defect or malfunctions, as evidenced from Ext.A2 report. (ii) These defendants had prohibited the use of Cessna aircraft for aerobatics, as the same was not designed for the same. Therefore, these defendants were not responsible for the accident. (iii) The accident had occurred due to the Pilot's error and the aircraft did not exhibit any defect or malfunctions, as evidenced from Ext.A2 report. (iv) The plaintiffs have received a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the second defendant and the aircraft was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. (v) The Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressel Commission has awarded a sum of Rs.6 lakhs as compensation in full settlement of the claim by the plaintiffs. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A No.932 of 2012 are more or less similar and in tune with the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader in R.F.A No.263 of 2012. 15. The fact that the aircraft 'CESSENA FA 152' which late Captain Raj Kumar was piloting, owned by the Aero Club of India and operated by the fourth defendant crashed in an air show organised by the fifth and seventh defendants and the fact that the Pilot as well as the Co-Pilot met with their death in the tragic incident, are not in dispute. Admittedly, the fourth defendant is under the administrative control of the State of Kerala, the second defendant. The stand taken by all the defendants is that they are not responsible for the accident directly or indirectly and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the plaintiffs. In the written statement filed by the first and the sixth defendants, they have taken the contention that the accident was due to pilot error. For this, they relied on the report dated 17.9.1992 filed by the inspector of accident, a copy of which is marked as Ext.A2 on the side of the plaintiffs. Regarding the circumstances leading to the incident, it is stated in Ext.A2 report that the aircraft took off from Jakkur Airport at Karnataka for a demonstration flight within the designated area of the air show. After getting airborne, the Pilot initially carried out a 'loop' manoeuvre which was completed uneventfully. Regarding the circumstances leading to the incident, it is stated in Ext.A2 report that the aircraft took off from Jakkur Airport at Karnataka for a demonstration flight within the designated area of the air show. After getting airborne, the Pilot initially carried out a 'loop' manoeuvre which was completed uneventfully. In continuation, the Pilot initiated another aerobatic manoeuvre (wing over manoeuvre) again at a low attitude by pulling up the aircraft initially and steeply turning it to the left during which the aircraft made a steep drive with a lot of left bank. Due to the insufficient height during the manoeuvre, the aircraft crashed into the ground; it was concluded in the report. 16. The question is how far this conclusion can be relied on to fix the liability either on the Pilot or on any of the defendants. The accident was on 22.2.1997. The report is dated 17.9.1997. Though the date of inspection is not stated in the report, presumably it was much after the accident and the conclusions were based on the statements of the witnesses, who claim to have witnessed the air show. None of the persons, whose statements were taken by the inspector of accident, was examined before the trial court. 17. From the side of the defendants, DW 2 was examined. He is the person who claims to have witnessed the accident. DW2, who was working as a Scientist in the National Aerospace Laboratory, Bangalore, in the year 1997, has stated in the proof affidavit that the accident had happened due to the aerobatics carried out by late Cap. Raj Kumar at a low attitude and there was no technical or traffic failure in the airport at the time of the air show. But, there is nothing in his evidence to the effect that the accident was due to the negligence of the Pilot. 18. Though the defendants now submit before us that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased Raj Kumar, we are not prepared to accept the said argument. We do notice that the contention that the accident was due to the 'pilot error' was taken only by the first and sixth defendants in their written statement. Even these defendants do not say that there was negligence on the part of the Pilot. Admittedly, the air show was organised by the fifth and seventh defendants. We do notice that the contention that the accident was due to the 'pilot error' was taken only by the first and sixth defendants in their written statement. Even these defendants do not say that there was negligence on the part of the Pilot. Admittedly, the air show was organised by the fifth and seventh defendants. It was at their instance that the fourth defendant, Flying Club had decided to participate in the air show and late Cap.Raj Kumar and the Co-Pilot were deputed for the show. It cannot be said that it was a voluntarily venture undertaken by the Pilot and Co-Pilot. As they were working under the fourth defendant, which is under the administrative control of the second defendant (the State of Kerala), they had no alternative, but to participate in the air show. In other words, the Pilot and Co-Pilot were compelled by the fourth defendant to undertake a risky air show. It should have been in the contemplation of the fourth defendant, who deputed the Pilot and Co-Pilot to stage the air show as well as the fifth and seventh defendants who organised the show, that such incidents are quite likely in an air show. It is here, we remind ourselves of those classes of cases of strict liability, where liability is imposed on the defendants irrespective of consideration of their mental state. Irrespective of blame-worthiness, innocent persons are held liable for the harm caused to others on account of escape of things from this law. The rule of strict liability enunciated in the Court of Exchequer Chamber by Blackborn. J. in Rylands v. Fletcher [(1868) L.R 3 HL.330], which was affirmed as correct by the House of Lords, has been applied in later cases relating to gas, electricity, oil, noxious fumes, colliery spoil, poisonous vegetation etc. Liability for dangerous operations is another type of strict liability akin to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (cited supra). In Honeywill and