Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 683 (TS)

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. P. Vittal Reddy

2024-09-06

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, SUJOY PAUL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the order and decree dated 15.04.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.219 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Heard Sri Narsi Reddy Teegala, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Vittal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- On 08.01.2010 at about 08.00 p.m., petitioner No.1 was proceeding on the motorcycle of his friend, bearing No.KA-38-E-5833 as a pillion rider from Nyalkal to Bidar via Hadnoor-Gangwar cross-road, and when they reached Shanker Rao farm house at 8.00 p.m., a Tata Indica Car bearing No.MH-1Y-5443 came in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the Motorcycle, due to which, both the rider and the pillion rider fell down. The rider of the Motorcycle Kashinath, died on the spot, and the pillion rider sustained severe injuries, while the motorcycle was completely damaged. The injured pillion rider was shifted to Mythri Hospital, Chandanagar and was later referred to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and subsequently took treatment at MNR Hospital, Sangareddy. The Police, Hadnoor registered a case in Cr.No.7/2010 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the Tata Indica Car, and the same was pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad. Therefore, the injured filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, which was later enhanced to Rs.30,00,000/- and subsequently to Rs.1,50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 5. The injured claimant died during the pendency of the petition and his legal representatives were brought on record as claimant Nos.2 to 5. 6. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed a counter contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-38-E-5833 and the owner and the insurer of the said motorcycle were also necessary parties. Further, the Tata Indica car bearing No.MH-1Y-5443 was used without any breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, and it was validly insured with respondent No.2 covering the period of the accident. Further, the Tata Indica car bearing No.MH-1Y-5443 was used without any breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, and it was validly insured with respondent No.2 covering the period of the accident. As such, if any award were to be passed, the same had to be awarded against respondent No.2. 7. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and called for strict proof of the same. It further contended that the amount claimed is excessive. 8. To prove the petitioners’ case, PWs.1 to 12 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A21 and Exs.C1 to C4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. 9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.38,87,607/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal ought to have held that there is no involvement of the vehicle bearing No.MH-01-Y-5443, since Ex-A1 FIR does not disclose the insured vehicle in the alleged accident, and neither was the class of the vehicle involved in the accident mentioned. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the implication of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident is only an afterthought, mainly to gain wrongful compensation from the Insurance Company. Further, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of PW.4, who is said to be the eyewitness of the alleged accident, in the absence of any other corroborative documentary evidence to establish that the insured vehicle was involved in the alleged accident. Further, the Tribunal also erred in awarding compensation under the multiplier method, without there being any deduction towards the personal expenses of petitioner No.1, who died during the pendency of the case, though petitioners 2 to 5 claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by petitioner No.1. Further, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under the head of loss of pain and suffering and also the loss of amenities of life, since the petitioner No.1 was not even alive during the disposal of the case. Further, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under the head of loss of pain and suffering and also the loss of amenities of life, since the petitioner No.1 was not even alive during the disposal of the case. Hence, petitioners 2 to 5 are not entitled to claim any compensation under the aforesaid heads. The Tribunal’s award suffers from legal infirmities and hence, prayed to set-aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Tribunal, after considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and based on the evidence, has rightly awarded compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court. 12. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Tribunal, having framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and having considered the evidence of PW.4, an eyewitness to the accident, who deposed that while he along with another villager was returning to Hadnoor from Zaherabad on a motorcycle, at about 8.00 p.m. when they reached Shanker Rao Farmhouse, a Tata Indica Car No.MH-01-Y-5443, which was coming from their behind, overtook them and hit the motorcycle coming in the opposite direction. He further deposed that the driver of the car was driving the vehicle with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and the motorcyclist was proceeding on correct side. He further deposed that the rider of the motorcycle died on the spot and the pillion rider sustained severe injuries, and the motorcycle was also completely damaged. The Tribunal considering the evidence of RW.4-S.I. of Police, PS hadnoor, the Investigating Officer, who investigated the criminal case, and the evidence of PW.4/an eyewitness, coupled with the documentary evidence, i.e., Ex.A-1/Certified copy of FIR, Ex.A-2/Certified copy of chargesheet, Ex.A-3/Certified copy of scene of offence panchanama, and Ex.A-4/Certified copy of injury certificate, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and has answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. 13. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. 