IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY,THE10H DAY OF JANUARY201420TH POUSHA, 1935 MACA.No. 555 of 2009 (C) ------------------------------------ O.P(M.V) 1153/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,VADAKARA. ------------------ APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- 1. GIRIJA, W/O.LATE SAJIT KUMAR, AGED33YEARS, SUHARA QUARTERS, NEAR GULF HOUSE, ATHAYAKUNNU, P.O.KOTTALI, KANNUR67001.
2. SANGEETH PANIKKAR, S/O.SAJIT KUMAR, AGED3YEARS (MINOR), DATE OF BIRTH2308-98, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, GIRIJA W/O.LATE SAJIT KUMAR, AGED26YEARS, SUHARA QUARTERS, NEAR GULF HOUSE , ATHAYAKUNNU, P.O.KOTTALI, KANNUR-670 016. BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.PAREETH, SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- * 1. NALLAMUTHU ,RC OWNER (KT-8\P-2777) BUS , FATHERS AGE AND NAME NOT KNOWN, 33/212-ABHILASH HOUSE, GURUVAYOOR ROAD, KUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR680002.(DELETED) * 2. K.K.OUSEPH ALIAS, JOSE, AGED3101, P.O.CHITTANDA680600, VADANCHARRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.(DELETED) 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, THRISSUR BRANCH OFFICE , AMBIKA ARCADE, MG ROAD, PB NO.89, THRISSUR680001.
4. LASHMI, W/O.ACHUTHAPANICKER, PULIYULLATHIL HOUSE, PO ERAMAIA, ORKKATTERI, VADAKARA673501. * RESPONDENTS NO:1 AND2ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANTS VIDE
ORDERDATED0404.2012 IN I.A.NO.812/12. R3 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE, R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN, SRI.C.VATHSALAN, SMT.THUSHARA.V. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1612-2013 , ALONG WITH CO.NO:
82. 2013, MACA NO:
1943. 2013 AND MACA NO:
1944. 2013, THE COURT ON1001-2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.NO.555 OF2009& Cross Objection 82 of 2013, M.A.C.A.Nos.1943 & 1944 of 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of January 2014
JUDGMENTRamakrishnan, J.
M.A.C.A.No.555/2009 is filed by the wife and child of late Sajith Kumar, who filed an application for compensation as OP(MV).N0.1153/2001 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara claiming compensation for the death of Sajith Kumar, who died in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle driven by the second respondent, owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent. The fourth respondent is the mother of late Sajith Kumar, who was impleaded as one of the legal heirs of decesed Sajith Kumar.
2. M.A.C.A.No.1944/2013 is filed by the mother of Sajith Kumar, who was the claimant in OP(MV)No.421/2001 on the files of the same Tribunal, claiming compensation for MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 2 the death of her son Sajith Kumar, as his sole legal heir. Both the cases were tried jointly by the Tribunal, who found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent and that since the first claimant in OP (MV)No.1153/2001 had failed to prove her marriage with Sajith Kumar, she is not entitled to get compensation. But the Tribunal found that the second claimant in that case is the son of late Sajith Kumar and he along with the claimant in OP(MV) No.421/2001, who was shown as the 4th respondent in OP(MV) No.1153/2001, are entitled to get compensation and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,29,000/- as follows: Compensation for loss of dependency Rs,2,16,000 Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000 Transportation Rs. 1,000 Love and affection Rs. 10,000 ----------------- Total Rs.2,29,000 ========== The Tribunal apportioned the amount between the second claimant in OP(MV)No.1153/2001 and the claimant in OP(MV) No.421/2001 equally. Aggrieved by the finding that the first claimant in OP(MV)No.1153/2001 is not the wife of Sajith MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 3 Kumar and questioning the quantum of compensation, the claimants in that case filed M.A.C.A.No.555/2009. Questioning the finding of the Tribunal that the second appellant in that case is the child of Sajith Kumar and awarding compensation to him, the 4th respondent in that case has filed the above cross objection in that appeal. The claimants in OP(MV)No.1153/2001 also filed MACA.1943/2013 against the award in OP(MV)No.421/2001 which was disposed of by a common judgment, against the finding that the first appellant in the appeal is not the wife of Sajith Kumar and she is not entitled to get compensation for the death of Sajith Kumar. MACA.No.1944/2013 is filed by the claimant in OP(MV)No.421/2001 against the finding that the second claimant in OP(MV)No.1153/2001 is the son of Sajith Kumar and the award of compensation to him. Since all these appeals and cross objection arose out of a common judgment, we are disposing of these appeals and cross objection by a common judgment. Since all the necessary parties for disposal of these cases are parties in MACA.No.555/2009, we shall refer to the rank of the parties as mentioned in that appeal for MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 4 convenience. 3.Heard the counsel for the appellants and the respondents in the respective appeals including the counsel for the insurance company.
