Patna High Court – Orders
Amarnath Singh vs Md. Irshad And Ors on 15 July, 2026
Author: Khatim Reza
Bench: Khatim Reza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.480 of 2018
======================================================
Amarnath Singh, son of Sri Hari Nandan Singh, Advocate, Civil Court,
Sitamarhi, Resident of Krishna Nagar, Ward No. 4, Dumrah, P.S. Dumrah,
District- Sitamarhi, Permanent address of village, P.O. and P.S. Bathnaha,
District-Sitamarhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Md. Irshad , son of Md. Lukman, resident of village- Patev P.S. Bihta, Patna,
Bihar,
2. Surendra Rai, son of Sambha Rai, resident of village Sherpur, P.S. Maur,
District Patna
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Bank Tower, Bandra -Kurla
Road, Mumbai-400051 Through Legal Manager, Uma Complex, 3rd Floor,
Near Maurya Hotel, Gandhi Maidan, in front of Durdarshan, Fraser Road,
Patna-1
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV ORDER
26 15-07-2026
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment
and Award dated 08.01.2018 and 31.03.2018 respectively passed
in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 75 of 2011 by the learned
Additional District Judge-2 – cum- M.A.C.T, Sitamarhi (In
short, ‘ the Claim Tribunal’) for enhancement of award amount.
2. The appellant urged various legal grounds and
contentions for enhancement of compensation in the case of
motor accident involving the appellant/claimant wherein the
Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,34,000/- with
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
2/21
interest of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition, out of which Rs. 25,000/- was already paid to the
claimant as ad-interim compensation.
3. The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly
notional income of the appellant as Rs. 10,000/- per month and
multiplied the same by multiplier 8 as a result of which annual
income comes to Rs. 9,60,000/- and disability of 65 per cent has
been computed, and as such compensation assessed to Rs.
6,24,000/- and further allowed medical expenses of Rs.
2,10,000/-. No compensation in other heads were allowed.
4. The appellant was a practicing lawyer aged about
58 years, who suffered permanent disability to the extent of 65
per cent, has filed the instant appeal for reliefs which has not
been awarded for just compensation. The learned Claim
Tribunal ought to have allowed compensation under the head of
non-pecuniary damages in the present case but the learned
Claim Tribunal did not allow proper compensation in pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damages.
5. The appellant/claimant sustained right leg crush
injury and his leg was amputated below knee. The learned
Tribunal erred in not considering the nature of disability and the
fact that ‘amputation of leg’ from just below knee has rendered
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
3/21
this appellant 100 per cent functionally disable in his profession
as an Advocate. The Claim Case No. 75 of 2011 was filed by the
appellant in the court of District Judge – cum- Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal, Sitamarhi. claiming compensation of Rs.
42,61,647/- along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per
annum. The appellant is entitled to get the same under different
heads on the basis of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Ibrahim Vs. Raju & Ors. reported in (2011) 10 SCC
634, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down principles
to calculate compensation in personal injury cases. The head
under which the compensation was awarded in such cases are as
follows:-
Pecuniary damages (special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food
and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which
the injured would have made had he not been injured,
comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
4/21permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as
a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects
of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of
normal longevity).
6. It is further submitted that during trial, the appellant
has exhibited 23 documents and he also exhibited Vakalatnamas
executed on behalf of the parties as Exhibit-22 of the case in
which he had appeared as an advocate before the accident and
had filed the claim case in which he had given his age as about
58 years on affidavit. Despite that, the learned Claim Tribunal
wrongly mentioned in the Award that the appellant is aged about
44 years. Thereafter, learned court again mentioned his age as
58 years. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
learned Claim Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the
appellant as Rs. 10,000/- per month and reduced his income
from Rs. 12,500/- as claimed by the appellant. Respondent No.
