- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200883 OF 2022 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201045 OF 2021(MV-I) MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201051 OF 2021(MV-D), MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201195 OF 2021(MV-I) MFA NO.200883/2022: BETWEEN: 1. HONNAVVA W/O SHARANAPPA ALDI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. CHIDANAND S/O SHARANAPPA ALDI, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. SHOBHA D/O SHARANAPPA ALDI, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. SANTOSH S/O SHARANAPPA ALDI, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE APPELLANT NO.3 AND 4 ARE MINOR, Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT NO.1 MOTHER AS MINOR GUARDIAN. ALL ARE R/O GANGANALLI, TQ. SINDAGI, NOW RESIDING AT IBHRAHIMPUR, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.E.K.R.T.C KALABURAGI, NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAN, KALABURAGI-585102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO THE MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.779/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE I- ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.VI VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY RS.17,21,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THIS COURT. IN MFA NO.201045 OF 2021: BETWEEN: MANAGING DIRECTOR N.E.K.R.T.C. GULABARGA NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAN, KALABURAGI, NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH BY ITS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER CHIEF LAW OFFICER NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAHANA, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: MALLIKARJUN @ MALLAPPA S/O SHARANAPPA NAGARALLI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANGANALLI, TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA, NOW AT KANAKADAS BADAVANE, VIJAYAPURA-586128. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CALL FOR THE TRAIL COURT RECORDS AND HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2021 AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2021 IN MVC NO.859/2018 IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI, VIJAYAPURA. IN MFA NO.201051 OF 2021: BETWEEN: MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.E.K.R.T.C. GULABARGA NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAN, KALABURAGI, NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADAHANA, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HONNAVVA W/O SHARANAPPA ALDI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, 2. CHIDANAND S/O SHARANAPPA ALDI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. SHOBHA D/O SHARANAPPA ALDI, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. SANTOSH S/O SHARANAPPA ALDI, AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE RESPONDENT NO. 4 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, MOTHER AS MINOR GUARDIAN, ALL ARE R/O GANGANALLI, TQ. SINDAGI, NOW RESIDING AT IBRAHIMPUR, VIJAYAPURA-586128. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANTH LAXMAN, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CALL FOR THE TRAIL COURT RECORDS AND HEAR THE PARTIES AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.2021 AND AWARD DATED 15.04.2021 IN MVC NO.779/2018 IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI, VIJAYAPURA. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER IN MFA NO.201195 OF 2021: BETWEEN: MALLIKARAJUN @ MALLAPPA S/O SHARANAPPA NAGARALLI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O GANGANALLI, TQ.SINDAGI, DIST.VIJAYAPURA NOW AT KANAKADAS BADAVANE, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.E.K.R.T.C. KALABURAGI, NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADANA, KALABURAGI-585102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.859/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.VI VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL TO GRANT THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY RS.23,00,200/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS COURT. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) MFA No.200883/2022 is filed by the claimants and MFA No.201051/2021 is filed by the NEKRTC challenging the award dated 09.04.2021 passed by the I-Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VI, Vijayapura [for short, ‘the Tribunal’] in MVC No.779/2018. Whereas MFA No.201045/2021 is filed by the NEKRTC and MFA No.201195/2021 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation in respect of award dated 09.04.2021 passed by the same Court in MVC No.859/2018. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the NEKRTC and learned counsel for the claimants. 3. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER 4. The case of the claimants in both the cases are that the legal representatives of the deceased Sharanappa Aldi have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in MVC.No.779/2018 claiming compensation for the death of the deceased who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.07.2018. Whereas, the claimant-injured has filed the claim petition in MVC.No.859/2018 seeking compensation for the injury sustained by him in the same road traffic accident. It is alleged that on 26.07.2018 at 10.30 hours, the deceased Sharanappa Aldi along with his brother i.e., the claimant- Mallappa in MVC.No.859/2018 were proceeding in the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-28/EH-6145 and the deceased was the pillion rider. When they reached near Mallikarjun Petrol bunk on Vijayapura to Sindagi Road, at that time the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-28/F-2404 came from opposite direction in high speed with rash and negligent manner, lost the control and dashed to the motorcycle, due to which the pillion - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER rider was succumbed to injures and the rider – Mallappa sustained grievous injuries. Accordingly, the claim petition was filed by the injured for claiming compensation, whereas the legal heirs of the deceased-Sharanappa filed the claim petition seeking compensation. 