FAO No.2906 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 220 POM GOPAL POM GOPAL POM GOPAL POM GOPAL Vs Vs Vs Vs SUBE SINGH AND ANR. SUBE SINGH AND ANR. SUBE SINGH AND ANR. SUBE SINGH AND ANR. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) 1.1.1.1. The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, has been preferred by the claimant dated 10.05.1999 passed by the learned Commissioner Compensation Act, Karnal, whereby compensation amounting to Rs.1,74,377/ along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization was awarded on account of injuries sustained by the appellant during the course of his employment. 2.2.2.2. Briefly stating, the appellant was employed as a driver under respondent No.1 and was driving Maruti Car No. DL the course of his employment near Madhuban, the vehicle met with an acciden when it was struck by a truck coming from the opposite direction, resulting in grievous injuries to the appellant. Owing to the severity of the injuries, his right arm was amputated from the shoulder joint. Upon failure of the employer and 1999 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2906 FAO No.2906 FAO No.2906 FAO No.2906 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: SUBE SINGH AND ANR. SUBE SINGH AND ANR. SUBE SINGH AND ANR. SUBE SINGH AND ANR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, has been preferred by the claimant dated 10.05.1999 passed by the learned Commissioner Compensation Act, Karnal, whereby compensation amounting to Rs.1,74,377/ along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization was awarded on account of injuries sustained by the appellant the course of his employment. Briefly stating, the appellant was employed as a driver under respondent No.1 and was driving Maruti Car No. DL the course of his employment near Madhuban, the vehicle met with an acciden when it was struck by a truck coming from the opposite direction, resulting in grievous injuries to the appellant. Owing to the severity of the injuries, his right arm was amputated from the shoulder joint. Upon failure of the employer and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2906 FAO No.2906 FAO No.2906 FAO No.2906 of of of of 1999 1999 1999 1999 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 22 22 22 22.0.0.0.07777.202 .202 .202 .2026666 ...... ...... ...... ......Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent((((ssss)))) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, has been preferred by the claimant-appellant challenging the award dated 10.05.1999 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Karnal, whereby compensation amounting to Rs.1,74,377/ along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization was awarded on account of injuries sustained by the appellant Briefly stating, the appellant was employed as a driver under respondent No.1 and was driving Maruti Car No. DL-4CE-3895 on 01.10.1996; in the course of his employment near Madhuban, the vehicle met with an acciden when it was struck by a truck coming from the opposite direction, resulting in grievous injuries to the appellant. Owing to the severity of the injuries, his right arm was amputated from the shoulder joint. Upon failure of the employer and 1 The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation appellant challenging the award the Workmen's Compensation Act, Karnal, whereby compensation amounting to Rs.1,74,377/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization was awarded on account of injuries sustained by the appellant Briefly stating, the appellant was employed as a driver under 3895 on 01.10.1996; in the course of his employment near Madhuban, the vehicle met with an accident when it was struck by a truck coming from the opposite direction, resulting in grievous injuries to the appellant. Owing to the severity of the injuries, his right arm was amputated from the shoulder joint. Upon failure of the employer and MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.28 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2906 of 1999 insurer to pay learned Commissioner. 3.3.3.3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and assessed the appellant's permanent disablement at 90% on the basis of Schedule I of the Act. Taking the monthly wages at Rs.1,500/ age of 26 years, compensation of Rs.1,74,377/ @12% per annum from the d 4. 4. 4. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner committed a patent error in assessing the loss of earning capacity at 90%. It is contended that the appellant was driver and, after amputation of his right arm from the shoulder joint, became permanently incapable of driving any motor vehicle. Consequently, though the physical disability may have been assessed at 90%, the functional disabili consequent loss of earning capacity was complete and ought to have been treated as 100%. It is further argued that the learned Commissioner erred in directing payment of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition instead of in accordance with Section 4A of the Act. 5.5.5.5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer supports the impugned award and submits that the learned Commissioner rightly relied upon the statutory Schedule while determining the percentage and no interference is called for. 6.6.6.6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 7.7.7.7. The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner that the appellant suffered injuries arising out of and 1999 (O&M) compensation, the appellant instituted proceedings before the learned Commissioner. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and assessed the permanent disablement at 90% on the basis of Schedule I of the Act. Taking the monthly wages at Rs.1,500/- and the relevant factor applicable to the age of 26 years, compensation of Rs.1,74,377/- @12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner committed a patent error in assessing the loss of earning capacity at 90%. It is contended that the appellant was driver and, after amputation of his right arm from the shoulder joint, became permanently incapable of driving any motor vehicle. Consequently, though the physical disability may have been assessed at 90%, the functional disabili consequent loss of earning capacity was complete and ought to have been treated as 100%. It is further argued that the learned Commissioner erred in directing payment of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition instead of in with Section 4A of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer supports the impugned award and submits that the learned Commissioner rightly relied upon the statutory Schedule while determining the percentage and no interference is called for. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner that the appellant suffered injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment have attained compensation, the appellant instituted proceedings before the Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and assessed the permanent disablement at 90% on the basis of Schedule I of the Act. and the relevant factor applicable to the was awarded together with interest ate of filing of the claim petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner committed a patent error in assessing the loss of earning capacity at 90%. It is contended that the appellant was employed exclusively as a driver and, after amputation of his right arm from the shoulder joint, became permanently incapable of driving any motor vehicle. Consequently, though the physical disability may have been assessed at 90%, the functional disability and consequent loss of earning capacity was complete and ought to have been treated as 100%. It is further argued that the learned Commissioner erred in directing payment of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition instead of in On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer supports the impugned award and submits that the learned Commissioner rightly relied upon the statutory Schedule while determining the percentage of disability I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner that the appellant in the course of his employment have attained 2 compensation, the appellant instituted proceedings before the Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and assessed the permanent disablement at 90% on the basis of Schedule I of the Act. and the relevant factor applicable to the was awarded together with interest Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner committed a patent error in assessing the loss of earning employed exclusively as a driver and, after amputation of his right arm from the shoulder joint, became permanently incapable of driving any motor vehicle. Consequently, though the ty and consequent loss of earning capacity was complete and ought to have been treated as 100%. It is further argued that the learned Commissioner erred in directing payment of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition instead of in On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer supports the impugned award and submits that the learned Commissioner rightly of disability I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner that the appellant in the course of his employment have attained MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.28 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2906 of 1999 finality and are not under challenge before this Court. The controversy, therefore, is confined to the extent of loss of earning capacity and the date from which interest is payable. 8.8.8.8. It is not equally undisputed that, as a consequence of the accident, his right arm was amputated from the shoulder joint. Although Schedule I to the Act prescribes 90% loss of earning capacity for such amp facts of the present case, the appellant had completely lost his earning capacity in the vocation in which he was employed. The aforesaid question is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sabata, Sabata, Sabata, Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289, (1976) 1 SCC 289, (1976) 1 SCC 289, (1976) 1 SCC 289, sustained, becomes incapable of performing the work which he was employed to do, the loss of earning capacity has to be treated as total, notwiths percentage of physical disability assessed medically. The emphasis under the Act is on the workman's loss of earning capacity in relation to the employment in which he was engaged and not merely on the percentage of physical impairment. 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that a person employed as a driver, amputation of his right arm from the shoulder joint, is rendered wholly incapable of performing the duties of a driver. Consequently, the learned Commissioner committed an error in restricting the loss of earning capacity to 90%. The appellant is entitled to compensation by treating the loss of earning capacity as 100%. 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 Having hel this Court proceeds to re Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Commissioner assessed the monthly wages of the appellant at 1999 (O&M) finality and are not under challenge before this Court. The controversy, therefore, is confined to the extent of loss of earning capacity and the date from which interest is payable. It is not disputed that the appellant was employed as a driver. It is equally undisputed that, as a consequence of the accident, his right arm was amputated from the shoulder joint. Although Schedule I to the Act prescribes 90% loss of earning capacity for such amputation, the issue is whether, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the appellant had completely lost his earning capacity in the vocation in which he was employed. The aforesaid question is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Pratap Pratap Pratap (1976) 1 SCC 289, (1976) 1 SCC 289, (1976) 1 SCC 289, (1976) 1 SCC 289, held that where the workman, by reason of the injuries sustained, becomes incapable of performing the work which he was employed to do, the loss of earning capacity has to be treated as total, notwiths percentage of physical disability assessed medically. The emphasis under the Act is on the workman's loss of earning capacity in relation to the employment in which he was engaged and not merely on the percentage of physical impairment. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that a person employed as a driver, amputation of his right arm from the shoulder joint, is rendered wholly incapable ing the duties of a driver. Consequently, the learned Commissioner committed an error in restricting the loss of earning capacity to 90%. The appellant is entitled to compensation by treating the loss of earning capacity as 100%. Having held that the appellant suffered this Court proceeds to re-compute the compensation payable under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Commissioner assessed the monthly wages of the appellant at Rs.1,500/ Rs.1,500/ Rs.1,500/ Rs.1,500/---- finality and are not under challenge before this Court. The controversy, therefore, is confined to the extent of loss of earning capacity and the date from which disputed that the appellant was employed as a driver. It is equally undisputed that, as a consequence of the accident, his right arm was amputated from the shoulder joint. Although Schedule I to the Act prescribes 90% utation, the issue is whether, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the appellant had completely lost his earning capacity in the vocation in which he was employed. The aforesaid question is no longer res Pratap Pratap Pratap Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas held that where the workman, by reason of the injuries sustained, becomes incapable of performing the work which he was employed to do, the loss of earning capacity has to be treated as total, notwithstanding the percentage of physical disability assessed medically. The emphasis under the Act is on the workman's loss of earning capacity in relation to the employment in which he was engaged and not merely on the percentage of physical impairment. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that a person employed as a driver, suffered amputation of his right arm from the shoulder joint, is rendered wholly incapable ing the duties of a driver. Consequently, the learned Commissioner committed an error in restricting the loss of earning capacity to 90%. The appellant is entitled to compensation by treating the loss of earning capacity as 100%. d that the appellant suffered 100% loss of earning capacity 100% loss of earning capacity 100% loss of earning capacity 100% loss of earning capacity compute the compensation payable under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Commissioner assessed the ----, which finding does not call for 3 finality and are not under challenge before this Court. The controversy, therefore, is confined to the extent of loss of earning capacity and the date from which disputed that the appellant was employed as a driver. It is equally undisputed that, as a consequence of the accident, his right arm was amputated from the shoulder joint. Although Schedule I to the Act prescribes 90% utation, the issue is whether, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the appellant had completely lost his earning capacity in the vocation in which he was employed. The aforesaid question is no longer res Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas held that where the workman, by reason of the injuries sustained, becomes incapable of performing the work which he was employed to tanding the percentage of physical disability assessed medically. The emphasis under the Act is on the workman's loss of earning capacity in relation to the employment in which he was engaged and not merely on the percentage of physical impairment. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, this suffered amputation of his right arm from the shoulder joint, is rendered wholly incapable ing the duties of a driver. Consequently, the learned Commissioner committed an error in restricting the loss of earning capacity to 90%. The appellant 100% loss of earning capacity 100% loss of earning capacity 100% loss of earning capacity 100% loss of earning capacity, compute the compensation payable under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Commissioner assessed the , which finding does not call for MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.28 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2906 of 1999 interference in the absence of any cogent documentary evidence establishing a higher wage. Similarly, the learned Commissioner rightly determined the age of the appellant as relevant factor of compensation payable under Section 4 of the Act is re of the monthly wages (Rs.900/ of the monthly wages (Rs.900/ of the monthly wages (Rs.900/ of the monthly wages (Rs.900/ comes to Rs.1,93,752/ Rs.1,93,752/ Rs.1,93,752/ Rs.1,93,752/ 9.9.9.9. The second issue relates to payment of interest. The learned Commissioner awarded interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Such direction cannot be sustained. Section 4A of the mandates that compensation becomes due immediately upon the occurrence of the accident and, where the employer defaults in making payment within the prescribed period, statutory interest becomes payable. The Hon'ble Supreme Cour in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi Company Limited v. Siby George Company Limited v. Siby George Company Limited v. Siby George Company Limited v. Siby George that interest under Section 4A is payable after expiry of thirty days from the date the compensation fell direction contained in the impugned award awarding interest from the date of filing of the claim petition deserves modification. The appellant shall be entitled to interest @12% per annum from the e until realization of the enhanced amount of compensation. 10. 10. 10. 