13. At this juncture, the question before the Tribunal was, whether the claimants No.2 to 5, the wife, children and mother of the deceased claimant No.1, who were brought on record as his legal representatives are entitled to compensation for the death of the deceased claimant No.1 or for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. The claimants No.2 to 5, in their petition for impleadment as legal representatives of deceased claimant No.1 in I.A. No.23 of 2013, had only sought permission to proceed with the case by adding them as legal representatives of deceased claimant No.1, but not sought for any amendment of the petition filed for the injuries sustained by the deceased claimant No.1 as that of the claim petition seeking compensation for his death in the motor vehicle accident. Hence, this petition was considered as filed only for the injuries sustained by the deceased claimant No.1 and to decide whether the claimants No.2 to 5 are entitled to the compensation which the deceased claimant No.1 was entitled to, for the injuries sustained by him. 14. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company contended that the original claimant died long after the accident. Neither the legal heirs nor the concerned police had taken any steps to conduct an inquest over the dead body and got postmortem to know the nature of death and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Vs. Neither the legal heirs nor the concerned police had taken any steps to conduct an inquest over the dead body and got postmortem to know the nature of death and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Vs. P. Govindaswamy and another, 2011 (2) TAC 403 A.P. wherein it was held : “Unless it is a case of spot death, the claimants who are dependents of deceased should prove, by medical evidence that the death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by him in a road accident, the primary burden is on the claimants, the Tribunal cannot jump to any conclusion that death occurred due to injuries sustained by deceased in accident simply on basis of some conjectures or surmises.” The Tribunal observed that if the petition was amended claiming compensation for the death of claimant No.1 in the motor vehicle accident, the claimants 2 to 5 would need to establish that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the accident and as such, some direct medical evidence connecting the death of the deceased due to the accident need to be produced by the claimants. But, as claimants 2 to 5 were continuing the cause of action of claimant No.1 and not seeking fresh relief, the petition was considered as the one claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by claimant No.1 in the mother vehicle accident. The said observation of the Tribunal was well-reasoned, and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. This Court is not inclined to agree with contention of the learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that the claim ought to have been rejected by the Tribunal on this sole ground. When the primary object of the MV Act is ensure that helpless dependents of a victim of a motor vehicle accident are not subject to penury owing to the sudden loss of an earning member, the Courts cannot reject claims on hyper-technical grounds. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of decisions, has repeatedly held that the MV Act is beneficial legislation. It is relevant to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , wherein it was observed : “16. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of decisions, has repeatedly held that the MV Act is beneficial legislation. It is relevant to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54 , wherein it was observed : “16. In a report on accident, there is no question of any reference to any claim for damages, different heads of damages or such other details. It is the duty of the Tribunal to build on that report and award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. Thus, on that ground also we hold that the Tribunal/court has a duty, irrespective of the claims made in the application, if any, to properly award a just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, if necessary, ignoring the claim made in the application for compensation.” As such, while the claim petition may not have been amended by the petitioners owing to their lack of knowledge, is not a ground to deprive them of their rightful share of compensation. The Tribunal was justified in considering the claim petition of the claimants for the injuries suffered by claimant No.1, and the same warrants no interference from this Court. 15. Under the head permanent disability, the Tribunal observed that claimant No.2 examined as PW.1, who deposed that claimant No.1 sustained severe head injury, fracture to the left temporal region, multiple injuries over the face, nose, upper limb, lower limb and other multiple injuries all over the body and he was shifted Mythri Hospital, Chandanagar and later to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and subsequently took treatment at MNR Hospital, Sangareddy. PW.1 further deposed that due to the severe head injury and multiple fractures sustained by petitioner No.1, his sensation capacity was affected. He was not in a position to move from the bed and was unable to talk or speak, and he sustained permanent disability. Consequently, he was unable to attend duty and incurred huge expense towards his treatment. 16. The claimants got examined PW.5 Dr. A.K. Purohit, Head of the Department of Neuro Surgery, NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, to prove the injuries sustained by claimant No.1. Consequently, he was unable to attend duty and incurred huge expense towards his treatment. 16. The claimants got examined PW.5 Dr. A.K. Purohit, Head of the Department of Neuro Surgery, NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, to prove the injuries sustained by claimant No.1. PW.5 stated that claimant No.1 was admitted on 12.1.2010 in the NIMS Hospital with history of RTA with severe head injury with left front temporal contusion with mass effect, in the department of Neuro Surgery and the said injury was grievous to the brain. He deposed that due to the accident, the patient suffered an attack of paralysis to the right hand, face and right leg, and it was a permanent disability. He further deposed that claimant No.1 was under Coma or unconscious for few weeks and he underwent surgery for the treatment of left FTP decompressive craniotomy, bone flap placement in abdominal parietes and tracheostomy. 