M/S Hadiso Construction Pvt Ltd & ... vs Commissioner Employees ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7368 Del

$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Decision: 21st December, 2017

+     FAO 85/2016 and C.M. Appl. 6392/2016

      M/S HADISO CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD & ANR.... Petitioners
                   Through: Mr. Dr. (Maj.) J.C. Vashista, Ms.
                            Yashika Sood, Advocates.

                          versus

      COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES
      COMPENSATION & ORS.                     ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Atul Bansal, Advocate for
                           respondent No.2.
                           Mr. M.K. Rathee, Mr. J.P. Sikka,
                           Advocates for respondents No.3 to 6.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                        J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The appellants have challenged the order dated 09th December, 2015 whereby Commissioner, Employees' Compensation has awarded compensation of Rs.7,11,080/- to respondents No.3 to 6.

2. Respondents No.3 to 6 are the widow and three daughters of late Virender Singh and they filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation claiming that late Virender Singh was employed by the appellants as a labourer for construction work at Subh Laxmi Apartments at Dwarka, New Delhi. On 13th April, 2013 at about 09:30 A.M., heavy bricks and material suddenly fell on the head of Virender

Singh which resulted in grievous head injuries; Supervisor (appellant no.2) took Virender Singh to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries; police registered FIR No.102 dated 13th April, 2013 under Sections 288/304-A IPC at P.S. Dwarka South, District South West, Delhi; the death of Virender Singh arose out of and during the course of his employment with the appellants and respondent No.2; and Virender Singh was aged 40 years and was drawing wages of Rs.9,000/- per month at the time of accident.

3. The appellants admitted that the deceased was engaged by appellant No.1 for the construction work of Subh Laxmi Apartments and he suffered an accident during the course of his employment. The appellants however disputed the age and wages of the deceased. According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 49 years at the time of the accident and was drawing wages of Rs.280/- per day. The appellants denied the liability on the ground that the deceased was negligent and Subh Laxmi Co-operative Group Housing Society should be held liable as principal employer to pay the compensation.

4. M/s Subh Laxmi Co-operative Group Housing Society (respondent No.2) contested the claim on the ground that the Society had executed an agreement dated 15th March, 2012 with appellant No.1 for construction of additional rooms along with the balconies in 72 dwelling units of the Society and it was the sole responsibility and liability of appellant No.1 to ensure the safety of the workers and bear any liability arising out of any accident due to injury/death of any person. Respondent No.2 further pleaded that the Society paid Rs.50,716/- to the family of the deceased, Virender Singh on humanitarian grounds. Clause 6 of the agreement dated 15 th March, 2012 is

reproduced hereunder:-

"It will be the sole responsibility and liability of the Contractor that all necessary safety precautions as per govt regulations are taken while executing the work to ensure safety of workers, residents, visitors and existing building. Management Committee has no liability for any accident resulting in damage to property and injury/death of any person/persons."

5. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation held that Virender Singh suffered the accident dated 13th April, 2013 during the course of his employment with appellant No.1. The Commissioner further held that appellant No.1 is solely responsible to pay the compensation under the agreement dated 15th March, 2012 (Clause 6). With respect to the wages of the deceased, the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation computed the compensation of Rs.7,11,080/- by taking the age of the deceased as 40 years according to the mark sheet of the high school of the deceased, the minimum wages of Rs.7,722/- in respect of an unskilled workman and applying the factor of 184.17. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death and Rs.5,000/- towards the funeral charges.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that respondent No.2 is the principal employer and should be held equally liable to pay the compensation. It is further submitted that the interest should be awarded from the date of the order instead of the date of the accident. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed, (2007) 2 SCC 349 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jayashreeben Nandulal Nerkar Patil, 2011 (2) T.A.C. 237 (Guj.). It is further submitted

that there is a calculation mistake in the computation of the interest by the Commissioner and excess interest amount of Rs.12,798/- has been paid by appellant No.1.

