The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sri Manab Sen (Deceased) Reptd. By ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3368 Cal

                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

                         FMA No.804 of 2010
             CAN No.1 of 2010 (Old CAN No.4009 of 2010)
             CAN No.4 of 2019 (Old CAN No.4398 of 2019)
                   The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
                                versus
        Sri Manab Sen (deceased) reptd. by his legal heirs & Anr.
                                 With
                         FMA No.197 of 2017
              CAN No.5 of 2018 (Old CAN No.770 of 2018)
                         Aishwarya Sen & Anr.
                                versus
                New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.


For the appellant (in         : Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari, Advocate
FMA No. 804 of 2010)
& the respondent (in

FMA No. 197 of 2017)

For the respondents (in : Mr. Tapas Dutta, Advocate FMA No. 804 of 2010) Ms. Ujjala Banerjee, Advocate & the appellants (in Mr. Mrityunjay Halder, Advocate FMA No. 197 of 2017)

Heard on : 06.12.2022, 15.12.2022

Judgment on : 12.05.2023.

Bivas Pattanayak, J. :-

1. Both the appeals being FMA No. 804 of 2010 filed by the insurance

company and another being FMA No. 197 of 2017 preferred by the legal

heirs of original claimant-injured is heard analogously and taken up

together for consideration.

2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award

passed on 13th January, 2010 by learned Additional District Judge-cum-

Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Barrackpore,

24 Parganas (North) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 37 of 2006 granting

compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-together with interest in favour of the

claimant injured under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 27th August, 2005 at about 11:30

hours the offending vehicle bearing registration No. WB-25A/8971 (truck)

which was proceeding in rash and negligence manner dashed the victim

near Halisahar Panchmatha More in front of the Motor Training School, as a

result of which the victim sustained serious injuries. Immediately he was

removed to the hospital. However, after prolong treatment, the injured could

not recover and was permanently disabled due to the injury sustained in the

said accident. In relation to the said injuries and the consequential

disablement, the claimant-injured filed application for compensation of Rs.

14,90,000/- together with interest under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act.

4. The claimant-injured in order to establish his case examined six

witnesses and proved documents which have been marked as Exhibit 1 to

17 respectively.

5. The insurance company (appellant in FMA No. 804 of 2010) adduced

evidence of one witness and also proved documents which have been

marked as Exhibit A and B respectively.

6. The owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim application

and the case was dismissed ex parte against the owner of the offending

vehicle.

7. Upon considering the materials on record and the evidence adduced on

behalf of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal granted compensation

of Rs. 10,00,000 together with interest in favour of the claimant-injured.

8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and

award, the insurance company preferred the appeal being FMA No. 804 of

2010.

9. The legal heirs of original claimant-injured filed the appeal being FMA No.

197 of 2017 on the ground that the compensation should be awarded as a

death case, since the claimant-injured died on 18.08.2009 due to injury

caused in the accident, prior to passing of the award on 13.01.2010.

10. Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

insurance company (appellant in FMA No. 804 of 2010), submits that there

is categorical finding of the learned Tribunal that there was no loss of

income of the claimant injured due to the injuries and disablement caused

for the reason of the said accident and, therefore, the claimant is not

entitled to receive any compensation towards loss of income. In support of

his contention, he relied upon the following decisions of this Court:

i. Mukti Majumdar versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and

Another reported in 2007 (2) T.A.C. (Cal.).

ii. Atanu Kumar Ghosal versus National Insurance Co. Ltd.

and Others reported in 2007 ACJ 650.

iii. Barun Kumar Das versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and

Another reported in 2005 (1) T.A.C. 225 (Cal.).

iv. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Amitava Das &

Anr. reported in (2007) 2 WBLR (Cal) 354.

He further submitted that after the death of the original claimant-injured

the legal heirs are before the Court claiming enhancement of compensation,

however, the cause of action being personal to the injured abates on his

death, which is not caused due to the accident. The legal heirs are entitled

only to such compensation which forms part of the estate of the deceased.

