(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 25.10.2016 passed in MVC no.257/2015 on the file of v additional district and sessions judge and motor Accidents claim tribunal-VI, Belagavi, awarding compensation of Rs.13,17,000/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition till its realisation and etc)
Oral Judgment:
1. MFA No.100413/2017 is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') by the insurer challenging the negligence and quantum of compensation in the judgment and award dated 25.10.2016 passed in MVC No.257/2015 on the file of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT VI, Belagavi (for short 'the Tribunal')
2. MFA CROB. No.100044/2017 is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code by the claimants-Cross-Objectors not satisfied with the compensation awarded and challenging the 25% contributory negligence attributed against him by the Tribunal.
3. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the Tribunal for sake of convenience and clarity.
4. The case of claimant before the Tribunal in nutshell is that on 08.01.2015 at about 05.30 p.m. when he was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/EA-2245 from Mangasuli to Ugar village near the house of one Kempe near railway track, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-23/TB-0031 with two trailers bearing No.KA-23/TB-3202 and KA-23/TB-3203 loaded with sugar cane came from opposite side rashly and negligently endangering the human life and the sugarcane filled in the trailer touched the wife of claimant who was the pillion rider of his motorcycle and because of that she fell on the surface and then wheel of trailer run over on her and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the wife of claimant died at the spot. Hence, he claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of tractor-trailer.
5. The respondent No.2/insurer of tractor-trailer has filed his objection statement wherein he denied the averments made in the petition in toto and further contended that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of rider of the motorcycle and not because of the fault of the driver of the tractor-trailer. Further, rider of the motorcycle was not having any valid license and his vehicle was not insured with any insurer and thus it is not liable to pay the compensation.
6. After framing issues, recording evidence and hearing arguments, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor as well as rider of the motorcycle and there is 25% contributory negligence on his part in causing the accident. It further held that claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs. 13,17,000/- with interest at 9% per annum; out of which claimant is entitled for 75% of the compensation amount from respondent Nos.1 and 2.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer is before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for appellant/insurer Sri R.R.Mane would submit that the claimant was the rider of motorcycle. The oral evidence of PW.1 i.e., claimant, coupled with documents produced by him i.e., police records, his complaint and the spot sketch, which was drawn at his instance by the police officers would establish that the accident has taken place due to contributory negligence of the claimant himself because he has taken the motorcycle to the right side and tractor was on its left side of the road. Hence, the contributory negligence shall be more than 25%.
9. Learned counsel for insurer would submit that the deceased aged about 40 years left behind only her husband and it has come in evidence that they lived happily together. They were having marital relationship since 20 years prior to the death of wife and they were not having any children. There is no chance of expansion of the family. Hence, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses by the Tribunal is not proper and it shall be only 50%.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram and Others v. Surjeet and Others, dated 11.06.2026, in Civil Appeal No. _____ of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.33915 of 2025), is not applicable to the facts of the present case and, having been rendered per incuriam, cannot be treated as a binding precedent. Furthermore in that judgment, the judgment of the three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kirti and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., dated 05.01.2021 in Civil Appeal Nos.19-20 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.18728-29 of 2018) is not followed by letter and spirit, even though it was referred.
11. In this regard, learned counsel for appellant would further places reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Santosh Patel Alias Santosh Kumar Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2026:AHC:134732 wherein some discussion is made that how Shishu Pal's case cited supra cannot be followed in all the subsequent cases.
