JUDGMENT : Mauna M. Bhatt, J. 1. These Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short), are filed by the appellants – original claimants, challenging the common judgment and award dated 30.04.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos. 234 and 235 of 1992. The First Appeal No.2113 of 2008 arises out of MACP No.234 of 1992 and First Appeal No.2238 of 2008 arises out of MACP No.235 of 1992. Both these appeals are filed by original claimants as appellants wherein respondent No.3 is Insurance Company of Truck No. MCU–4046 and respondent No.5 is Insurance Company of Scooter No. GJ–12–4946. 2. As both these appeals arise out of same accident and were decided by common judgment and award dated 30.04.2005, they are heard and decided together. 3. Following facts emerge from the record of the Appeals: 3.1 That on 07.02.1992, Rasik Ambalal along with his two friends namely Mahesh Rajabhai Prajapati and Dilip Velji Prajapati were going from Samakhiali to Anjar. They were on Scooter No. GJ–12–4946, wherein Mahesh Rajabhai Prajapati was sitting behind Rasik Ambalal (driver) and Dilip Velji Prajapati was sitting behind Mahesh Rajabhai Prajapati. It was case of the original claimants that they were going on a scooter, with a moderate speed on the correct side of the road after following traffic rules. When they reached between Vondh and Bhachau on National Highway, one Truck No.MCU–4046 came from the opposite direction and while trying to overtake the other truck came on wrong side and dashed with the scooter resulted into an accident. For the said accident, Mahesh Rajabhai Prajapati (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died on the spot and Dilip Velji Prajapati sustained serious injuries. For the said accident, a complaint was lodged, which is at Exh.42, panchnama of scene of incident was prepared, which is at Exh.43. For the said accident, Dilip Velji Prajapati (injured claimant) filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and legal heirs of the deceased Mahesh Prajapati, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- 3.2 Upon claim petitions being filed, notices were issued. The respondents–Insurance Companies appeared and filed their written statements. For the said accident, Dilip Velji Prajapati (injured claimant) filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and legal heirs of the deceased Mahesh Prajapati, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- 3.2 Upon claim petitions being filed, notices were issued. The respondents–Insurance Companies appeared and filed their written statements. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and on consideration of evidence on record, decided the issues as under : FIRST APPEAL NO 2113 OF 2008 (MACP No.234 of 1992) : (i) In relation to negligence, the Tribunal held the driver of truck as sole negligent for occurrence of the said accident. (ii) In relation to compensation, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.3,79,600/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 31.12.1997 and thereafter, from 01.01.1998 till payment @ 9% per annum with proportionate cost under different heads as under: Rs.2,49,600/- for loss of future income Rs.0,40,000/- for medical expenses Rs.0,10,000/- for attendant charges Rs.0,60,000/- for actual loss of income Rs.0,20,000/- for pain, shock and suffering Rs.3,79,600/- Total compensation The Tribunal held opponent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (driver/owner and Insurance Company of the truck) as jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. FIRST APPEAL NO. 2338 OF 2008 (MACP No.235 of 1992): (i) In relation to negligence, the Tribunal held the driver of truck as sole negligent for occurrence of the said accident. (ii) In relation to compensation, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,06,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till 31.12.1997 and thereafter, from 01.01.1998 till payment @ 9% per annum with proportionate cost under different heads as under: Rs.3,60,000/- for loss of dependency Rs.0,30,000/- for loss of estate Rs.0,06,000/- for funeral expenses Rs.0,10,000/- for loss of consortium Rs.4,06,000/- Total compensation The Tribunal held opponent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (driver/owner and Insurance Company of the truck) as jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. 3.3 Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, present Appeals are filed seeking enhancement. 4. Heard Mr. Jenil Shah, learned advocate for Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate for the appellants – original claimants and Mr. M. J. Shelat, learned advocate for respondents – Insurance Companies. Since insurer has not disputed issuance of policy to the offending vehicle, presence of driver and owner of the vehicle is not necessary and is dispensed with. 4. Heard Mr. Jenil Shah, learned advocate for Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate for the appellants – original claimants and Mr. M. J. Shelat, learned advocate for respondents – Insurance Companies. Since insurer has not disputed issuance of policy to the offending vehicle, presence of driver and owner of the vehicle is not necessary and is dispensed with. Record and Proceedings have been secured from the Tribunal and placed before the Court for perusal. For First Appeal No.2113 of 2008 (MACP No.234 of 1992): 1. Appearing for the appellant – original claimant, learned advocate Mr. Jenil Shah submitted that the Tribunal is in error in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- p.m. It is on record that the claimant was resident of United States of America (U.S.A.) and, at the relevant time, was working there as maintenance worker electrician (for short “electrician”) and thereby earning approximately between $.1,316 to $.1,631 p.m. The pay slip at Exh.100 refers that the claimant had earned after deducting tax of $.845/- for the period of December, 1991. He further submitted that the certificate of employer at Exh.99 refers that he was earning at the rate $.14.19 per hour. He submitted that it is on record that the claimant, on account of the said accident, sustained injuries on both the legs, both the hands, head and pelvic region of the body. For the injuries sustained, he was taken to G. K. General Hospital, Bhuj, where he had to remain as an in-door patient for two and half months. Prolonged treatments were continued for a considerable time. Physiotherapy was taken by the claimant for more than a year, which cost huge medical expenditure, which the Tribunal has failed in considering. He further submitted that the medical expenditure was claimed by the claimant to the extent of Rs.90,000/-, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses. In relation to the disability certificate at Exh.107, he submitted that fracture of tibia-fibula on both the legs has resulted into permanent disability to the extent of 55%, and therefore, the Tribunal is in error in considering the disability of the claimant to the extent of 26%. He further submitted that what has to be seen is functional disability and if the functional disability of the claimant is considered it is to the extent of 55%. He further submitted that what has to be seen is functional disability and if the functional disability of the claimant is considered it is to the extent of 55%. 1.1 Relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs Naresh Kumar reported in AIR 2020 SC 4424 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , he submitted that the future prospective income and multiplier is accordingly ought to have been applied by the Tribunal. He further submitted that considering the nature of injuries sustained, resulted into permanent disability and the period of hospitalization, coupled with the fact that claimant could not go back to his country of resident i.e. U.S.A. and had to stay compulsorily in India for treatment, the amount awarded towards pain, shock and suffering of Rs.20,000/- is too less and requires enhancement. He further submitted that actual loss of income awarded of Rs.60,000/- is also less as he could not work for more than two and a half months. He, thus, submitted to allow his appeal and enhance the compensation accordingly. 1.2 In support of his submission, he relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramla and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 192 and submitted that in this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, based on the salary slip has granted compensation by multiplying the same with the exchange rate to arrive at just compensation. 2. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. M. J. Shelat appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that it is not in dispute that on a scooter, three persons were traveling, and therefore, Tribunal has erred in holding the driver of the truck as sole negligent for occurrence of the accident. In relation to compensation, he submitted that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- p.m. There is nothing on record which suggest that the claimant was continuously getting work for all 30 days in U.S.A. It can be seen from the record that he was only 9th Standard pass doing job work and working as electrician. Therefore, considering the standard of an electrician working in India, the Tribunal is correct in assessing the notional income of the original claimant at Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, considering the standard of an electrician working in India, the Tribunal is correct in assessing the notional income of the original claimant at Rs.5,000/-. In relation to future prospective income, he submitted that as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav (Supra), the claimant would be entitled for same in a case of a serious injuries, and this is not the case of serious injuries. There is nothing on record which suggest that there is reduction in working capacity of the claimant, and therefore, future loss of income, the claimant is not entitled for. In relation to disability and functional disability, he submitted that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the same as 26% as body as a whole. He reiterated and submitted that not a single document is placed on record suggesting that there is a reduction in working capacity of the claimant. In the cross-examination when he was asked to produce the relevant document in relation to the income, he submitted that he does not have the same at present and would like to produce as and when available. This shows, no reduction in his earning capacity which requires interference. In relation to pain, shock and suffering, he submitted that the Tribunal has awarded the same based on appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for interference. He, thus, submitted to dismiss the appeal of the appellant. 2.1 Further, he relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors. reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 and Chanderi Devi and Anr. Vs. Jaspal Singh and Ors. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 703 and submitted that several factors like economic condition and affluence of places i.e. the place to which the victim belongs and the place where the compensation is to be paid, a balance must require to be struck. 3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the evidence on record as also Record and Proceedings. 