4. The counsel for the appellants in MACA5552009 submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the first appellant in that case has failed to prove the marriage between deceased Sajith Kumar and herself. In fact, it was admitted by PW1, who is the mother of deceased Sajith Kumar that the person with the child on the lap seen in the photographs is her son Sajith Kumar and the names mentioned in the birth certificate of the second appellant in that case and in the LIC policy is her son Sajith Kumar. The photographs produced by the first appellant will go to show that the deceased and the first appellant in that case were residing together as husband and wife to the knowledge of others and the fact that the first appellant gave birth to the second appellant in that relationship will go to show that she was treated by Sajith Kumar and the community as his wife. It is further clear that they were MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 5 living together since the date of marriage in 1996 as man and wife till his death under the same roof and the relatives of the appellants have treated them as man and wife. So even if no documentary evidence has been adduced to prove their marriage, the conduct of the parties and the long cohabitation between them as man and wife will lead to the presumption that there was a valid marriage between them and as such, the Tribunal was not justified in denying compensation to the first appellant on the ground that she had failed to prove her marriage with deceased Sajith Kumar. Further, the evidence of PW1 will go to show that she has not denied the relationship, but only pretended ignorance about the same. That also will give an indication that there is no denial of relationship and in such cases, the burden is on the 4th respondent, mother, who denies the relationship to rebut the presumption of marriage, which has not been done in this case. Further, the quantum of compensation awarded is also less, is the further contention.
5. On the other hand, the counsel for the 4th respondent in that appeal argued that there is no acceptable evidence MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 6 adduced on the side of the first appellant to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of late Sajith Kumar and the second appellant is the son of Sajith Kuamr. Further no relatives or friends, who attended the marriage, have been examined to prove the solemnization of marriage as well. So under the circumstances, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the first appellant had failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of Sajith Kumar and rightly denied the compensation to her. Further, the evidence is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the second appellant was the son of late Sajith Kumar and as such, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation in his favour holding that he is the son of late Sajith Kumar, because of which he is also not entitled to get compensation.
6. The counsel for the insurance company submitted that the total compensation awarded is just and proper and no interference is called for at the hands of this Court on the question of compensation awarded.
7. We have considered the rival contention of both the MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 7 parties in detail.
8. The first question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the first appellant in MACA.No.555/2009 is the wife of late Sajith Kumar and the second appellant is their son. The second question is whether the Tribunal was justified in denying compensation to the first appellant and granting compensation to the second appellant in that appeal. The last question is whether the quantum of compensation awarded is just and proper.
9. The case of the appellants in MACA.No.555/2009 is that late Sajith Kuamr married the first appellant in that case on 26.6.1996, at Mamanam Devi Temple and they were living together as man and wife ever since, in which relationship the second appellant in that case was born to them. This fact was denied by the 4th respondent in that appeal, who is the mother of deceased Sajith Kumar. When the marital relationship is denied, then the burden is on the person who claims to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased to prima facie show that there is at least a presumption of marriage and once this is MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 8 proved, then the onus shifts to the person who denies the relationship to disprove that fact. It is true that there is no documentary evidence adduced on the side of the first appellant in the above appeal to prove that the marriage between the first appellant and deceased Sajith Kuamr was solemnized at the Devi Temple at Mamanam on 26.6.1996. It is also true that no witnesses were examined on the side of the first appellant to prove the marriage as well. But that alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the first appellant had failed to prove her marriage with deceased Sajith Kumar. The attendant circumstances proved by the first appellant and nature of evidence adduced by the first appellant in that case has to be considered along with those adduced by the 4th respondent in that appeal, in order to come to a conclusion as to whether the evidence is sufficient to lead to a presumption that there was a legal marriage between deceased Sajith Kumar and the first appellant in the above appeal.
