Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Bhupathi Sujatha And 5 Others on 16 June, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
M.A.C.M.A. No.2717 OF 2018
Between:
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
4-1-327 to 377, 4th Floor,
Sagar Plaza, Abids,
Hyderabad. ... Appellant/Respondent No.2
versus
1. Bhupathi Sujatha, W/o. late Sivaiah,
35 years, Housewife.
2. Bhupathi Akshaya, D/o late Sivaiah,
10 years, Student (Minor).
3. Bhupathi Sri Akshitha, S/o. late Sivaiah,
6 years, Student (Minor).
4. Bhupathi Rajeswari, W/o.Ramaiah,
66 years, Housewife.
[Respondent Nos.2 & 3 being minors are
represented by their Mother and Natural Guardian,
the respondent No.1 herein]
All residing at D.No.328, 3rd Cross Road,
Ramannapet, Guntur City,
Guntur JCJC. ... Respondents/Petitioners
5. Mahaboob Pasha, S/o. Yakub Ali, Major,
Owner of Lorry No.AP 15U 9567,
House No.1-414/4, Indira Nagar,
Narasampet, Warangal, JCJC Warrangal.
6. Jannu Anand, S/o.Sammaiah, 35 years,
Driver of Lorry No.AP 15U 9567,
Pocharam village, Parakal Mandal,
Warangal District,
Telangana State. ... Respondents/
CROSS OBJECTION No.17 OF 2022
1. Bhupathi Sujatha, W/o.Late Sivaiah,
Aged 39 years, Occ:House Wife,
R/o.D.No.328, 3rd Cross Road,
Ramannapet, Guntur Town.
2. Bhupathi Akshaya, D/o.Late Sivaiah,
Aged 20 years, Occ:Student, R/o.D.No.328,
3rd Cross Road, Ramannapet,
Guntur Town.
3. Bhupathi Sri Akshitha,
S/o.Late Sivaiah, Aged 10 years,
Occ:Student, R/o.D.No.328,
3rd Cross Road, Ramannapet,
Guntur Town, Being minor,
Rep. by his Mother and Natural Guardian
i.e., petitioner no.1 hereinabove.
4. Bhupathi Rajeswari, W/o.Ramaiah,
Aged 70 years, House Wife,
R/o.D.No.328, 3rd Cross Road,
Ramannapet, Guntur Town. ... Cross Objectors/
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
4-1-327 to 377, 4th Floor,
Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad. ... Respondent/Appellant
2. Mahaboob Pasha, S/o Yakub Ali, Major,
Owner of Lorry No.AP 15U 9567,
House No.1-414/4, Indira Nagar,
Narasampet, Warangal, Telangana.
3. Jannu Anand, S/o Sammaiah, 39 years,
Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 15U 9567,
Pocharam village, Parakal Mandal,
Warangal District, Telangana. ... Respondents/
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 16.06.2022
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
________________________________
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J
__________________________________
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J
* HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND
* HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
+ M.A.C.M.A. No.2717 OF 2018
% 16.06.2022
# Between:
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
4-1-327 to 377, 4th Floor,
Sagar Plaza, Abids,
Hyderabad. ... Appellant/Respondent No.2
versus
1. Bhupathi Sujatha, W/o. late Sivaiah,
35 years, Housewife.
2. Bhupathi Akshaya, D/o late Sivaiah,
10 years, Student (Minor).
3. Bhupathi Sri Akshitha, S/o. late Sivaiah,
6 years, Student (Minor).
4. Bhupathi Rajeswari, W/o.Ramaiah,
66 years, Housewife.
[Respondent Nos.2 & 3 being minors are
represented by their Mother and Natural Guardian,
the respondent No.1 herein]
All residing at D.No.328, 3rd Cross Road,
Ramannapet, Guntur City,
Guntur JCJC. ... Respondents/Petitioners
5. Mahaboob Pasha, S/o. Yakub Ali, Major,
Owner of Lorry No.AP 15U 9567,
House No.1-414/4, Indira Nagar,
Narasampet, Warangal, JCJC Warrangal.
6. Jannu Anand, S/o.Sammaiah, 35 years,
Driver of Lorry No.AP 15U 9567,
Pocharam village, Parakal Mandal,
Warangal District,
Telangana State. ... Respondents/
CROSS OBJECTION No.17 OF 2022
1. Bhupathi Sujatha, W/o.Late Sivaiah,
Aged 39 years, Occ:House Wife,
R/o.D.No.328, 3rd Cross Road,
Ramannapet, Guntur Town.
