JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants; Shri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the Insurance company; none appeared for the owner. Perused the record 2. These appeals are preferred both by claimants and also by Insurance company, F.A.F.O. No.2356 of 2013 is at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Mau (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.195 of 2010 awarding a sum of Rs.4,64,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation. 3. F.A.F.O. No.2391 of 2013 is preferred by Insurance company challenging the award on following grounds; (a) It is challenged that the award is bad as the tribunal has erred on facts. It is alleged that the accident did not involve, the vehicle insured namely Tata Mazic bearing Registration No. UP 54 D 2561. (b) It is further submitted that the death of Subhash Chandra was not due to the accidental injuries and the driver of Tata Magic was not driving the vehicle negligently; (c) It is submitted that the driver driving, Tata Magic was not having proper driving licence. (d) It is further alleged that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle on which the deceased was allegedly travelling at the time of the alleged accident. (e) It is further submitted that the deceased was not a third party and, therefore, there was no liability which was cast on the insurance company; (f) It is further averred that there is liability to pay compensation could not be fastened on the appellate side. (g) It is further submitted that presence of PW 2 and PW 3 was completely doubtful at the place and time of the alleged accident and their evidence were completely untrustworthy. (h) It is alleged that there was a major unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. It is further alleged that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. (i) It is submitted by learned counsel for Insurance Company that the findings recorded by the learned tribunal on issue no.1 was erroneous, perverse and based on assumptions and irrelevant considerations. It is further alleged that learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective. (i) It is submitted by learned counsel for Insurance Company that the findings recorded by the learned tribunal on issue no.1 was erroneous, perverse and based on assumptions and irrelevant considerations. (j) It is further submitted that it was not established from the evidence on record that the driver of the motorcycle on which deceased was allegedly travelling at the time of alleged accident was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident (k) It is further submitted that the alleged photo copy of the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle Tata Magic in question was inadmissible in evidence. (l) It is submitted that the tribunal failed to consider the said aspect and acted illegally in considering the said alleged photo copy of the driving licence in question while deciding issue no.3; it is also stated that it was not established from the evidence on record that the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective fitness certificate and a valid permit at the time of the alleged accident; it is submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue no.3 are illegal, perverse and based on irrelevant considerations. (m) It is further submitted that the employment and the income of the deceased is doubtfull. The Tribunal acted illegally in not appreciating the said aspect of the matter, and in assuming the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- per month. (n) It is further submitted that tribunal acted illegally in deducing only 1/4th of the alleged income of the deceased towards personal expenses. (o) It is alleged that tribunal acted illegally in awarding interest of 6% per annum to the claimants/respondents. (p) It is averred that the multiplier adopted by the learned tribunal was on higher side and was erroneous. (q) It is submitted that the learned tribunal acted illegally on assumptions and in a perverse manner in awarding Rs.9,500 for non pecuniary damages. 4. The Apex Court in UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 948 , has held that all the issues raised in the memo of appeal are required to be addressed and decided by the first appellate court. 5. 4. The Apex Court in UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 948 , has held that all the issues raised in the memo of appeal are required to be addressed and decided by the first appellate court. 5. In F.A.F.O. No. 2386 of 2013, it is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future loss of income of the deceased which is required to be granted in view of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050. It is further submitted that amount under non-pecuniary heads granted and the interest awarded by the Tribunal are on the lower side and requires enhancement. Learned counsel submitted that deceased was Headmaster in Govt. Primary School and was getting Rs.28,232/-per month as per salary slip. It is also submitted that as the deceased was survived by his wife and five minor children and hence the deduction towards personal expenses of 1/4 made by tribunal is not in dipspute. The multiplier has to be as per age of deceased should have been granted 14 instead of 15. The tribunal has not granted future loss of income which should be 30% of income of deceased as per Pranay Sethi’s judgment. It is further submitted that the Legal heirs of Subhash Chandra would be entitled to compensation as Subhas Chandra was not a author or co-author of the accident having taken place. It was a case of negligence of Tata Magic and, therefore, liability has been rightly fastened on the insurance company. Just because there was delay in FIR cannot be held that the petition should have been dismissed on the said grounds. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance company has submitted that claimants have not proved the income of deceased. The tribunal has, therefore, rightly considered the income at minimum scale and the multiplier should have been 14 and not 15. The tribunal could not have granted any amount under the head of future loss of income as the judgment in Sarla Verma (infra) did not specify that people not in service, should be granted future loss of income. It is further submitted that rate of interest granted is just and proper, it does not require any enhancement. The tribunal could not have granted any amount under the head of future loss of income as the judgment in Sarla Verma (infra) did not specify that people not in service, should be granted future loss of income. It is further submitted that rate of interest granted is just and proper, it does not require any enhancement. It is further submitted that tribunal has committed an error in considering the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the Insurance company has contended that the multiplier is on higher side. Learned counsel for the Insurance has also heavily relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sudhir Bhuiya v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another, 2005 (1) TAC 66 (Cal.) so as to contend that the tribunal could not have considered the document which was not public document and could not have considered the income of the deceased. 7. F.A.F.O. No.2391 of 2013:-Question of involvement of vehicle and negligence are decided by these findings. 8. The question of involvement has been raised by the appellant and has contended that deceased was not a third party as to the vehicle in question. While going through the record, it is very clear that the vehicle was involved in the accident. The finding of facts in issue no. 1 is that the vehicle being Tata Magic was mentioned in the FIR. The finding is very clear that the FIR was lodged on 18.8.2010. PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 have stated in their ocular version that vehicle being Tata Magic driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. The vehicle in question was involved is also proved by the fact that the driver of the vehicle did not step into the witness box. The charge sheet was laid against the driver of Tata Magic. Hence, the submission that vehicle was not involved is unsustainable. The release order also lends credence to our finding that vehicle was involved in the accident. 9. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured must always prove that the either side is negligent. 9. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured must always prove that the either side is negligent. If the injury rather death is caused by something owned or controlled by the negligent party then he is directly liable otherwise the principle of "res ipsa loquitur" meaning thereby "the things speak for itself" would apply. 10. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place. 11. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Renu Singh And Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as under : "16. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence. It is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one. It is rather a comparative term. What may be negligence in one case may not be so in another. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen likely to caused physical injury to person. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon facts in each case. On these broad principles, the negligence of drivers is required to be assessed. 17. It would be seen that burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be discharged by the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident. On these broad principles, the negligence of drivers is required to be assessed. 17. It would be seen that burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be discharged by the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident. It is well settled law that at intersection where two roads cross each other, it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at intersection, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently. 18. 10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations for driving of motor vehicles which also form part of every Driving License. Clause-6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the driver of every motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every intersection or junction of roads or at a turning of the road. It is also provided that driver of the vehicle should not enter intersection or junction of roads unless he makes sure that he would not thereby endanger any other person. Merely, because driver of the Truck was driving vehicle on the left side of road would not absolve him from his responsibility to slow down vehicle as he approaches intersection of roads, particularly when he could have easily seen, that the car over which deceased was riding, was approaching intersection. 19. In view of the fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles upon roads may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where drivers of motor vehicles who have caused accidents, are unknown. In fact such cases are increasing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or killed by a motorist, whether negligently or not, he or his legal representatives, as the case may be, should be entitled to recover damages if principle of social justice should have any meaning at all. 20. In fact such cases are increasing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or killed by a motorist, whether negligently or not, he or his legal representatives, as the case may be, should be entitled to recover damages if principle of social justice should have any meaning at all. 20. These provisions (sec.110A and sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. The right of action created by Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles. In every way it was new. The right given to legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is an enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged in by limitations of an action under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies. 21. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that even if courts may not by interpretation displace the principles of law which are considered to be well settled and, therefore, court cannot dispense with proof of negligence altogether in all cases of motor vehicle accidents, it is possible to develop the law further on the following lines; when a motor vehicle is being driven with reasonable care, it would ordinarily not meet with an accident and, therefore, rule of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence may be invoked in motor accident cases with greater frequency than in ordinary civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0 ACJ(SC) 1840). 