10. The first appellant in OP(MV)No.1153/2001 was examined as PW2 and she deposed the circumstances under MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 9 which she had come into contact with Sajith Kumar, how their marriage was solemnized and how they lived together thereafter as man and wife till the date of death of Sajith Kumar. Except the fact that she was not able to produce documentary evidence regarding the solemnization of the marriage, she gave categoric oral evidence regarding the marriage, which could not be shaken to any extent, by the 4th respondent despite searching cross examination. Ext.A3 is the birth certificate of the second appellant in that appeal, in which the name of father of the child was shown as Sajith P which was admitted by PW1 as her son. Further the date of birth is shown therein as 23.9.1998 as also the hospital where the birth took place as Ashirwad Hospital, Kannur, and the birth was registered on 3.10.1998 within ten days of the birth of the child which is long before the death of Sajith Kumar on 11.3.2001. This will give an indication that Sajith was treated as the husband of the first appellant and the father of the second appellant in that appeal by the relatives and there is no possibility of creating such a document at that stage for the purpose of claiming compensation for the death of Sajith later. MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 10 So, this can only be treated as a genuine document showing the birth of the second appellant in the relationship between the first appellant and the deceased Sajith. That also will give an indication that deceased Sajith did not want their relationship as a secret one and he had openly admitted the relationship with the first appellant as his wife and their relationship was never intended to be as a concubinage.
11. Ext.A4 is the policy issued in the name of the first appellant in that case in which the nominee was shown as Sajith. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is nothing to show in Ext.A4 that deceased Sajith was the husband of the first appellant. But in the nominee column the letter 'H' mentioned is the relationship with the proposer and that indicates that he was shown as the husband by the proposer, who is none other than the first appellant in this case. PW2 had categorically stated in her chief examination that this policy was taken by deceased Sajith Kumar in her name. The fact that she had stated in the cross examination that she did not know who was given the information for taking Ext.A4 will only go to show that MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 11 it was not done by her with a view to create any evidence especially when the policy was taken on 12.2.1997 just about 7 months after the marriage. That also will go to show that the deceased was treating the first appellant as his wife and that was the reason the nominee, namely, Sajith was shown as the husband of the proposer, in the policy. This also will go to show how the parties treated their relationship and this relationship was open and not a secret one as well. This also further give an indication that the deceased and the first appellant were living as man and wife from the date of the marriage till his death.
12. Ext.A5 series are some of the photographs which will give an indication regarding the relationship between the deceased and the first appellant. It was admitted by PW1(the mother) in her evidence that the person on whose lap the child (the 2nd appellant) was seen sitting in front of the lamp in the photograph shown to her, is her son Sajith and it was deposed by PW2 that this photograph was taken at the time of rice giving ceremony (choroonu) of the child. But her case was that it was falsely created. A perusal of these photographs would show that MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 12 he was treating the first appellant as his wife and they were living as man and wife and it was recognized by the family members of the first appellant as such. The evidence of PW2 will go to show that other persons seen in the photographs were friends of Sajith and her relatives. So it is clear from the same that the relatives of the first appellant and the friends of Sajith had accepted them as man and wife and they were living as man and wife from 1996 ie. the date of marriage, till the death of Sajith Kumar.
13. Certain questions were put to PW1 (the mother) regarding the relationship between deceased Sajith Kumar and the first appellant and she had not given any concrete answers negativing the marriage, which reads as follows:
1996. June 26 - OP115301 (Q) (A). . xxxx xxxx xxxxx MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 13 OP115301 . . So, it is clear from this that she did not choose to deny the suggestion given to her regarding the relationship between the first appellant in the above appeal and her son, deceased Sajith Kumar. If really there was no such relationship, she would have categorically denied those suggestions which she had not chosen to do and that will go to show that she is trying to circumvent some facts regarding the relationship which is within her knowledge with a view to avoid compensation being paid to the first appellant and also on the apprehension that she is likely to claim right in the properties of late Sajith Kumar, as his wife.
14. PW2 had categorically stated that the daughter of PW1 was given in marriage at Kannur and the deceased used to go to the beauty parlour where she was working, with the child of daughter of PW1 for getting the hair of the child cut and that was how the relationship between she and Sajith Kumar started and ended in the marriage. This fact is put to PW1 and she did MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 14 not deny these facts, but only stated that she did not know about the same. The best person to deny this fact is the daughter of PW1, who was given in marriage at Kannur and residing there with her family, but she was not examined on the side of the 4th respondent. A reading of the evidence of PW2 will go to show that there is nothing to disbelieve her evidence regarding the conduct of marriage and the relationship with deceased Sajith Kumar as her husband.
