Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Mrs. Vinaya Undaybabu Shah And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2221 Bom

                                                 fano. 1142.14.odt
                                  1/23


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

            FIRST APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2014

                           WITH

       CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO.3228 OF 2014


1.      Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
        Company Ltd. Subramaniam Building,
        IInd Floor, No.1
        Club House Road, Annasalai,
        Chennai-600002
        Through Mr. Manish S. Waghmare,
        Manager Legal
                              (Original Opponent No.3)

                                          .... APPELLANT


                         // VERSUS //


1.      Mrs. Vinaya Undaybabu Shah
        Age:- 35, occupation: Household


2.      Udaybabu Ratanchand Shah
        Age-59 years, Occupation: Business
        Both R/at-14, Bhakti, 402, Ghorpadi
        Peth, Pune 411002

3.      Deve Bahadur, son of Man Bahadur,
        Age-23 years, Occupation : Chauffeur
        R/at- VIII Nagle, Charandas, Phase: II
        Noida, G.B. Nagar, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

4.      Miss Vandana d/o Tejvir Singh
        Chaoudhari
        Age: 22 years, Occupation: Business
        R/at-House No.36, Gali No.1 (B), Durgapuri
        Extension, Delhi-110093
                               (Original Opponents No.2)

                                          ....RESPONDENTS
                                                        fano. 1142.14.odt
                                        2/23


__________________________________________________________
Mr. Nikhil Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Sumit Khanna, learned counsel alongwith Ms Shweta Rathod and Mr.
Pravin Bhoi, learned counsel alongwith Ms. Sneha Sanap, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
___________________________________________________________________


            CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

Date on which arguments were heard:- 24/02/2022

Date on which the judgment is pronounced :- 07/03/2022

JUDGMENT: (Per: V. G. BISHT, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of

the learned counsel for the parties, appeal is taken up for final

hearing.

3. This Appeal and Cross Objection arises from the

judgment and order of the learned Member, Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Pune passed in M.A.C.P. No.247/2004 on

13.06.2014.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are

parents of deceased Shreyans Udaybabu Shah. The deceased

was required to attend urgent supervision on his working site at fano. 1142.14.odt

Dharchula, State of Uttaranchal. He was at Delhi at such time.

The deceased requested his friend Tejwir Singh of New Delhi to

provide a car with Chauffeur, who accordingly arranged a Tata

Indica car bearing registration No. DL 5 CB 5279.

5. On 23.02.2013 at about 4.30 a.m. at Gram Talli

Gwadi, Ban-Kot Town road, the driver of the car i.e. opponent

No.1 in a negligent manner took a wrong turn on left side

instead of taking turn to the right side to Pithoragarh. Because of

that the car got turtled and opponent driver thrown out the car

but deceased remained inside. Owing to the impact, deceased

sustained serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries.

Accordingly offence was registered.

6. According to the applicant-parents at the time of

death of the deceased, the deceased was 27 years old and was

looking after the business of Electrical Engineering and joined as

a partner in claimant No.2 with the firm M/s. Mahati Electricals

and his last average monthly income was Rs.1 Lac. They

accordingly, claimed total sum of Rs.1,85,32,854/- on all

permissible heads.

fano. 1142.14.odt

7. On appreciation of material before it, the tribunal

partly allowed the claim with proportionate costs and awarded

compensation of Rs.1,17,14,000/- alongwith costs and

proportionate interests at the rate of 9% per annum on

Rs.1,16,64,000/- from the date of application till realization.

There against the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred

the present appeal and the respondents by way of cross-objection

sought enhancement of the compensation.

8. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Insurance

Company, at the outset assailed the impugned award on the

ground that the learned Member failed to appreciate that the

insured vehicle has been used for hire and reward at the time of

accident and thus, there was breach of Insurance Policy. Learned

counsel then invited my attention to the various grounds viz. (h)

(i)(k)(l)(m)(n)(p) and (q). I have carefully perused these

grounds. Learned counsel also canvassed before me that since

the deceased was partner of the applicant No.2 and the fact that

the applicant No.2 was driving income from the business of

partnership company, the compensation ought to have been

allowed only to the extent of loss of managerial skills (of

deceased) and nothing else. For all these reasons learned fano. 1142.14.odt

counsel sought exoneration and in the alternate submitted that

at least the learned Member could have directed to pay the

compensation first and recover from the owner and driver of the

vehicle.

9. Mr. Sumit Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent

Nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the

submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and would

submit that since the Insurance Company is coming out with a

case of breach of contract, the burden of proof was on it to

establish the same by adducing cogent and convincing evidence.