3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the evidence on record as also Record and Proceedings. Upon re-appreciation of evidence, it is noticed that the Tribunal assessed the income of claimant at Rs.5,000/- p.m. The Tribunal took note of the fact that in the year 1992, notional income of Rs.5,000/- was said to be in index of good standard of life and comparing the work, which the claimant was doing with Indian standard, awarded Rs.5,000/- as notional income per month. The Tribunal, thereafter, considering the disability to the extent of 26% took monthly loss of income to the extent of Rs.1,300/- and awarded future loss of income at Rs.2,49,600/-. From the pay slip at Exh.100, it is evident that the claimant earned nearly $.1,631/- p.m. in December, 1991. In the month of January, 1992, it shows only 24 days of working and claimant had earned $.1,316/-. The exchange rate, at the relevant time, was Rs.26/- per U.S. Dollar. There is nothing on record which suggest that the claimant was working all 30 days a month and was having permanency of employment. 3.1 In the case of Patricia Jean Mahajan (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “19. …………...Looking to the Indian economy, fiscal and financial situation, the amount is certainly a fabulous amount though in the background of American conditions it may not be so. Therefore, where there is so much of disparity in the economic conditions and affluence of the two places viz. The place to which the victim belongs and the place where the compensation is to be paid, a golden balance must be struck somewhere, to arrive at a reasonable and fair mesne. Looking by the Indian standards they may not be much too overcompensated and similarly not very much undercompensated as well, in the background of the country where most of the dependent beneficiaries reside………….” 3.2 In the case of Chanderi Devi and Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company that the amount awarded by the High Court to the appellants as compensation is just and reasonable and does not call for any upward revision. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company that the amount awarded by the High Court to the appellants as compensation is just and reasonable and does not call for any upward revision. In support of the same, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur and Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, wherein it is held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance.” The Court in paragraph 10 has further held as under : “10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties & perused the record. The courts below have considered the evidence produced on record by the appellants, particularly the passport, salary certificate, income-tax certificates and whether or not the deceased was employed in Germany at the time of the accident to ascertain the annual income of the deceased at the time of his death and the courts below found that the same cannot be assessed on the basis of the documents referred to above. The High Court found it to be just and reasonable to take the income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.8,333/- per month, which in our considered view is definitely on the lower side keeping in view that the deceased was employed as a cook in an Indian restaurant in Germany. At the same time, to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.62,975/- per month(i.e. 1145 Euros) as contended by the appellants to calculate the loss of dependency of the appellants would definitely be on the higher side. Hence, on considering the facts, circumstances of the case and plausibly estimating as to how much a cook of similar nature as the deceased would have earned in India in the year 2006, we are of the view that it would be just and reasonable for us to ascertain the income of the deceased at the time of his death at Rs.15,000/- per month. By adding 50% of the actual salary as provision for future prospects, the income of the deceased to be considered for calculation of loss of dependency is Rs.22,500/- per month i.e. Rs.2,70,000/- per annum. Deducting 10% towards income tax the net income comes to Rs.2,43,000/- per annum. Further, deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying the correct multiplier as per the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), the loss of dependency would come to Rs.25,92,000/- [(Rs.2,43,000/- (-) 1/3rd of Rs.2,43,000/-) x 16].” 3.3 In the case on hand, we have noticed that the deceased had earned salary of $1,631/- in the month of December, 1991 and salary of $1,316/- in the month of January, 1992. In the deposition, at the time of trial, he could not produce a single document referring to reduction in his working capacity. There is nothing on record which suggest that he was having permanent employment, and therefore, in our view it would not be appropriate to take into consideration the salary slip at Exh.100 straightway to assess the income of the claimant per month. The rate of exchange, at the relevant time, was considered by the Tribunal is Rs.40/-, whereas in the year of accident it was Rs.26/-. In addition, we have also noticed that the salary which was earned by the claimant was in a foreign currency where the standard of living and economic condition is different than the country in which the compensation is claimed. Therefore, in our opinion, it would not be reasonable to apply straightway the exchange rate with the salary slip produced at Exh.100 considering the parity of employment between India and U.S.A. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the submissions of learned advocate for the appellant to consider the salary drawn by applying the exchange rate. Further, in the decision relied upon by learned advocate for the appellant in case of Ramla and Ors.