22. By the above process, the burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on the defendants in a motor accident claim petition to prove that motor vehicle was being driven with reasonable care or that there is equal negligence on the part the other side." 12. As we are concerned as to whether qua the death of pillion rider if we hold the driver to be contributor to accident whether deduction would be proper or not reference to case titled Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469, is necessary wherein the Apex Court has held as under : "4. As we are concerned as to whether qua the death of pillion rider if we hold the driver to be contributor to accident whether deduction would be proper or not reference to case titled Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Others, 2015 LawSuit (SC) 469, is necessary wherein the Apex Court has held as under : "4. It is a case of composite negligence where injuries have been caused to the claimants by combined wrongful act of joint tort feasors. In a case of accident caused by negligence of joint tort feasors, all the persons who aid or counsel or direct or join in committal of a wrongful act, are liable. In such case, the liability is always joint and several. The extent of negligence of joint tort feasors in such a case is immaterial for satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff/claimant and need not be determined by the by the court. However, in case all the joint tort feasors are before the court, it may determine the extent of their liability for the purpose of adjusting inter-se equities between them at appropriate stage. The liability of each and every joint tort feasor vis a vis to plaintiff/claimant cannot be bifurcated as it is joint and several liability. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between tort feasors for making payment to the plaintiff is not permissible as the plaintiff/claimant has the right to recover the entire amount from the easiest targets/solvent defendant. 13. There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the extent cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. It is only in the case of contributory negligence that the injured himself has contributed by his negligence in the accident. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder : "6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder : "6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is his contributory negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of 'composite negligence' will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error." 14. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error." 14. The recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in Renu Rani Shrivastava v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, AIR 2019 SC 5719 will not permit us to accept the submission of counsel for the Insurance company that the Tata Magic driver did not drive the vehicle in rashly and negligently manner. The factual data which emerges that the Tata Magic dashed with the motorcyclist causing injuries to the deceased who succumbed to the said injuries. 15. As far as issue no.1 is concerned, it goes to show that vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by driven of Tata Magic. The accident occurred at 9.00 p.m. The vehicle was being driven, as per the evidence of the witness, rashly and negligently by the driver of the Tata Magic. OPW-Balwant Kumar has stepped into the witness box. As far as issue no.11 is concerned, the driver Balwant Singh was arrested on the spot and, therefore, the vehicles involved is established. The witnesses also deposed on oath that the driver of Tata Magic was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently manner. The charge sheet was led against the driver of the Tata Magic and, therefore, the site plan also goes to show that the motorcyclist was driving the motorcycle on his correct side and the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the Tata Magic. 16. As far as liability is concerned, the issue nos. 2 and 3 categorically establish that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company nothing has been proved to buttress the submission that the vehicle was not insured and that there was breach of policy condition. The driver had valid driving licence. The vehicle was insured from 30.7.2010 to 29.07.2011, no evidence is led. Hence, the submission made herein will not permit us to take a different view that then taken by the tribunal, just because a driver of Tata Magic was not made a party. 17. Driver of the Tata Magic in his cross examination and in his oral testimony has denied the fact that vehicle being involved in the accident. Hence, the submission made herein will not permit us to take a different view that then taken by the tribunal, just because a driver of Tata Magic was not made a party. 17. Driver of the Tata Magic in his cross examination and in his oral testimony has denied the fact that vehicle being involved in the accident. The F.I.R., Panchnama, charge sheet, post mortem report, site plan and the release order of Tata Magic will not permit us to accept the submission of counsel that negligence was of driver of motorcycle and vehicle was not insured, nor involved in accident. Compensation:- 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the factual data, this Court finds that the accident occurred on 13.08.2010 causing death of Subhash Chandra Sharma who was 42 years of age and left behind him, wife and five children. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/-per month. The deceased was a head master, the documentary evidence at exhibit 45 is produced. The tribunal has brushed aside the said document on basis that it is not a public document and cannot be taken in evidence and hence considers the income of deceased as that of a labourer and decides that the deceased can be said to be getting Rs.100/- which is equated to labourer even in 2010 the minimum wages were not Rs.100/-per day. The document may not be public document if the tribunal had doubt in could invoke procedure under Section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and could suo moto summoned the officer who had issued the certificate but without any rebuttal evidence by owner or insurance company could not have discarded the document and decided that deceased who was a person in vocation was equated with labourer. The tribunal has relied on the certificate for deciding age of deceased but income discards the same this could not have been done. The tribunal has not discussed why future loss is not granted despite the law as to the same was crystallised by Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas and others, AIR 1994 SC 1631 . The tribunal has committed grave error in not considering that the appellants had proved the income of the deceased by leading oral evidence. The Tribunal has held that deceased may be earning Rs.3000/- p.m.. Susamma Thomas and others, AIR 1994 SC 1631 . The tribunal has committed grave error in not considering that the appellants had proved the income of the deceased by leading oral evidence. The Tribunal has held that deceased may be earning Rs.3000/- p.m.. This is again fallacious as the evidence on record is there. The contention of insurance company that claimants failed to substantiate income of the deceased without proving the same by leading oral evidence and Tribunal has to take notional income of the deceased. The evidence of the witnesses has not been accepted which is against the mandate of the Apex Court in (a) Vimla Devi and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC 186 and (b) in Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 1 SCC 171 which would also apply to the facts of this case. 19. The income of deceased has to be considered to be Rs.27,000/-per month, would be the income of the deceased. The deceased was in age bracket of 40 to 50 years was having a permanent job, hence 30% of the income will have to be added as future prospects. 20. In this backdrop we evaluate the income in view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050 and Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and, the recalculation of compensation would be as follows : i. Income Rs.27,000 – Rs.2000 = Rs.25,000/-p.m. (Income tax and other deductable lump sum amount) ii. Percentage towards future prospects 30% namely Rs.7500/- iii. Total income Rs.25000 + Rs.7500= Rs.32,500/- iv. Income after deduction of 1/4 Rs.24,375/- v. Annual income Rs.24,375 x 12 = Rs.2,92,500/- vi. Multiplier applicable 14 (as the deceased was in the age bracket of 41-45 years) vii. Loss of dependency Rs.2,92,500 x 14 = Rs.40,95,000/- viii. Amount under non pecuniary heads (Rs.70,000+30,000) = 1,00,000/- ix. Total compensation Rs.41,95,000/-. 21. The principles of C.P. Code Evidence Act are not to be strictly followed by the tribunal which has been done by the tribunal excepting the validity of the licence. It is not proved that the vehicle did not have illness certificate. 22. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National 7 Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. It is not proved that the vehicle did not have illness certificate. 22. As far as issue of rate of interest is concerned, it should be 7.5% in view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in National 7 Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court has held as under : "13. The aforesaid features equally apply to the contentions urged on behalf of the claimants as regards the rate of interest. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. but the same had been too high a rate in comparison to what is ordinarily envisaged in these matters. The High Court, after making a substantial enhancement in the award amount, modified the interest component at a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find no reason to allow the interest in this matter at any rate higher than that allowed by High Court." 23. On depositing the amount in the Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to first deduct the amount of deficit court fees, if any. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, reported in 2012 (1) GLH 6 (SC) 442, the order of investment is not passed because applicants /claimants are neither illiterate or rustic villagers. 24. In view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Smt. Hansagauri P. Ladhani V/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007 (2) GLH 291 , total amount of interest, accrued on the principal amount of compensation is to be apportioned on financial year to financial year basis and if the interest payable to claimant for any financial year exceeds Rs.50,000/-, insurance company/owner is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year, registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant to withdraw the amount without producing the certificate from the concerned Income-Tax Authority. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this High Court in Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) while disbursing the amount. 25. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this High Court in Review Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) while disbursing the amount. 25. Fresh Award be drawn accordingly in the above petition by the tribunal as per the modification made herein. The Tribunals in the State shall follow the direction of this Court as herein aforementioned as far as disbursement is concerned, it should look into the condition of the litigant and the pendency of the matter and not blindly apply the judgment of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be applied looking to the facts of each case. 26. The appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed. 27. In view of the above, the appeal of the claimants is partly allowed. Award and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount along with additional amount within a period of 12 weeks from today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The amount already deposited be deducted from the amount to be deposited. 28. The Tribunal shall follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as the purpose of keeping compensation is to safeguard the interest of the claimants. As 10 years have elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R. 29. We are thankful to learned counsels for the parties for ably assisting the Court. 30. Record be sent back to court below forthwith, if any.