According to learned counsel, no such evidence is forth coming,

Supporting the impugned order, learned counsel also assailed

the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that

applicants were only entitled to loss of managerial skills and

nothing more. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender, (2020) 11

SCC 356.

10. Coming to the cross-objection learned counsel

submits that learned Member while calculating/determining the

income of deceased, failed to consider the share of profit from fano. 1142.14.odt

the partnership firm earned by deceased as the same is tax-

exempt income in the hands of partner and are excluded as

exemption under Section 10(2A) read with 40 (b) of the Income

Tax, Act, 1961. This being a computational error, needs to be

rectified at the hands of this Court, urged learned counsel.

11. I have considered the rival submissions.

12. The factum of accident resulting in death of the

deceased, age and occupation are not in dispute. I am

concerned, with the points, as raised by learned counsel for the

appellant, in respect of breach of the terms of the policy and

income of deceased.

13. When the Insurance Company takes the plea that it is

not liable to pay compensation or to indemnify the insured as the

vehicle in question was driven in breach of the terms of the

policy, the insurance company has to discharge the burden by

placing legal and cogent evidence before the Tribunal.

14. In case of Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and

others (2004) 3 SCC 297 the Hon'ble Apex Court has made fano. 1142.14.odt

following observation at para 69:-

"The proposition of law is no longer res integra that the person who alleges breach must prove the same. The insurance company is, thus, required to establish the said breach by cogent evidence. In the event, the insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of conditions of policy on the part of the insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability.

"While summarizing finding the Hon'ble Apex Court

has further observed at para 110 as under:-

"The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:

(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.

(ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.

(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable fano. 1142.14.odt

care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.

(iv) Insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them.

(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case.

(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under section 149(2)of the Act.

(vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.

(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.

(ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising fano. 1142.14.odt

in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants.

(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal.

(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured fano. 1142.14.odt

can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims."

The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the Insurance

Companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must

not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said

proceedings but must also establish "breach" on the part of the

owner of vehicle, the burden of proof wherefore would be on

them.

15. From the above proposition of law it is more than

clear that the person who alleges breach must prove the same.

The Insurance Company is thus required to establish the said

breach by cogent evidence. Therefore, it becomes necessary to

find out whether the onus of proof as required by Section 149 of

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has really been discharged by Insurance

Company or not.

16. The Insurance Company in support of claim of breach

of policy examined its Legal Officer, namely, Mahesh Suresh

Waghmare ( Exh. 63). It is his evidence that the Insurance Policy fano. 1142.14.odt

was valid at the time of accident. The offending car was having

private car package policy and as per the condition of policy,

owner of the vehicle and his relatives travelling in the car were

covered under the policy. The persons hiring car were not

covered in the Insurance Policy. He then produced the policy

which came to be marked at Exh. 64.

17. It is his further evidence that the deceased was

unauthorized passenger of the offending car and as he was an

unauthorized passenger, their company is not liable to pay

compensation.

18. Two things can be noted from the examination-in-

chief of the above witness. First, according to him, it was a

private car package policy and only owner of vehicle and his

relatives were covered by that policy. Second, the deceased

being an unauthorized passenger, the company is not liable to

pay compensation.

19. Interestingly, in the cross-examination this witness

admits that the terms and conditions of policy were not enclosed

alongwith policy. He further admits that he cannot say on which

conditions policy was issued. He denies the suggestion, when fano. 1142.14.odt

given to him, that the policy in question is comprehensive policy

and it being so, passengers of vehicle were covered under it.

20. The said witness then states in his cross-examination

that he has no document to show that offending car was being

used for hire and reward. According to him, there was no specific

mention that only owner and his relatives were covered in the

policy. He further stated that he has no documents to show that

deceased was traveling unauthorizedly. Lastly, he states that in

the year 2003 since he was not in service of Insurance Company

in question he has no personal knowledge about policy in

question.

21. It is significant to note that the essential and requisite

terms and conditions of the policy were not produced before the

learned Member of Tribunal at the time of adducing evidence by

the witness of Insurance Company. Even the witness was not

aware of the terms and conditions on which the policy in

question was issued. In short this witness had no personal

knowledge about the necessary terms and conditions of the

policy. Simply producing the Insurance Policy will not prove

everything and more particular the breach as claimed by the

Insurance Company. What is disheartening to note is that fano. 1142.14.odt

although Insurance Company has put up a brave defence of the

deceased being an unauthorized passenger and that offending

vehicle was taken on hire and reward but there is no shred of

evidence to substantiate the same. Further, no evidence is forth

coming to show that only owner and his relatives were covered

in the policy.

22. Learned Member of Tribunal was right in his

observation that the Insurance Company neither examined the

driver of the vehicle nor any other witness to prove that the

illfated vehicle was in fact hired by the deceased. For the

aforesaid reasons, I do not find any perversity in the findings of

the learned Member that the Insurance Company has failed to

discharge its burden to prove that the insurance vehicle was used

for hire and reward in breach of terms and conditions of

Insurance Policy.

23. I may add here that it is settled law with respect to

the "comprehensive/package policy" that gratuitous occupant of

private car is covered under it. In case of National Insurance Co.

Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and another (2013) 1 SCC 731 the Hon'ble

Apex Court has quoted with approval as under :- Para 25 and 27 fano. 1142.14.odt

25. "It is also worthy to note that the High Court, after referring to individual circulars issued by various insurance companies, eventually stated thus:-

"27.In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact, in view of the TAC's directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case."

"27. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the question that emerges for consideration is: whether in the case at hand, the policy is an "Act Policy" or "Comprehensive/Package Policy"? There has been no discussion either by the tribunal or the High Court in this regard. True it is, before us, Annexure P-1 has been filed which is a policy issued by the insurer. It only mentions the policy to be a "comprehensive policy" but we are inclined to think that there has to be a scanning of the terms of the entire policy to arrive at the conclusion whether it is really a "package policy" to cover the liability of an occupant in a car."

In view of above, I do not find merit in the submission

of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that there was

failure on the part of learned Member to appreciate that the fano. 1142.14.odt

insured vehicle had been used for hire and reward at the time of

accident and thus, there was breach of Insurance Policy.

24. Since the breach of insurance policy has not been

established, the alternate submission of pay and recover also

looses steam.

25. The next submission of learned counsel for the

appellant is that learned Member failed to appreciate that at the

most respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original claimants) could be

entitled to compensation to the extent of loss of managerial skills

of the deceased and nothing more, inasmuch as, admittedly, the

business of partnership firm and the company was still

continuing and the claimants were drawing income from the

same. Learned counsel also raised the grievance that learned

Member failed to appreciate the ratio laid down in the case of

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Yogesh Devi and

others (2012) 3 SCC 613.

26. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that though the claimants are also

partner in business which the deceased was carrying and the fano. 1142.14.odt

partnership firm continued even after the death of deceased,

compensation cannot be declined to the claimants on the ground

that they are still drawing benefit of the partnership business.

Learned counsel to substantiate his submission has placed

reliance in Rukmani Devi Vs. Om Prakash (1991) ACJ, (SC) page

3 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Ors

(2020) 11 SCC 356.

27. I have carefully gone through the decisions relied on

by learned counsel for the parties in New India Assurance

Company Vs. Yogesh Devi and others (supra). Owner of the

buses died in motor accident. It was specifically contended that

deceased was earning Rs.3900/- as driver of buses. Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/-. However, High Court enhanced compensation to

Rs.30,72,000/- by taking notional income of deceased as

Rs.24,000/-. While examining the legality of the said findings the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that quantum of income depends upon

various factors likewise, income derived out of three buses would

still accrue to family of deceased. As deceased was managing

buses during his lifetime, now respondents/claimants needed

someone to mange buses and thus payment made for driver and fano. 1142.14.odt

manager of their buses would be loss of income to respondents/

claimants. Hon'ble Apex Court further found that no evidence

was adduced to show loss of income in this respect and

therefore, further found that the computation made by High

Court was neither based on any evidence nor on right logic.

28. In my considered view the factual position obtaining

in the case cited (supra) and the case in hand are dissimilar and

therefore, though learned Member did not discuss the facts as

noted herein above but was right in holding that the ratio laid

down therein cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.

29. As against above, in Rukmani Devi and Ors. (supra)

the deceased who was husband of appellant died in bus accident.

Learned Second Additional District Judge Muzaffarpur acting as

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded the amount of

Rs.1,25,000/- as claimed towards compensation. On appeal the

High Court observed that even after death of deceased his

partnership business was continued by the family member

having deceased's son as partners of the firm. High Court further

found that partnership business was being carried on and

claimants were deriving benefit from that business and they had fano. 1142.14.odt

not been put to any pecuniary loss. On that reasoning the High

Court reduced the compensation from Rs.1,25,000/- to

Rs.48,600/- However, the Hon'ble Apex Court did not agree

with the High Court and found no justification whatsoever to

reduce the compensation. Accordingly the appeal was allowed in

toto and award of Rs.1,25,000/- was affirmed.

30. Thus, the factual position in the case of Rukmani Devi

and others vis-vis the case in hand is quiet similar and therefore,

learned Member of the Tribunal was justified in following the

decision given in Rukmani Devi's.

31. Similarly, in case of National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Birender (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it

is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the

deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said

that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and

earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a

right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden

duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of

the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully

dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards fano. 1142.14.odt

conventional heads only.

32. Thus, having regard to the pronouncements made in

the case of Rukmani Devi and others (supra) and as also in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender Kumar and

others (supra), I do not find any infirmity with the approach of

learned Member of the Tribunal. Consequently, the submission in

this regard advanced by learned counsel for the appellant also

stands rejected.

33. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of

argument also submitted that learned Member has wrongly

relied upon the income tax returns for the financial year 2003-04

to have assessed the income of deceased. According to learned

counsel the accident in question took place on 23.02.2003 and

therefore, the income that shall have been taken for assessment

of compensation shall have been based on previous year returns.

34. It is well settled that the income on the date of death

ought to have been taken into consideration after deducting

income tax payable. Since admittedly the deceased died in an

accident occurred on 23.02.2003, in my considered view, learned

Member of Accident Claims Tribunal was right in taking into fano. 1142.14.odt

consideration the income tax returns of the assessment year

2003-04. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant in

this regard is bereft of logic and cannot be accepted.

35. This brings me to the cross-objection of the

respondents. In Urmila Devi and Ors. Vs. Branch Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another the Hon'ble Apex

Court at para 24 held as under:-

"24. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 173 of the M.V. Act; Rule 249 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992; and Order XLI rule 22 of the CPC would reveal, that there is no restriction on the right to appeal of any of the parties. It is clear, that any party aggrieved by any part of the Award would be entitled to prefer an appeal. It is also clear, that any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, apart from supporting the finding in his favour, is also entitled to take any cross- objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal."

36. Although no formal cross-objection has been filed

by the respondent, but in view of above proposition of the

Hon'ble Apex Court learned counsel is well within his right to

raise the cross-objection before this Court.

37. According to learned counsel for the respondents

learned Member while calculating/determining the income of

deceased failed to consider the share of profit earned from the fano. 1142.14.odt

partnership firm by the deceased as the same is tax exempt

income in the hands of the partner and is excluded under Section

10(2A) read with Section 40 (b) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

38. Exh. 47 i.e. income tax return for the assessment year

2003-04 which was pressed by learned Member for recokning

the income of deceased is very much on record. Under the head

computation of total income at serial No.3, it is shown that an

amount of Rs.5,39,082.00 was under exemption under Section

10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per Section 10(2A) share of

profit received by a partner from the firm is exempt from tax in

the hands of the partner. Therefore, it appears that

Rs.5,39,082/- as share of profit from the firm, was subtracted

while calculating gross taxable income. It is pertinent to

mention that share of profit is part of income being derived and

same is subtracted as per provision of law to determine the tax

liability. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of learned Member

to not include the said amount of Rs.5,39,082/- to the assessed/

determined income of the deceased.

39. Thus, the calculation of compensation payable under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, after adding the share of profit fano. 1142.14.odt

from partnership as part of income will be as follows:-

       ( In Rs.)                                         Calculations
(i)     Gross Annual salaries per ITR (2003-2004)                 9,47,364

(ii) Profit share from partnership firm as per ITR               5,39,082

(iii) Total Gross Income as per ITR [(i) + (ii)]                14,86,446

(iv) Tax paid as per ITR                                         2,64,188

(v) Annual income post tax [(iii) - (iv)]                       12,22,258

(vi) Addition for Future prospect @ 50%                          6,11,129

(vii) Annual Income with Future prospect [ (v) + (vi)]          18,33,387

(viii) Deduction towards personal expenses @ 50%                 9,16,694

(ix)     Annual income for calculating compensation             9,16,694
       [(vii) - (viii)]

(x) Multiplier (as per sarla verma/Pranay Sethi case)                  17

(xi) Loss of future income (total income x multiplier)        1,55,83,790

(xii) Funeral expense                                             15,000

(xiii) Loss of estate                                             15,000

(xiv) Loss of consortium @ 40,000 x 2                             80,000

(xv) Total compensation payable                               1,56,93,790

40. Appellant - Insurance Company is, therefore, directed

to pay Rs.1,56,93,790/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the

date of filing of the claim petition till payment, less that already

deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of this fano. 1142.14.odt

judgment.

                      41.         In the result,

                                  (i)         Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

                                  (ii)        Cross-objection is allowed to the extent

                      indicated (para- 39) above.

                                  Orders accordingly.

                      42.         In view of dismissal of      appeal, Civil Application

No.3228 of 2014 also stands disposed off.

(V.G. BISHT) JUDGE manisha

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2022.03.09 13:24:16 +0530