2. Bhupathi Akshaya, D/o.Late Sivaiah,
Aged 20 years, Occ:Student, R/o.D.No.328,
3rd Cross Road, Ramannapet,
Guntur Town.
3. Bhupathi Sri Akshitha,
S/o.Late Sivaiah, Aged 10 years,
Occ:Student, R/o.D.No.328,
3rd Cross Road, Ramannapet,
Guntur Town, Being minor,
Rep. by his Mother and Natural Guardian
i.e., petitioner no.1 hereinabove.
4. Bhupathi Rajeswari, W/o.Ramaiah,
Aged 70 years, House Wife,
R/o.D.No.328, 3rd Cross Road,
Ramannapet, Guntur Town. ... Cross Objectors/
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
4-1-327 to 377, 4th Floor,
Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad. ... Respondent/Appellant
2. Mahaboob Pasha, S/o Yakub Ali, Major,
Owner of Lorry No.AP 15U 9567,
House No.1-414/4, Indira Nagar,
Narasampet, Warangal, Telangana.
3. Jannu Anand, S/o Sammaiah, 39 years,
Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 15U 9567,
Pocharam village, Parakal Mandal,
Warangal District, Telangana. ... Respondents/
! Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. G. Ramachandra Reddy,
Advocate
^ Counsel for the Respondents
No.1 to 4 : Mr. M. Chalapathi Rao,
Advocate
^ Counsel for the Respondents
No.5 & 6 : [None/Appearance Not
Provided]
< Gist:
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (1999) 73 ALJR 403
2. (2002) 6 SCC 455
3. (2014) 2 SCC 735
4. 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC).
5. (2021) 2 SCC 166
6. National Insurance Company Limited v Birender and Ors.,
(Civil Appeal Nos.242-243 of 2020, Dt.13.01.2020
7. 2022 LawSuit (SC) 161
8. AIR 2020 SC 4424
9. 2006 LawSuit (Guj) 911
10. AIR 2007 Ker 103
11. 2000 LawSuit (Kar) 199
12. 2022 LawSuit (SC) 230
13. 2019 LawSuit (Gau) 689
14. (2013) 9 SCC 65
15. (2017) 16 SCC 680
This Court made the following:
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
MACMA No.2717 OF 2018
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
4-1-327 to 377, 4th Floor,
Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad.
... Appellant/Respondent No.2
versus
1. Bhupathi Sujatha, W/o late Sivaiah,
35 years, Housewife,
2. Bhupathi Akshaya, D/o late Sivaiah,
10 years, Student (Minor)
3. Bhupathi Sri Akshitha, S/o late Sivaiah,
6 years, Student (Minor),
4. Bhupathi Rajeswari, W/o Ramaiah,
66 years, Housewife,
[Respondent Nos.2 & 3 being minors are
represented by their Mother and Natural Guardian,
the respondent No.1 herein]
All residing at D.No.328, 3rd Cross Road,
Ramannapet, Guntur City, Guntur JCJC
... Respondents/Petitioners
5. Mahaboob Pasha, S/o Yakub Ali, Major,
Owner of Lorry No.AP 15U 9567,
House No.1-414/4, Indira Nagar,
Narasampet, Warangal, JCJC Warrangal
6. Junnu Anand, S/o Sammaiah, 35 years,
Driver of Lorry No.AP 15U 9567,
Pochamram village, Parakal Mandal,
Warangal District, Telangana State
...Respondents/
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. D. Ravi Kiran, Advocate
For the Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Venkata Rama Rao Kota,
Advocate
For the Respondents No.5 & 6 : [None/Appearance Not Provided]
Along with
CROSS OBJECTION No. 17 OF 2022
1. Bhupathi Sujatha, W/o.Late Sivaiah,
Aged 39 years, Occ:House Wife,
R/o.D.No.328, 3rd Cross Road,
Ramannapet, Guntur Town.
2. Bhupathi Akshaya, D/o.Late Sivaiah,
Aged 20 years, Occ:Student, R/o.D.No.328,
3rd Cross Road, Ramannapet,
Guntur Town.
3. Bhupathi Sri Akshitha,
S/o.Late Sivaiah, Aged 10 years,
Occ:Student, R/o.D.No.328,
3rd Cross Road, Ramannapet,
Guntur Town, Being minor,
Rep. by his Mother and Natural Guardian
i.e., petitioner no.1 hereinabove.
