Orissa High Court
Sulochana Barik vs The National Insurance .... Opposite ... on 22 July, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.6956 of 2024
Sulochana Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. Satyabhusan Das, Advocate
-Versus-
The National Insurance .... Opposite Parties
Company, Cuttack and others
Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate for O.P. No.1
Mr. M.P. Singh, Advocate for O.P. No.5
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF JUDGMENT:22.07.2025
1.
Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the impugned order dated 18th October, 2023 passed in
connection with Revision Petition No.2188 of 2019 as at
Annexure-8 by learned National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi and to modify the same
with a direction to opposite party No.1 to pay her the
differential amount in terms of the decision of learned State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack
confirming the order of the learned District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhadrak in consumer Complaint
Case No.76 of 2011 on the grounds inter alia that such a
decision with regard to the payment of an amount of Rs.2 lac
only with interest from the date of repudiation of claim till
realization is not legally tenable, hence, therefore, the same is
liable to be interfered with followed by a consequential
direction issued in that regard.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief facts pleaded on
record are that the petitioner's late husband during his
lifetime, on being approached by opposite party No.6, had
become an account holder of Sahara India Commercial
Corporation Limited, namely, opposite party No.5 (shortly
as, 'the Sahara India') through its Branch at Bhadrak under
the Sahara Swarn Rajat Yojana Scheme and had deposited
Rs.10,000/- each (four accounts), in total, Rs.40,000/- and it
was on 9th August, 2005. The said scheme covered insurance
benefits among other facilities and for the said purpose,
opposite party No.5 was having a tie-up with opposite party
No.1, namely, National Insurance Company Limited(in short,
'the Insurance Company'). With such pleading on record, it
is claimed by the petitioner that her husband died in a
vehicular accident on 7th June, 2010 and after the latter's
death, she being the nominee claimed the insurance for an
amount of Rs.8 lac through opposite party No.6 and in that
connection, representations were submitted to opposite party
No.2 on 16th June, 2010 and 11th July, 2010 informing about
his death with a request for its early settlement. When the
claim of the petitioner was not settled, she approached the
learned Forum and filed the complaint, wherein, opposite
party Nos.2 to 5 did not appear and were set ex parte,
whereas, opposite party Nos.1 and 6 submitted their reply as
per Annexures-2 and 3 respectively. It is further pleaded that
opposite party No.1 denied the liability on the ground of
breach of one of the conditions of the insurance policy
regarding delay in intimation demanding the claim to have
been made within 30 days from the date of accident or within
the extended period, since, such intimation was received by
opposite party No.2 on 7th June, 2010 again on 11th July,
2010, the same having not been forwarded to opposite party
No.1 till 24th July, 2010, a plea about the delayed intimation
could not be said as beyond the stipulated period and hence,
does not amount to any such breach of the policy conditions.
Notwithstanding, such a plea of opposite party No.1, the
learned Forum by order dated 18th April, 2012 (Annexure-4)
disposed of complaint on contest and directed payment of full
insurance claim for an amount of Rs.8 lac along with interest
@ 9% per annum on and from 24th July, 2010 till realization
of the same. Being aggrieved of the above decision, opposite
party No.1 challenged it before the learned State Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.436 of
2012 and disposed of on 28th June, 2019, confirming the
order of the learned Forum. The confirming order of learned
State Commission as at Annexure-6 was challenged by
opposite party No.1 before the learned National Commission
by filing a revision (Annexure-7), however, the same was
allowed in part by a judgment dated 18th October, 2023
i.e.Annexure-8 fixing the claim at Rs.2 lac instead of Rs.8
lac. The said decision at Annexure-8 is under challenge at the
behest of the petitioner, according to whom, the same is not
in terms of the policy.
3. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.
Mahali, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr.
Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.5.
4. In fact, the petitioner filing the complaint before the
learned Forum demanded an amount of Rs.8 lac payable to
her towards insurance compensation accrued against the
accounts along with interest besides Rs.50,000/- towards
mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- on other heads
as made to reveal from a copy of the same at Annexure-1.