Stein, Limited v. Larkin Brothers (London's Commercial Photographers), Limited [(1934) 1 K.B. 191), the plaintiffs had engaged the defendants to take flashlight photograph of a picture in a cinema. In the operation, the building, which was insured, was lost in a fire. The plaintiffs having then paid damages to the owners of the theatre for its loss, claimed that amount from the defendants. In the operation, the building, which was insured, was lost in a fire. The plaintiffs having then paid damages to the owners of the theatre for its loss, claimed that amount from the defendants. The Court observing that a person engaged in extra hazardous operations must take reasonable precautions to see that the work does not cause damage to the premises, held that the defendants were bound to indemnify the plaintiffs. But the liability is not so strict as that of the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (cited supra), in so far as, the defendant may not be liable if he has taken reasonable care. Now we have to consider whether, either the defendants who arranged the show or the defendant who deputed the Pilot to participate in the air show had taken such reasonable care. 19. We would like to point out the observation in Ext.A2 report that the air show organisers had no experience in arranging such events in the past. No written procedures on operation of aircraft during the show were laid down and circulated to the participants before conducting the show. Therefore, in the concluding part, it was recommended in Ext.A2 report that instructions should be issued that air show organisers must document the procedures on operational, maintenance and safety aspects of participating aircraft and personnel and such programme should have the approval of DGCA, prior to the commencement of the show. This would lead us to the conclusion that the fifth and seventh defendants were reckless in conducting the air show. The fourth defendant, who deputed the Pilot to the air show, had not verified whether the organisers had the required experience in conducting the show and whether they had complied with the required procedural formalities. We cannot say that the deceased had consented to the risky operation. As an employee under the fourth defendant, he was compelled to carry out the commands. 20. The first and sixth defendants had stated in their written statement that as per the log book, all maintenance inspection schedules were complied with and other relevant works were carried out on routine basis and the aircraft did not exhibit any defect or malfunctions which could lead to an accident. This contention is fortified by Ext.A2 report that the aircraft was airworthy and it was being maintained as per the approved schedule. This contention is fortified by Ext.A2 report that the aircraft was airworthy and it was being maintained as per the approved schedule. Therefore, these defendants cannot be fixed with any liability for the accident. 21. From the materials now available on record, it can be safely concluded that the fifth and seventh defendants, who arranged the show as well as the fourth defendant, who deputed the Pilot and the Co-Pilot to participate in the show are primarily liable to compensate the plaintiffs and the second defendant, the State of Kerala and the third defendant, the Government of Karnataka are vicariously liable. 22. Now, we will deal with the amount of compensation that has to be paid to the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of the deceased. The principles for assessment of damages in the cases of fatal accidents have now been completely well settled. Under the formula laid down by Lord Wright in Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., which is usually applied now, the loss is ascertained by first arriving at the estimate of the annual dependency amount from the income of the deceased after deducting the amount which he would have spent on himself. The damages on this head of loss to the dependents is arrived at by awarding lump sum amount which is calculated by applying a proper multiplier to the amount of one year's dependency. This multiplier is known as 'years' purchase factor'. When this years' purchase method is adopted, such a multiplier is selected as would take into account all the various uncertainties and matters of speculation and doubt which would go to reduce the sum to be awarded. The number of years' purchase, i.e., the multiplier which is commonly applied is between 12 and 15 in the case of a death of a normal healthy man, as recommended by Winfield. (See Winfield on Torts, 8th Edition, Page 620). 23. In this case, the deceased was aged 47 years at the time of accident. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident, it is only reasonable to presume that, but for the tragic incident, the plaintiffs would have been benefited by the income of the deceased, for another period of 12 years. 23. In this case, the deceased was aged 47 years at the time of accident. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident, it is only reasonable to presume that, but for the tragic incident, the plaintiffs would have been benefited by the income of the deceased, for another period of 12 years. He would have continued in service till February, 2005 had he been alive, as the age of superannuation of the State Government employees as per the then existing rules was 55. That means, during the first eight years, the deceased would have continued in service with the fourth defendant. The plaintiffs had not adduced any evidence to prove the salary of the deceased at the time of his death. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the deceased was offered higher salary by other flying clubs, we cannot accept the same because, the plaintiffs admitted in the plaint itself that the deceased had chosen to continue with the fourth defendant. Therefore, it is only reasonable to adopt the salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death for arriving at the quantum of compensation for loss of dependency. From Ext.B3 produced on the side of the defendants, it can be seen that the last emolument drawn by the deceased was Rs.10,350/- per month. The deceased being an employee under the State Government, the prospective benefits in the form of increments or promotions, should he have survived, also are to be taken into account. We are of the view that it is only just and proper to add 30% of the last drawn emolument in consideration of the future prospectus in service. We do this following the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]. When 30% of the emolument is added as above, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.13,455/- which we round off to Rs.13,500/-. 