Loss of salary, future prospects, pain and suffering alongwith attendant

charges do not form part of estate of the deceased and therefore the legal

heirs of the injured is only entitled to loss of estate which shall include

expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, doctor's fee nothing more,

nothing less. Moreover, the compensation should not be fixed by application

of multiplier as it is not a case of death caused or occasioned by or due to

the accident. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus

Kahlon reported in 2021 ACJ 2576.

He further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in granting

compensation taking into account pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of

life, loss of expectation of life, loss of personal capacity of earning, loss of

prospect of life, which is totally based on guess work and without any basis.

In view of his above submission, he prayed that save and except the amount

towards medicines, treatment, diet, doctor's fee the legal heirs of the

claimant-injured is not entitled to compensation under any other heads.

11. In reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the insurance company,

Mr Tapas Dutta, learned Advocate representing the legal heirs of injured-

claimant (appellants in FMA No. 197 of 2017), at the outset, not pressed the

ground taken in the appeal being FMA No. 197 of 2017 for treating the claim

case filed by the injured as a death case. He submitted that although the

income tax return shows increase in the income yet such increase is not

substantial in comparison to what it would have been had the claimant

injured been able to discharge his previous activities and functions in

pursuing his business after the accident. He drew the attention of the Court

to the fact that the medical evidence adduced by the claimant-injured of the

Doctor (PW6) and the disability certificate shows that the victim due to the

injuries sustained in the accident became permanently disabled extending

to 90% and could not travel without assistance of any escort. Thus, where

the victim sustained permanent disability and was a contractor by

profession, the preponderance of probabilities would show that his

restrictive movement has certainly affected his earnings and, therefore, as

per settled proposition, multiplier method should be applied for computation

of the compensation amount. In support of his contention, he relied on the

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Mangla Ram versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2018) 5

SCC 656 and in the matter of Jagdish versus Mohan and Others reported

in (2018) 4 SCC 571. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Jakir Hussein versus Sabir and Others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 252 he

submitted that the legal heirs are also entitled to compensation under

pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Referring to the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. K. Malik and Another versus Kiran Pal and

Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 1, he submitted that the compensation

in law is paid to restore the person, who has suffered damages and loss, in

the same position if the tortious act or breach of contract had not been

committed and the law in all such matters requires payment of adequate,

reasonable and just monetary compensation. In the light of his aforesaid

submission, he prayed for enhancement of compensation amount.

12. Having heard learned Advocates for respective parties, the present

appeals hinge on two-fold issues, firstly, whether the injuries sustained by

the claimant has led to loss of income and secondly whether for assessment

of compensation multiplier method is to be adopted in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

13. In order to appreciate the first issue involved in these appeals, it would

be apposite to refer to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the decision of Raj Kumar versus Ajay Kumar & Anr. reported in

(2011) 1 SCC 343 which is reproduced hereunder:

"12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of

the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.

13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

14.For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss

of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.

15.It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation....."

13.1. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, let me first decide whether the victim sustained any