17. PW.5 further deposed that claimant No.1 was on the respiratory tube for six to eight months and he could not move from the wheel chair to bed without the help of an attendant. Further, claimant No.1 lost his speech and memory due to the injury. He stated that claimant No.1 was likely to develop early degeneration of the bones and medical expenses would be required to prevent degeneration and required physiotherapy, medication and an attendant life-long. He stated that claimant No.1 could not attend to his job and could not rejoin his duty life-long and would have physical discomfort and trauma. He stated that claimant No.1 would require replacement of bone lying in his abdominal wall and it might cost Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. He stated that he issued the disability certificate marked under Ex.A.5 and that claimant No.1 was brought from another hospital to them for treatment and required regular treatment till life, for which he would need to bear huge expenses to an extent of about Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/- per month for medication, Rs.6.000/- per month for physiotherapy and Rs.5,000/- per month for attender. 18. Ex.A.5 is the disability certificate issued by PW.5 assessing the extent of disability sustained by claimant No.1 as 80% and that it was partial and permanent disability. Thus, the evidence of PW.5 disclosed the severity of injuries sustained by claimant No.1 in the accident. 18. Ex.A.5 is the disability certificate issued by PW.5 assessing the extent of disability sustained by claimant No.1 as 80% and that it was partial and permanent disability. Thus, the evidence of PW.5 disclosed the severity of injuries sustained by claimant No.1 in the accident. The evidence of PW.5 further disclosed that because of the injury sustained by claimant No.1 on the left side of brain, the latter sustained a paralytic attack to right parts of his body, lost his sensation capacity, speech and memory and was left in a vegetative state, unable to move even from the wheelchair to bed and made him life-long dependent on others. Claimant No.1 suffered for a period of two years in such a condition till his death. The evidence of PW.5 and Ex.A-5 disclosed that claimant No.1 was unable to attend to his job and sustained partial and permanent disability to an extent of 80%. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No.26871 and 27394 of 2019, in which it was held as follows : “Disablement resulting in 100% loss of income 14. The five injuries which are permanent in nature apparently make him unfit for any employment even though the disability may be 60% or 85%. The compression fractures of seven cervical vertebra resulting into Paraplegia and further loss of bladder function make it absolutely impossible for a person to work and be gainfully employed. Considering the nature of disability, loss of income is, thus held to be 100% and not 50% as held by the High Court.” Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the disability may be 60% or 85%, the compression fractures of seven cervical vertebra resulting into Paraplegia and further loss of bladder function make it absolutely impossible for a person to work and be gainfully employed. Considering the nature of disability, loss of income is, thus held to be 100%. 19. In the case on hand, the Tribunal, based on Ex.A-5/Disability Certificate, fixed the disability of the petitioner at 80%. Considering the nature of disability, loss of income is, thus held to be 100%. 19. In the case on hand, the Tribunal, based on Ex.A-5/Disability Certificate, fixed the disability of the petitioner at 80%. The evidence of PW.5 disclosed that because of the injury sustained by claimant No.1 on the left side of brain, the latter sustained a paralytic attack to right parts of his body, lost his sensation capacity, speech and memory and was left in a vegetative state, unable to move even from the wheel chair to bed and made him life-long dependent on others, considering the nature of disability, loss of income is, this Court inclined to consider the disability as 100% in view of the principle laid down in the above S.L.P.(C) No.26871 and 27394 of 2019. 20. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioners got examined PW.3, the Mandal Educational Officer of Nyalkal to prove the employment and the income of claimant No.1. PW.3 deposed that petitioner No.1 worked as a Head Master of Primary School of Nyalkal and had drawn a gross salary of Rs.22,724/- per month, as on the date of the accident. He further deposed that claimant No.1 did not work after the accident, as he had lost his speech. He also deposed that claimant No.1 had applied for medical leave, and was on leave as on the date of the deposition. The Tribunal observed that the service record of claimant No.1 was marked as Ex-C1. The Revised Pay Scales G.O. was marked as Ex-C2, and the salary estimation of petitioner No.1 was marked as Ex-C3. However, the Tribunal considered Ex.A-12, the salary certificate dated 22.04.2010, since the same was duly corroborated by the deposition of PW.3. Ex.A-12 showed that the net salary was Rs.18,014/-, and the same also showed deductions apart from professional tax, to an extent of Rs.4,710/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal considered the gross monthly salary Rs.22,524/-, which needs no interference. 21. The Tribunal, considering Ex.A-11 which states the date of birth of the claimant No.1 as 10.12.1961, took his age as 49 years, which was also corroborated by PW.3. Accordingly, the Tribunal rightly took the multiplier applicable for the claimant’s age as ‘13’, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298. Accordingly, the Tribunal rightly took the multiplier applicable for the claimant’s age as ‘13’, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298. Hence, under the head of disability, the claimants are entitled to Rs.35,13,744/- [Rs.22,524/- x 12 x 13 x 100%]. 22. With regard to the medical expenses, to prove the claimants’ case, they examined PW.6, the Administrator of Mythri Hospital, Chandanagar, PW.7, the Assistant Finance Controller of NIMS Hospital, PW.8 The Incharge Billing Authority of Ankur Pharmacy opposite NIMS Hospital, PW.9 The Executive of Hetero Pharmacy, PW.10 Dr. V. Ramchander Rao, CEO of MNR Hospital, Sangareddy. All the bills were marked as Ex.A-10, which were to the tune of a total of Rs.4,52,612/-. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4,52,612/- under the head of medical expenses, which warrants no interference by this Court. 