BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017
Page 1 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2056 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the award
dated 24.03.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.403/2009 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Kurnool,
wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded
compensation of Rs.4,83,530/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date
of petition, till the date of deposit to the claimant for the injuries
sustained by the claimant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in
the lower Court.
3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an
application U/s.166 (1) (c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the
Act") claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the
injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle
accident occurred on 15.11.20081 while the petitioner was proceeding
on a motor bike towards Bavipalli Village from Peapulli village and BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 2 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
when reached Bavipalli Village bus stop, one tractor-trailer bearing
No.AP21 X 7577 & 7558 driven by its driver/3rd respondent in rash
and negligent manner with high speed, dashed the motor bike, due to
which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
4. The facts show that on 15.11.2008 while the petitioner was
proceeding on a motor bike towards Bavipalli Village from Peapulli
village and when reached Bavipalli Village bus stop, one tractor-trailer
bearing No.AP21 X 7577 & 7558 driven by its driver/3 rd respondent in
rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed the motor bike,
due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained fractures to both
legs, back bone, urinary bladder and genital organ. On account of the
said accident, the petitioner was shifted to Gowri Gopal Hospital,
Kurnool and later he was shifted to Global Hospital, Hyderabad for
better treatment and in the said hospital, he has undergone several
operations and he spent Rs.3,50,000/- towards treatment,
transportation, attendant charges and other expenses. The doctors
advised that he has to undergo another operation for replacement of
urinary bladder and it requires Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical
expenses. Inspite of the treatment, the petitioner could not regain
normalcy and he cannot walk without support and not in a position to BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 3 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
attend agricultural work. The petitioner is totally disabled and his
marriage prospectus has become bleak.
5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/insurer, filed counter
resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof
of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the petitioner, manner of
accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime
bus, nature of injuries, medical expenditure, alleged permanent
disability and liability to pay compensation and contended that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
petitioner himself.
6. The 3rd respondent/driver filed counter denying the petition
averments, and contended that the accident was occurred not due to
his negligence, the petitioner was proceeding ahead of his tractor-
trailer, that on noticing the buffalos coming across the road, the
petitioner suddenly stopped the bike and so, the tractor hit the rear
portion of the motor bike, due to that unexpected event, stopped the
bike and the tractor hit the bike and that as the vehicle was insured
with the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent alone is liable to pay
compensation to the claimant. The 1st respondent remained exparte.
BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 4 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident took place as stated in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
On 27.12.2016 the following additional issue was framed:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation from R-3? If so, to what amount?
8. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined P.Ws-1 to 3
and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Exs.C-1 and C-2. On behalf of the
2nd respondent, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were
marked.
9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1
and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Exs.C-1 and C-2, held that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the tractor-trailer, and the petitioner contributed his negligence at
10%, and further, taking into consideration of the evidence of P.Ws-1
and 2 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Exs.C-1 and C-2, awarded a
compensation of Rs.4,83,530/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date
of petition, till the date of deposit.
BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 5 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
10. The plea of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
petitioner himself.
11. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on
the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent driver and the
petitioner's negligence also to the accident and fixed it at 10%. I do
not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings or reasons recorded
by the Tribunal on that issue.
12. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2
coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Exs.C-1 and C-2, awarded an amount
of Rs.2,83,508/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal considered
the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 and fixed the income of the petitioner at
Rs.4,000/- per month for a period of 5 months, and arrived at
Rs.20,000/- towards loss of income for 5 months. The Tribunal
further fixed out-patient charges at Rs.21,748/-; fixed Rs.2,00,000/-
towards pain and suffering due to fractures and rupture of urinary
bladder ; fixed Rs.12,000/- towards service of the family members @
Rs.2,000/- per month for a period of six months and total comes to
Rs.4,83,530/-.
BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 6 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022 13. As seen from the record, the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company examined R.W-1 before the Tribunal, in support of the plea
taken by the 2nd respondent in the counter.
