Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Telukutla Lakshmi Narayana Reddy And 4 ... on 4 October, 2024
1
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
+MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
APPEAL NO:5555 OF 2008
% 04.10.2024
# The New India Assurance
Company Limited
......Appellant
And:
$1.Telukutla Lakshmi
Narayana Reddy and
others
....Respondents.
!Counsel for the appellant : Sri Naresh Byrapaneni
^Counsel for the respondents : Nil
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1.(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121
2.AIR 2007 SC 1609
3.(2004) 5 SCC 385
4.(2022) 14 SCC 712
5.(2021) 16 SCC 467
6.(2010 12 SCC 378
7.(2017) 16 SCC 680
8.(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121
9.(2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 142
10.(2015) 1 SCC 539
11.(2021) 6 SCC 188
12.(2021) 2 SCC 166
13.(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683
14.(2020) 4 SCC 228
2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
****
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS
APPEAL NO: 5555 /2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:04.10.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No
fair copy of the Judgment?
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY,J
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
M.A.C.M.A.No.5555 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari:-
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short, ―the M.V.Act‖) has been filed by the New India
Assurance Company Limited challenging the award of the Motor
Claims Tribunal-District Judge, Ongole (in short the Tribunal)
dated 03.10.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.1 of 2006 awarding
compensation of Rs.36,17,000/- to the claimants - respondents 1
to 3 with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of the petition till date
of realisastion with proportionate costs and the fee.
2. The claim petition was filed by the claimants-respondents 1
to 3 herein claiming the compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- for the
death of one T. Ravi Sankar (the deceased in short) in the road
accident dated 16.10.2005 while the deceased along with his
friends was going to Shiridi from Pune, Maharashtra State by
Qualis vehicle bearing No.MH 14 AE 5242 and when they
crossed Rahuri town, they met in an accident with lorry bearing
No.MH 41 G 5023 (offending vehicle) owned by the present 5th
respondent and being driven by the present 4th respondent and
insured with the appellant (2nd respondent in O.P), which was
coming from the opposite direction and was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner. In the said accident, the inmates of the
vehicle died on the spot including the cleaner of the lorry. It was
pleaded that the deceased was aged about 25 years. He was
software engineer earning Rs.38,828/- per month.
3. Respondents 1 and 3 in O.P i.e present respondents 4 and
5 remained ex parte.
4. The insurance company (respondent No.2 in M.O.P) filed
written statement denying all the material allegations. It was
denied that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent in
driving the lorry. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to
the negligent driving of the Qualis vehicle. It was also pleaded
that the owner and the insurer of the Qualis vehicle were
necessary parties. The claim was said to be excessive.
5. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
―1. Whether the deceased died due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the respondents 1
and 3 lorry?
2. What is the correct age and income of the deceased
as on the date of the accident?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
4. To what relief?‖
6. On behalf of the claimants, the P.W.1 Telukutla Lakshmi,
P.W.2 F. Nazeer, P.W.3 R. Chandrakant Shinde were examined,
and Ex.A.1 inquest panchanama (Commission referred as
Ex.A.10), Ex.A.2 P.M certificate (Commission referred as
Ex.A.11), Ex.A.3 dated 08.03.2005 appointment letter
(Commission referred as Ex.A.12), Ex.A.4 true copy of Rekha
(Commission referred as Ex.A.16), Ex.A.5 true copy of
appointment letter (Commission referred as ex.A.17), Ex.A.6 true
copy of pay slip for the month of September, 2005, Ex.A.7
Provisional certificate (Computer application), Ex.A.8 provisional
certificate of T. Ravi Sankar Reddy, Ex.A.9 xerox copy of
Intermediate certificate (Computer application), Ex.A.10 xerox
copy of Secondary School Certificate, were marked.
7. On behalf of the respondent in M.V.O.P, no witness was
examined and any document was also not marked.
8. The Tribunal recorded the finding that P.Ws.1 and 2, the
eye witnesses, proved the accident and that the offending vehicle
was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver
which smashed, the Qualis and inmates of the Qualis died on the
spot including the cleaner of the lorry.
9. The Tribunal determined the monthly earnings as
Rs.30,000/-. After deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses
and applying the multiplier of ‗15', it determined the total loss of
dependency as Rs.36,15,000/- and adding to that, the funeral
expenses of Rs.2,000/-, it awarded an amount of Rs.36,17,000/-
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date
of realization with proportionate costs and other fees.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the only
submission, that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A
of the M.V Act. It was not under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. So
the claimants were entitled for the compensation as per the
schedule to Section 163-A of the M.V.Act i.e under the structured
formula, under the schedule, in which the maximum income was
to be considered as Rs.40,000/- annually. Additionally, in
peculiar circumstances only Rs.4,500/- (i.e., Rs.2,500/- towards
loss of estate + Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses) could be
awarded. Any amount towards loss of the consortium could not
be granted. He submitted that the judgment in Sarla Verma Vs
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, was not applicable
to claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. He submitted
that the claimants could be awarded an amount of Rs.4,57,839/-
only.