5. The respondent – NEKRTC appeared through their counsel in both the petitions and filed statement of objections by denying all the averments made in the petitions in respect of the age, occupation, income of the deceased and the injured as well as the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus contending that this accident was occurred purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. Even the driver of the KSRTC bus has filed a complaint to the police as well as higher officials of the police, but they have not registered the FIR. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues in both the cases: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER In MVC.No.779/2018 “1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased-Sharanappa S/o Shivalingappa Aldi met with motor vehicle accident which has taken place on 26.07.2018 at about 10.30 hours, on Vijayapura to Sindagi road, near Mallikarajun Petrol bunk, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-28/F-2404 and sustained injuries and died on the spot? 2. Whether the respondent proves that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent? 4. What order or award?” In MVC.No.859/2018 “1. Whether the petitioners prove that, he sustained injuries in road traffic accident which occurred on 26.07.2018 at about 10.30 hours, on Vijayapura to Sindagi road, near Mallikarjun Petrol bunk, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-28/F-2404? 2. Whether the respondent proves that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent? - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER 4. What order or award?” 7. The claimants in MVC.No.779/2018 who are the legal heirs of the deceased, examined the petitioner No.1 as PW-1 and got marked eight documents and on behalf of the respondent, the driver of the KSRTC bus was examined as RW-1 and got marked five documents as Ex.R1 to R5. 8. Likewise, in MVC.No.859/2018, the claimant- injured examined himself as PW-1 and got marked sixteen documents and to prove the disability, he also got examined Dr. Ashok Nayak as PW-2 and on behalf of the respondent, the driver of the KSRTC bus examined himself as RW-1, but no documents were marked. 9. The Tribunal by hearing both the claim petitions independently, passed the award of Rs.12,04,000/- in MVC.No.779/2018 and Rs.8,49,800/- in MVC.No.859/2018 together with interest at 6% per annum fixing the liability on the respondent – NEKRTC. Feeling aggrieved by the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER same, the claimants have filed both the appeals for enhancement of compensation, whereas the respondent - NEKRTC has also filed two appeals challenging the fixation of liability on the respondent. 10. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. The points that arises for consideration are; i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing the liability on the respondent – NEKRTC, which call for interference? ii. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation? If so, to what extent? 11. On perusal of the records it is observed that, though the Tribunal independently dealt with both the matters, four appeals are filed, but all the appeals are arising out of two judgments which are in respect of one road traffic accident that occurred on 26.07.2018. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER 12. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 in both the cases, the accident was said to have occurred on 26.07.2018 at 10.30 hours when the deceased Sharanappa was proceeding in the motorcycle as pillion rider where the claimant – Mallappa in MVC.No.859/2018 was the rider of the motorcycle, reached near Mallikarjun Petrol bunk on Vijayapura to Sindagi Road, the KSRTC bus came in opposite direction in high speed and by losing the control dashed to the motorcycle due to which the rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and the deceased Sharanappa Aldi sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. To prove the case of the claimants, they got marked exhibits P1 – copy of the FIR, P2 - copy of the complaint, P3 – Panchanama, P4 – MVI report, P5 –charge sheet and P6 – ordersheet in CC.No.93/2019, P7 – inquest panchanama and P8 - PM report, which reveals that due to the accident, Sharanappa Aldi died on the spot and the rider - Mallappa sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. The driver of the KSRTC bus was - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER examined as RW-1 and he has agitated that this accident had occurred due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the rider and he has also filed the complaint as per Ex.R2 to R4 - letters and posted the same. There is no document to show that he has lodged the complaint and when the police refused to register the FIR, he has not chosen to file any private complaint before the Magistrate for taking cognizance against the rider of the motorcycle for rash and negligent riding. Except oral evidence that he attempted to file a complaint against the rider of the motorcycle only in order to show there is no negligence on his part and on the other hand, there is no document is produced, or no passengers were examined or conductor was examined to show that this accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle or there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. 13. Considering the evidence on record, PW-1 Mallikarjun in MVC.No.859/2018 who is the rider of the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER motorcycle as well as injured eye-witness has given evidence against the KSRTC driver and the police have also investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet as per Ex.P5 and the Magistrate has also taken cognizance against the driver of the bus in CC.No.93/2019 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A of IPC. These documents are public documents and admissible in evidence. In view of the evidence of injured- claimant, coupled with the documents, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was occurred purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, due to which Sharanappa Aldi died in the accident and the claimant-Mallappa sustained grievous injuries. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 in both the cases. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in negative against the KSRTC and in favour of the claimants. 