7. Section 12 of the Employee's Compensation Act imposes the liability of payment of compensation on the principal with right to recover the same from the contractor in respect of work being carried out by the contractor. Section 12 of the Employee's Compensation Act is reproduced hereunder:

"Section 12. Contracting.-

(1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any employee employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that employee had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the employee under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.

(2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the employee could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the employee could have recovered compensation and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing an employee from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal.

(4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere that on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management."

(Emphasis supplied)

8. In the present case, M/s Subh Laxmi Co-operative Group Housing Society had executed an agreement dated 15th March, 2012 with appellant No.1 for construction work of the Society. Clause 6 of the said agreement imposes the responsibility and liability on the contractor to take all safety precautions for the safety of the workers while executing the construction work solely. Clause 6 further declares that the Society shall have no liability for accident resulting in any injury/death of any person. This Court is of the view that Section 12 will apply notwithstanding any agreement between the principal and the contractor. This Court is satisfied that the ingredients of Section 12 are satisfied in the present case and M/s Subh Laxmi Co-

operative Group Housing Society, being the principal, is liable to pay the compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased in the first instance, with right to recover the same from the contractor. Reference is made to the recent judgment of this Court in Krishan v. Jasoda Devi, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11137 in which this Court has interpreted Section 12. This case is squarely covered by the principles laid down in Krishan v. Jasoda Devi (supra).

9. Applying the principles laid down by this Court in Krishan v. Jasoda Devi (supra), M/s Subh Laxmi Co-operative Group Housing Society is liable as the principal under Section 12 of the Employees' Compensation Act with right to recover the compensation amount from appellant No.1. However,

the direction to deposit the compensation by respondent no.2 is not warranted in the present case as appellant No.1 has already deposited the compensation as well as interest amount with this Court and the amount has been disbursed to the claimants. No useful purpose would be served by directing M/s Subh Laxmi Co-operative Group Housing Society to deposit the amount and thereafter, recover the same from appellant No.1.

10. With respect to the appellant's contention that the interest should be awarded from the date of the order instead of date of the accident, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this contention. In the present case, the compensation under Section 4 falls due on the date of the accident i.e. 13th April, 2013. Section 4A(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act provides the compensation under Section 4 to be paid as soon as it falls due. Section 4A(3)(a) provides that the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation shall direct the employer to pay interest in the event of default in payment of the compensation due under the Act within one month when it falls due. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George (2012) 12 SCC 540, the Supreme Court held the decision in Mubasir Ahmed (supra) is not a binding precedent and that the interest is payable from the date of the accident and not from the date of order. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

"9. Now, coming back to the question when does the payment of compensation fall due and what would be the point for the commencement of interest, it may be noted that neither the decision in Mubasir Ahmed nor the one in Mohd. Nasir can be said to provide any valid guidelines because both the decisions were rendered in ignorance of earlier larger Bench decisions of this Court by which the issue was concluded. As early as in 1975 a four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh

Deo. Vs. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr., AIR 1976 SC 222 directly answered the question. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the decision it was held and observed as follows:-

"7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if "personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." It was not the case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under sub-section (5) of Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. It is therefore futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner's order dated May 6, 1969 under Section 19. What the section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is therefore nothing to justify the argument that the employer's liability to pay compensation under Section 3, in respect of the injury, was suspended until after the settlement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant, and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary.

8. It was the duty of the appellant, under Section 4- A(1) of the Act, to pay the compensation at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury was caused to the respondent. He failed to do so. What is worse, he did not even make a provisional payment under sub-section (2) of Section 4 for, as has been stated, he went to the extent of taking the false pleas that the respondent was a casual contractor and that the accident occurred solely because of his negligence. Then there is the further fact that he paid no heed to the respondent's

personal approach for obtaining the compensation. It will be recalled that the respondent was driven to the necessity of making an application to the Commissioner for settling the claim, and even there the appellant raised a frivolous objection as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and prevailed on the respondent to file a memorandum of agreement settling the claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequate that it was rejected by the Commissioner. In these facts and circumstances, we have no doubt that the Commissioner was fully justified in making an order for the payment of interest and the penalty."