24. One-third of the monthly income of the deceased has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses which the deceased would have incurred, had he been alive. Therefore, the monthly income by which the plaintiffs would have been benefited, had the deceased been alive is Rs.9,000/-. That means, annually, the plaintiffs would have been benefited at the rate of Rs.1,08,000/-. One-third of the monthly income of the deceased has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses which the deceased would have incurred, had he been alive. Therefore, the monthly income by which the plaintiffs would have been benefited, had the deceased been alive is Rs.9,000/-. That means, annually, the plaintiffs would have been benefited at the rate of Rs.1,08,000/-. As we have already found that he would have continued in service for eight more years, the loss of dependency during those eight years will come to Rs.8,64,000/-. 25. It is only reasonable to presume that even after retirement the deceased would have continued in some job and for that, we fix the multiplicand as Rs.54,000/-which is half of Rs.1,08,000/-. Hence, the compensation for loss of dependency will come to Rs.2,16,000/-, for the remaining four years. Thus in total, towards loss of dependency the plaintiffs are entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,80,000/-. 26. The second plaintiff, who is the widow, was aged only 39 years at the time of the death of her husband. She has not re-married. As she had lost her husband at an early stage of her life, we award her a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for loss of consortium. 27. The third and fourth defendants were minors and they lost their father at a time when the presence of their father was most required. The first plaintiff, who is the mother of the deceased lost the support of her son at the twilight of her life. Hence, towards loss of love and affection, we award to them a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 28. As the deceased had a very tragic end, we award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering, though the death was instantaneous. 29. Towards loss of estate, we award a sum of Rs.10,000/-. 30. Thus in total, the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to get a sum of Rs.11,80,000/-. 31. It has come out in evidence that the fourth defendant had insured the aircraft with the Oriental Insurance Company and as per Ext.A9 order (Ext.B2), the plaintiffs were awarded a sum of Rs.6 lakhs by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressel Commission and the same has been received by them on security. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the above sum cannot be deducted from the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the above sum cannot be deducted from the quantum of compensation. But, it has to be noted that the same was awarded under a valid insurance policy taken by the fourth defendant to cover the risk of the aircraft and the crew. As we have fixed the liability on the fourth defendant also, certainly the said sum of Rs.6 lakhs has to be set off against the total amount of compensation. 32. It is also noticed that a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs has been paid by the second defendant State as ex gratia payment to the plaintiffs. Ex gratia payment made by the State in fatal accidents cases is not liable to be deducted from the amount of compensation when the State is not legally bound to compensate the claimant. But, in this case, we have already found that the State of Kerala, who is the second defendant is bound to compensate the legal representatives of the deceased. As the ex gratia payment has emanated from a party who is legally bound to compensate, we are of the view that the same also has to be set off against the total amount of compensation. Thus, we hold that the amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs received by the plaintiffs has to be deducted from the total amount of compensation arrived at above. Therefore, the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- as additional compensation against the claim of Rs.10 lakhs. 33. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs have claimed only Rs.10 lakhs as compensation, will not stand in the way of claiming the aforesaid sum because, what is claimed in the plaint is over and above what has been received by them. In the result, the appeals are disposed of as under:- (a) R.F.A No.814 of 2011 filed by defendants 1 and 6 is allowed without costs. Defendants 1 and 6 are exonerated from the liability of paying any compensation to the plaintiffs. The suit shall stand dismissed as against those defendants. (b) R.F.A No.263 of 2012 filed by defendants 2 and 5 and R.F.A No.932 of 2012 filed by defendants 3 and 4 are dismissed without costs. (c) R.F.A No.366 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs is allowed in part. The suit shall stand dismissed as against those defendants. (b) R.F.A No.263 of 2012 filed by defendants 2 and 5 and R.F.A No.932 of 2012 filed by defendants 3 and 4 are dismissed without costs. (c) R.F.A No.366 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs is allowed in part. The impugned decree in O.S.No.79 of 1999 is modified. In supercession of the impugned decree, the appellants are granted a decree allowing them to realise a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- from defendants 2 to 5 together with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of decree till realisation. It is hereby made clear that, in the event of reversal of Ext.A9 order (Ext.B2) by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, thereby compelling the plaintiffs to surrender the sum of Rs.6 lakhs received by them from the Oriental Insurance Company under the policy of insurance, defendants 2 to 5 shall beliable to pay the said amount to the plaintiffs. (d) The appellants in R.F.A No.366 of 2012 are entitled to receive costs on the original suit and proportionate costs in this appeal.