permanent disability due to the accident and, if so, to what extent. The

victim in his claim application at column 11 stated that the he sustained

multiple injuries with comminuted fracture proximal tibia (right), fracture

base of 4th, 5th metacarpal right hand with fracture phalanges, corneal

injury on right eye and also internal haemorrhage of head. The discharge

summary shows that the injured sustained polytrauma with multiple

lacerated wounds, compound comminuted fracture proximal right tibia and

fracture base of 4th and 5th metacarpal right hand with fracture phalanges,

corneal injury right eye. The injuries stated in the claim application are

reflected in the discharge summary, however, it is relevant to note that

intra-cerebral haemorrhage and intraocular injury have been ruled out. It is

further found from the discharge summary that the injured was taken up

for operation management of his limb on 31.8.2005 after stabilizing him

with packed cell transfusion. Interfragmentary screws and external fixation

applied for the right tibial fracture. Percutaneous K-wire fixation of right 4th

and 5th metacarpal fractures with external fixator stabilization and

debridement of lateral wounds were performed. PW6 Dr Krishnalal Sarkar

deposed in his evidence that he examined the injured and issued disability

certificate on the basis of the condition of the patient. He further deposed

that the disability certificate of the victim shows disablement to the extent of

90%. In his cross-examination, PW6 deposed that according to him the

injury of the patient cannot be recovered. On perusal of disability certificate

(Exhibit 6) it is found that the injured sustained disability to the extent to

90% which is of permanent nature. Therefore, it goes without saying that

the injured sustained permanent disability to the extent of 90%.

13.2. Now, it is to be ascertained regarding the effect of such permanent

disablement on the actual earning capacity of the injured victim. Admittedly

at the time of accident, the victim was running a construction firm under

the name and style of M/s. M.S. Construction dealing with civil works. The

disability certificate further reveals that the victim cannot travel without the

assistance of escort. Though Exhibit B income tax return for assessment

year 2005-2006, assessment 2006-2007 and assessment year 2007-2008,

shows there is increase in the income yet the nature of injuries as noted

above and the consequential permanent disablement of the injured would

certainly have affected his earning capacity, if not 100%. Due to such

injuries of the nature as above and disablement in all probabilities he was

prevented and restricted from discharging his previous activities and

functions, however, he could carry on lesser scale of activities and functions

and continued to earn his livelihood to certain extent. This Court is not

oblivious to the fact that for carrying on the work of a contractor dealing in

civil works, extensive travelling is necessary for visiting the site of

construction, procuring materials for construction so on and so forth and

therefore his restrictive movements would certainly affect his earning

capacity. The pertinent question at this stage is whether the person who

continued to earn even after such injury is entitled to loss of earnings or

not. At this juncture it would be profitable to refer to the observation of this

Court in Mukti Majumdar (supra) as follows.

"9. ......... Loss of income is one thing and loss of earning capacity is another and the two cannot be equated. It is possible that even after having sustained serious injury one may continue to earn at the same level or be retained by the employer whether on sympathy or otherwise. But

that is not the real test. The principle is whether the victim is capable of undertaking all possible jobs as he or she was before accident. In other words, the saleability of the services ordinarily rendered by the victim had been diminished. This principle of law has been discussed in a fairly old decision of this court rendered in the case of Calcutta Licensed Measurers v. Md. Hussain (reported in 1969 A.C.J, 92). In this case, on facts it was found that after the accident a workman was receiving a higher salary as a measure of concession or of grace. In substance there was no loss of earnings, but factually it was found that his partial and permanent disablement was caused by the accident and it was such that it was not possible for him to perform the same work that he performed before the accident. Of course, this case was decided under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 but the principle can very well be applied to the present case, where there is no statutory guidance for assessment of damages. The Bench in that case while discussing the two earlier decisions of this Court (Agent, East Indian Railways v. Maurice Cecil Ryan : A.I.R. 1937 Cal. 526 and Sukhai v. Hukam Chand Jute Mills Ltd. : A.I.R. 1957 Cal.

601) observed in their lucid manner as follows:

"If a workman suffers as a result of an injury from a physical defect which does not in fact, reduce his capacity to work, but at the same time makes his labour unsaleable in any market reasonably accessible to him, there will be either total incapacity for work when no work is available to him at all or there will be a partial incapacity when such defect makes his labour saleable for less then it would otherwise fetch."