10. The matter once again came up before the Court when by amendments introduced in the Act by Act No. 30 of 1995 the amount of compensation and the rate of interest were increased with effect from 15.9.1995. The question arose whether the increased amount of compensation and the rate of interest would apply also to cases in which the accident took place before 15.9.1995. A three Judge Bench of the Court in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Valsala K., AIR 1999 SC 3502 answered the question in the negative holding, on the authority of Pratap Narain Singh Deo, that the payment of compensation fell due on the date of the accident. In paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the decision the Court observed as follows:

"1.The neat question involved in these special leave petitions is whether the amendment of Ss.4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act No.30 of 1995 with effect from 15-9-1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest, would be attracted to cases where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment, took place prior to 15-9-1995?

2. Various High Courts in the country, while dealing with the claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act have uniformly taken the view that the relevant date for determining the rights and liabilities of the parties is the date of the accident.

3. A four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289: (AIR 1976 SC 222: 1976 Lab IC 222) speaking through Singhal, J. has held that an

employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim.

11. The Court then referred to a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Alavi, 1998(1) KerLT 951(FB) and approved it in so far as it followed the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo.

12. The decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo was by a four Judge Bench and in Valsala by a three Judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir, each of which was heard by two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala were not brought to the notice of the Court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir.

13. In light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala, it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner's order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala do not express the correct view and do not make binding precedents."

11. According to appellant No.1, excess interest amount of Rs.12,798/- has been computed. The Accounts Officer of this Court has done the calculation according to which there is an excess interest amount of Rs.12,798/-. However, the order with respect to the refund of the said amount shall be passed after the adjudication of the penalty.

12. Section 4A(3) of the Employees' Compensation Act provides for penalty upto 50% of the compensation amount if the compensation due under the Act is not paid within one month it fell due. Section 4A(3) of the Employees' Compensation Act is reproduced hereunder:-

"Section 4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.-

(1) ............................................. (2) ............................................. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall--

(a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and

(b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent, of such amount by way of penalty:

Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed."

13. In Rajan v. P.M. Subramonian, 1994 ACJ 25, the Division Bench of Kerala High Court examined the scope of proviso to Section 4A(3)(b) of Employee's Compensation Act and adjudicated the issue of penalty instead of remanding back the matter. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: -

"15. Now, we come to the main question raised in this appeal, whether the imposition of penalty, and that too at the maximum rate, without framing an issue, or without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard regarding imposition of the penalty or its quantum is valid in law. The question of framing an issue or putting the appellant on notice of the proposal are really matters of fairplay and fair procedure related to the principles of natural justice. Section 4-A(3) on it terms does not contain any provision for framing an issue or for hearing an employer before imposing

penalty, or regarding its quantum, but that is a requirement of natural justice. It was held in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150, and reiterated in Union of India v. J.N. Sinha 1970-II- LLJ-284 that while the rules of natural justice do not supplant the law but supplement it, if a statutory provision can be read consistently with the principles of natural justice, Courts should do so because it must be presumed that the Legislature and the statutory authoritis intend to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. These rules being rules of fairness should therefore be followed and read into every provision unless their application is excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. Section 4- A(3) does not expressly exclude the application of the principles of natural justice, nor is there anything therein excluding their application by implication. In fact, as a quasi-judicial authority exercising statutory powers involving determination of rights of parties, it is elementary that the Commissioner should observe the rules of natural justice in the performance of his functions. Though the Act or the Rules do not envisage a full-fledged trial, as in a civil court, a regular hearing and determination of rights is contemplated therein. In fact, Rule 28 of the Rules framed under the Act requires the Commissioner to frame and record the issues upon which the right decision of the case appears to depend. This is evidently intended to put the parties on notice of the points arising for consideration and on which they are expected to adduce evidence. It is a matter for the Commissioner to decide whether penalty should be imposed or not. Therefore, the question of imposition of penalty may arise for consideration even without a specific plea in that behalf by the workman, as held by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Dalip Kaur v. Northern Railway 1992-I-LLJ-762. Since the question of imposition of penalty is thus a matter which will necessarily arise for consideration while passing an award, it will be prudent and advisable for the Commissioner to frame an issue as to whether penalty is imposable under Section 4-A(3) and, if so, the quantum thereof to enable the parties to address themselves on these aspects as well at the hearing.