3 / Insurance Company had not assailed the income claimed by
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
5/21
the appellant and the Claim Tribunal ought to have taken
functional disability of 100 per cent instead of 65 per cent. It is
further submitted that the income and earning of a lawyer
gradually enhances with the passing of the time and age and his
monthly income must have been taken to Rs. 12,500/- plus 50
per cent as future prospect coming to Rs. 18,750/- per month
and the case being of 100 per cent functional disability and
therefore, ought to have awarded under the head of loss of
income as Rs. 18,750/- x 9 = Rs. 1,68,750/-. Under the head of
medical expense, the learned Claim Tribunal only allowed Rs.
2,10,000/- on the basis of actual bills and cash memos produced
during the trial. The learned Claim Tribunal ought to have
allowed under the head of allied medical expenses like nursing,
medical care, transportation, special nourishment, special
attendant etc. for which bills and cash memo are not required
and not possible to brought on record of the case and should
have allowed at least seven lakh rupees under these heads.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that amputation of right leg below knee has rendered the
appellant quite unfit to carry on his profession as an advocate
and will not work what was doing before the accident. The
learned Tribunal has also not considered the nature of disability
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
6/21
taking in case of amputation of leg from below knee rendering
the appellant 100 per cent functionally disable in his profession
as an advocate. The medical report provided by the Medical
Board clearly suggests that the appellant suffers crush of right
leg below knee and percentage of permanent disability is 65 per
cent. In view of the said report of Medical Board, the issue of
adequacy has to be considered in the present case. The payment
of compensation could not revive the appellant into original
position. The compensation towards wrongly act in terms of
money though cannot be decided by the court, but it may be
determined as per the settled principle in the said context. It is
further submitted that the claimant suffered permanent disability
as a result of injuries and the assessment of compensation under
the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the effect
and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity.
Reliance has been placed in the case of Syed Sadiq & Ors. Vs.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited reported in AIR 2014 SC 1052. The Apex Court has
decided the ascertainment of the effect of permanent disability
on the actual earning capacity. The above aspect has also been
decided in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
7/21
3104, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court decided the
compensation ascertaining the multiplicand as well as multiplier
from actual calculation as also how much increment would be
granted to the deceased in calculating the future prospects as
well as amount relating to dependent family members.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that the general principles relating to compensation in injury
cases as well assessment of future loss of earning due to
permanent disability and also assessment of compensation has
been decided in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and
Anr. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. It is submitted that the
disability certificate issued by medical board cannot be ruled out
only on the ground that the doctor, who treated the appellant,
has not been examined and the said fact has been considered in
the case of Raj Kumar (Supra). The appellant also claimed 9
per cent per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the realisation of the payment. Learned counsel for
the appellant also cited a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs. Namita Sekhon
and Anr. reported in (2022) 8 SCC 489 in which it is stated that
for a proficient advocate, the person must be physically fit. For
a proficient determination of compensation, a realistic and
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
8/21
reasonable method must be recognized. This method must
account for factors such as the victim age, inflation rate,
uncertainties of life and other realistic head not only for
determining the future loss of earning but also for assessing
attendant charges. It is submitted that in view of guidelines for
computation of compensation, the claimant/appellant is entitled
for compensation under the different heads and on the above
amount of compensation, 9 per cent per annum has to be
awarded.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company/respondent no. 3 submitted that the
disability to the extent of 65 per cent shown and supported by
the disability certificate and was issued by doctor, but the doctor
has not been examined. As such, it cannot be relied upon in
view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh & Anr. reported in
(2008) 7 SCC 305. The said disability certificate is not
admissible as the author of the certificate has not been
examined. In the case of disability of 75 per cent plus is
normally treated as total disability. However, it is not a case of
total disability. In the case of lesser % (percentage) of disability,
percentage of disability is deducted from 100 per cent and in the
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
9/21
present case, if accepting the percentage of disability, it would
be 100% -35%= 65% . Thus, the monetary loss would be 65 per
cent out of 100 per cent. Save and except oral evidence, there is
no proof of income on record. Therefore, the compensation
would be calculated by taking into the account notional income
or rate for skilled. As such, compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/-
per day for 26 working days, even if liberally calculated, it
would be Rs. 150/- per day x 26 days = 3900 x 65 % x 12 month
= 30,420 (earning) x 9 multiplier = 2,73,780/- + 10 % future
prospect as per the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, apart from
the amount under non-pecuniary head would be taken into
consideration for calculating compensation. It is further
submitted that higher compensation has been allowed under
pecuniary head and non-pecuniary head. No interest would be
applicable on the amount under future head and non-pecuniary
head in view of different judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble
Court. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent
submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the case of
enhancement is fit to be rejected.
10. From the facts and circumstances of the case and
materials available on record, it is apparent that the
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
10/21
victim/claimant was earning as practicing lawyer as well as
from cultivation. Altogether, he earned Rs. 12,500/- per month
at the time of accident. On this point, the Insurance
Company/respondent did not cross-examine. The said income is
reduced by the Claim Tribunal to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per
month without any legal basis. The income of the appellant has
not been challenged by any cogent evidence by the Insurance
Company. On perusal of the evidences available on record, it
appears that the victim/appellant was active legal practitioner.
The witnesses of the appellant in their oral evidence have
supported the income of the appellant as claimed by the
appellant and there is no rebuttal against such income of the
victim. In the case of Parminder Singh v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2019) 7 SCC 217, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph no. 5.1 & 5.2 as
follows:-
5.1. The appellant has however, produced an
affidavit by his employer in this Court. As
per the said affidavit, the appellant was
earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. at the time of
accident.
5.2 On the basis of the affidavit filed by the
employer of the appellant, we accept that the
income of the appellant was Rs. 10,000 p.m.
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
11/21at the time of accident, for the purpose of
computing the compensation payable to him.
11. It is also apparent from the impugned judgment
and Award, that the learned Claim Tribunal has wrongly applied
multiplier of 8. With respect to the multiplier, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), has decided
the multiplier as per the age of the deceased. The learned
Tribunal has wrongly multiplied the multiplicand with
multiplier 8 in place of 9. In the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), a
chart has been prepared for fixing the applicable multiplier in
accordance with the age of the deceased after considering the
judgment in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Susamma Thomas
(MRS) And Others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176, U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Trilok Chandra
and others reported in (1996) 4 SCC 362 and New India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Charlie and another reported in (2005)
10 SCC 720. The relevant extract from the said chart i.e. column
no. 4 has been set out herein below for ready reference:-
Age of the deceased Multiplier (Column 4)
Up to 15 years ---
15 to 20 years 18
21 to 25 years 18
26 to 30 years 17
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
12/21
31 to 35 years 16
36 to 40 years 15
41 to 45 years 14
46 to 50 years 13
51 to 55 years 11
56 to 60 years 09
12. It is the admitted case of the parties that the
deceased was aged about 58 years at the time of accident and
therefore, in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma (Supra), the
multiplier of 9 should be applied instead of multiplier of 8. It is
also apparent from the materials available on records especially
Ext.-17 issued on 08.09.2011 just after 8 months of accident that
the right leg of the appellant has been amputated below knee.
Disability certificate has shown 65 per cent which has been
accepted by the Claim Tribunal and further held that the
appellant will be entitled to get 65 per cent of total income after
calculation of annual income by multiplier of 8 without any
assessment of fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The
Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and
exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though
some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which
he suffered as a result of such injury. Therefore, the claimant is
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
13/21
to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his
inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have
enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as
he did or could have earned. This view has been taken in the
case of Raj Kumar (Supra).
13. In The Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 (in short, ” The Disability Act), the disability enumerated
in Section 2(i) of the Disability Act are the result of injuries
sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities
for the purpose of claiming compensation. The Medical
Certificate issued by the Medical Board and countersigned by
the Chief Medical Officer, Sitamarhi shows that the appellant’s
right leg was amputated below knee and percentage of
permanent disability is 65 per cent. When the Disability
Certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent
disability to the extent of 65 per cent of the right leg, it is not the
same as 65 per cent permanent disability with reference to the
whole body. The extent of a disability of a limb (or part of the
body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions
of that leg, obviously cannot be assumed to be extent of
disability of the whole body. If there is 60 per cent permanent
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
14/21
disability of the right hand and 80 per cent permanent disability
of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent
disability with reference to the whole body is 140 per cent. If
different parts of the body have suffered different percentage of
disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the
permanent disability with reference to the whole body cannot be
obviously exceed 100 per cent. It is further held that where the
claimants suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries,
the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future
earning, would depend upon the effect and impact of such
permanent disability on his earning capacity.
14. In the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the guidelines have been settled with regard to the
ascertainment of the effect of permanent disability on the actual
earning capacity, which involves three steps. The Tribunal has to
first ascertain of the activities the claimant could carry on in
spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as the
result of permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The
second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature
of work before the accident, and also his age. The third step is to
find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
15/21
any kind of livelihood, or (ii) Whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant can still effectively carry on the activities
and functions, which he was earlier carrying on or (iii) Whether
he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and function but could carry on some other or lessor
scale of activities and function so that he continues to earn his
livelihood.
15. In the present case, the nature of work of the
claimant/appellant before the accident was that he was active
lawyer practicing before the different Courts in the district.
After the accident, he was prevented/restricted from discharging
his previous activities. It is also apparent from the nature of job
that after the accident, the clients of the claimant lost his interest
to engage the claimant as their lawyers because he did not
perform previous duties effectively. In that event, the claimant
loss of earning capacity will be more than 65 per cent. It is
apparent in the case of the claimant that he was found not
suitable for discharging the duties attached to the nature of job
as an advocate which he was earlier carrying, on account of his
disability. When compensation is awarded by treating the loss of
earning capacity 65 per cent, the need to award compensation
separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
16/21
expectation of life does not necessarily disappear. It is apparent
from the record that the disability certificate has been given by
duly constituted Medical Board. The genuineness of the
certificate has not been challenged by the Insurance Company.
The Insurance Company has only raised objection with regard
to the non-examination of doctor. The permanent disability
arising out from injuries resulted in the loss of earning capacity.
It is apparent from the record that the claimant after fully
recovered from the injury and treatment, rejoined his profession,
but he was not found suitable for discharging the duties attached
to the profession / nature of work which he was earlier
discharging. On account of his disability, his earning capacity
was reduced. The percentage of permanent disability is stated
with reference to the right leg. The permanent disability was
assessed as 65 per cent by the Claim Tribunal, but the Claim
Tribunal has not assessed compensation under the head of loss
of future earning. The permanent disability would have
prevented him from carrying on his profession as an advocate.
The permanent disability of the injured claimant reduced his
earning capacity. Therefore, this Court assessed the permanent
functional disability considering the nature of job as 65 per cent
and the loss of future earning capacity as 65 per cent. Therefore,
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
17/21
the annual income prior to the accident is of Rs. 12,500/- x 12 =
1,50,000/-. Loss of future earning per annum 65 per cent of the
annual income is equal to Rs. 97,500/-. The multiplier
applicable with reference to age and calculation mentioned as
per the case of Sarla Verma (supra) is 9. Therefore, the loss of
future earning is Rs. 97,500 x 9 = 8,77,500/-.
16. So far loss of earning during the period of
treatment and incapacitated to pursue his profession is
concerned, it is apparent from the evidence adduced by the
claimant that he was admitted to Nursing Home, namely, Akshat
Sewa Sadan, Yarpur Patna on 22.01.2011 at 6:00 PM under the
treatment of Dr. Amulya Kumar Singh. As per the doctor
certificate (Ext.-9) and other relevant documents, there was
crush lacerated injury of the effected part and leg was hanging
from around knee with just tags of skin. Bones were separated
and almost no soft tissue connection. The certificate of the
doctor and prescription and other medical papers show that
claimant’s right leg was operated on 22.01.2011 and his knee
was amputated. It further shows that he was again operated on
02.02.2011. He was under active care of the said doctor and
doctor suggested some more operation will be done before final
operation as per the discussion with Plastic Surgeon and other
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
18/21
Orthopedic Surgeon. The said doctor certified that the condition
of the patient is not good and stump is not healthy. The said
certificate (Ext.-9) was issued by Orthopedic Surgeon on
03.02.2011. The prescription of the doctor (Ext.-8 series
particularly Ext.-8/2) shows that the patient (claimant) was re-
examined by the Doctor, who prescribed him medicine for 6
months more on 11.12.2012. The invoice of medicine was
issued by Balaji Medical on payment of bills issued on
26.02.2013 (Ext.-12 series) particularly invoice dated
26.02.2013 is of Rs. 2970/-. These documents at least shows
that the claimant was regularly in consult with the doctor and
taking the medicine for his treatment till February, 2013. He was
prevented form discharging his previous activities and functions
which he was earlier carrying on. During this period, i.e.