14. The contention of the Appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal
did not consider the nature of injuries sustained by the Appellant and
the Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of the doctor, who
was examined as P.W-2, who categorically deposed that the petitioner
suffered from eruptional dis-functionality due to the injuries sustained
on the pelvis, and that the Appellant requires prosthesis insertion and
in that view of the matter, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just
and fair compensation towards pain, suffering and trauma and also for
loss of amenities and prospectus of marriage and also for loss of
expectation of life and loss of future earnings.
15. The learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that
the Tribunal did not consider the above aspects properly and relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.Ravindranath
Vs. E.Srinivas and another1.
16. The Appellant in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal has
claimed an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- under various heads, but
1 (2013) 12 S.C.C.455 BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 7 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
restricted the claim to Rs.10,00,000/- and he claimed damages as
follows:
I. FOR SPECIAL DAMAGES
a. Amount spent so far for medical
treatment and other expenses : Rs.3,50,000-00
b. Amount required for future
treatment : Rs.3,00,000-00
II. GENERAL DAMAGES
a. Compensation for pain and
suffering and loss of amenities : Rs.1,00,000-00
b. Compensation for disability
and disfiguration : Rs.1,00,000-00
c. Compensation for loss of
earnings. : Rs.4,00,000-00
----------------------
TOTAL = : Rs.12,50,000-00
----------------------
But the claim is restricted to Rs.10,00,000/-.
17. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the Appellant, who was
examined as P.W-1 and the evidence of P.W-3, who was pillion rider of
the motor cycle at the time of the accident in the case and also the
evidence of R.W-1, who was employee of the Insurance Company,
apart from various documents filed by the Appellant under Ex.A-1
certified copy of FIR, Ex.A-2 certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.A-3
certified copy of charge sheet and Ex.A-6 certified copy of docket order BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 8 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
in C.C.8/2009 on the file of Judl.Magistrate of First Class of Dhone,
found that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the 3rd respondent/driver of the crime vehicle and rejected the
contention of the Insurance Company that the accident was occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the Appellant.
18. It is pertinent to note down that the 3rd respondent, who was the
driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, in his counter stated
that the Appellant noticing buffalos coming across the road suddenly,
stopped the motor cycle, and therefore, the tractor dashed the rear
portion of the motor cycle, and as a result, the Appellant fell down and
received injuries and made an attempt to say that due to unexpected
event of the buffalos coming across the road, the accident was
occurred, but he admitted in the counter that police laid report against
him for causing the accident, and he pleaded guilty before the Court
and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- in C.C.8/2009 on the
file of Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Dhone on 29.01.2009. The
Tribunal considering all these facts and circumstances, gave a finding
that the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent act of the
driver of the crime vehicle i.e., tractor.
19. The Tribunal considered the age of the appellant in the light of
the evidence and documents available on record. The Appellant in the BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 9 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
cause title of the claim petition, mentioned the age is about 19 years,
as if he was major at the time of accident. The Tribunal basing upon
the admission of the Appellant in the cross-examination, fixed his age
at 16 years, and found that the Appellant is prohibited to drive the
motor cycle with gears and therefore, the Appellant contributed to the
cause of accident and held that the Appellant contributed to the
accident by 10% negligence.
20. The Appellant was examined as P.W-1 before the Tribunal. In
the cross-examination of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, he
admitted that by the date of accident, he was aged about 16 years and
a person aged about 16 years is not eligible to drive the motor bike. In
that view of the matter, I do not find any error in the finding of the
Tribunal that the Appellant contributed to the accident by 10%, as he
was not competent to drive the motor cycle at the time of accident,
though the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the 3rd respondent, who was driver of the crime vehicle tractor at the
time of accident, which dashed the motor cycle, driven by the
Appellant at the time of accident.
21. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence of the Appellant and
the evidence of the doctor, who was examined as P.W-2 and the
medical bills produced by the Appellant towards expenses incurred by BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 10 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
him for the treatment undergone by him in Global Hospital,
Hyderabad, from 16.11.2008 to 25.11.2008, found that the Appellant
was charged a sum of Rs.2,83,508/- and awarded the said amount
towards medical expenses, against the claim of Rs.6,27,620/- by the
Appellant towards medical expenses.
22. The doctor of Global Hospital, Hyderabad, who was examined as
P.W-2, in the chief-examination deposed that under Ex.A-4 one of the
bill dated 24.11.2008 is for Rs.2,83,508/- issued by Global Hospital,
Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. In the cross-examination of the Insurance
Company, he admitted that the cash receipts covered by Ex.A-4 are
serial numbers 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 are the amounts paid by the
Appellant as advance to the hospital for the treatment and the said
amounts come to Rs.2,83,508/-. The Tribunal basing on the said
evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.2,83,508/- towards medical expenses
incurred by the Appellant for the treatment from 16.11.2008 to
25.11.2008 taken by him in Global Hospital, Hyderabad.
23. It is pertinent to note down that the Appellant in the claim
petition claimed only Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical treatment and
other expenses incurred by him, and the remaining amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- was towards future treatment. In that view of the
matter, I do not find any error in the finding of the Tribunal regarding BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 11 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
the expenses incurred by the Appellant towards medical expenses as
Rs.2,83,508/- under Ex.A-4 bunch of medical bills filed by the
Appellant.
24. The Appellant claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for future
treatment on the ground that he has to undergo operation for
replacement of urinary bladder, for which he has to spend an amount
of Rs.2,00,000/- approximately, and also contended that he suffered
from eruptional dis-functionality and he requires prosthesis insertion
and it costs about Rs.1,50,000/-. The Tribunal in its order considered
the evidence of P.W-2, who is an Urologist and treated the Appellant in
Global Hospital at Hyderabad. The evidence of P.W-2 shows that the
Appellant was readmitted in the hospital on 23.03.2009 and
Urethroplasty was done on 24.03.2009 and he was discharged on
31.03.2009, and the Appellant was advised to take further treatment
and on clinical examination, it was found that the Appellant was
suffered from eruptional dis-functionality i.e., impotency, which was
caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident by the Appellant
and the patient requires prosthesis insertion, and has to follow up
treatment continuously throughout the life and prosthesis insertion
surgery requires Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- and in the cross-
examination of the Insurance Company, the doctor deposed that no BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 12 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
estimation in writing was given for prosthesis insertion and the
Insurance Company further contended that there is no basis to say
that the Appellant requires prosthesis insertion. The Tribunal
considering Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 copies of case sheets of Global Hospital
pertaining to the treatment of the Appellant, held that they shows that
P.W-1 treated on Ortho side for the fractures, and no details are
forthcoming about prosthesis insertion and did not award any amount
for the future treatment expenses required for the Appellant for
eruptional dis-functionality problem.
25. The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the
evidence of P.W-2, who is an Urologist in Global Hospital at Hyderabad
at the time of accident and treated the Appellant for the gal bladder
injury sustained by the Appellant in the accident, opined that the
Appellant on clinically examination found that he is suffering from
eruptional dis-functionality and it requires prosthesis insertion and it
costs around Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- for the treatment.
26. P.W-2 evidence shows that he was working as Consultant
Urologist, Global Hospital, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and Appellant was
admitted in hospital on 16.11.2008 with multiple injuries including
fractures to feamer, tibia, superior and inferior rami of pelvic on left
side with urethra rupture and he was treated by an Orthopaedic BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 13 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
Surgeon and also by Neuro Surgeon and the Appellant underwent
treatment for the fractures apart from urethra rupture, which was
attended by P.W-2 and the Appellant was discharged on 25.11.2008
and he was re-admitted on 23.03.2009 and Urethroplasty was done on
24.03.2009 and he was discharged on 31.03.2009 and he requires
follow up treatment since then, and on clinical examination, it is found
that the Appellant is suffering from eruptional dis-functionality i.e.,
impotency, which was caused due to the injuries sustained in the
accident and the Appellant requires prosthesis insertion and he needs
continuous follow up treatment throughout his life and prosthesis
insertion costs about Rs.1,50,000/-.