16. In Mathura Prasad v. Saiyed Khursheed Ahmad, (1981) 59 FJR 168, the High Court of Allahabad held that the Commissioner should normally pass an order regarding penalty also while disposing of the

case, a proposition with which we agree. In Vijay Ram v. Janak Raj (1981) ACJ 84, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir took the view that an order imposing penalty may be passed by the Commissioner after he has awarded the compensation, depending on the facts of a given case. The learned Judge then proceeded to observe:

"But, in no case shall he impose a penalty under Section 4-A, unless he has given to the employer a prior reasonable notice of his intention to do so, and thereby provided him an opportunity of showing cause for delayed payment of the compensation. Obligation on the part of the Commissioner to hear the party to be adversely affected is implicit in Sub- section (3), for what was the reason for not making the payment without delay, can be known to that person alone who is required to make the payment, and to none else. Unless, therefore, he is called upon to show cause for the delayed payment, it is not reasonably possible for the Commissioner to come to a conclusion whether or not there was any justification for the delay. He cannot be allowed to reach his satisfaction at his whim and caprice simpliciter. In what form such a notice may be given will further depend upon the facts of each case. In one case an issue on the plea of penalty may constitute such a notice, whereas in another case such a notice may be reasonably inferred even from the pleadings of the parties coupled with their conduct during the trial,"

17. The Karnataka High Court dealt with the same question in their decision in Oriental Insurance Co. v. Jevaramma, (1988) ACT 671. The Division Bench followed an earlier decision of the same High Court in N.A.K. Pathan v. Julekabi Pathan, (1987) 70 FJR 40, in which it was held that what was necessary under Section 4-A(3) was that the employer should know the case he is required to meet and he was afforded a reasonable opportunity of meeting the case. The subsequent Bench observed that penalty cannot be imposed merely as a matter of course, and the discretion to levy penalty must be exercised judicially after due consideration of the relevant circumstances. This presupposes an opportunity to be given to explain the circumstances for the delay which entails material consequences.

18. Section 4-A(3) is a penal provision imposing a penalty on the employer. The satisfaction of the Commissioner contemplated therein should be based on materials. It has to be reached on a conspectus of all the facts and circumstances of the case. There may be umpteen reasons why the employer is not liable for the penalty. There can be various reasons for nonpayment of the amount of compensation on the due date, or for its delayed payment. The employer may be able to point out justifiable reasons for the delay or the non-payment. In any case, he may also be able to make out sufficient reasons why the penalty should either be waived, or be fixed at a low amount. In fact, the section vests a discretion in the Commissioner in the matter of penalty, the prescription being only of the maximum. The reasons made out by the employer may have an impact not only on the question of imposition of penalty, but also on its quantum. All this cannot be effectively decided unless the attention of the parties is focussed on the question of imposition of penalty and the exercise of the discretion, in which event the employer can place his materials in justification of the delay or at least plead in mitigation for a lesser amount of penalty. This he will not be able to do unless he is given an opportunity to be heard in the matter.

19. The hearing to be afforded need not necessarily have the trappings of a regular trial or hearing. The framing of an issue under Rule 28 will suffice, but that may not be obligatory, though desirable. The Commissioner may even in the course of the hearing draw the attention of the parties to the question of penalty and hear them. If such an opportunity to produce their materials and to be heard, is afforded, that will be sufficient to meet the requirements of natural justice. What is essential and what is required is compliance with the rules of natural justice, so that the affected party, namely, the employer, gets an opportunity to produce his materials and to plead that there was justification for the delay or for imposition of a lesser amount than the maximum prescribed. Essentially, it is a question of complying with the rules of natural justice.