23. The Tribunal further considered the question of awarding compensation under the head of pain and suffering, when claimant No.1 was no longer alive. Before the Tribunal, to prove the petitioners’ case, the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Secunderabad vs. B. Malliah (died) and another, 2013 (6) ALD 125 was relied upon, wherein it was held as follows : "The contention that compensation towards pain and sufferance cannot be awarded where 1st petitioner who sustained injuries in accident died. It may be recalled that this not a case laid by the dependants of the deceased claiming compensation, inter alia, towards the pain and sufferance for the injuries sustained by the deceased. The injured was alive by the time he made the claim. He sought compensation for pain and sufferance. The petition was maintainable when the 1st petitioner was alive. Therefore, in view of the operation of the doctrine 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' read with Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the claim of pain and sufferance cannot be rejected on the ground that the 1st petitioner who sustained injuries is no more. The petition was maintainable when the 1st petitioner was alive. Therefore, in view of the operation of the doctrine 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' read with Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the claim of pain and sufferance cannot be rejected on the ground that the 1st petitioner who sustained injuries is no more. The claim certainly is maintainable by the 1st petitioner and consequently, by the petitioners 2 and 3 on the demise of the 1st petitioner" The Tribunal, having considered the above judgment of this Court and also the fact that claimant No.1 was in a vegetative state after the accident until his death, held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation for pain and suffering. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal, which is reasonable and the same warrants no interference by this Court. 24. The Tribunal also considered that claimant No.1 was unable to move as a consequence of the accident and required the services of an attender. Though no evidence was filed before the Tribunal to substantiate the claim of Rs.8000/- per month as attendant charges, the Tribunal fairly considered a sum of Rs.5000/- per month, for a period of two years, calculated from the date of the accident till his eventual demise. Accordingly, it awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- [Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 2] under the head of attendant charges, and the same needs no interference. 25. The Tribunal also observed that PW.11, the driver of the car bearing No.AP-23-W-2669, deposed that he had been taking claimant No.1 in his car from Ryakal to Hyderabad for check up at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and he was being paid an amount of Rs.2,500/- per trip and Rs.300/- as his batta. He further deposed that he had taken petitioner No.1 from Ryakal to Hyderabad for more than 20 to 25 times. However, the Tribunal observed that no documentary evidence was placed to corroborate the same, and held that the amounts specified by PW.11 could not be awarded. However, considering the nature of the requirements of claimant No.1 and the fact that he had to be checked frequently at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of transportation expenses. However, considering the nature of the requirements of claimant No.1 and the fact that he had to be checked frequently at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of transportation expenses. As per the evidence of PW.11, he had taken claimant No.1 from Ryakal to Hyderabad for more than 20 to 25 times, as such, this Court is inclined to enhance the same from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.70,000/-. 26. The Tribunal awarded another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards nutritious diet given to claimant No.1. Further, considering the evidence of PW.5 that claimant No.1 required physiotherapy till the end of his life and an amount of Rs.6,000/- would be incurred as monthly expenses for the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- [Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 2] towards physiotherapy charges for a period of two years, from the date of accident till his demise. The Tribunal fairly assessed the compensation under all these heads, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 27. For considering the compensation under loss of amenities in life, the Tribunal relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhanaka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 , wherein it was held : “90. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-à-vis a family in a case of death. In the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable and the feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity.” Accordingly, while considering the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Tribunal awarded a fair sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in life sustained by claimant No.1. As such, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the same. 28. Therefore, the order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.219 of 2010 is modified as follows:- S. No. Particulars Amount 1. As such, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the same. 28. Therefore, the order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.219 of 2010 is modified as follows:- S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Disability [Rs.22,524/- x12 x13x 100%] Rs.35,13,744/- 2. Medical Expenses Rs.4,52,612/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- 4. Attendant Charges [Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 2] Rs.1,20,000/- 5. Transportation Charges Rs.70,000/- 6. Nutritious Diet Rs.10,000/- 7. Physiotherapy [Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 2] Rs.1,44,000/- 8. Loss of amenities and expectation of life Rs.1,00,000/- Total Compensation Rs.46,10,356/- 29. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by setting aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.219 of 2014 dated 15.04.2014 by enhancing the amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.38,87,607/- to Rs.46,10,356/- (Rs. Forty six lakh, ten thousand, three hundred and fifty six only). Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the amount with costs and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the said amount in the same manner and ratio as apportioned by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.