11. No representation for the respondents including claimants.
12. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and
perused the material on record.
13. The following points arise for our consideration and
determination:
―A. Whether the claim of the claimant respondents is
under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988?‖
B. Whether the compensation awarded should have
been as per the schedule applicable to the claims under Section
163-A of the M.V. Act?
C. What would be the just and fair compensation? And at
what rate of interest?
Consideration of Points A & B:
14. Section 163-A of the M.V. Act reads as under:
―163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on
structured formula basis.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law
for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121
the motor vehicle of the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of
death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of
motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the
legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, ―permanent
disability‖ shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant
shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent
disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any
wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles
concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by
notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second
Schedule.‖
15. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena
Variyal and others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the victim
of an accident or his dependents have an option either to proceed
under Section 166 of the M.V. Act or under Section 163-A of the
M.V.Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of
the M.V.Act, they have necessarily to take upon themselves the
burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or of the
vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under Section 163-A of the
M.V. Act, the compensation will be awarded in terms of the
schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependants to
AIR 2007 SC 1609
establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the
vehicle or the driver of the vehicle.
16. Para 27 Meena Variyal (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court is
as under:
―27. We think that the law laid down in Minu B. Mehta &
Anr. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr. (supra)
was accepted by the legislature while enacting the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by introducing Section 163A of the Act
providing for payment of compensation notwithstanding
anything contained in the Act or in any other law for the
time being in force that the owner of a motor vehicle or the
authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of
death or permanent disablement due to accident arising
out of the use of the motor vehicle, compensation, as
indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the
victim, as the case may be, and in a claim made under
sub-section (1) of Section 163A of the Act, the claimant
shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or
permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has
been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or
default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. Therefore,
the victim of an accident or his dependants have an option
either to proceed under Section 166 of the Act or
under Section 163A of the Act. Once they approach the
Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have
necessarily to take upon themselves the burden of
establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the
vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under Section
163A of the Act, the compensation will be awarded in
terms of the Schedule without calling upon the victim or
his dependants to establish any negligence or default on
the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the
vehicle.‖
17. A perusal of the claim petition shows that its heading is
claim application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Sections
140, 163-A of M.V.Act and Rules 455 and 476 of the A.P. Motor
Vehicles Rules. The specific case of the claimants was that the
lorry (offending vehicle) was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner by its driver, without blowing horn, which dashed against
the Qualis vehicle. The written statement of the insurance
company shows that in para 5, the insurance company did not
admit that the lorry was being driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner as was the case of claimants. The further case
of the insurance company was that the accident occurred solely
due to the negligence of the vehicle in which the deceased was
travelling. So, the negligence on the part of the lorry driver was
denied and the claimants had to prove their case of negligence of
the lorry driver. The Tribunal framed the issue and as is evident
from the 1st issue, the same was as under:
―whether the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry?‖
Further, the evidence was led by the claimants to prove the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal
recorded the finding that the driver of the lorry was rash and
negligent.
18. Consequently, we are of the view that though the title of the
claim petition was ‗under Sections 140 & 163-A of the M.V. Act',
but in effect and substance, the claim was under Section 166 of
the M.V.Act and was tried as a claim made under Section 166 of
the M.V.Act, in which the negligence and the rashness of the
driver of the offending vehicle, the claimants had to prove, on
evidence, which they successfully proved. Its not a case of ‗no
fault liability', where the claimants had not to prove the negligence
of the driver of the offending vehicle or they failed to prove the
negligent driving of the driver but in spite thereof the claim was
allowed.
19. We are of the considered view that it is not the mention of
the section in the claim petition that governs. But, the substance
of the claim petition and the manner in which the proceedings
have been conducted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
that shall determine, if the claim was being investigated and
award was made under Sections 163-A or 166 of the M.V.Act.
20. We may further refer to Deepal Girishbhai Soni and
others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda3. In which
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the M.V. Act is in the nature of
a social welfare legislation. The provisions as regard no fault
liability evidently were inserted having regard to the fact that the
road accidents in India had touched a new height and at least in
some of the cases it was found that rash or negligent driving
causing death or injury to the innocent persons could not be
proved. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that if a person
invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs.
40,000/- per annum shall be treated as a cap. It was held that the
proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision,
providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income
was upto Rs. 40,000/- could take the benefit of Section 163-A, it
was further held that all other claims are required to be
determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.