27. In the cross-examination of the Insurance Company, it was
elicited that P.W-2 treated the Appellant for urological problems and
the Appellant has taken follow up treatment on 15.04.2009 and
thereafter Appellant took treatment as out-patient. P.W-2 denied the
suggestion of the Insurance Company that it is not necessary to incur
Rs.1,50,000/- for prosthesis insertion and P.W-2 categorically stated
that out of his experience, he deposed that the cost of the treatment
was Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. Nothing was elicited in the cross-
examination of P.W-2 to show that his evidence is not based on any
standards relating to the treatment for eruptional dis-functionality and BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 14 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
the treatment for prosthesis insertion. Admittedly, P.W-2 was a
Consultant Urologist, working in Global Hospital, Lakdikapool,
Hyderabad, and attended the treatment of the Appelant with regard to
rupture of urethra on account of accident.
28. The learned counsel for Appellant contended that the finding of
the Tribunal on this aspect in not awarding any compensation for loss
of marriage prospectus, and enjoyment of life is not valid in law,
particularly, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
G.Ravindranath Vs. E.Srinivas and another, wherein, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held in para 14 as follows:
"One can reasonably expect that the appellant who was only 18 years old at the time of accident would live for at least next 50 years. The Tribunal awarded Rs 20,340 for expenses incurred by the appellant for treatment taken by him in the hospital. Although, Dr. Thomas did not indicate the approximate expenditure likely to be incurred by the appellant and his family for future treatment, keeping in view the nature of injuries and the fact that he will have to take treatment for the remaining life, it will be reasonable to infer that he will be required to spend a minimum of Rs 1000 per month for future treatment, which would necessarily include fees of the doctors, medicines, transportation, etc. In the absence of concrete evidence about the anticipated expenditure, we think that ends of justice will be met if the appellant is awarded a sum BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 15 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
of Rs 2 lakhs which, if deposited in a fixed deposit, would earn an interest of Rs 14,000 to 16,000 per annum."
"On account of the injuries suffered by him, the prospects of the appellant's marriage have considerably reduced. Rather, they are extremely bleak. In any case, on account of the fracture of pelvis, he will not be able to enjoy the matrimonial life. Therefore, the award of Rs.50,000/- under this head must be treated as wholly inadequate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- should be awarded to the appellant for loss of marriage prospects and enjoyment of life."
"The compensation awarded for loss of future earning on account of permanent partial disablement is ex facie unreasonable. Respondent 3 did not produce any evidence to controvert the appellant's assertion that on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, he had to abandon his studies. The consequences which followed were extremely grave inasmuch as he lost all opportunities for making a career in future. The prospects of the appellant's marriage are extremely bleak. Therefore, a sum of Rs 2 lakhs deserves to be awarded under these heads."
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment considered the
evidence of Professor of Urology and Andrologist and held in para 21
as follows:
"From the testimony of three witnesses, it is established that as a result of accident the appellant had suffered grievous injuries in the pelvic region and he has become impotent. It is also BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 16 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
established that he has already undergone multiple surgeries and will have to take treatment in institutes like NIMS for at least 10 years."
30. In the case on hand, the testimony of P.Ws-1 and 2 established
that the Appellant had suffered grievous injuries in the pelvic region
and as a result, he suffered from eruptional dis-functionality and he
has undergone urethroplasty on 24.03.2009 and he will have to take
further treatment of prosthesis insertion, which costs about
Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not
give weightage to the evidence of P.W-2 and not awarded compensation
for future treatment expenses. Hence, in my view, the Appellant is
entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- towards the expenses to be incurred for
future treatment of prosthesis insertion.
31. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.21,748/- to the Appellant
towards treatment as out-patient, but refused to award anything
towards cost of guest house charges, as no evidence was produced by
the claimant to prove the bill issued by Gayatri Guest House for
Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal also did not grant any amount to the
Appellant towards expenses incurred by him for transportation to visit
the hospital at Hyderabad from his native place in Kurnool District
and attendant charges to visit the said hospital. The Appellant did not BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 17 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
produce any evidence regarding the expenses incurred by him for
transportation.
32. The Tribunal considered the fact that the Appellant was confined
to the bed for some months and awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- @
Rs.2,000/- per month, for a period of six months for the service of the
family members. The Tribunal considering the age of the Appellant as
16 years at the time of accident and fixed the notional income at
Rs.4,000/- per month and awarded Rs.20,000/- for the loss of income
for a period of five months.
33. The contention of the Appellant is that no amount was awarded
by the Tribunal for the loss of income in future. The learned counsel
for Appellant submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
G.Ravindranath Vs. E.Srinivas and another, in similar
circumstances awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of expectation
of life and loss of future earnings and for loss of amenities and
prospectus of marriage, awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, but the
Tribunal did not award any amount under these heads on the ground
that there is no evidence.
34. The evidence of the Appellant as P.W-1 and the evidence of the
doctor as P.W-2 shows that urethra of the Appellant was ruptured due BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 18 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and as a result, he
suffered from eruptional dis-functionality and it requires prosthesis
insertion and the evidence of the doctor shows that the Appellant
requires follow up treatment throughout his life. I already granted a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards future treatment for prosthesis
insertion. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.Ravindranath Vs.
E.Srinivas and another, awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for loss of
amenities and prospectus of marriage to the petitioner in that case,
considering the fact that he suffered grievous injuries in the pelvic
region and he has became impotent. The Tribunal did not award any
amount to the Appellant towards loss of earnings and compensation
for disability and disfiguring stating that there is no evidence in the
case to apply the principles of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
G.Ravindranath Vs. E.Srinivas and another.
35. As already discussed above, the evidence of Urologist established
that the Appellant suffered rupture of urethra and as a result, he
suffered from eruptional dis-functionality and needs prosthesis
insertion and requires continuous treatment throughout his life.
Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination to prove that the
evidence of the doctor is not reliable and not based on any medical
standards. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that an BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 19 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- can be awarded to the Appellant for
loss of amenities and prospectus of marriage and loss of expectation of
life and loss of earnings etc.
36. In that view of the matter, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded to
the Appellant towards future treatment expenses for prosthesis
insertion, and an additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded towards
loss of amenities and prospectus of marriage and loss of expectation of
life and loss of earnings etc., in addition to the compensation of
Rs.4,83,530/- awarded by the Tribunal. Total compensation entitled
by Appellant comes to Rs.4,83,530 + 3,50,000 = Rs.8,33,530/-,
payable with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition, till the date
of deposit.
37. In that view of the matter, I find the Tribunal is erred in
awarding Rs.4,83,530/- only to the claimant, towards compensation,
though the claimant made claim for Rs.10,00,000/-.
38. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion
that it is a fit case to set aside the Order passed by the Tribunal.
BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017 Page 20 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
39. In the result, the Appeal is allowed, by setting aside the
impugned Order dated 24.03.2017, passed in M.V.O.P.No.403/2009
on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional
District Judge, Kurnool, and it is held that the Appellant is entitled to
a total compensation of Rs.8,33,530/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from
the date of petition, till the date of deposit. The 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said
compensation amount along with accrued interest thereon, within one
month from the date of the judgment. On such deposit, the
Appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation
amount of Rs.8,33,530/- with accrued interest thereon. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J
11.10.2022
psk
BVLNC MACMA 2056 of 2017
Page 21 of 21 Dt: 11.10.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2056 OF 2017
11th October, 2022
psk