14. As regards the computation of compensation in respect of the MVC.No.779/2018, the Tribunal considered - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER the income of the deceased only at Rs.9,000/- per month. Though in absence of any income proof, the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income fixed by the Legal Services Authority at Rs.11,750/-. Therefore, we propose to consider Rs.11,750/- as notional income of the deceased per month. The Tribunal has not considered the future prospects as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The age of the deceased was 45 years, therefore as per Pranay Sethi case, 25% of the income shall be considered as future prospects. Thus, income is calculated as under: Rs.11,750/- + 2937.5 (25%) = Rs.14,687.5/-. 15. The claimants are four in number, therefore 1/4th of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenses i.e., Rs.3671.87/- is deducted, which comes to Rs.11,015.63/- and multiplier applicable is ‘14’. Thus, loss of dependency is calculated as under: Rs.11,015.63/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.18,50,625/- - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER This would be the loss of dependency as against Rs.11,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. The claimants are four in number, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, they are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Therefore, we propose to award Rs.1,60,000/- towards the loss of consortium against Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As regards the loss of estate, transportation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-, which is hereby upheld. Accordingly, the compensation in MVC.No.779/2018 (MFA.200883/2022) is re-assessed as under: Description Amount Loss of dependency Rs.18,50,625.00 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4) Rs.1,60,000.00 Conventional head Rs.30,000.00 Total Rs.20,40,625.00 Award of the Tribunal Rs.12,04,000.00 Enhanced Compensation Rs.8,36,625.00 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER 17. As per the computation of compensation in respect of MVC.No.859/2018, the Tribunal once again considered the income of the injured at Rs.9,000/- per month. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the income shall be considered at Rs.11,750/- per month. As regards the pain and sufferings, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/-. As per the disability certificate and would certificate, the claimant sustained fracture on right leg, spinal injury and also neurological problem. Such being the case, the pain and sufferings shall be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. As regards to the medical expenses, the claimant was admitted to the hospital for eight days and Rs.1,57,000/- was spent towards medical expenses and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,67,000/- towards the food, nourishment including the medical expenses. The same is hereby upheld. 18. The loss of income during laid up period, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,800/-. There is no proper - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER reason given by the Tribunal. The claimant sustained grievous injury, fracture, spinal injury, therefore atleast three months’ income shall be granted towards the loss of income during laid up period. Thus, loss of income during laid up period is Rs.35,250/- (Rs.11,750/- x 3). 19. As regards the loss of amenities, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-, whereas PW-2 has given evidence that the claimant has sustained 20-25% injuries towards the neurological condition, 40-45% towards lower limb and 20-30% towards the spine and throughout his life, he has to suffer. Therefore, we propose to award Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. 20. As regards to the loss of future income due to permanent disability, the doctor examined has given certificate as per Ex.P14 and P15 that there is disability of 20-25% towards neurological condition attributable to the impact of injuries to his brain, 40-45% to his lower limb and 25-30% to the spine. The Tribunal considering the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER same, has taken 40% disability to the whole body which is meager. Therefore, we propose to enhance to 45% instead of 40% considered by the Tribunal. Thus, loss of future income due to permanent disability is calculated as under: Rs.11,750/- x 45% = Rs.52,875/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.9,51,750/-. 21. Accordingly, the compensation in MVC.No.859/2018 (MFA.201045/2021) is re-assessed as under: Description Amount Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000.00 Food, nourishment, medical expenses and attendant charges Rs.1,67,000.00 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.35,250.00 Loss of future income due to permanent disability Rs.9,51,750.00 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000.00 Total Rs.12,54,000.00 Award of the Tribunal Rs.8,49,800.00 Enhanced Compensation Rs.4,04,200.00 - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER 22. In view of answering the point No.1 that is fixing the liability on the respondent - NEKRTC as regards the appeals filed by the NEKRTC that is MFA.Nos.201051/2021 and MFA.No.201045/2021 are liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following; ORDER i) The appeals filed by the NEKRTC i.e., MFA.Nos.201045/2021 and 201051/2021 are hereby dismissed. ii) The appeals filed by the claimants i.e., MFA.Nos.200883/2022 and 201195/2021 are allowed-in-part. iii) The claimants in MVC.No.779/2018 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.20,40,625/- and the claimant-injured in MVC.No.859/2018 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,54,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. iv) The respondent-Corporation is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2492-DB MFA No. 200883 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 201045 of 2021 MFA No. 201051 of 2021 AND 1 OTHER eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v) The statutory amount deposit by the Corporation shall be transmitted to Tribunal forthwith along with the trial Court records. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SWK,MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT:SI