20. The Law Commission of India had in its sixty-second Report rendered in October, 1974, on the Workmen's Compensation Act, suggested the addition of a proviso to Section 4A(3) to provide for a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why an order

for payment of penalty should not be passed. The Act has not been amended pursuant thereto, but we are of the view that the recommendation of the Law Commission was only to make explicit what otherwise was implicit in the section.

21. So far as this case is concerned, there was no issue framed on the point. There is also no case that the Commissioner heard the parties on the question of penalty after apprising them of his proposal to impose the same or about the quantum. The order impugned therefore suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice in so far as it relates to the imposition of penalty. This would normally require a remit to the Commissioner but for the fact that the parties are agreed that this question may be decided here itself to avoid further protracted proceedings before the Commissioner.

22. Counsel for the appellant pleads that the appellant had acted bona fide. He had a plea of non-liability. That found acceptance with the Commissioner in the first instance, though not with this Court. In such a case, it cannot be said that his conduct was so contumacious or unreasonable as to require being penalised under Section 4-A(3). A parallel case in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Shiv Lal v. Punjab State Electricity Board, (1991) ACJ 443, is relied on. It is also stated that the respondent is now employed elsewhere, a fact which is referred to in the appeal memorandum, though no evidence was tendered about it before the Commissioner. Counsel submits, on these premises, that the penalty, if at all it is to be sustained, should be minimal.

23. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent points out that the appellant had taken a totally false plea that the respondent was not his workman at all. He succeeded in the first instance on an irrelevant ground not raised in the written statement, which was perversely accepted by the Commissioner when the poor toddy tapper could not give the number of the tree from which he fell down. He also refers to the fact that the appellant behaved in a most cruel manner in that he did not even arrange for the proper treatment of the respondent in the hospital and he had to fend his way all alone. His right hand has been amputated and he is disabled for life. But he has been delayed in getting the compensation-even the pittance provided by the Act for thirteen years.

24. Exercise of the discretion regarding imposition of penalty has to be related to all these circumstances. Normally the exercise of discretion has to be done by the authority who is vested with that power. We have however thought it proper to deal with the matter in this Court having regard to the request made by the parties and the fact that we are exercising an appellate power. The exercise of the discretion depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Precedents like the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on by the appellant rendered on their own facts cannot furnish any true guidance for the exercise of the discretion in this case. The facts in this case are clear. The accident took place on November 19, 1979. The appellant did not deposit the whole or any portion of the amount of compensation due to the respondent till the order impugned was passed. On the other hand, he took up every conceivable plea to defeat the claim of the respondent. He could not sustain any of them eventually. By this contumacious conduct, the respondent who has lost a valuable limb, was deprived of the compensation due for well over twelve years. The compensation is payable on the very date on which the accident occurs though the employer is given one month's time to make deposit of the amount. On the facts above stated we are satisfied that there was no justification for the delay in the payment of the compensation. The Commissioner has imposed the penalty at 50 per cent. of the amount of compensation. But, having regard to the fact that the Commissioner himself contributed in part to the delay by his first illegal order, we feel that a penalty of 75 per cent. of the amount fixed by the Commissioner, namely, Rs. 10,080 will meet the ends of justice."

(Emphasis supplied)"

14. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation has not imposed penalty under Section 4A of the Employees' Compensation Act. Section 4A(3) of the Employees' Compensation Act provides for a mandatory show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellant before imposing penalty. Since this appeal is continuation of the proceedings before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, notice is hereby issued to

appellant No.1 to show cause as to why the penalty be not imposed under Section 4A(3) of the Employees' Compensation Act. Reply to the show cause notice be filed by the appellant within four weeks.

15. The appeal is dismissed. The pending application is disposed of.

16. List for the consideration of reply of appellant to the show cause notice on 01st February, 2018.

17. Copy of this judgement be given dasti to counsel for the parties under signature of Court Master.

DECEMMBER 21st , 2017                                 J.R. MIDHA, J.
ak