21. Para 67 of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) is as under:-
(2004) 5 SCC 385
―67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala (supra) has
correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the
findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of
Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annual
shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under
Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a
distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs.
40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are
required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.‖
22. In the present case, the Tribunal has determined the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- from his
avocation. The case of the claimants was that the deceased was
earning Rs.36,828/- per month. Consequently, the annual
income of the deceased even as per the claimant's case was
Rs.36,828/-X12= Rs.44,193/- which is above Rs.40,000/- annual.
In view of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) the claim of the
claimants was required to be determined in terms of Chapter -XII
of the M.V. Act i.e under Section 166. Therefore, even if the
submission of the appellant's counsel that the application as filed
was titled under Section163-A of M.V. Act be accepted, the
Tribunal did not commit any illegality in trying the claim as under
Section166 of the M.V.Act, a reference of which has also been
made in para of the judgment of the Tribunal itself.
Point-C:
23. We now proceed to determine, if the compensation as
awarded is a just and fair compensation.
24. It is the duty of the court to award just and fair
compensation to the claimants. We would consider that aspect as
well, in view of the settled legal position under different heads.
25. In N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms General
Insurance Company Limited4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, give paramount
importance to the concept of ―just and fair‖ compensation. It is a
beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of
providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the
MV Act deals with the concept of ―just compensation‖ which
ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness,
reasonableness and equitability.
26. Para Nos.9 and 10 in N.Jayasree (3rd supra) reads as
under:
09. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the
MV Act") give paramount importance to the concept of "just and
fair" compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been
framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their
families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of „just
compensation‟ which ought to be determined on the foundation of
(2022) 14 SCC 712
fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such
determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an
endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair
compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the
applicant(s).
10. In Sarla Verma, this Court has laid down as under: (SCC
pp.131-132, para 16)
"16. ..."Just compensation" is adequate compensation
which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances
of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of
the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the
well-settled principles relating to award of compensation. It
is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of
profit."
27. In Surekha v. Santosh5, where the High Court of Bombay
though agreed with the stand of the appellants therein that just
compensation amount ought to have been more, declined to
grant enhancement merely on the ground that the appellants had
failed to file cross-appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in
para-2 as under:
2. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of
insurance claim compensation in reference to the
motor accident, the court should not take
hypertechnical approach and ensure that just
compensation is awarded to the affected person or
the claimants.
Income:
28. Ex.A.5 is the agreement dated 03.08.2005 entered into
between KANBAY Software India Private Limited and the
(2021) 16 SCC 467
deceased. Ex.A6 is the pay slip for the month of September. It
shows that gross pay of Rs.44,958/- included arrears of
Rs.12,797/- under different heads. The Tribunal determined the
net monthly gross pay as Rs.32,961/-. It deducted the P.F
contribution of Rs.2,080/-, income tax deduction of Rs.406/- and
the profession tax of Rs.200/-. It arrived at the net salary of
Rs.30,275/- per month and rounded it to Rs.30,000/- per month.
29. In Shyamwati Sharma and others vs. Karam Singh and
others6, the Hon'ble Apex court has held in para No.9 as under:-
"... We however make it clear that while ascertaining the
income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary
certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance
premium, repayments of loans, etc. should not be excluded
from the income. The deduction towards income
tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net
income of the deceased."
30. We are of the view that from the gross pay of Rs.44,958/-.
Only the deduction of the I.T and the profession tax, which comes
to Rs.606/- could be deducted. Consequently, we hold that the
net monthly salary of the deceased was (i.e Rs.44,958-406-
200=Rs.44,352/-) for computation of compensation.
(2010 12 SCC 378
Future prospects:
31. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future
prospects.
32. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and others,7 the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, has held as under in Paras 59.3 and 59.4 :-
"59.3. While determining the income, an addition of
50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased
towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years,
should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age
of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years,
the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be
read as actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a
fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was
below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years
and 10% where the deceased was between the age of
50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The established income means
the income minus the tax component."
(2017) 16 SCC 680
33. Consequently, we award 40% of established income, as
future prospects, the deceased being below 40 years, as per para
59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra).
Age, Multiplier & Deduction towards personal expenses:
34. The deceased was aged about 25 years as per the case of
the claimants. The Tribunal determined the age as 28 years
based on Ex.A.2 copy of the postmortem report. We have
perused the Ex.A.10 which is the Xerox copy of the Secondary
School Certificate of the deceased, in which the date of birth of
the deceased is recorded as 29.08.1978. The date of the
accident is 16.10.2005. So, on the date of the accident, the
deceased was 27 years and two months of age. This slight
difference in the age would not affect neither choosing the
multiplier nor the future prospects consideration. At the age of
the deceased, the multiplier as per Sarla Verma Vs Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another,8 is 17 (age group of 25 to
30). The Tribunal applied the multiplier of ‗15', which is not
correct. We accordingly, apply the correct multiplier of ‗ 17'.