12. Learned counsel for appellant would further place reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Mohd. Shakir Ali and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in I (2006) ACC 709 (DB) wherein, the full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court was relied to decide how the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Courts are to be considered, when there is Conflict in two Supreme Court judgments.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that on relying Sarla Verma's case cited supra, the five-judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 case held that what was the actual income of deceased as on the date of accident is to be considered and not the imaginary income. While fixing notional income, several other factors were considered and thus, imaginary income cannot be considered.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-Sri Yash R. Nadakarani for learned counsel Sri Vittal S. Teli would submit that the charge-sheet is filed against driver of the tractor-trailer by making proper investigation. Said charge-sheet is not challenged by anyone including driver of the offending tractor-trailers. There is just one feet on right side by the motorcycle and only because of that, negligence cannot be attributed on the part of rider of the motorcycle. Merely because spot sketch is marked through the claimant, the averments in the spot sketch cannot be the sole ground to say that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. In this regard, he places reliance on the following judgments:
i) The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656;
ii) The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486;
iii) The judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court in Shri Riyaja Vs. Shri Siddanagaouda and another in MFA No.101467/2022 dated 25.11.2025;
15. Learned counsel for claimant would further submit that based on Sarla Verma's case, in the judgment of the division Bench of this Court, in the case of Smt.Rathna Vs. Veerayya dated 04.02.2022 in MFA No.103174/2019 and MFA No.103531/2019, it is held that when a person is married, then 1/3rd of his income is to be taken towards his personal and living expenses and 2/3rd shall be considered as the income to decide the case.
16. Learned counsel for claimant would further submit that in the recent judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the role of home maker in Shishu Pal's case and thus, held that income of home maker shall be taken minimum at Rs. 30,000/- and the Court can add additional income, if she is having some other source of income. He would further submit that relying on the said judgment, this Court already passed the judgment in the case of Arun Vs. Ravi and another dated 07.07.2026 in MFA No.102562/2025 and hence, the deceased was a home maker and thus, her income is to be taken at least at Rs. 30,000/- per month. Hence, prayed for modification of the award in respect of awarding contributory negligence of 25% on the claimant.
17. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying appeal papers and Trial Court records, the points that arise for consideration are:
i) "Whether the finding of Tribunal on contributory negligence at 25% by the claimant requires modification?
ii) Whether the quantum of compensation requires modification?"
18. Finding of this Court on point No.1 is in negative and point No.2 is in affirmative for the following:
REASONS
The claimant was the rider of the motorcycle going from Ugar to Mangasuli village and tractor loaded with sugarcane of 2 trailers attached to it was coming from opposite direction i.e. from Mangasuli village to Ugar and accident occurred in between these 2 places on the road width of 16 feet.
19. According to spot panchanama and spot sketch as per Exs.P.3 and P.4, the accident occurred on almost middle of the road. The road was running from East to West. The accident has taken place on 7 feet from northern side of the road and the motorcycle was coming from southern side. It is to be noted here that tractor has not hit the motorcycle. On the other hand, the sugarcane loaded in the trailers touched the wife of claimant who was the pillion rider of motorcycle; because of that, she fell on the road and then, the wheel of the trailer run over her and thereby, caused the accident.
20. In the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangla Ram's case cited supra at paragraph Nos.31 to 33 held as follows:
"31. Be that as it may, the next question is whether the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the appellant was also negligent and had contributed equally, which finding rests only on the site map (Ext. 2) indicating the spot where the motorcycle was lying after the accident?
32. We find substance in the criticism of the appellant that the spot where the motor vehicle was found lying after the accident cannot be the basis to assume that it was driven in or around that spot at the relevant time. It can be safely inferred that after the accident of this nature in which the appellant suffered severe injuries necessitating amputation of his right leg above the knee level, the motorcycle would be pushed forward after the collision and being hit by a high speeding jeep. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has found that the spot noted in the site map, one foot wrong side on the middle of the road was the spot where the accident actually occurred. However, the finding is that as per the site map, the motorcycle was found lying at that spot. That cannot be the basis to assume that the appellant was driving the motorcycle on the wrong side of the road at the relevant time. Further, the respondents did not produce any contra evidence to indicate that the motorcycle was being driven on the wrong side of the road at the time when the offending vehicle dashed it. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant contributed to the occurrence of the accident by driving the motorcycle on the wrong side of the road, is manifestly wrong and cannot be sustained. The High Court has not expressed any opinion on this issue, having already answered the issue about the non-involvement of the offending vehicle in favour of Respondents 2 & 3.