The principle which culls out from the above observation is that even after

having sustained serious injury one may continue to earn at the same level

or be retained by the employer whether on sympathy or otherwise. But that

is not the real test. The principle is whether the victim is capable of

undertaking all possible jobs as he or she was before accident. In other

words, the saleability of the services ordinarily rendered by the victim had

been diminished. Bearing in mind the aforesaid observation factually it was

not possible for the victim, who was a civil contractor by profession, to

perform the same work that he performed before the accident. Mr Pahari,

learned advocate for insurance company relying on Mukti Majumdar (supra)

tried to impress upon the court that where there is no loss of income or loss

of earning capacity there cannot be compensation on such head. In the said

case the victim lady even after the accident continued in the same job and

was found fit therefore. She was not removed to any other position nor was

she given salary on account of grace. She was eligible to retire with full

benefits. Due to said reason the above principle was not applied. However,

keeping in mind the facts of the case at hand and considering the nature of

injuries and the disablement of permanent nature the principles as above in

the Mukti Majumdar (supra) applies to the case at hand. I find substance in

the submission of Mr Dutta, learned advocate for legal heirs of injured (since

deceased) relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K Malik

(supra) that compensation in law is paid to restore the person, who has

suffered damage or loss in the same position, as if the tortious act or breach

of contract had not been committed. Accordingly, the injured suffered loss of

earnings.

13.3. In Atanu Kumar Ghosal (supra) the injured, who was an insurance

agent, lost three fingers. The Court taking into account that his movement,

power of speech, hearing power and the vision not impaired and he is doing

his business held that he cannot be said to have lost his earning capacity.

The facts involved in the said case is dissimilar to the facts at hand.

13.4. In Barun Kumar Das (supra) the injured-claimant sustained injuries

on his toes of one leg and lost some sensation in the toes. However, he

attended his office regularly as law assistant and received salaries as before.

So, the facts involved is dissimilar to the case at hand.

13.5. In Amitava Das (supra) the claimant deposed categorically that after

the accident he became fit and joined in the service with proper medical

fitness certificate. The Court considering the said fact set aside the

quantification of compensation amount on account of loss of income. The

facts of the said case are distinguishable from the case at hand.

13.6. In view of the above discussion, from the facts and circumstances of

the case, bearing in mind the nature of injury, the permanent disablement,

the avocation, profession and nature of work of the victim, I am of the

opinion that the injured-claimant suffered loss of income to the extent of

80% of his actual earnings.

14. The next the question that has fallen for consideration in these appeals

is whether multiplier method is to be adopted for assessing the amount of

compensation in the present case or not. At this stage it would be

appropriate to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in

Karthik Subramanian versus B. Sarath Babu & Anr reported in 2021

SAR (Civ) 1180 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as follows:

" 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant had relied upon the recent judgement of this Court in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.-2020 Supp. SAR (Civ) 962= 2020 SCC Online SC 601. The judgement took into consideration the earlier judgements including in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sandeep Khanduja v. Atul Dande-2017 SAR (Civ) 385 = (2017) 3 SCC 351. The latter judgement had opined that multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident. The present case being one of permanent disability of 40 per cent, it has been urged that the same principle should be applied in the present case while in fact nothing has been granted on account of future prospects.

In our view, this issue is no more res integra in view of Sandeep Khanduja's case (supra) and Erudhaya Priya's case (supra) opining that multiplier method has to be applied for future prospects and advancement in life and career."

Bearing in mind the aforesaid observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court and

since from the material discussed above it is found that the injured-victim

sustained permanent disablement, it is settled proposition that to quantify

just and fair compensation the multiplier method is to be adopted as has

been rightly argued by learned advocate for the legal heirs of injured-

claimant, referring to the decisions of Jagdish (supra) and Mangla Ram

(supra). Further in Kahlon (supra) as well cited on behalf of the insurance

company it is found that the Hon'ble court applied multiplier method for

assessing compensation.

15. Now the next aspect which is to be decided is whether the legal heirs of

the original injured-claimant is entitled to receive compensation upon death

of the injured. Mr. Pahari, learned advocate for insurance company referring

to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahlon (supra) submitted that

the legal heirs of injured are only entitled to loss of estate which shall

include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, doctor's fee nothing

more, nothing less The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahlon (supra) in a similar

situation where legal heir of the injured was before the court pursuing the

appeal on substitution, at paragraph no. 20 observed as follows:

"20. We see no reason to deviate from the consistent judicial view taken by more than one High Court that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor's fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased."

Bearing in mind the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

the legal heirs are entitled to loss of estate which would include expenses on

medicine, treatment, diet, attendant, doctor's fees including income and

future prospect. It is further relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the aforesaid decision has re-assessed the total compensation

taking into account the said aspects and factors. Therefore, the argument of

Mr. Pahari, learned Advocate appearing for insurance company in this

regard fall short of merit.

16. As per income disclosed in the income tax return for the assessment

year 2004-2005 (Exhibit 9) filed on 13.10.2004, prior to the accident, the

victim had total income of Rs.1,71,490/- and the tax paid on the total

income is Rs. 25,447/-. Thus, the actual yearly income of the victim at the

time of accident would be total income less tax component which comes to

Rs. 1,46,043/-.

17. Since the victim, at the time of accident, was admittedly 36 years old

and was self-employed carrying on the business of civil works under the

name and style of M/s M.S. Construction, hence following the observation of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company

Limited versus Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680,

the income of the victim should include an additional amount equivalent to

40% of the annual income of the victim towards future prospect.

18. So far as the medical expenses are concerned, it is found that the

claimant injured produced medical bills amounting to Rs.3,12,955.43/-, as

noted by the learned tribunal, which should be granted since such medical

bills have not been challenged on the ground that those are not paid or have

been manufactured.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahlon (supra) disallowed compensation

under the head of pain and sufferings holding the same to be unsustainable

being personal injuries. Though relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Jakir Hussein (supra) it is argued on behalf of the legal heirs that

they are entitled to non-pecuniary damages yet the case before the Hon'ble

court was pursued by the injured and not by his legal heirs and therefore is

distinguishable in facts. Following the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble

Court in Kahlon (supra) the compensation under the head of pain and

sufferings is disallowed.

20. The victim being 36 years of age at the time of accident following the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of Sarla Verma

(Smt) and Others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier to be adopted in the present

case should be 15.

21. Keeping in mind the aforesaid factors the compensation amount is

calculated as hereunder.

                        Calculation of Compensation

           Annual income                     Rs. 1,46,043/-

           Add: 40% of annual income         Rs. 58,417/-
           towards future prospect

           Total Income                      Rs. 2,04,460/-

           Loss of income: 80% of the        Rs. 1,63,568/-
           total income

           Adopting the multiplier 15        Rs. 24,53,520/-

           Medical expenses                  Rs. 3,12,955/-

           Total amount                      Rs. 27,66,475/-

22. Thus, the respondents-claimants are entitled to compensation of

Rs.27,66,475/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing

of the claim application till payment. It is found that the appellant-

insurance company has made statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- vide OD

challan no. 391 dated 7.5.2010 and a sum of Rs.9,75,000/- vide OD challan

no.486 dated 17.05.2010 with the Registry of this Court in terms of order

dated 5th May 2010. Accordingly, the amount deposited and accrued interest

be adjusted against the entire compensation amount and the interest

thereon. By the order of this court dated 11 April 2017 the respondents-

claimants have withdrawn an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which shall be

adjusted against payment.

23. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit balance

amount of compensation and interest as indicated above, by way of cheque

with the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta within the period of

six weeks from date.

24. Respondents-claimants are directed to deposit ad valorem court fees on

the compensation assessed, if not already paid.

25. Learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta upon deposit of the

aforesaid balance amount and the interest as indicated above shall release

the entire compensation amount along with interest in favour of

respondents-claimants, in equal share upon satisfaction of their identity

and payment of ad valorem court fees on the compensation assessed, if not

already paid.

26. With the aforesaid observation both the appeals being FMA 804 of 2010

and FMA 197 of 2017 are accordingly disposed of. The impugned judgment

and award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the above extent.

27. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.

28. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

29. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned Tribunal along

with lower court records for information.

30. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given

to the parties upon compliance of necessary legal formalities.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)