4. Bhupathi Rajeswari, W/o.Ramaiah,
Aged 70 years, House Wife,
R/o.D.No.328, 3rd Cross Road,
Ramannapet, Guntur Town. ... Cross Objectors/
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
4-1-327 to 377, 4th Floor,
Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad. ... Respondent/Appellant
2. Mahaboob Pasha, S/o Yakub Ali, Major,
Owner of Lorry No.AP 15U 9567,
House No.1-414/4, Indira Nagar,
Narasampet, Warangal, Telangana.
3. Jannu Anand, S/o Sammaiah, 39 years,
Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 15U 9567,
Pocharam village, Parakal Mandal,
Warangal District, Telangana. ... Respondents/
Counsel for the Cross Objectors : Mr. Venkata Rama Rao
Kota, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. D. Ravi Kiran,
Advocate
For the Respondents No.2 & 3 : [None/Appearance Not
Provided]
CAV JUDGEMENT
Date: 16.06.2022
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
The instant judgement governs both MACMA No.2717 of
2018 and Cross Objection No.17 of 2022. For ease of reference,
the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in MACMA
No.2717 of 2018, filed by the insurance company. Heard Mr. D.
Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Venkata
Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents
no.1 to 4 in MACMA No.2717 of 2018.
2. MACMA No.2717 of 2018 is preferred against the order
dated 30.05.2018 passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Guntur, Andhra
Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in
M.V.O.P.No.1455 of 2012. Vide the said order, an award has been
passed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act') and the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules,
1989, awarding INR 49,30,000/- in favour of the respondents
no.1 to 4, the family members of one of the deceased in the
accident, who was a passenger in the car, against the appellant
company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without
sufficient evidence to indicate that the incident in question was
an accident, the Tribunal awarded the amount, which is
unjustified. In support of his contention, it was pointed out that
the lorry, which was parked and which was dashed into by the
Toyota Qualis vehicle (hereinafter referred to as 'Qualis') on which
the deceased was travelling, was on the margin of the road and
thus, it was the negligence of the driver of the Qualis, which
resulted in the accident and thus, there being contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, in which the
deceased was travelling, the quantum of compensation awarded
should have been less. It was submitted that only on the basis of
the deposition of the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased
was travelling, the impugned award has been passed without
definite evidence to show that the lorry was parked in the middle
of the road.
4. At this juncture, when the Court put a categorical query to
learned counsel for the appellant as to whether there was any
other point which the Court should consider, learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the only objection taken in the
appeal [MACMA No.2717 of 2018] is with regard to the
contributory negligence of the driver of the Qualis, as noted
supra, as alleged by the appellant company.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4
submitted that the Tribunal had been very meticulous and
careful in arriving at the finding that there was no contributory
negligence and that the appellant company, which was the
insurer of the lorry, was liable to pay the awarded amount. He
further submitted that the First Information Report (hereinafter
referred to as the 'FIR') filed by the wife of the deceased viz.
respondent no.1, alleged that the offending vehicle i.e. the lorry
was stationed in the middle of the road without any indicators,
parking lights or other precautionary measures and the
negligence was on the part of the lorry driver as also the fact that
the lorry was parked in the middle of the road. Learned counsel
drew the attention of the Court to the relevant portions of the
impugned award, which would indicate that besides the evidence
of the Qualis driver, who was the sole eye-witness to the
unfortunate incident, there was also corroborative material in the
Chargesheet (pursuant to the FIR referred to above) to indicate
that there was no contributory negligence by the Qualis driver,
and it was the negligence of the lorry driver alone.
6. Having anxiously considered the facts and circumstances
as also the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
this Court does not find any cogent ground to necessitate or
warrant interference in the matter.
7. The sole point canvassed to show that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Qualis,
which was the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling, is
that the offending lorry was parked on/at the edge of the road.