33. In other words, we are inclined to hold that there is no title of evidence about the motorcycle being driven negligently by the appellant at the time of accident. The respondents did not produce any such evidence. That fact, therefore, cannot be assumed. Resultantly, the argument of the respondents that the appellant did not possess a valid motorcycle driving licence at the time of accident, will be of no significance: Thus, we hold that there is no legal evidence to answer the issue of contributory negligence against the appellant."
21. In the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunita's case cited supra at paragraph No.36 held as follows:
"36. The site plan (Ext. 3) has been produced in evidence before the Tribunal by witness AD 1 (Appellant 1 herein) and the record seems to indicate that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. However, the exact location of the accident, as marked out in the site plan, has not been explained much less proved through a competent witness by the respondents to substantiate their defence. Besides, the police official concerned who prepared the site plan has also not been examined. While the existence of the site plan may not be in doubt, it is difficult to accept the theory propounded on the basis of the site plan to record a finding against the appellants regarding negligence attributable to deceased Sitaram, more so in absence of ocular evidence to prove and explain the contents of the site plan."
22. In the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Riyaja's case cited supra at paragraph No.9 held as follows:
"9. It is not in dispute that a case was registered basing on the complaint given, police investigated into the case, visited the spot, prepared spot panchanama, drafted sketch map, examined relevant witnesses, recorded their statements and finally laid charge sheet against the driver of the tractor alone. The first respondent, that is the owner of the tractor in question, who is represented by his counsel before this Court, failed to state anything with regard to the pleas taken by the appellant. No denial in respect of the contents of the charge sheet was made, wherein it is held that, due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor, the accident occurred. The second respondent, who had taken a specific plea that the appellant was also at fault, neither examined any of the witnesses nor produced any documentary proof to establish its contention. Therefore, basing on the aforementioned decision and the submission that is made by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant."
23. In the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the witness who had shown the spot was not examined. In the instant case, claimant was the complainant and in the complaint it is narrated that, when he was going with his wife on the motorcycle, the tractor with two trailers loaded with sugarcane, came with rashness, negligence, endanger to human life and was coming in zigzag manner and at that time, the sugarcane loaded in the rear trailer dashed against his wife, as a result of which she fall on the road and then, the right side wheel run over her and hence, the accident has taken place.
24. Ex.P.3-spot sketch reveals the manner in which the accident occurred, as narrated by the claimant, who had shown the spot. Accordingly, in his presence and in the presence of two witnesses, the spot panchanama and spot sketch were drawn. However, this is not the situation in the cases relied by the claimant of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Furthermore, in the cross-examination, the claimant categorically deposed that the road in which accident has taken place is a plain road and its width is 16 feet and there is 6 feet of Kaccha road on both sides of this tar road; the sketch mentioned in Ex.P.4 is proper. He also admitted that two trailers filled by sugarcane were attached to tractor and tractor was coming to sugar factory at Ugar. He had seen the tractor from 100 feet distance. Even then, why he had taken the motorcycle to the right side of the road is not explained by him. The accident has taken place at 9 feet from left side, if we have considered it from the side of motorcycle and 7 feet from the side of tractor-trailers, if it is considered from the side from which tractor-trailers was proceeding.
25. Merely because charge-sheet is filed against the driver of the tractor-trailers, it cannot be said that there is no contributory negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle. This contributory negligence is to be established by the insurer. It can be established by examining any independent eye-witness by the respondent or else from the cross-examination of the eyewitness or claimant who is before the Court and also by relying on police records furnished by the claimant himself.
26. In this regard, this Court places reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Umakant Ranappa Bosle Vs. Rachappa Veerupaxappa Marihal reported in 2025 AAC 1111 (KAR), wherein at paragraph Nos.35 and 36 it is held as follows:
"35. The main contention of the claimant that once the police file a charge sheet, the Tribunal cannot go beyond the contents of the charge sheet and question whether the accident occurred or whether the alleged vehicle was involved. This contention is untenable. The recording of the evidence, production of documents and hearing both sides and assigning reasons to answer each issues, even in a summary trial before the Tribunal, is not a formality. If a charge sheet is to be accepted without proof, then the entire process of evidence recording and adjudication would become redundant. They are to be accepted to believe as prima facie case. If doubt arises as in the present case, the Tribunal has to investigate truth in the said case to decide whether such accident occurred due to involvement of vehicle.