35. The claimants being 3 in number, the Tribunal has correctly
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased.
(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deduction
should be 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased in
view of the claim being under Section 163-A. We have already
held that the claim is under Section 166 of the M.V.Act.
36. In Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs
SarojammaAnd Another,9 the Hon'ble Apex court has held that
for determination of compensation on structured formula,
reduction of income of deceased towards personal expenses is to
be generally by 1/3rd and not by 50%. The relevant paras are as
under:
"8. As Schedule II provides for a structured formula,
ordinarily, the same has to be adhered to. The
structured formula itself stipulates reduction of income
of the deceased by one-third in consideration of the
expenses which he would have incurred towards
maintaining himself, had he been alive.
9. Whereas in determining an application for grant
of compensation under Section 166 of the Act, the
Tribunal may be entitled to find out actual loss of
damages suffered by the claimants, the formula
having not envisaged such a contingency, we are of
the opinion that ordinarily one-third should be
(2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 142
deducted from the income of the deceased and not
the half thereof. For determining the amount of
compensation, the most relevant factor, therefore, is the
income of the deceased. He was a tutor. He was
admitted in the Army Teachers Training Institute. He
had the requisite potential of becoming a teacher. His
income, thus, having been estimated at Rs 3000 p.m.
cannot be said to be on a very high side."
Consequently, we hold that the deduction of 1/3r made by
the Tribunal is correct and is as per Sarla Verma (supra)
37. The claimants are entitled to following amounts as just &
fair compensation.
S. No. Head Compensation Awarded
1. Net Annual Income Rs. 44,352/- x 12 = Rs. 5,32,224/-
(As per the Tribunal)
2. Future Prospects Rs. 2,12,889/-
(i.e., 40% of the income)
Total (i.e., 1+2) = Rs. 7,45,113/-
3. Deduction towards personal expenditure Rs. 2,48,371/-
(i.e.1/3rd)
4. Total Annual loss Rs. 4,96,742/-
5. Multiplier of 17 at the age of 27 years i.e. 17 x 4,96,742/- = Rs. 84,44,620/-
6. Conventional Heads:
i) Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,45,200/-
(Rs. 48,400/- x 3)
ii) Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
iii) Funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-
7. Total Compensation Rs. 86,26,120/-
Interest:
38. The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of @ 7.5% p.a.
from the date of claim petition till payment/deposit. In Kumari
Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh and others,10 the Hon'ble Apex Court set
aside the judgment of the Tribunal therein awarding interest @
6% as also the judgment of the High Court awarding interest
@7.5% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the
claim petition. In Rahul Sharma & Another vs. National
Insurance Company Limited and Others,11the Hon'ble Apex
Court awarded @ 9% interest p.a. from the date of the claim
petition. Also, in Kirthi and another vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited,12 the Apex Court allowed interest @ 9% p.a.
and in Smt. Anjali and Others V. Lokendra Rathod and
(2015) 1 SCC 539
(2021) 6 SCC 188
(2021) 2 SCC 166
Others,13 the Hon'ble Apex Court while referring toMalarvizhi &
Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.14 allowed
interest @ 9% p.a.
39. Accordingly, the claimants are granted interest @ 9 % p.a.
from the date of the claim petition till realisation.
40. In the result,
i) The appeal, of the Insurance Company is dismissed.
ii) The claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 are granted enhanced
compensation of Rs.86,26,120/- as just and fair compensation,
with interest @ 9% per annum, thereon, from the date of the
claim petition till realization/deposit;
iii) The appellant/insurance company shall deposit the amount as
aforesaid, adjusting the amount already deposited if any, before
the Tribunal within one month, failing which the amount shall be
recovered as per law;
iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants/respondents 1 to 3
shall be entitled to withdraw the same in the proportion as per the
award of the Tribunal.
v) The costs throughout is allowed in favour of the
Claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3, and against the appellant.
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1683
(2020) 4 SCC 228
41. The claimants are not represented. The Tribunal is directed
to ensure service of notice on them as also that the payment is
made to them preferably in their respective bank accounts
attached to their Aadar numbers, without unnecessary delay.
42. The District Legal Services Authority of the District shall
also ensure to communicate this judgment to the claimants.
43. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Tribunal and also
to the District Legal Services Authority of the District.
44. The Tribunal shall submit a report to this Court, through the
Registrar (Judicial) on the above aspect, which shall be placed on
the record of this appeal.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending
shall also stand closed.
________________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
_______________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY,J
Date: 04.10.2024.
Note:
L.R copy to be marked.
B/o.
Gk.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
M.A.C.M.A.No.5555 OF 2008
Date: 04.10.2024.
Gk.