This stand was denied on facts by the testimony of PW 2 (the
driver of the Qualis) read with Ex.A6, which is the Chargesheet
which states that the accident took place due to the negligent act
of the driver of the offending lorry, who had stationed the said
vehicle in the middle of the road without any indicators, parking
lights or any other precautions. Thus, there was evidence on
record before the Tribunal, which was not countered, as no other
evidence was brought to indicate that the offending vehicle was
parked at the margin of the road. The aforesaid, in our considered
view, clearly establishes that the offending lorry was parked in
the middle of the road without any indicators, parking lights or
any other precautions. Moreover, PW2's evidence reveals that it
was also drizzling and the time was about 5.00 AM IST, factors
which sufficiently indicate that the accident took place without
negligence on the part of the driver of the Qualis, wherein the
deceased was a passenger. We profitably reproduce the following
passage from the judgement of the High Court of Australia in
Astley v Aus Trust Ltd., (1999) 73 ALJR 403:
'A finding of contributory negligence turns on a
factual investigation whether the plaintiff
contributed to his or her own loss by failing to
take reasonable care of his or her person or
property. What is reasonable care depends on the
circumstances of the case. In many cases, it may be
proper for a plaintiff to rely on the defendant to
perform its duty. But there is no absolute rule. The
duties and responsibilities of the defendant are a
variable factor in determining whether contributory
negligence exists and, if so, to what degree. In some
cases, the nature of the duty owed may exculpate the
plaintiff from a claim of contributory negligence; in
other cases, the nature of the duty may reduce the
plaintiff's share of responsibility for the damage
suffered; and in yet other cases the nature of the duty
may not prevent a finding that the plaintiff failed to
take reasonable care for the safety of his or her person
or property. Contributory negligence focuses on
the conduct of the plaintiff. The duty owed by
the defendant, although relevant, is one only of
many factors that must be weighed in
determining whether the plaintiff has so
conducted itself that it failed to take reasonable
care for the safety of its person or property.'
(emphasis supplied)
8. The aforenoted extract from Astley (supra) has been quoted
approvingly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramodkumar
Rasikbhai Javeri v Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, (2002) 6 SCC
455. Furthermore, contributory negligence has to be proved, or,
to say so, at the very least, shown by adducing evidence, and in
the absence thereof, contributory negligence and liability flowing
therefrom cannot be fastened onto a party [See Syed Sadiq v
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 735]. The Court
called upon learned counsel for the appellant as to whether there
was any contest on the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. The
learned counsel for the appellant, in all fairness, submitted that
the quantum had been arrived at using the formula laid down in
Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298
(SC).
9. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, MACMA
No.2717 of 2018, is dismissed. Miscellaneous Applications
pending, if any, in MACMA No.2717 of 2018 stand closed.
10. From the record, it transpires that while granting stay of
operation of the impugned award dated 30.05.2018 in
M.V.O.P.No.1455 of 2012 (passed by the Tribunal), on
10.10.2018, this Court had ordered the appellant to deposit 50%
of the compensation awarded within six weeks from that date
before the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the same was done.
We shall deal with its disbursal while deciding the Cross
Objection, which follows below.
11. Cross Objection No.17 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of
the respondents no.1 to 4 seeking, inter alia, enhancement of the
awarded amount from INR 49,30,000/- to INR 52,40,256/- with
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the date of payment, as also costs.
12. It was contended by learned counsel for respondents no.1
to 4 that meagre interest at 7.5% has been awarded which is
unreasonable and at least 12% should have been granted in view
of the claim petition seeking 18% interest per annum. Learned
counsel submitted that even while adopting the formula, an
amount of INR 30,000/- had been deducted from the gross salary
towards income tax payable by the deceased taking the same at
10%, which is erroneous in law and incorrect on facts. It was
submitted that the total income of the deceased during the
relevant period 2010-2011 was assessed at INR 3,00,000/-, and
after deduction of GPF and ESI contribution totalling INR
12,360/-, the net income of the deceased would be INR
2,87,640/- for which the applicable income tax rate for the said
year exempted INR 1,60,000/-. As such, it was submitted that
the taxable income of the deceased would come down to INR
1,27,640/- and 10% of the same would be INR 12,764/-. Learned
counsel submitted that the balance annual income should have
been taken as (3,00,000 - 12,764 i.e.) INR 2,87,236/- and
considering the age of the deceased, 50% is required to be added
towards future prospects, which would then take the amount to
INR 4,30,854/- and deducting ¼th towards personal expenses,
the balance would come to INR 3,23,141/-. Learned counsel
submitted that once the same is multiplied by 16, as per the
applicable formula, the amount touches Rs.51,70,256/-. He
urged that the Tribunal had awarded INR 40,000/- towards loss
of consortium, INR 15,000/- towards loss of estate and INR
15,000/- towards funeral expenses. In this scenario, learned
counsel pressed that the respondents no.1 to 4 are entitled to INR
52,40,256/-, whereas only a lesser amount of INR 40,30,000/-
was awarded by the Tribunal.