15. It is true that in the decisions reported in Santi Deb Berma v. Kanchan Prava Devi (1991 KHC825 and Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004 KHC668 relied on by the counsel for the 4th respondent, it has been held that wife means the legally wedded wife and it must be proved that there was a valid marriage for claiming the status of the wife. But it may be mentioned here that all those cases were relating to adultery and bigamy where proof of marriage is very strict than in the case of proving the marital relationship in summary proceedings.
16. In the decision reported in Tulsa & Others v. Durghatiya & others (2008(4) SCC520, it has been held that MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 15 long cohabitation as husband and wife raises a presumption that there was a valid marriage and natural events and conduct of the parties are also to be taken into consideration for coming to the conclusion as to whether the relationship between the persons living together is that of husband and wife or mere concubinage. In that decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied on the decision reported in Andrahennedige Dinohamy v.Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy (AIR1927PC185 wherein it has been observed that, where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary is clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage. Further the Supreme Court has also re- lied on the decision reported in Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan (AIR1929PC135, wherein it has been stated that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. In the same decision, the decision reported in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (AIR1978SC MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 16 1557) = 1978 (3)SCC527 was also relied on, wherein it has been observed that where the partners lived together for long spell as husband and wife, there would be presumption in favour of wedlock. The presumption was rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to rebut that presumption. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns on bastardy. The Supreme Court also relied on the decision reported in Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari (AIR1952SC231, wherein it has been observed that continued cohabitation of man and woman as husband and wife and their treatment as such for a number of years may raise the presumption of marriage, which the presumption is rebuttable and if there are circumstances which weaken and destroy that presumption, court cannot ignore them.
17. Further in the decision reported in SPS Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan & Others (AIR1992SC756, it has been held that if a man and woman were living under the same roof and cohabited for number of years, then law raises a presumption that they lived as husband and wife and if no other MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 17 evidence is adduced on the side of the person who wanted to disprove the presumption, then it must be held that there is a valid marriage between them and the children born to them are not illegitimate. The same view has been reiterated in the decision reiterated in the decision reported in Challamma v.Tilaga & Others (2009 (9) SCC299. So it is clear from the above decisions that if there is evidence adduced on the side of the person claiming to be the wife that there was long cohabitation between those persons as husband and wife, then the law raises a presumption of valid marriage.
18. Further in the decision reported in Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavthi v. Pyla Suri Demudu & Another (2011 (12) SCC189, it has been held that the law presumes infavour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a long number of years and when the man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary is clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage. Several judicial MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 18 pronouncements right from the Privy Council up to this stage, have considered the scope of the presumption that could be drawn as to the relationship of marriage between two persons living together. But, when an attempt is made by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife depicting her as a kept-mistress on the specious plea that he was already married, the court would insist on strict proof of earlier marriage and this is intended to protect women and children from living as destitutes. So it is clear from the above that if it is proved by circumstances and other evidence that the man and woman were living together as husband and wife and children were procreated in that relationship, then the law presumes a legal marriage unless a contrary is proved by the person who wanted to establish that there was no such relationship.
19. In this case the evidence adduced on the side of PW2 will go to show that Sajith married her in a temple, that they were living as husband and wife, that the second appellant was born to them in that wedlock and that the child was treated as his own son by the deceased. All these things will give rise to a MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 19 presumption that there is a valid marriage between deceased Sajith and the first appellant in the above appeal and they lived together as husband and wife till the death of late Sajith Kumar. Further the nature of evidence adduced on the side of PW1, the mother of the deceased, pretending ignorance about the relationship between her deceased son and PW2 is not sufficient to dislodge the presumption raised in favour of the relationship between the deceased and the first appellant in the above appeal. Further the mother has no case that Sajith Kumar had another wife or that he was living with her for the period after the date when the 1st appellant claimed that Sajith Kumar married her. The mother has no case also that her son had denied that the 1st appellant was not his wife. So, under the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the first appellant had failed to prove her status as wife of deceased Sajith Kumar and the consequential finding that her claim for compensation is not maintainable is unsustainable in law and the same are liable to be set aside. We do so. Consequently, we hold that on the basis of the evidence available on record, it MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 20 can be presumed that the deceased Sajith married the first appellant in the above appeal and they lived together as husband and wife till his death, that the second appellant was born to them in that relationship and that as such both the appellants are entitled to claim compensation as wife and child of deceased Sajith Kumar who were depending on the deceased as well for their livelihood.
20. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased and after deducting one third for his personal expenses, taken18 as the multiplier and awarded compensation under the head loss of dependency. It is true that there is no evidence adduced on the side of the claimants in both the cases regarding the nature of occupation and income of deceased Sajith Kumar. But it was brought out in evidence by both the parties that he was an astrologer. It is also brought out in evidence that he was in the age group of 26-30. The accident occurred in the year 2001. Considering the living conditions, cost of living and the status of the parties, one can MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 21 expect that the deceased would have been earning Rs.2,500/- per month, including future prospects and therefore, we fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- per month. The proper multiplier applicable to the age group of 26-30, which the deceased was, is 17 as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010 (4) KLT108SC) and not 18 as taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was perfectly justified in deducting one third for the personal expenses of the deceased as the dependants were three in number in view of the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Sarla Verma (cited supra). If a re-calculation is made on the basis of the above inputs, the claimants in both the cases together will be entitled to get an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- (2500x12x17x2/3) instead of Rs.2,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of dependency and we award this amount under that head.
21. In the decision reported in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 (3) KLT89SC), it has been held that in appropriate cases compensation under the head loss of consortium should be awarded at least Rs.1,00,000/- and funeral expenses to the tune MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 22 of Rs.25,000/- if there is evidence to show that besides burial, some religious rites had to be conducted in connection with the last rites of the deceased. In this case the deceased was in the age group of 26-30 and the first appellant in MACA.No.555/2009 was aged only 26 years at the time of death of her husband. She had categorically stated that she had not remarried and she had no intention to remarry as well. She had lost consortium of her husband at her young age. So considering the circumstances and also applying the principle laid down in the decision reported in Rajesh (cited supra), we feel that it is a fit case where the compensation under the head loss of consortium can be fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- and we award the same under that head. The child was aged only 3 years at the time of death of his father. He had lost the love and affection of his father at his young age especially when his grandmother is not recognizing their relationship with the deceased and it will be a great loss as far as the child is concerned. So considering this fact, the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss of love and affection appears to be on the lower side and we enhance MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 23 the same to Rs.25,000/-. We are also inclined to enhance the amount awarded under the head funeral expenses to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. No amount was awarded under the head pain and suffering suffered by the deceased and we award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under that head. Similarly no amount was awarded under the head loss of estate. Normally some conventional amount would be awarded under that head and we fix Rs.10,000/- as the amount payable under the head 'loss of estate'. We are not inclined to enhance any amount under other heads as the amounts awarded under other heads are just and proper. In all, the appellants will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.2,67,000/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal, which the third respondent insurance company is liable to pay with 9% interest from the date of petition till the payment.
22. Considering the fact that the appellants in MACA.No.555/2009 were living with the deceased at the time of his death and the 4th respondent in that appeal is an aged person living separately, who has other children as well, we feel MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 24 that 25% of the total compensation including the additional compensation awarded by this Court can be awarded to the 4th respondent in that appeal who is the claimant in OP(MV) No.421/2001 and the balance 75% can be shared between the claimants in OP(MV)No.1153/2001 equally. The amount due to the second claimant in OP(MV)No.1153/2001 shall be deposited in a nationalized bank in his name till he attains majority, with liberty for the first claimant in that case to withdraw monthly interest accrued on that amount for the maintenance and welfare of the second appellant. Two months' time is granted to the insurance company to deposit this amount as well. In the result, MACA.No.1944/2013 and cross objection No.82/2013 in MACA.No.555/2009 are hereby dismissed and MACA.Nos.555/2009 and 1943/2013 are allowed to the extent mentioned above. If any amount in excess of what has been awarded as above has already been withdrawn by the 4th respondent shall re-deposit the same before the Tribunal within two months, failing which the Tribunal shall take steps to recover the excess amount from her and disburse or deposit the MACA.NO.555/09&Con.Cases 25 same also in favour of appellants 1 and 2 in the proportion as directed above. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/- K.RAMAKRISHNAN,JUDGE cl