36. In cases where doubts arise regarding the genuineness of the charge sheet, it is a duty of claimant to prove that the accident occurred with the involvement of the offending vehicle and that he sustained injuries as a result. The burden of proof on issue No.1 always lie with the claimant. The fundamental principle of proving a fact remains with the person who asserts a fact. Therefore, the said contention is not acceptable"
27. In this regard, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlata Shukla and Others reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 it is held as follows:
"13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was marked as an Exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them.
14. Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the document been proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, would not arise.
15. A party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its objection at the appropriate time. If the objection is not raised and the document is allowed to be marked and that too at the instance of a party which had proved the same and wherefore consent of the other party has been obtained, the former in our opinion cannot be permitted to turn round and raise a contention that the contents of the documents had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon. In Hukam Singh (supra), the law was correctly been laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court stating;
8. Mr. G.C. Mittal, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that Ram Partap had produced only his former deposition and gave no evidence in Court which could be considered by the Additional District Judge. I am afraid there is no merit in this contention. The Trial Court had discussed the evidence of Ram Partap in the light of the report Exhibit D.1 produced by him. The Additional District Judge while hearing the appeal could have commented on that evidence and held it to be inadmissible if law so permitted. But he did not at all have this evidence before his mind. It was not a case of inadmissible evidence either. No doubt the procedure adopted by the trial Court in letting in a certified copy of the previous deposition of Ram Partap made in the criminal proceedings and allowing the same to be proved by Ram Partap himself was not correct and he should have been examined again in regard to all that he had stated earlier in the statement the parties in order to save time did not object to the previous deposition being proved by Ram Partap himself who was only cross-examined. It is not a case where irrelevant evidence had been let in with the consent of the parties but the only objection is that the procedure followed in the matter of giving evidence in Court was not correct. When the parties themselves have allowed certain statements to be placed on the record as a part of their evidence, it is not open to them to urge later either in the same Court or in a court of appeal that the evidence produced was inadmissible. To allow them to do so would indeed be permitting them both to appropriate and reprobate."
28. In the instant case, the spot sketch is relied by the claimant and he admitted the recitals of the said documents and he was present at the time of drawing up of Spot Sketch; moreover, he had shown the spot to the investigating Officer and only because of him, the Spot Sketch was drawn. Hence, now claimant cannot deny said document. Thus, the facts which are established before the Tribunal clearly establish that there is negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle in causing the accident. However, it is also to be borne in mind that tractor is comparatively a big vehicle and moreover attached with two trailers, the too loaded with sugarcane and thus, sufficient caution ought to have been taken by driver of the tractor-trailers also in driving the tractor-trailers. Considering these facts, the Tribunal rightly assessed that there is 25% contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle i.e., on the part of the claimant in causing the accident.
29. As far as quantum is concerned, the facts which are not in dispute are that the deceased was aged about 40 years as on the date of accident as per Postmortem report. In the evidence, claimant has stated that she was aged about 22-23 years at the time of marriage and their marriage was solemnized about 20 years back. However, no material document is produced to show these facts. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly considered the age of deceased at 40 which requires no interference. When the age of deceased is considered at 40, then the relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case cited supra, 25% of the income is to be added towards future prospects. The relevant multiplier applicable to the case is 15. 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.
30. The only remaining point to be considered is what would be the income of deceased at the time of accident. Whether it shall be taken as notional income as per the chart prepared by KSLSA for Lok-Adalath cases or whether it shall be taken at Rs. 30,000/- by placing reliance on Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram and ORS. Vs. Surjeet and ORS reported in Civil Appeal No.of 2026(SLP(Civil)No.33915 of 2025) s case is to be decided here.
31. In Shishupal's case cited supra, the deceased was aged very young and left behind her husband and a small child of 6 years. She ought to have taken care of her husband as well as her minor child. She has to show the proper path to her child and that requires lot of patience and only mother can do that and that cannot be compensated in terms of money. Even then considering the gravity of these facts, the deceased was considered as home maker and her income was notionally considered at Rs. 30,000/-.
32. However, in the present case as discussed above, both husband and wife were earning and both were contributing for their development. Definitely, the loss of wife cannot be compensated in terms of money. But, that doesn't mean that she is considered to be equivalent to the person considered in Shishu pal's case cited supra. There is some distinction between said case and this case. In Arun S/O Hajavva Madar vs. Ravi S/O Channappa Koti and Anr (MFA No. 102562 of 2025) , this Court placed reliance on the judgment of Shishu Pal's case because the similar set of facts were there; there was young aged husband and minor child of 7 years. However, that is not the situation in present case.
33. In Shishu pal's case cited supra, even though the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of Kirti and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in C.A.Nos.19-20 of 2021(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.18728-29 of 2018) case was referred, while deciding the income of home maker, it was not considered by letter and spirit.
34. In Kirti's case cited supra, the three-judge bench of Hon'ble Apex Court at para No.22 by placing reliance on earlier judgments held that "it is not possible to quantify any amount in lieu of services rendered by the wife/mother i.e., the husband and children. However, for the purpose of award of compensation to the dependants some pecuniary estimate has to be made of the services of the housewife/mother.
35. At paragraph No.42(a) to (d), it is held that the court should ensure while choosing the method and fixing the notional income that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively nor too liberally. Paragraph No.42 reads as under:
"42. Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain general observations can be made regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation which can be summarized as follows:
a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.
b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.
c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.
e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation."
36. In that case the income of home maker was taken equivalent to the notional income fixed by the authorities.
37. Furthermore, in Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohd. Shakir Ali and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in I (2006) ACC 709(DB), the division bench of Allahabad High Court, by placing reliance on the judgment of full Bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows:
"7. He further contended that in the ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gyan Chand Jain and Another v. Permanand and Others (supra), though the deceased was bachelor, yet the above aspect of the case has not been considered. Relevant portion of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court is as under:
"We do find a small infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The income of the deceased was determined at Rs. 1,638 p.m. The Tribunal erred in determining the total loss of dependency at Rs. 1,000 p.m. The same should have been Rs. 1,100 per month and as only 1/3rd was to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased."
38. In the instant case, there is conflict in the judgment of Supreme Court decisions i.e., Kirti's case and Shishupal's case cited supra. Kirti's case cited supra is of three judges bench and Shishupal's case cited supra is of division bench. Hence, the judgment of Kirti's case cited supra is to be followed rather than Shishupal's case cited supra.
39. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case i.e., the wife died leaving behind her only husband and they were married about 20 years prior to the accident and they have no children and there are no other dependents to the deceased, this Court holds that the notional income prescribed by the Chart prepared by KSLSA for Lok-adalat is to be considered and not the income mentioned in Shishupal's case cited supra.
40. In this case, the accident has taken place in the year 2015. Hence the national income of deceased is taken at Rs. 8,000/-. Hence, Rs. 8000+25%X12X15X2/3 = 12,84,700/- is the compensation amount towards 'loss of dependency'.
41. As far as the compensation awarded by Tribunal on other heads are concerned they are on higher side.
42. The Tribunal ought to have taken the loss towards consortium at Rs. 40,000 and loss towards estate at Rs. 15,000, towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses at Rs. 15,000. But it has taken at Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of estate; Rs. 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and loss of consortium at Rs. 1,00,000/-.
43. Hence, in all the claimant-cross-objector is entitled for the compensation as under:
44. The claimant-cross objector is thus entitled for compensation of Rs. 12,84,700/- as against Rs. 13,17,000/-awarded by the Tribunal.
45. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal of insurer is allowed in part.
ii. The cross-objection is dismissed.
iii. The judgment and award dated 25.10.2016 passed in MVC No.257/2015 on the file of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT VI, Belagavi is modified.
iv. The claimant-cross objector is thus entitled for compensation of Rs. 12,84,700/- as against Rs. 13,17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
v. The compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
vi. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
vii. The amount, if any, in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal. The amount if any in excess be refunded to the Insurance Company on proper identification.