10. Consequently, the impugned award dated 10.05.1999 is modified. The compensation awarded to the appellant is enhanced from Rs.1,93,752/ Rs.1,93,752/ Rs.1,93,752/ Rs.1,93,752/----, thereby entitling him to an enhanced compensation of The appellant shall further be entitled to interest @ 1999 (O&M) interference in the absence of any cogent documentary evidence establishing a higher wage. Similarly, the learned Commissioner rightly determined the age of the appellant as 26 years 26 years 26 years 26 years, on the basis of his own depo relevant factor of 215.28 215.28 215.28 215.28 under Schedule IV of the Act. Resultantly, the compensation payable under Section 4 of the Act is re of the monthly wages (Rs.900/ of the monthly wages (Rs.900/ of the monthly wages (Rs.900/ of the monthly wages (Rs.900/----)))) and applying the relevant factor of Rs.1,93,752/ Rs.1,93,752/ Rs.1,93,752/ Rs.1,93,752/---- (Rs.900 × 215.28) (Rs.900 × 215.28) (Rs.900 × 215.28) (Rs.900 × 215.28). The second issue relates to payment of interest. The learned Commissioner awarded interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Such direction cannot be sustained. Section 4A of the mandates that compensation becomes due immediately upon the occurrence of the accident and, where the employer defaults in making payment within the prescribed period, statutory interest becomes payable. The Hon'ble Supreme Cour Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 1 (1997) 8 SCC 1 (1997) 8 SCC 1 (1997) 8 SCC 1 Company Limited v. Siby George Company Limited v. Siby George Company Limited v. Siby George Company Limited v. Siby George, (2012) 12 SCC 540 (2012) 12 SCC 540 (2012) 12 SCC 540 (2012) 12 SCC 540 that interest under Section 4A is payable after expiry of thirty days from the date the compensation fell due, namely, the date of the accident. Consequently, the direction contained in the impugned award awarding interest from the date of filing of the claim petition deserves modification. The appellant shall be entitled to interest @12% per annum from the expiry of thirty days until realization of the enhanced amount of compensation. Consequently, the impugned award dated 10.05.1999 is modified. The compensation awarded to the appellant is enhanced from , thereby entitling him to an enhanced compensation of The appellant shall further be entitled to interest @ interference in the absence of any cogent documentary evidence establishing a higher wage. Similarly, the learned Commissioner rightly determined the age of , on the basis of his own deposition, thereby attracting the under Schedule IV of the Act. Resultantly, the compensation payable under Section 4 of the Act is re-determined by taking 60% 60% 60% 60% and applying the relevant factor of 215.2 215.2 215.2 215.28888, which The second issue relates to payment of interest. The learned Commissioner awarded interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Such direction cannot be sustained. Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act mandates that compensation becomes due immediately upon the occurrence of the accident and, where the employer defaults in making payment within the prescribed period, statutory interest becomes payable. The Hon'ble Supreme Cour (1997) 8 SCC 1 (1997) 8 SCC 1 (1997) 8 SCC 1 (1997) 8 SCC 1 and Oriental Insurance Oriental Insurance Oriental Insurance Oriental Insurance (2012) 12 SCC 540 (2012) 12 SCC 540 (2012) 12 SCC 540 (2012) 12 SCC 540, has authoritatively held that interest under Section 4A is payable after expiry of thirty days from the date due, namely, the date of the accident. Consequently, the direction contained in the impugned award awarding interest from the date of filing of the claim petition deserves modification. The appellant shall be entitled to xpiry of thirty days of the date of the accident until realization of the enhanced amount of compensation. Consequently, the impugned award dated 10.05.1999 is modified. The compensation awarded to the appellant is enhanced from Rs.1,74,377/ Rs.1,74,377/ Rs.1,74,377/ Rs.1,74,377/---- , thereby entitling him to an enhanced compensation of Rs.19,375/ Rs.19,375/ Rs.19,375/ Rs.19,375/ The appellant shall further be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum 12% per annum 12% per annum 12% per annum on the entire 4 interference in the absence of any cogent documentary evidence establishing a higher wage. Similarly, the learned Commissioner rightly determined the age of sition, thereby attracting the under Schedule IV of the Act. Resultantly, the 60% 60% 60% 60% , which The second issue relates to payment of interest. The learned Commissioner awarded interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Such Workmen's Compensation Act mandates that compensation becomes due immediately upon the occurrence of the accident and, where the employer defaults in making payment within the prescribed period, statutory interest becomes payable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Oriental Insurance Oriental Insurance Oriental Insurance Oriental Insurance , has authoritatively held that interest under Section 4A is payable after expiry of thirty days from the date due, namely, the date of the accident. Consequently, the direction contained in the impugned award awarding interest from the date of filing of the claim petition deserves modification. The appellant shall be entitled to the date of the accident Consequently, the impugned award dated 10.05.1999 is modified. The to Rs.19,375/ Rs.19,375/ Rs.19,375/ Rs.19,375/----. on the entire MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.28 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.2906 of 1999 compensation amount 31.10.1996 31.10.1996 31.10.1996 31.10.1996, till actual realization. The respondents shall deposit the enhanced amount, along with accrued interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid. 11. Pending application July July July July 22 22 22 22, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 1999 (O&M) compensation amount from the expiry of 30 days till actual realization. The respondents shall deposit the enhanced amount, along with accrued interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after adjusting the amount, if any, ending application(s), if any, shall Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 30 days of the date of accident,,,, till actual realization. The respondents shall deposit the enhanced amount, along with accrued interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after adjusting the amount, if any, , if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 5 i.e. till actual realization. The respondents shall deposit the enhanced amount, along with accrued interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after adjusting the amount, if any, MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.28 11:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment