Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Sheela on 21 December, 2021
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
M. F. A. NO.11840 OF 2011 (MV)
C/W
M.F.A.NO.5836 OF 2012
IN MFA NO.11840/2011
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHEELA
W/O BASAVARAJ KANNAMMANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
2. KUMAR SANDEEP
S/O BASAVARAJ KANNAMMANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, MINOR
REPTD. BY HIS MOTHER / NATURAL GUARDIAN
THE 1ST APPELLANT
3. KUMARI SUPRITHA
D/O BASAVARAJ KANNAMMANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS 3 MONTHS, MINOR
REPTD. BY HER MOTHER / NATURAL GUARDIAN
THE 1ST APPELLANT
4. YASHODAVVA
W/O BHARAMAPPA KANNAMMANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2
ALL ARE R/AT ARALIKATTI VILLAGE,
HIREKERUR TALUKA AND DIST.,
HAVERI, NOW ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MR. JAYANAND E.A.,
HOUSE NO 686, C BLOCK, SINGASANDRA
NEAR CHIKKA BEGUR BUS STOP,
BENGALURU - 560 053.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SHRI. B SURESH
S/O SANNABASAPPA, MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/AT SANTE ROAD, MALEBENNUR VILLAGE
IN HARIHARA TALUKA
DIST. DAVANAGERE
2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
SVR COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, 89,
HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE
BY ITS MANAGER
3. SHRI. B. CHIDANANDAPPA
S/O PUTTAPPA, MAJOR
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT SANTE ROAD,
MALEBENNUR VILLAGE, IN HARIHARA TALUK
DIST. DAVANAGERE
4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
UNITY BUILDING ANNEX,
MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
5. SRI BHARAMAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA KANNAMMANAVAR
3
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O ARAKATTI VILLAGE
HIREKERUR TALUK AND DIST
HAVERI
ALSO R/AT JAYANANDA E.A.
HOUSE NO.686, 'C' BLOCK, SINGSANDRA
NEAR CHIKKABEGUR BUS STOP
BENGALURU - 63.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV. FOR R4
SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R2
V/O DATED 12.11.2014 NOTICE TO R1, R3 AND R5 -
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.09.2011 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7939/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.5836/2012
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE, ACHANDRA RAO
P KALINGA RAO ROAD
BENGALURU - 27.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. K. SURYANARAYANA RAO, ADV.)
AND
1. SMT. SHEELA
W/O BASAVARAJ KANNAMMANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
4
2. KUMAR SANDEEP
S/O BASAVARAJ KANNAMMANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, MINOR
REP. BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER RESPONDENT-1
3. SRI YASHODAVVA
W/O BHARAMAPPA KANNAMMANAVAR
AGED 51 YEARS
4. SHRI BHARAMAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA KANNAMMANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT ARALIKATTI VILLAGE
IN HIREKERUR TALUK, DIST: HAVERI,
NOW R/AT JAYANANDA E. A. HOUSE, C BLOCK,
BEGUR BUS STOP
BANGALORE - 560 063.
5. B SURESH
S/O SANNABASAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT SANTE ROAD
MALEBENNUR, HARIHAR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DIST.
6. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
SVR COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, 89, HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE
7. SRI CHIDANANDAPPA
S/O PUTTAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT SANTE ROAD, MALEBENNUR VILLAGE
HARIHAR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R KRISHNA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1-R3
SMT. MANJULA R. KAMADOLLI, ADV. FOR R5
SRI. H. N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R6
R4 AND R7 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
5
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.09.2011 PASSED IN MVC
NO.7939/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,74,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 17.08.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA NO.11840/2011 is filed by the claimants under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act', for short) and MFA No.5836/2012 is
filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 13.09.2011, passed in MVC
No.7939/2009 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru.
For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as
per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals
briefly stated are that on 22.04.2009 at about 12.30 p.m., in
the land bearing Sy.No.152 of Suttakoti Village in Hirekerur
Taluk, when the driver of the Tractor Trailer bearing
Reg.No.KA-17/T-2645 and KA-17/TA-294 lifted the trailer
(Tipper) in upward direction to unload the mud loaded in the
Trailer, due to rash and negligent manner in operating the
Tractor engine by the said driver the deceased Basavaraj,
who was sitting on the Tractor engine mudguard, struck in
between the Tractor engine and Trailer and succumbed to
the injuries at the spot.
2.1. The claimants being the legal representatives of
the deceased-Basavaraj, filed a claim petition (MVC
No.7939/2009) under Section 166 of the Act seeking
compensation along with interest on account of the death of
the deceased along with interest.
2.2. Respondent Nos.1 and 3, owners of Tractor and
Trailer, filed separate written statement denying the
averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1
contended that he is the owner of Tractor bearing Reg.No.
KA-17/T-2645 and the same is insured with respondent No.2
and policy was in force as on the date of accident and the
driver had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the
said class of vehicle as on the date of accident. The
respondent No.3 contended that his Trailer bearing Reg.No.
KA-17/TA-294 was insured with respondent No.4 and policy
was in force and denied the relationship of the petitioners
with the deceased and also denied the age, occupation and
income of the deceased. It is contended that respondent
No.1 used to take the Trailer of the respondent No.3 for
agriculture work. Hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition
against respondent Nos.1 and 3.
2.3. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company of the
tractor filed written statement in which the averments made
in the petition were denied. The issuance of insurance policy
is admitted and that the policy was valid from 02.09.2008 to
01.09.2009 and the liability is subject to the terms and
conditions of the policy and the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act and Rules. It is contended that respondent
No.1 had entrusted the vehicle to a person who had no valid
and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle
as on the date of accident. It is also contended that the
insured vehicle had been used for commercial purpose for
hire or reward otherwise than the agricultural purpose of the
insured. As such, respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify
the insured respondent No.1. It is also contended that
sitting capacity of the insured tractor is only that of a driver
and the policy of insurance does not cover the risk of any
other person except that of a driver and at the time of
accident, the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the
tractor which is not authorized and as such there is a breach
of terms and conditions of the policy. The relationship of the
petitioners with the deceased is denied and also denied the
age, occupation and income of the deceased. Hence prayed
to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2.
2.4. Respondent No.3, owner of trailer, filed statement
of objections denying the averments made in the claim
petition. It is contended that respondent No.1 used to take
the trailer for agricultural purpose and respondent No.3 used
to take the tractor for his agricultural work pertaining to
respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are close friends
and they were exchanging the vehicles. It is contended that
the trailer was insured with respondent No.2 and driver of
the tractor was holding a valid and effective driving licence
as on the date of accident and policy was in force. Hence
prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent
No.3.
2.5. Respondent No.4 filed written statement denying
the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended
that the policy particulars furnished by the petitioners in
respect of trailer are insufficient. It is contended that the
deceased himself was negligent in sitting on the engine that
too when the driver was lifting the trailer for removing the
mud from the trailer. It is contended that due to jerk while
lifting the trailer, the deceased who sat on the engine fell
down and sustained injuries due to which he succumbed to
the injuries. Hence prayed to dismiss the claim petition
against respondent No.4.
2.6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded
the evidence.
1. Whether the petitioners proves that
deceased Basavaraj died in a road traffic
accident, on 22.1.2009 at about 12.30 hours, in
Sy.No.152 at Suttakoti village, due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor
bearing No. KA.17.T.2645 and Trailer bearing
No.KA-17-TA-0294?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for
any compensation? If so to what extent?
3. What Order or Award?
2.7. The claimants, in order to prove their case,
examined claimant No.1-wife of deceased as PW-1 and
another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18.
On behalf of respondents, respondent No.1 was
examined as RW-1 and official of respondent No.2 was
examined as RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely
Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
2.8. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment,
inter alia, held that the petitioners have proved that the
deceased Basavaraj died in a road traffic accident due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing
Reg.No. KA-17/T.2645 and trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-17/TA-
0294 and further held that the petitioners are entitled to
compensation and compensation and consequently allowed
the claim petition in part against respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4
and awarded compensation of Rs.5,74,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till
realization.
2.9. Respondent No.4 being aggrieved by the judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal, filed MFA No.5836/2012
challenging the liability. The petitioners being dissatisfied
with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed MFA
No.11840/2011 seeking for enhancement of compensation
amount.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4-
Insurance Company submits that the deceased was sitting
on the engine of the tractor at the time of incident and he
fell down and succumbed to the injuries. He further submits
that there cannot be any liability on the insurer of the tractor
as the liability of the insurer is restricted to only the driver
and not in respect of a person sitting on the engine of a
tractor. He further submits that the driver of the tractor
has allowed the deceased to sit on a engine of the
tractor. Thus it is contrary to Rule 28 of the Road
Regulations. He further submits that the Tribunal has
recorded a finding that the deceased was sitting on the
mudguard and not sitting on the trailer and committed an
error in holding the risk of the deceased was covered by the
policy issued by respondent No.4. Further, in order to
buttress his argument he has placed reliance on the
judgment of the full bench of this Court in MFA CROB
No.100001/2016 c/w. MFA No.102649/2015 disposed of
20.4.2021. Hence, he further submits that the Tribunal has
committed an error in saddling the liability on the Insurance
Company. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
deceased met with an accident and the accident was
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the tractor and trailer. He further submits that the
Tribunal has awarded a lesser compensation. He prays to
allow the appeal filed by the petitioners and dismiss the
appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 in MFA
No.5836/2012 i.e. the owner and insurer of the tractor
supports the impugned judgment and award.
6. The point that arises for consideration is in regard
to quantum of compensation and liability.
7. It is not in dispute that the deceased met with an
accident on 22.04.2009 and succumbed to the injuries in the
road traffic accident. The driver of the tractor and trailer
lifted the trailer (tipper) in an upward direction to unload the
mud loaded in the trailer. At that time, the deceased was
sitting on the tractor engine and struck in between the
tractor engine and trailer and succumbed to the injuries at
the spot. The driver of the tractor was negligent in
operating the tractor. A complaint was registered against
the driver of the tractor and trailer.
In order to prove the negligence on the part of the
driver of the tractor, the claimants have produced a copy of
the FIR, complaint and chargesheet. Copy of FIR is marked
as Ex.P1 and chargesheet is marked at Ex.P4. From the
perusal of the records, it is clear that the accident has
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the tractor and trailer. The Tribunal was justified in
recording the finding that the petitioners have proved that
the deceased-Basavaraj died in a road traffic accident on
24.2.2009.
8. Insofar as the liability is concerned, the
claimants/petitioners have stated in the claim petition, that
the deceased was working as a coolie in TT Unit and as per
the direction of respondent No.1-owner of the tractor, the
driver lifted the trailer for unloading the mud. At that time
the deceased was sitting on the engine of tractor. The
deceased struck in between the engine and the trailer and
caused the accident.
In support of the claim petition, petitioner No.1 was
examined as PW1. In the course of cross examination, PW-
1 has stated that at the time of incident, the deceased was
sitting on the mud guard of the tractor engine. Further,
examined the eye witness as PW2. PW-2 stated that the
deceased was sitting on the engine and he further deposed
that he gave a complaint to the police station. In the course
of cross examination, he has admitted that at the time of
accident, the deceased was sitting on the mud-guard of the
engine.
9. From the perusal of the records and evidence of
PWs 1 and 2, it is clear that the deceased was sitting on the
mud guard of the tractor. The said fact was admitted by the
claimants.
10. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in MFA CROB
No.100001/2016 c/w. MFA No.102649/2015 disposed of
20.4.2021 has framed the following issues :
"1. Whether a person travelling on a mud-
guard of a tractor can be construed as a
authorised passenger or an unauthorised
passenger and the liability or such person is
covered or not ?
2. Whether the person who are working
either on ploughing or crushing machines
attached to the tractor can be construed as an
employee so as to cover their risk statutorily
under Section 147 of the M.V. Act. Though there
is only one sitting capacity in the tractor apart
from the driver?
3. Whether crushing machine of ploughing
machine or any other instrument attached to the
tractor can be considered to be an attachment to
the tractor so as to cover the risk of the insured
in respect of the employees and the policy taken
in respect of the tractor alone ?
4. What is the effect of Section 147 of the
MV Act to cover the statutory under the said
situation?
11. The Full Bench has answered issue No.1 and held
that liability of a person sitting on the mud-guard of a tractor
is not required to be covered by the statutory Insurance
policy as contemplated by sub section (1) of Section 147 of
the MV Act and answered issues No. 2 and 3 in the
negative. Admittedly, the deceased was sitting on the mud-
guard. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay the
compensation. Admittedly, in the present case, the tractor
and trailer belonged to different owners but used together
for carrying activities. In order to resolve the controversy in
regard to liability, it is necessary to know the definitions of
tractor and trailer and their use with reference to the
relevant provisions of the M.V.Act 1988.
12. As per Section 2(44) of the M.V.Act, a 'tractor'
means "a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to
carry any load (other than equipment used for the
purpose of propulsion) but excludes a road roller". By
reading of the definition of a 'tractor', it is clear that
tractor is not constructed to carry any load although tractor
is a kind of 'heavy goods vehicle' as defined under Section
2(16) of the Act which reads as under :
'Heavy goods vehicle' means any goods carriage, the
gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road roller,
the unladen weight of either of which exceeds 12,000 kgs. It
(tractor) cannot be used for carrying any activities without
the help of a trailer or any other equipment etc.
13. As per Section 2(46) of the M.V.Act, trailer means
any vehicle other than a semi trailer and a side car, drawn or
intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. By reading of the
definition of a 'trailer', it is clear that it would not move on
its own. It has to be drawn with a help another motor
vehicle. Although trailer is a kind of motor vehicle as per the
definition of motor vehicle defined under Section 2(28) of
the M.V. Act which reads as "motor vehicle" or "vehicle"
means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for the
use upon the roads whether the power of propulsion is
transmitted thereto from an external or internal sources and
includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached
and a trailer but does not include a vehicle running upon
fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only
in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle
having less than four wheels fitted with an engine capacity of
not exceeding (25 cubic cms.). It (trailer) cannot be used
for carrying any activities without the help of another motor
vehicle with the help of which it has to be drawn.
14. From the above discussion it is clear that it is the
combination of a tractor and a trailer which constitutes a full
fledged "goods carriage" which is a kind of a transport
vehicle as defined under Section 2(47) of the M.V.Act which
reads as under :
"transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, a
goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private
service vehicle"
15. Further the combination of a tractor and trailer
may be used as a transport vehicle for carrying on
commercial activities or it may be used as a miscellaneous
vehicle for carrying on agricultural activities depending upon
the nature of permit and insurance policy.
16. As both tractor and trailer are independent motor
vehicles, by themselves, they have to be registered
separately, however, if both the tractor and trailer belong to
one and the same owner, he can either insure them together
under single policy or he can insure them separately with
two different policies and the similarly either, he can insure
them with the same insurance company or with different
insurance companies. Therefore, the law does not
contemplate both tractor and trailer should be belong to one
and the same person in order to use them for carrying on
activities.
17. When a tractor and a trailer belong to different
owners, used together for carrying any activities and during
such a use, if accident takes place, owners and insurers of
both the tractor and trailer are jointly and severally liable to
answer claim made either by the third party to such an
accident or by the workers either under the owner of such
tractor and trailer for the injures they sustain during the
course of their employment or by dependents of such
workers in case of their death. Insofar as the relationship of
an employee and employer between such worker and owner
of a tractor will be the relationship of employee and
employer between him and the owner of the trailer and vice
versa, and such a purposive interpretation is required to be
adopted to reach the object and purpose of the Act and such
an interpretation would be within the scope of the word
'employer' as defined under Section 2(e) of the Workmen
Compensation Act.
18. In the instant case, as observed above, the tractor
belongs to respondent No.1 and trailer belongs to
respondent No.3. The tractor was insured with the
respondent No.2 and trailer was insured with respondent
No.4. Accident has taken place when the deceased was
sitting on the mud-guard of the tractor. The driver of the
tractor permitted the deceased to sit on the engine while
lifting the trailer for unloading mud. The driver of the tractor
has violated the policy conditions. When there is violation of
the policy conditions, the insurers are not liable to pay
compensation. In view of the law laid by the Full Bench of
this Court in the case New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Bijapur by its Divisional Manager vs. Yallavva and
Another (ILR 2020 KAR 2239) wherein the Hon'ble Full
Bench held that if there is a violation of the policy conditions,
the Insurance Company must pay the compensation amount
and recover the same from the owner/driver. In the present
case, as held above, that there is a violation of the policy
condition, the tractor and trailer are insured with
respondents No.2 and 4. Respondents No.2 and 4-insurers
are liable to indemnify respondents No.1 and 3 and recover
the same from respondents No.1 and 3. The tribunal has
committed an error in saddling the liability on respondent
No.4-insuer of the trailer. In view of the above discussion,
the owners of tractor and trailer are equally liable to pay
compensation at the rate of 50% each to the petitioners.
19. Insofar as quantum of compensation, the
deceased was aged about 26 years as on the date of
accident. The petitioners have not produced any income
proof. In the absence of income proof, this Court has taken
the notional income at Rs.5000/- per month as per the chart
issued by Legal Service Authority. In view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (AIR 2017 Supreme
Court 5157), 40% (Rs.5,000/- x 40% = Rs.2,000/-) has to
be added towards future prospects, which comes to
Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5000 + Rs.2000) and hence, the notional
income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,000/-. There are
five claimants, 1/4th ((7,000 x 1/4th = 1,750) is to be
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased which
comes to Rs.5,250/- (Rs.7,000 - Rs.1,750) per month and
the annual income comes to Rs.63,000/- (5250 x 12). The
deceased was aged about 26 years, the multiplier applicable
to his age group is '17' as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Another (2009 (6) SCC 121).
Hence, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.10,71,000/- (i.e.
Rs.63,000 x 17) under the head of 'loss of dependency'.
In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in 'MAGMA
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.'
(2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified
by the Supreme Court in 'UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
LTD. Vs. SATINDER KAUR AND ORS.' AIR 2020 SC 3076
each of the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-
on account of loss of consortium and loss love and affection.
In all the petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.13,01,000/- as against Rs.5,74,000/-. Thus, the
petitioners are entitled to an enhanced compensation of
Rs.7,27,000/-.
20. In view of the above discussion and also
considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
this Court in the aforesaid judgments, the following order is
passed :
ORDER
i) The appeals filed by the Insurance Company
(MFA No.5836/2012) and the petitioners (MFA
No.11840/2011) are allowed.
ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal in MVC No.7939/2009 is modified.
iii) The petitioners are entitled for enhanced
compensation at Rs.7,27,000/- with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realisation.
iv) Respondent No.1 and 3-owners of tractor and
trailer are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation equally at the rate of 50% each
to the petitioners.
v) Respondents No.2 and 4-insurers of the tractor
and trailer initially are liable to deposit the
compensation amount equally at the rate of
50% each with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of
realisation and later on are at liberty to recover
the same from respondents No.1 and 3 in
accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE
rs