13. In support of his contention, learned counsel referred to
the decision in Kirti v Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
(2021) 2 SCC 166, wherein the compensation of INR 22,00,000/-
awarded by the Delhi High Court was increased to INR
33,20,000/- payable within two months along with interest at 9%
per annum from the date of filing of the accident report. Reliance
was further placed on National Insurance Company Limited v
Birender and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.242-243 of 2020 decided
on 13.01.2020, as also R Valli v Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Ltd., 2022 LawSuit (SC) 161. He also cited Pappu
Deo Yadav v Naresh Kumar, AIR 2020 SC 4424, wherein,
besides increasing the amount qua future prospects, interest was
also enhanced from 9% per annum to 12% per annum, by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. Moreover, learned counsel sought to place reliance on
National Insurance Company Limited v Sureshbhai @
Sureshchandra Maganbhai Parmar, 2006 LawSuit (Guj) 911,
rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court; Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Nirmala, AIR 2007 Ker 103 delivered by a
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, and; Bhaskar Alias
Bhaskar Devaram Bangad v R. K. Srinivasan, 2000 LawSuit
(Kar) 199, by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant, opposing the cross-
objection, submitted that as per Section 171 of the Act, simple
interest is to be awarded in addition to the compensation amount,
which ought to have been 5% or 6% per annum, but in the
present case, the interest awarded is 7.5% per annum, which
itself is high. He placed reliance on the view of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court expressed in Benson George v Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LawSuit (SC) 230, where the rate of
interest awarded by the Tribunal, being 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization was
reduced to 6% per annum. It was further contended that the
cross-objectors are not entitled to claim interest under the head
'future prospects' as it is probable income to be received in future.
In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants cited the
decision of a Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v Champabati Ray, 2019 LawSuit (Gau)
689.
16. Having examined the matter from various angles, this
Court is of the opinion that the cross objection is fit to be allowed
in the interest of justice.
17. Be it noted that the formula applied by the Tribunal for
arriving at the quantum of compensation is in conformity with
Sarla Verma (supra), which was affirmed in Reshma Kumari v
Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65. Both Sarla Verma (supra) and
Reshma Kumari (supra) were affirmed by the 5-Judge Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Ltd. v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.
18. Thus, the limited bone of contention falls down to whether
the 10% flat reduction on the head of tax is justified in view of the
fact that, the deduction should have been INR 12,764/- and not
INR 25,000/-, as computed by the Tribunal. Thus, by the same
formula, and by only correcting the figures taken therein, the
total amount of compensation payable to the cross-objectors
would come to INR 52,40,256/-. This calculation, per se, has not
been disputed by the appellant. Further, apropos the rate of
interest awarded by the Tribunal of 7.5% per annum, upon due
consideration, We find the same to be reasonably sufficient in the
attendant facts. Thus, the claim for enhancement of interest by
the cross-objectors, and for reduction thereof by the appellant,
both are rejected. Further, the contention advanced that future
prospects should not carry interest is also noted to be rejected for
the reason that the said amount determined by the Tribunal is
with reference to the date on which the claim petition was filed.
Thus, the interest on the same cannot be denied merely on the
assumption that it is accruable in future, as it is quantified with
reference to the date of filing of the application for compensation.
The Court finds that the decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4 are apposite, inasmuch as
interest would accrue on the entire amount awarded by the
Tribunal, to be payable from the date of filing of the claim
petition/application.
19. In view of the foreging analysis, the award impugned is
modified only to the extent that the compensation amount stands
enhanced to INR 52,40,256/- from INR 49,30,000/-. Rest of the
award shall stand as is. As noted supra, 50% of the amount
awarded by the Tribunal has already been deposited by the
appellant. The remainder, i.e., INR 52,40,256/- minus the
amount already deposited, along with interest shall be deposited
by the appellant within six weeks from the date of the order
before the Tribunal.
20. Thereafter, the respondents no.1 to 4 shall be at liberty to
withdraw the amount from the Tribunal. We do not propose any
order as to costs. Cross Objection No.17 of 2022 is also disposed
of. As a sequel thereto, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if
any, in Cross Objection No.17 of 2022 do not subsist for
consideration.
________________________________
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)
___________________________________
(TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J)
Note:
Mark L.R. Copy
MP/Mjl/*
