Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 80 (MAD)

National Insurance v. P. Geetha Prasad

2014-01-09

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The Insurer, who figured as the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.2046 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai), has filed the appeal against the award of the said Tribunal dated 18.06.2009 awarding a sum of Rs.8,49,000/- with interest on the said amount at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal, who were the claimants in the above said M.C.O.P, have chosen to file the Cross Objection No.116 of 2011 challenging the award of the Tribunal insofar as the disallowed portion of the claim is concerned and claiming enhancement. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their ranks in C.M.A.No.581 of 2011 with reference to their ranks in the M.C.O.P wherever necessary. 2. P.Geetha Prasad and S.Tharakeshwari, the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal, preferred a claim of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation in the above said M.C.O.P for the death of R.Prasad (the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent) in a road accident that allegedly took place on 22.02.2000 at about 09.30 a.m at S.R.B Colony Main Road, Peravaloor, Chennai – 600 082. The claim was made against Sri Yasodha Krishna Brick Field, the third respondent in the appeal and National Insurance Company Limited, the appellant in the appeal, as owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN01-E-7272, which according to them was the offending vehicle involved in the accident. 3. The claim was made against Sri Yasodha Krishna Brick Field, the third respondent in the appeal and National Insurance Company Limited, the appellant in the appeal, as owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN01-E-7272, which according to them was the offending vehicle involved in the accident. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal / claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P made their claim on the basis of their contention that while the deceased Prasad was travelling in his Scooter bearing Registration No.TN01-C-1497 from Peravaloor market to his house at Peravaloor on 22.02.2000 at about 09.30 a.m, the above said lorry came there from the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering public safety, came to the extreme wrong side of the road and dashed against the deceased resulting in his death on the spot; that the third respondent in the appeal/first respondent in the M.C.O.P, being the owner of the said lorry and the appellant in the appeal/second respondent in the M.C.O.P, namely National Insurance Company Limited, being the insurer with which the said lorry stood insured on the date of accident, were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal / claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P, who are the legal heirs of deceased Prasad; that the deceased was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident and was having a monthly income of Rs.10,250/- as a marketing manager of Shakthi Regrigerations, Egmore, Chennai – 8 and that due to the death of the deceased Prasad, the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal/claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P suffered pecuniary loss besides the first respondent losing consortium and both respondents 1 and 2 losing love and affection. Though they had given split up particulars of the compensation claimed, the total amount of which came to Rs.20,00,000/-, they had prayed for an award restricting their claim to Rs.10,00,000/- alone. 4. The owner of the vehicle, namely the third respondent in the appeal/first respondent in the M.C.O.P, did not contest the case and it remained ex parte. Though they had given split up particulars of the compensation claimed, the total amount of which came to Rs.20,00,000/-, they had prayed for an award restricting their claim to Rs.10,00,000/- alone. 4. The owner of the vehicle, namely the third respondent in the appeal/first respondent in the M.C.O.P, did not contest the case and it remained ex parte. The appellant in the appeal/second respondent in the M.C.O.P, namely the insurer alone contested the case by filing a counter statement denying the averments made by the respondents 1 and 2 as to the manner in which the accident took place. Besides disputing the averments made in the M.C.O.P regarding the manner in which the accident took place and the averment that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN01-E-7272, the appellant/second respondent (insurer) also contended that the M.C.O.P was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was also contended by the appellant/second respondent (insurer) that the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation as it would deny the insurance coverage alleged by the respondents 1 and 2/claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P and also the validity of the Driving Licence held by the driver of the vehicle to drive it. It also sought permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the M.C.O.P not only on the grounds of defence available to it under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, but also on all other grounds of defence available to the insured, namely the third respondent in the appeal/first respondent in the M.C.O.P (owner of the vehicle) on the premise that the owner of the vehicle did not contest the M.C.O.P. 5. In the enquiry conducted before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, as many as three witnesses were examined as Pws 1 to 3 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5 on the side of the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal / claimants in the M.C.O.P. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the appellant in the appeal who was the contesting respondent, namely second respondent in the M.C.O.P. 6. The Tribunal, upon considering the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on both sides, rendered a finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN01-E-7272. It further held that the said lorry was owned by the third respondent in the appeal / first respondent in the M.C.O.P and it stood insured with the appellant in the appeal/second respondent in the M.C.O.P, namely National Insurance Company Ltd. It also held that though the insurance company specifically denied the validity of the vehicle records and the Driving Licence of the driver of the above said vehicle and also disputed the insurance coverage, such contentions were bound to be rejected as there was evidence on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal/claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P to the effect that the vehicle belonged to the third respondent in the appeal/first respondent in the M.C.O.P and it stood insured with the appellant/second respondent in the M.C.O.P and on the other hand, there was absence of any contrary evidence adduced on the side of the appellant/second respondent. Based on the said findings, the Tribunal held the appellant and third respondent in the appeal/respondents 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P. 7. Taking the age of the deceased to be 45 years and assessing his monthly income at Rs.8,000/-, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and took Rs.5333/- per month to be the contribution made by him to the family. Accordingly, it assessed the annual pecuniary loss by multiplying the said amount of Rs.5333/- by 12. The total amount of compensation on the ground of pecuniary loss caused to the respondents 1 and 2 was assessed by multiplying the annual loss by 13, which was selected as the appropriate multiplier by the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal arrived at a figure Rs.8,31,948/- as the compensation towards pecuniary loss caused to the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants 1 and 2. Adding a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.8,48,948/- and rounded it to Rs.8,49,000/-. Thus, the Tribunal arrived at a figure Rs.8,31,948/- as the compensation towards pecuniary loss caused to the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants 1 and 2. Adding a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first respondent, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.8,48,948/- and rounded it to Rs.8,49,000/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed an award directing the appellant and the third respondent in the appeal to jointly and severally pay the said amount of Rs.8,49,000/- together with an interest on the said amount at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the M.C.O.P i.e., 26.04.2002 till the date of deposit and also the proportionate costs. The Tribunal also directed apportionment of the compensation between the first and second respondents in the appeal at Rs.6,99,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively with proportionate interest. 8. The judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 18.06.2009 is challenged by the appellant/second respondent in the M.C.O.P, namely the insurer, only on the question of quantum contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant requiring downward reduction. On the other hand, the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal, who were the claimants in the M.C.O.P have chosen to prefer the Cross Objection in Cross Objection No.116 of 2011 regarding the disallowed portion of their claim and seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal and the cross objection are: 1. Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive requiring downward revision as contended by the Insurer? 2. Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is inadequate requiring enhancement as claimed by the claimants? 10. The arguments advanced by Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr.J.Mahalingam, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 /cross-objectors/claimants in the M.C.O.P were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. 11. 2. Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is inadequate requiring enhancement as claimed by the claimants? 10. The arguments advanced by Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr.J.Mahalingam, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 /cross-objectors/claimants in the M.C.O.P were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. 11. The respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal as claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P made a claim for compensation against the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN01-E-7272 for the death of Prasad, who was the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent, in an accident that took place on 22.02.2000 at about 09.30 a.m. They had made clear averments to the effect that while the deceased Prasad was proceeding in his scooter bearing Registration No. TN01-C-1497 from Peravalloor Market to his house at Peravalloor, the lorry belonging to the third respondent herein/first respondent in the M.C.O.P with Registration No.TN01-E-7272 came there in the opposite direction driven by its driver with rashness and negligence, as a result of which the said lorry came to the extreme wrong side of the road and hit the deceased leading to the injuries resulting in his death on the spot. Clear averments have also been made to the effect that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the above said lorry by its driver. Besides such averments, the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants in the M.C.O.P have also examined an eye witness by name Loganathan as PW2, whose evidence is in line with the averments made in the M.C.O.P regarding the manner in which the accident took place. In addition, they have produced copies of the First Information Report, charge sheet accusing the driver of the lorry and Postmortem certificate, which have been marked as Exs.P1, P2 and P3 respectively. As against the clear averment which stands substantiated by the testimony of the eye witness, Loganathan (PW2) and also the documentary evidence Exs.P1 to P3, there is no contra evidence, oral or documentary, adduced on the side of the respondents in the M.C.O.P. Hence, the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion that it was proved by the claimants that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN01-E-7272 by its driver. The said finding of the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence. As the reliability of the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants could not be shaken and since there was no contrary evidence adduced on the side of the respondents in the M.C.O.P, the appellant/second respondent in the M.C.O.P (insurer) has not chosen to challenge the said finding. 12. Similarly, as against the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the claimants to the effect that the offending vehicle, namely lorry bearing Registration No. TN01-E-7272 was owned by the third respondent/first respondent in the M.C.O.P and it stood insured with the appellant in the appeal/second respondent in the M.C.O.P with Insurance Policy No.50052/1999/6331022 (Reg.1998/6320985) 31086 valid from 7.5.1999 to 6.5.2000, there is absence of any evidence on the side of the appellant to show that no such insurance policy had been issued in respect of the above said vehicle for the above said period. That was the reason why the Tribunal gave a finding that the offending vehicle, namely lorry bearing Registration No. TN01-E-7272 owned by the third respondent in the appeal/first respondent in the M.C.O.P stood insured with the appellant in the appeal/second respondent in the M.C.O.P during the relevant point of time and that hence, the appellant and the third respondent in the appeal/respondents 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P, as owner and insurer of the vehicle, were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal/claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P. 13. The Tribunal also held that the first claimant being the wife and second claimant being the daughter of the deceased Prasad alone were the legal heirs of the deceased and hence, they were entitled to claim compensation against the appellant and third respondent / respondents 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P. Though the appellant would have taken a stand before the Tribunal that it would deny the validity of the Driving Licence possessed by the driver of the lorry, no evidence was adduced on the side of the appellant to prove its case that the driver did not possess a valid Driving Licence. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence and the finding of the Tribunal fixing the liability on the appellant and the Respondent No.3 remained unchallenged and they have become final. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence and the finding of the Tribunal fixing the liability on the appellant and the Respondent No.3 remained unchallenged and they have become final. The said findings are also not challenged by the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant has chosen to challenge the award only on the question of reasonableness of the amount awarded as compensation. 14. Now both Insurer and the claimants have challenged the award on the question of quantum alone. The former, namely insurer contends that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant requiring reduction. On the other hand, the claimants claim for enhancement of compensation contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. The Legal Heir Certificate produced by the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal/claimants marked as Ex.P5 shows that the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants alone are the legal heirs of the deceased. The first respondent/first claimant is the wife of the deceased and the second respondent/second claimant is the daughter of the deceased. It is true that neither the birth certificate nor the school certificate of the deceased was produced by the claimants in proof of the age of the deceased. The only document in which the age of the deceased has been mentioned happens to be the copy of the postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P3. In the said certificate, his age has been noted as "about 45 years". PW1 also, in her evidence, has given the age of her husband at the time of death to be 45 years. In the absence of any contra evidence and in the absence of the production of the clinching documents like birth certificate and school certificate, the Tribunal is justified in relying on the oral testimony of PW1 and relying on the age noted in Ex.P3, copy of the Postmortem certificate. Hence the fixation of the age of the deceased at the time of his death at 45 years cannot be held to be either wrong or defective. 15. Now the position of law has been finally settled by the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs. Hence the fixation of the age of the deceased at the time of his death at 45 years cannot be held to be either wrong or defective. 