(supra), the facts are not similar. As laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and as discussed herein-above, as the work condition and the other relevant factors need to be considered such that the compensation remains reasonable and does not amount to windfall profit. As laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and as discussed herein-above, as the work condition and the other relevant factors need to be considered such that the compensation remains reasonable and does not amount to windfall profit. Applying the same principle, in our opinion, a person having similar qualification with the similar work, if would have been employed in India, he would have earned Rs.25,000/- p.m. This, in our opinion, being plausible estimation, we deem it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- p.m. This assessment is also in line keeping in mind the income purchase power parity between India and U.S.A. 3.4 In addition to future prospective income, we are in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and therefore, he would be entitled to 40% rise. As the claimant was of 22 years of age, he would be entitled to multiplier of 18. In relation to disability, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the disability to the extent of 26% as body as a whole which is based on the certificate of doctor at Exh.107, which in our opinion, does not call for interference. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to future economic loss as under: “Rs.25,000/- per month (income) X 26% disability = 6,500/- + 2,600 (40% prospective income) = 9,100/- X 12 = 1,09,200/- X 18 Multiplier (as the age of the claimant was 22 years of age) = 19,65,600/-” 3.5 So far as medical expenses and pain, shock and suffering are concerned, in our opinion, the Tribunal has correctly assessed the same considering the length of treatment and the medical bills produced by the claimant. We have noticed that as claimed by the original claimant that he took prolonged treatment in U.S.A. however, he failed in producing evidence in support of his treatment taken in U.S.A., and therefore, the medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is just and proper. 4. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled for the total compensation as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future Economic Loss 19,65,600/- Medical expenses 40,000/- Attendance Charges 10,000/- Actual loss of income 60,000/- Pain, Shock and Suffering 20,000/- Total 20,95,600/- For First Appeal No.2238 of 2008 (MACP No.235 of 1992): 1. 4. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled for the total compensation as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Future Economic Loss 19,65,600/- Medical expenses 40,000/- Attendance Charges 10,000/- Actual loss of income 60,000/- Pain, Shock and Suffering 20,000/- Total 20,95,600/- For First Appeal No.2238 of 2008 (MACP No.235 of 1992): 1. As recorded in the factual aspect, the legal heirs of deceased Mahesh Rajabhai Prajapati had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.4,06,000/-. 2. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, present Appeal is filed by the original claimants as appellants seeking enhancement. 3. Appearing for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Jenil Shah submitted that the Tribunal is in error in not considering that the deceased was doing work of contractor. Claimant had cleared motor mechanic course and was earning monthly income of Rs.30,000/-. In support of his submission, he relied upon the certificate given by gram panchayat about his work. He further submitted that the certificate given by gram panchayat at Exh.54 to 59 certifies that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. Therefore, he has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- p.m. He further contended that the Tribunal is in error in not granting future prospective income. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Further relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram reported in 2018 (18) SCC 130 , he has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent, as the deceased was survived by three dependents. He further submitted that, as the deceased was 32 years old at the time of accident, multiplier of 16 would be applicable instead of 15. In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), he submitted to grant compensation under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate accordingly. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. M. J. Shelat appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- p.m., as there was no income proof produced by the original claimants. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. M. J. Shelat appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- p.m., as there was no income proof produced by the original claimants. If the minimum wages are considered, then Rs.2,500/- for the year 1991 is much higher than the minimum wages applicable for the year 1991, and therefore, the income of Rs.2,500/- without any proof considered by the Tribunal takes care of future rise of income. He further submitted that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated that though lots of emphasis has been laid on the motor mechanic course cleared by the deceased however, in the pleadings it is stated that the deceased was doing work as a contractor. In the cross-examination, it was stated by widow of deceased that her husband was receiving income by doing contract work. Even if the panchayat has certified that the deceased was doing contract work and his probable income might be Rs.30,000/- p.m., however, except certificate, there is nothing on record which establish that deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- a month. He further submitted that there is no bank account or income tax return filed by the deceased on record. If the deceased would be earning Rs.30,000/- p.m., his income would be taxable and in absence of any income tax returns filed by the claimants the certificate of income cannot be believed. He submitted that this is the case where Tribunal has appropriately assessed the income of the deceased and no interference is required. He, thus, submitted to dismissed the appeal. 5. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties and upon perusal of Record and Proceedings, we have noticed that except the certificate issued by different gram panchayat at Exh.54 to 59, there is nothing on record to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- a month. No bank statement or income tax returns are on record to support that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- a month. It is true that lot of emphasis has been placed on the certificate of motor mechanic course however, in the pleadings it was nowhere stated that the deceased was working in relation to his qualification of motor mechanic. In the cross-examination of widow of deceased, she has stated that she has not aware whether her husband was holding any bank account or not. In the cross-examination of widow of deceased, she has stated that she has not aware whether her husband was holding any bank account or not. It is noticed by the Tribunal that she has stated in the cross-examination that she has no personal knowledge about the payment her husband was receiving by doing any contract work, therefore, in our opinion, it is hard to believe the contention of learned advocate for the appellant that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- a month. We are in agreement of the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- p.m. is much higher than the minimum wages applicable in that year. However, in our opinion, in view of recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants would be entitled to 40% rise towards future prospective income. As the deceased was of 32 years of age, he would be entitled to multiplier of 16. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to dependency loss as under: “Rs.2,500/- per month (income) + 1,000 (40% prospective income) = 3,500/- X 12 = 42,000/- X 16 Multiplier (as the deceased was 32 years of age) = 6,72,000/- as dependency loss” 5.1 Further, in view of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and United India Insurance Company Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 , as the deceased was survived by three dependents, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each (Rs.40,000/- X 3 = Rs.1,20,000/-) (spousal and filial) towards loss of consortium. In view of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 1211 and Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs.15,000/- each would be appropriate towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. 6. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled for the total compensation as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Dependency Loss 6,72,000/- Loss of consortium (for three dependents Rs.40,000/- each) 1,20,000/- Loss of Estate 15,000/- Funeral Expenses 15,000/- Total 8,22,000/- 5. For the reasons aforestated, following order is passed. ORDER For First Appeal No.2113 of 2008 (MACP No.234 of 1992): (i) Appeal of the original claimant is partly allowed. (ii) The appellant – original claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.20,95,600/-. For the reasons aforestated, following order is passed. ORDER For First Appeal No.2113 of 2008 (MACP No.234 of 1992): (i) Appeal of the original claimant is partly allowed. (ii) The appellant – original claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.20,95,600/-. As the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,79,600/-, the respondent – Insurance Company shall deposit the balance amount of compensation of Rs.17,16,000/- (Rs. 20,95,600 – Rs.3,79,600) with 6% interest p.a. and proportionate costs from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization with the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the order. (iii) The rest of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal has remained unaltered. (iv) Deficit Court Fees, if any, is to be paid by the appellants within a period of four weeks, failing which the amount shall be recovered from the amount to be deposited by the Insurance Company. (v) Registry is directed to transmit back the Record and Proceedings of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs. For First Appeal No.2238 of 2008 (MACP No.235 of 1992): (i) Appeal of the original claimant is partly allowed. (ii) The appellant – original claimant would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,22,000/-. As the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,06,000/-, the respondent – Insurance Company shall deposit the balance amount of compensation of Rs.4,16,000/- (Rs. 8,22,000 – Rs.4,06,000) with 6% interest p.a. and proportionate costs from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization with the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the order. (iii) The rest of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal has remained unaltered. (iv) Deficit Court Fees, if any, is to be paid by the appellants within a period of four weeks, failing which the amount shall be recovered from the amount to be deposited by the Insurance Company. (v) Registry is directed to transmit back the Record and Proceedings of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs.