JUDGMENT : (CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J) : The appellant – Insurance Company preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2024 in M.V.O.P. No.28 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – XIII Additional District Judge, Narsaraopet, by which the claim of respondents/claimants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.35,40,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. (a) Claimants three in number, mother and two sons of deceased filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of deceased D.Sudhakara Rao, arising out of Motor Vehicle Accident. The deceased along with his wife, two children and mother-in-law while travelling in Maruthi Car from Nandigama to Hyderabad, on 29.08.2007 at about 09.30 a.m., they reached outskirts of Mutyalagudem Village on NH-9 road, Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP 29R 2929 belonging to 1 st respondent driven by driver came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and hit the Maruthi car driven by the deceased, resulting in fatal accident. Wife and mother-in-law of deceased died on spot and deceased and two children sustained injuries, they were shifted to Kamineni Hospital, at Narketpally, where deceased succumbed to injuries. Police registered a case in Crime No.103/2007 for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. Claiming that the accident occurred only because of rash and negligent driving of Ford Fiesta Car, resulting in the death of the deceased, the present claim was laid. (b) The deceased was working as Deputy General Manager – Purchases in private company and was earning Rs.41,029/- per month, therefore, claim was made for loss of earning and dependency besides statutory allowances. (c) The 1 st respondent owner of Ford Fiesta Car remained ex parte and 2 nd respondent – Insurance Company filed counter denying that the accident occurred because of negligence of driver of Ford Fiesta Car and also disputed the age and income of the deceased and prayed for dismissal of the claim. (c) The 1 st respondent owner of Ford Fiesta Car remained ex parte and 2 nd respondent – Insurance Company filed counter denying that the accident occurred because of negligence of driver of Ford Fiesta Car and also disputed the age and income of the deceased and prayed for dismissal of the claim. (d) On behalf of claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked and for 2 nd respondent – Insurance Company, Exs.B1 to B9 were marked by examining R.W.1. (e) The Tribunal considering the pleadings and evidence on record, framed the following issues: “1. Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Ford Fiesta Car bearing No.AP 29R 2929 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioners would be entitled to and against whom? 3. To what relief?” (f) On appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary on either side, insofar as the cause for the accident was concerned, it has come to conclusion that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of 1 st respondent vehicle besides fortifying the said finding on account of non-examination of driver of 1 st respondent vehicle and non-filing of rough sketch and scene of offence and scene observation report. With respect to 2 nd issue, basing on salary certificate marked as Ex.A10, which was issued by Vice President of the company and the evidence of P.W.5, who spoke about the same, the salary of the deceased at relevant period was determined as Rs.30,000/- per month after deducting 1/4 th of the amount towards his personal and living expenses considering the dependents as 4, of which, again deduction was made towards income tax @30% and thereby, the annual income was determined as Rs.2,50,000/-. The age of the deceased was considered as 42 years stating that the same was not seriously disputed and accordingly, multiplier of 14 was applied and total compensation came to be determined as Rs.35,00,000/-. Further Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Transport Charges were awarded for Rs.20,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, thereby aggregate and final compensation of Rs.35,40,000/- was awarded with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Further Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Transport Charges were awarded for Rs.20,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, thereby aggregate and final compensation of Rs.35,40,000/- was awarded with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. This amount was apportioned to mother of deceased and two children, who were minors, Rs.5,40,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively with proportionate interest. Aggrieved by the same, the 2 nd respondent – Insurance Company, preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for appellant – Insurance Company and Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 5. The learned counsel for appellant challenges the order of Tribunal only on the aspect of liability by contending that the accident occurred because of negligence of the deceased who was driving Maruthi Car and not that of the driver of the Ford Fiesta and that is a clear case of self-negligence of deceased. The eye witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 have given statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which were marked as Exs.B1 and B2 respectively clearly stating that driver of Maruthi Car which was proceeding towards Hyderabad, while trying to overtake the vehicle in front of it, dashed into Ford Fiesta car which was coming in opposite direction. P.Ws.3 and 4 have deposed in the present proceedings that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Ford Fiesta Car taking completely different stand, which was heavily relied on by the Tribunal. The statements made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and also the FIR (Ex.A1) and final report (Ex.A2) clearly demonstrate that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the deceased who was driving Maruthi Car and the same has been disbelieved by the Tribunal, which is erroneous. He would further contend that when the claimants have themselves marked Exs.A1 and A2 as part of evidence in support of their case, they cannot be permitted to turn around and contend that the content and part of said exhibits would not bind them. In support of the same, reliance is placed on judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and others , (2007) 13 SCC 476 6. In support of the same, reliance is placed on judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and others , (2007) 13 SCC 476 6. (a) Opposing the above submissions, learned counsel for claimants supported the order passed by the Tribunal by contending that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated evidence both documentary and oral in coming to conclusion that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of driver of Ford Fiesta and the findings recorded in that regard, does not suffer from any infirmity. P.W.2, son of the deceased also being an eye witness travelling in the very same car deposed that the accident occurred because of negligence of driver of Ford Fiesta Car and this version has been further cemented by the other two witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4. No other eye witnesses or the driver of Ford Fiesta car were examined on behalf of Insurance Company to disprove the factum of occurrence of accident and that the negligence was on the part of deceased driver. He would further contend that the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have no evidentiary value and cannot be treated as conclusive proof while deciding the aspect of negligence in proceedings arising under M.V. Act. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in Dadi Komuravva and others v. Garshe Buchaiah and others , 2013 (4) ALD 634 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha and others, (2012) 2 SCC 356 in that regard. (b) He further contended that though claimants have claimed Rs.50,00,000/-, Tribunal has awarded only Rs.35,40,000/-, considering income of the deceased in terms of Ex.A10, however, by deducting 30% of the same towards income tax which is impermissible and contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan , (2013) 7 SCC 476 (c) Lastly, he contends that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not just and fair and claimants are entitled to be granted just and fair compensation besides awarding interest @9% per annum. 7. Considered the rival submissions made by both parties and perused the record. The following points arise for our consideration: “1. Whether the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Ford Fiesta Car and that there was no self-negligence of the deceased? 2. 7. Considered the rival submissions made by both parties and perused the record. The following points arise for our consideration: “1. Whether the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Ford Fiesta Car and that there was no self-negligence of the deceased? 2. Whether in the absence of any proof of payment of income tax, on the basis of salary certificate, salary of deceased could be determined? 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair? 4. To what relief?” Point No.1:- 8. Negligence (a) On 29.08.2007, the deceased along with mother-in-law, wife and two children were travelling in Maruthi Car proceeding towards Hyderabad, at about 09.30 a.m, while they were at the outskirts of Mutyalagudem Village on NH-9 road, Ford Fiesta car bearing No.AP 29R 2929 came in opposite direction and dashed the Maruthi Car resulting in death of two persons on spot and the driver of car succumbing to injuries after shifting him to hospital. The deceased was working as Deputy General Manager – Purchases in private company at Hyderabad. The only ground urged by the counsel for appellant is that inasmuch as the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased while driving the car, as evident from Ex.A1 – FIR, Ex.A2 – Final Report and Ex.B1 and B2, which are S. 161 statements of P.Ws.3 and 4, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company. The accident was witnessed by three persons i.e., P.Ws.2, P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.2, son of deceased was travelling in same car which met with accident who deposed that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of Ford Fiesta. P.W.3, a local villager also deposed that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of driver of Ford Fiesta Car and so also P.W.4 – local villager deposing in similar lines. All the three were cross-examined, P.Ws.3 and 4 denied the portion of statement made in Exs.B1 and B2 respectively which were recorded before police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in connection with crime registered. There are two sets of statements made by P.Ws.3 and 4, one made before police and the other one before the Tribunal. All the three were cross-examined, P.Ws.3 and 4 denied the portion of statement made in Exs.B1 and B2 respectively which were recorded before police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in connection with crime registered. There are two sets of statements made by P.Ws.3 and 4, one made before police and the other one before the Tribunal. The Tribunal having considered both these statements by relying on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and others (supra) came to conclusion that criminal case records cannot be treated as conclusive proof with regard to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicles and by appreciating evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, which was recorded in the present proceedings, besides considering that controverting such stand no other evidence was brought in by insurance company by way of examining any third party witness or the driver of the Ford Fiesta Car, concluded that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of driver of Ford Fiesta Car. When two views were available having regard to evidence on record, Tribunal considering the evidence before it liened in favour of the statement recorded before it by discarding the statements in criminal case. This Court should not normally take a different view unless such a view is shockingly perverse. (b) Coming to Exs.A1 and A2, which are FIR and final report, which though have mentioned that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the deceased while driving Maruthi Car, the same being criminal case records cannot solely be relied on in the present proceedings. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the documents admitted in evidence at the instance of a party have to be considered in entirety and they cannot be permitted to turn around and contend that some other contents or part of the said document would not bind them, in our considered view, has no application to facts of the present case. Exs.A1 and A2 have been marked by claimants for the purpose of showing that accident has occurred. The very same documents also recorded that based on complaint given by police constable that because of the rash and negligent driving of deceased, the accident occurred, therefore, the appellant’s counsel contends that these part of exhibits should bind the claimants as they have marked the same. The very same documents also recorded that based on complaint given by police constable that because of the rash and negligent driving of deceased, the accident occurred, therefore, the appellant’s counsel contends that these part of exhibits should bind the claimants as they have marked the same. (c) Firstly, the informant i.e., police constable who had reported the case for registering a crime has not been examined and secondly, the investigation officer who has conducted investigation and recorded the statements of P.Ws.4 and 5 also not examined. Secondly, the rough sketch was also not brought on record. Merely basing on the contents of Exs.A1 and A2, which are not directly connected with the present proceedings can’t be looked into as conclusive proof. On the other hand, the eye witnesses to the incident P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 have categorically deposed stating that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of driver of Ford Fiesta and even in the cross-examination P.Ws.3 and 4 have denied to the contents of statements recorded under Exs.B1 and B2. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in coming to conclusion that the finding recorded by Tribunal in so far as negligence attributed to the driver of Ford Fiesta does’t call for any interference. Point No.2: 9. In the present case, deceased was salaried person working as Deputy General Manager – Purchases in private company at Hyderabad and stated to be earning Rs.41,029/- per month. In support of the same, salary certificate was filed under Ex.A10 through P.W.5, who was Senior Executive – HR of the company. He stated that the deceased was working with the company from 08.12.2005 till the date of accident and he was drawing salary of Rs.41,029/-. On appreciation of the said evidence, the Tribunal has determined the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per month after considering the statutory deductions as mentioned therein. Tribunal has deducted 30% of the same towards income tax. The question as to whether any deduction towards income tax of salaried person could be made for determination of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act has been considered by Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar’s case (supra 4) , Para 22 to 25 dealing with the said issue read as under: “ 22. The third issue is “whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 23. The third issue is “whether the income tax is liable to be deducted for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 23. In Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] this Court held: (SCC p. 133, para 20) “20. Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation.” This Court further observed that: (SCC p. 134, para 24) “24. … Where the annual income is in taxable range, the words ‘actual salary’ should be read as ‘actual salary less tax’.” Therefore, it is clear that if the annual income comes within the taxable range, income tax is required to be deducted for determination of the actual salary. But while deducting income tax from the salary, it is necessary to notice the nature of the income of the victim. If the victim is receiving income chargeable under the head “salaries” one should keep in mind that under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head “salaries” shall at the time of payment, deduct income tax on estimated income of the employee from “salaries” for that financial year. Such deduction is commonly known as tax deducted at source (“TDS”, for short). When the employer fails in default to deduct the TDS from the employee's salary, as it is his duty to deduct the TDS, then the penalty for non-deduction of TDS is prescribed under Section 201(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in case the income of the victim is only from “salary”, the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has deducted the tax at source from the employee's salary. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. In case if an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. However, there can be cases where the victim is not a salaried person i.e. his income is from sources other than salary, and the annual income falls within taxable range, in such cases, if any objection as to deduction of tax is made by a party then the claimant is required to prove that the victim has already paid income tax and no further tax has to be deducted from the income. 24. In the present case, none of the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that the income tax payable by the deceased Sajjan Singh was not deducted at source by the employer State Government. No such statement was made by Ram Avtar Parikh, PW 2, an employee of the Public Works Department of the State Government who placed on record the last pay certificate and the service book of the deceased. The Tribunal or the High Court on perusal of the last pay certificate, have not noticed that the income tax on the estimated income of the employee was not deducted from the salary of the employee during the said month or financial year. In absence of such evidence, it is presumed that the salary paid to the deceased Sajjan Singh as per last pay certificate was paid in accordance with law i.e. by deducting the income tax on the estimated income of the deceased Sajjan Singh for that month or the financial year. The appellants have specifically stated that the assessment year applicable in the instant case is 1997-1998 and not 1996-1997 as held by the High Court. They have also taken specific plea that for Assessment Year 1997-1998 the rate of tax on income more than Rs 40,000 and up to Rs 60,000 was 15% and not 20% as held by the High Court. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the respondents. 25. In view of the finding as recorded above and the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as discussed, we hold that the High Court was wrong in deducting 20% from the salary of the deceased towards income tax, for calculating the compensation. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the respondents. 25. In view of the finding as recorded above and the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as discussed, we hold that the High Court was wrong in deducting 20% from the salary of the deceased towards income tax, for calculating the compensation. As per law, the presumption will be that employer State Government at the time of payment of salary deducted income tax on the estimated income of the deceased employee from the salary and in absence of any evidence, we hold that the salary as shown in the last pay certificate as Rs 8920 should be accepted which if rounded off comes to Rs 9000 for calculating the compensation payable to the dependant(s).” 10. Recently, Coordinate Bench of this Court has analyzed the above principle in Kaliseti and Another v. Kunchem Sambasiva Rao and others, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 3867 wherein Paras 24 and 25 read as under: “ 4. In the present case, no evidence was filed on behalf of the insurance company. So following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar (supra), in case the income is only from salary, the presumption would be that the employer under Section 192(1) of the Income Tax Act has deducted the tax at source from the employees salary. If an objection is raised by any party, the objector is required to prove by producing evidence such as LPC to suggest that the employer failed to deduct the TDS from the salary of the employee. 25. In the present case the deceased was a salaried person and though the income was within the taxable range, we are of the view that the burden to prove that the income tax was not deducted from the income of the deceased was on the respondent. In the absence of any evidence that the income tax was not deducted by the employer as T.D.S, the presumption will be that the income tax was deducted and the salary certificate which was given was in accordance with law i.e. by deducting the income tax on the estimated income of the deceased. The income should have been determined based on salary certificate. Consequently, we hold that the deduction of income tax @ 10% is contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar (supra).” 11. The income should have been determined based on salary certificate. Consequently, we hold that the deduction of income tax @ 10% is contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vimal Kanwar (supra).” 11. Therefore, following the aforesaid ratio, even in the present case the deceased being salaried and employed with private company, considering the salary statement under Ex.A10, there lies presumption under Section 192(1) of Income Tax that the employer has deducted income tax at source from the deceased salary, which has not been objected to or contested by producing contra evidence suggesting that deceased employee failed to deduct the TDS. Hence, the order of the Tribunal making deduction of 30% of the monthly salary of Rs.40,000/- towards income tax is clearly contrary to the law laid down above. Point No.3 12. Just and fair compensation: (a) Learned counsel for appellant has confined challenge in the appeal only to liability, but not the quantum. However, considering that the Act being beneficial legislation and that the primary object is to award just and fair compensation, this Court has examined the matter from perspective of whether the compensation awarded is just and fair. (b) It is settled law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation and that endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the fact the claimants had not preferred any appeal for enhancement or filed cross objection in the appeal filed by either insurance company or owner. We had summed up the law on this aspect recently in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others , [MACMA No.934/2015, dated 09.01.2025] , by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance Company Limited , [ (2022) 14 SCC 712 ] Surekha v. Santosh , (2021) 16 SCC 467 Meena Pawala v. Ashraf Ali, (2021) 17 SCC 148 and Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod (Supra 5). As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair reasonable compensation, this Court is granting the above reliefs to the respondents/claimants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair reasonable compensation, this Court is granting the above reliefs to the respondents/claimants by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Age: (a) The Tribunal has considered age of the deceased as 42 years by relying on Exs.A3 and A4, which are inquest report and post mortem report (What is the evidentiary value of inquest report and post mortem in the absence of any other evidence on age proof) . The Tribunal further held that in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 5, the Insurance Company has not seriously disputed the age of the deceased, therefore, this Court also considers the age of the deceased as 42 years. (b) The deceased is survived by three dependents i.e., mother and two children as he lost wife in the accident. Even the claim petition is filed by deceased mother and his two children. Therefore, as deceased was married the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/3 rd considering dependent family members to be three, following the guidelines in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , (2009) 6 SCC 121 14. Future Prospects: The Tribunal has not granted any future prospects. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others , [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] , it has been held that while determining the income, an addition of salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects has to be awarded. Considering that the deceased was aged 42 years and that he was self-employed, he is entitled for an addition of 25% towards future prospects. 15. Conventional Heads: Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has granted only Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges. However, in view of the judgment rendered in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra 2), the claimants are entitled for Consortium, Loss of Estate and funeral expenses as detailed under. 16. 15. Conventional Heads: Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has granted only Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges. However, in view of the judgment rendered in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra 2), the claimants are entitled for Consortium, Loss of Estate and funeral expenses as detailed under. 16. Interest: Coming to the contention of the claimants that the Tribunal has granted interest @7.5% per annum, which is meagre and in view of various recent judgments of Apex Court, the claimants are entitled for interest @9% per annum is concerned, the Apex Court in Malarvizhi and others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others , [ (2020) 4 SCC 228 ] and Smt.Anjali and others v. Lokendra Rathod and Others , [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1682] had granted interest @9% per annum, respectively following those judgments, the interest is awarded @9% from the date of the claim petition till realization. 17. Considering the above, the claimants are entitled for compensation as stated below: S.No. Head Compensation Awarded 1. Net Annual Income after deducting Prof. Tax Rs.40,000/- x 12 = Rs.4,80,000/- 2. Future Prospects (at the age of 42 years) Total Income Rs.1,20,000/- (i.e., 25% of the income) Rs.6,00,000/- 3. Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/3rd) Rs.2,00,000/- 4. Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.4,00,000/- 5. Multiplier of 14 for the age of 42 years 14 x Rs.4,00,000/- = Rs.56,00,000/- 6. Conventional Heads: (i) Loss of Consortium (3 claimants) Rs.1,45,000/- (Rs.48,400/- x 3) (ii) Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- (iii) Funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- 7. Total Compensation Rs.57,81,300/- Rounded to Rs.57,81,000/- 18. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. No.1648 of 2015 is dismissed, however, compensation is enhanced over and above granted by the Tribunal to the claimants as just and fair compensation in the following terms: i) The claimants/respondents are granted enhanced compensation of Rs.57,81,000/- as just and fair, with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization; ii) The appellant to deposit the amount as aforesaid with interest and costs, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid if any, before the Tribunal within one month. iii) On such deposit being made, the 1 st claimant – mother is entitled for an amount of Rs.12,81,000/- with proportionate interest and entire costs and the claimants 2 and 3 are entitled for an amount of Rs.22,50,000/- each with proportionate interest, failing which, the amount shall be recovered as per law. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.