15. Now the position of law has been finally settled by the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan and another Reported in 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC) that in all cases of death, irrespective of the fact whether the claim has been made under Section 166 or under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier shall be selected on the basis of the age of the deceased and the age of the claimants shall be irrelevant. In the said Judgment, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court consisting of three Hon'ble Judges held that in all fatal cases where claim for compensation is made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier as indicated in Column 4 of the table provided in Sarla Verma Case should be applied. As per the said table, for persons in the age group of 41 to 45 years, meaning persons who have crossed the age of 40 and completed the age of 45 years, the recommended multiplier is 14. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier 13. Hence the contention of the appellant that a higher multiplier came to be adopted by the Tribunal has got to be discountenanced, whereas the claim of the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants that a higher multiplier should have been adopted has got to be countenanced. Accordingly, taking the age of the deceased to be 45 years and below 46 years, 14 should have been adopted as the appropriate multiplier for assessing the compensation on the head of pecuniary loss occasioned to the claimants due to the death of the deceased. 16. According to the claimants, the deceased was employed as a Marketing Manager in Shakthi Refrigerations, Egmore, Chennai – 8, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,250/-. PW1 in her evidence repeated the same. However, during cross-examination, she has stated that her husband was paid salary by his employer either in cash or by way of cheque. But, immediately she changed her version and stated that her husband would receive his salary only in cash and not by cheque. PW1 in her evidence repeated the same. However, during cross-examination, she has stated that her husband was paid salary by his employer either in cash or by way of cheque. But, immediately she changed her version and stated that her husband would receive his salary only in cash and not by cheque. The claimants have not chosen to produce the Bank Statement of the deceased to show that he was paid a salary of Rs.10,250/- in any month. On the other hand, they have chosen to examine one P.Kumar as the employer of the deceased in order to prove their contention that the deceased was in receipt of Rs.10,250/- per month as salary. PW3 in his evidence has stated that he was running a business in the name of "Shakthi Refrigerations" in which the deceased Prasad was employed as Marketing Manager. It is his further evidence that the deceased Prasad was in receipt of Rs.10,250/- as monthly salary and that the said sum was paid to him as monthly salary and incentive. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he had not produced any document to show that he was the owner of the business concern named "Shakthi Refrigerations". Even though he would have stated that he had got documents to prove that he was running the said business, no steps were taken to produce such documents. Though he would have stated that there were about 30 persons employed under him and he was maintaining Attendance Register, he would state that he was not maintaining pay register for his employees and that he was not in the habit of getting signatures of the employees in the vouchers for the salaries paid to his employees. No document showing the returns filed under the ESI Act and returns of Employees Provident Fund has been produced. Account books or the bank statements of the above said business concern have been produced to corroborate the evidence of PW3. 17. However, a document styled as "Salary Certificate" issued in the name of 'Shakthi Refrigerations / authorized dealer of Videocon' has been produced as Ex.P4. It was stated to be issued by PW3 on behalf of 'Shakthi Refrigerations' on 04.03.2000. But the original has not been produced. On the other hand, a xerox copy, certified to be true copy, has been marked as Ex.P4. It was stated to be issued by PW3 on behalf of 'Shakthi Refrigerations' on 04.03.2000. But the original has not been produced. On the other hand, a xerox copy, certified to be true copy, has been marked as Ex.P4. It says that the deceased Prasad was working as Manager in the above said organization and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,250/- as on 01.02.2000. It must be borne in mind that the deceased died on 22.02.2000 and the above said certificate was stated to be issued on 03.04.2000, after a lapse of nearly 1 ½ months from the date of death of Prasad. Nothing has been mentioned about the income tax deduction. There is no explanation as to why the original certificate has not been produced and only a xerox copy, certified by PW3 as true copy, has been marked as Ex.P4. The income tax returns of the deceased Prasad have also not been produced. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to a conclusion that the evidence of PW3 and Ex.P4 could not be relied on for the proof of income of the deceased at the time of his death. 18. However, since evidence was adduced on the side of the claimants to the effect that the deceased was employed as a Marketing Manager in the business concern named 'Shakthi Refrigerations', the Tribunal held that the deceased would have earned at least Rs.8,000/- per month and accordingly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. This Court is of the view that in the absence of any document and in the absence of proof that he was an income tax assessee for the year 2000, the said amount fixed as monthly income of the deceased is on the higher side and that the income of the deceased can be fixed as Rs.4,500/- per month. 19. This Court is of the view that in the absence of any document and in the absence of proof that he was an income tax assessee for the year 2000, the said amount fixed as monthly income of the deceased is on the higher side and that the income of the deceased can be fixed as Rs.4,500/- per month. 19. As per the ratio enunciated by the Apex Court in Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh others reported in 2013(3) CTC 883, even for persons having fixed wages and self-employed persons, addition towards future prospects should be made at 50% in case of the deceased being a person below the age of 40 years, at 30% in case the deceased was a person in the age group of 40 to 50, for persons in the age group of 50 to 60% at 15% and for the person aged above 60 years, there shall be nil addition towards future prospects. Applying the above said principle to the case on hand, the above said amount should be increased by suitable percentage towards future prospects. As the deceased was aged 45years, the addition towards future prospects shall be at 30%. Monthly income assessed at Rs. 4,500/- will be equivalent to Rs.54,000/- If it is increased by 30% towards future prospects, it will come to Rs. 70,200/-. From the said amount, a portion should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. The scales of deductions towards personal living expenses recommended by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 has been approved by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. vs Madan Mohan & Anr. reported in 2013 ACJ 1253. As per the said recommendations, the amount to be deducted towards personal expenses should be 1/3rd where number of dependent family members is 2 to 3. The recommendation further proceeds to state that the deduction shall be 1/4th if the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th if the number of dependent family members exceeds 6. In the case on hand, the number of dependent family members of the deceased is only two. Therefore, the deduction to be made shall be 1/3rd. If 1/3rd is deducted from Rs.70,200/-, it will come to Rs.46,800/-. This shall be the multiplicand. 20. In the case on hand, the number of dependent family members of the deceased is only two. Therefore, the deduction to be made shall be 1/3rd. If 1/3rd is deducted from Rs.70,200/-, it will come to Rs.46,800/-. This shall be the multiplicand. 20. As pointed out supra, the appropriate multiplier to be adopted here shall be 14 and not 13 as held by the Tribunal. If 14 is taken as the multiplier, the product of the multiplicand and multiplier shall come to Rs.6,55,200/-. The said amount shall be the reasonable amount that could be awarded towards pecuniary loss caused to Respondents 1 and 2/claimants 1 and 2 due to the death of deceased Prasad. To the above said amount conventional damages should be added. The Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards funeral expenses. Applying the ratio found in Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh others reported in 2013(3) CTC 883, the said amount shall be increased to Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- alone towards loss of consortium to the first respondent, the wife of the deceased. Again applying the principle found in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh's case, taking into account the age of the deceased and the age of the first respondent, the compensation towards loss of consortium is to be increased to Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.10,000/-. So far as the second respondent/second claimant is concerned, she has lost the love and affection and support of the father. For the same, a sum of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded. If such a calculation is made, the total amount to which the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants are entitled will come to Rs.8,00,200/-. In view of the above said calculation, this Court comes to the conclusion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is slightly higher than the reasonable amount that can be awarded as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 . Hence, this Court holds that the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is slightly excessive and it requires reduction as indicated supra. As it has been held that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is slightly excessive requiring reduction, there shall be no question of holding the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to be inadequate requiring upwards revision. Accordingly, the points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents 1 and 2/cross-objectors. 21. As it has been held that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is slightly excessive requiring reduction, there shall be no question of holding the amount awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to be inadequate requiring upwards revision. Accordingly, the points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents 1 and 2/cross-objectors. 21. In view of the fact that reduction is almost negligible, namely to an extent of Rs.48,800/-, the entire reduction shall be made from the share of the first respondent without causing any reduction in the share of the second respondent. Thus, the apportionment of the amount between the first and second respondents shall be Rs.6,50,200/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively. With regard to the rate of interest also the Tribunal seems to have awarded interest at 9.5%, which as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, is on the higher side. The same requires to be reduced to 7.5% per annum. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part and the award of the Tribunal is modified by reducing the total amount of compensation from Rs.8,49,000/- to Rs.8,00,200/- and also reducing the rate of interest from 9.5% to 7.5%. From the said amount, the respondents 1 and 2 shall be entitled to Rs.6,50,200/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively and proportionate interest. In all other respects, subject to the above said modifications, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. The Cross Objection No. 116 of 2011 shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.