22.01.2011 to February, 2013, the claimant was restricted from
his profession and the actual loss of earning capacity was 100
per cent. With regard to this aspect of the matter, the learned
claim tribunal did not consider the loss of earning capacity
during the period February, 2011 to February, 2013. For the loss
of earning during the period of treatment and consultation with
the doctor, the claimant is entitled at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- per
month during the period from February, 2011 to February, 2013
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
19/21
and is to be considered in view of decision reported in Sidram
Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited and Another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439. The
decision under the aforesaid head is awarded Rs. 12,500/- x 25
months = Rs. 3,12,500/-. So far the treatment from 02.09.2011
till disposal of this appeal, the claimant/appellant had claimed
Rs. 12,000/- per month as treatment cost. The receipt of the
invoice for purchasing medicine or other charges were not filed
by the claimant as stated above. Only the documents (Ext.-8/2
dated 11.12.2012) is available on record which shows that the
medicine was prescribed for 6 months. The future medical
expenses is from September, 2011 to June 2013 i.e. for 22
months. The cost of treatment as claimed by the claimant is Rs.
12,000/- per month. Therefore, the total calculation for future
medical expenses is Rs. 12,000/- x 22 = 2,64.000/-. I also
propose to award lump sum amount for loss of amenities i.e.
two lakh rupees taking into consideration the fact that the
appellant was 58 years old at the time of accident as also the
nature of injury suffered by him and the extent of his disability.
So far other heads i.e. litigation charges and pain suffering
would also be followed.
17. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, details
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
20/21
of the compensation under the different heads in the light of the
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of
Sidram (supra), the claimant/appellant is awarded
compensation under the manner indicated in the chart below and
the judgment and award passed by the Claim Tribunal is
modified to the aforesaid extent.
1. Name Amarnath Singh
2. Age 58 years
3. Monthly Income Rs. 12,500/- (employed
as lawyer)
4. Annual Income Rs. 12,500 x 12 = Rs.
1,50,000/-
5. Multiplier based on age of 9
58 years
6. Total Income Rs. 1,50,000/- x 9
= 13,50,000/-
7. Loss of future earning Rs. 13,50,000 x 65% =
capacity due to permanent Rs. 8,77,500/-
disability i.e. 65 %
8. Loss of earning during Rs. 12,500 x 25 = Rs.
period of treatment for 25 3,12,500/-
months
9. Litigation charges Rs. 20,000/-
10. Pain/suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
11. Loss of Amenities Rs. 2,00,000/-
12. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,10,000/-
13. Future Medical Expenses Rs. 2,64,000/-
Total Amount of Rs. 19,84,000/-
Compensation i.e. Loss of (Rs. 8,77,500/- +
future earning capacity 3,12,500/- + 20,000/- +
due to permanent disability 1,00,000/- +2,00,000/-
i.e. 65 % + Loss of earning + 2,10,000/- + Rs.
during period of treatment 2,64,000/-)
for 25 months + Litigation
Charges + Pain/ sufferings
+ Loss of Amenities+
Medical Expenses +
Future Earning Expenses
Patna High Court MA No.480 of 2018(26) dt.15-07-2026
21/21
18. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the
learned Claim Tribunal is enhanced / modified from Rs.
8,34,000/- to Rs. 19,84,000/-
19. The Insurance Company shall pay the difference
amount within a period of three months from the date of
receipt/production of copy of this court which shall carry
simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date
of filing of claim petition till the date of realisation.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed with the
aforesaid enhancement in the compensation amount.
21. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
premchand/-
U