Before the learned Forum, opposite party Nos.1 and 6 filed
their written statements. According to opposite party No.6,
the husband of the petitioner having been convinced, the
accounts were opened and on 9th August, 2005, such deposit
of Rs.40,000/- was made but on 7th June, 2010, he died and
the complainant being the nominee and wife in order to
receive the accidental benefit informed him on 16th June,
2010 with the required application along with the documents.
It has been pleaded by opposite party No.6 that an amount of
Rs.57,248/- was paid to the petitioner due to late information
received regarding the death of her husband and cancellation
of the accident claim. In so far as opposite party No.1 is
concerned, the allegation of deficiency in service was
opposed and objected to demanding dismissal of the
complaint. It was pleaded by opposite party No.1 as per
Annexure-2 that the accidental claim benefit was rightly
cancelled due to the late information regarding the death of
the petitioner's husband being intimated denying any such
service related deficiency by them, hence, the complaint
deserves a dismissal but learned Forum directed opposite
party No.1 to pay the full insurance claim to the petitioner
amounting to Rs.8 lac accrued under the accounts opened
through opposite party No.5 along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of repudiation of such claim till
realization within a stipulated period along with the
compensation of Rs.20,000/- payable to her on account of
deficiency of service but without any costs.
5. As earlier stated, opposite party No.1 preferred First
Appeal No.436 of 2012 and it was disposed of vide
Annexure-6 and confirmed the decision of learned Forum
and declined to entertain the plea of delayed intimation, as a
corollary, breach of a condition of the insurance policy and
dismissed it with a finding that the Insurance Company is
liable to pay the insured amount as there has been no fault on
the part of the petitioner. Being unsuccessful in the appeal,
opposite party No.1 approached the learned National
Commission filing the revision and it led to the passing of the
impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-8.
6. The contention of opposite party No.1 before the learned
National Commission was confined to the following issues:
(i) Whether learned State Commission and District Forum
failed to appreciate that there was no privity of contract
between the Insurance Company and the petitioner since the
policy was taken by the Sahara India.
(ii) Whether opposite party No.1 was liable to pay the insured
amount to the petitioner in view of the tripartite agreement
and whether, learned State Commission erred in holding that
the Sahara India was working as the Agent of the Insurance
Company.
(iii) Whether condition No.18 of the scheme would apply to
the case of the petitioner to which the Insurance Company
was not a party, as such compensation provided therein,
whether would apply and if the same is recoverable only
from the Sahara India under the scheme.
7. Considering the facts pleaded on record, learned National
Commission answered the key issue, such as, the quantum of
compensation payable to the petitioner and whether, it should
be Rs.8 lac or Rs.2 lac. Referring to terms of the Insurance
Company and Clause-2A and Clause 18 of the Sahara India,
it was concluded that the former shall prevail and not that of
the latter and upon considering the conditions applicable, the
petitioner is entitled to an insurance claim of Rs.2 lac and
hence, accepted the argument advanced by opposite party
No.1 but with an observation that there should have been
greater clarity on the terms and conditions at the behest of the
Insurance Company, while drafting the same, which has been
accomplished specifically for such a tailor-made policy. The
conclusion of learned National Commission at the end was
that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.2 lac as sum
total of the deposits in the accounts taken together towards
determination of the insurance claim and not separately and
as a result, allowed the revision and directed such payment
along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of
reputation of the claim till realization within eight weeks
therefrom with a penalty interest @ 12% per annum for the
default period besides a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable to the
petitioner towards litigation cost.
8. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that learned National Commission could not have reduced the
claim amount to Rs.2 lac and grossly erred in allowing the
plea of opposite party No.1. The further submission is that
opposite party No.1 never pleaded either before learned
Forum or learned State Commission with any such plea vis-à-
vis terms and conditions of the accidental claim except
opposing it on the ground of delay in intimation regarding
death of the petitioner's husband and therefore, it could not
have been permitted to take a new plea in the revision. The
contention is that despite the observation of the learned
National Commission that there can be no different
conditions of insurance contract and hence, opposite party
No.1 ought to have had a better clarity while drafting the
policy interfered with the decision of learned Forums below
and therefore, the impugned judgment at Annexure-8 since
based on surmises and conjectures, the same is liable to be
set at naught.
9. Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, Mr. Das,
learned counsel for the petitioner cited an order of the Apex
Court in Banarsi Devi Vrs. Pink City Heart and General
Hospital & others in SLP (C) Nos.16987-16988 & 17008 of
2023 dated 11th September, 2023 contending that jurisdiction
of a High Court is invocable assailing the decisions of the
National Commission. No objection on the maintainability of
the writ petition was raised by opposite party No.1, hence,
the issue needs no discussion. This Court has however no
hesitation to hold that the writ jurisdiction is maintainable
challenging decisions of learned National Commission as law
on the point is no more res integra.
10. Since the delayed intimation about the death of the
petitioner's husband and plea of opposite party No.1
opposing the insurance claim did not find favour with learned
Forums below and was not one of the grounds raised before
the learned National Commission either, the Court is not
inclined to deal with the same as it is not necessary.
11. The sole question involved is with respect to quantum of
insurance claim. The terms and conditions of the policy
under the scheme is claimed to be as per Clause-2A and the
same as has been reproduced in the impugned order by
learned National Commission is as to the following.
"Depositors under Silver Year Lakh Yojna,
Sahara Swarn Yojna and Sahara Rajat Yojana
under Housing Scheme-
Whether the deposits are in more than one
scheme, the scheme under which the deposit is
maximum would be considered. If the deposit
amount is Rs.70,000/- and above, the Sum Insured
will be Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lac only) and if
the deposit amount is up to Rs.69,999/- the Sum
Insured will be Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lac
only)."
12. The demand of the petitioner is based on Clause 18 of the
terms and conditions of the Sahara India and the same was
also referred to by learned National Commission and it reads
as under.
"(18) Accidental Death Benefit
In case of accidental death only, the nominee (s)
of the deceased coupon holder shall be entitled
for insurance compensation amount (as per terms
and conditions applicable) as per following
chart-
If accidental Insurance compensation
death occurs
amount
In Option (A) In Option
& (B) 8 *
(C)
After 1 year Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.50,000/-
& upto 2 yrs
After 2 years Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
& upto 3 yrs
After 3 years Rs.4,00,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
& upto 4 yrs
After 4 years Rs.5,00,00/- Rs.2,00,000/-
& upto 10 yrs
* In Option (B), the above benefit shall be
applicable only after Rs.1,00,000/- advance
amount is deposited in the company."
13. As regards the other plea that the ground with respect to
applicability of the terms and conditions of the Insurance
Company, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar
Maity Vrs. State Bank India & another in Civil Appeal
No. 432 of 2022 decided on 21st January, 2022 and contends
that it is impermissible to take for the first time before the
learned National Commission. In the decision (supra), it has
been held and observed that the revisional power is
exercisable provided grave misappreciation or superficial
appraisal of evidence has taken place having no jurisdiction
to call for and refer to a suo moto report as it is distinct and
different from appellate jurisdiction. In the case at hand, the
impugned decision has been arrived at considering the policy
conditions without applying the scheme and terms thereof,
which, in the humble view of the Court, is not erroneous as
any such decision shall have to be made with reference to the
contract between the parties. Whether any such ground was
raised and plea was advanced earlier is immaterial and
therefore, the learned National Commission cannot be said to
have committed any wrong in dealing with the issue and the
contention of opposite party No.1 in reaching at a conclusion.
14. There is no denial to the fact that the husband of the
petitioner had four accounts opened under Sahara Swarn
Rajat Yojana against Option (C) on deposit of Rs.10,000/-
against each and in total, Rs.40,000/- made on 9th August,
2005. The husband of the petitioner died on 7th June, 2010
after four years from the date of commencement of the
policy. The petitioner is the nominee and claimed the policy
amount for Rs.8 lac in view of Clause 18 of such policy. The
insurance claim was forwarded to opposite party No.1. Since
each deposit of Rs.10,000/- for an insured sum of Rs.2 lac
and as it was in relation to four numbers of accounts, the
claim of the petitioner was for an amount of Rs.8 lac in view
of the terms and conditions as per Clause 18 of the Sahara
India. According to such policy, if accidental death occurs
after four years and up to ten years in respect of
compensation under Option (C), a sum of Rs.2 lac is payable.
The said clause is claimed to be applicable to the case of the
petitioner. Instead, learned National Commission held that
the Sahara India is not the Insurance Company and hence, the
terms and conditions of the policy issued by opposite party
No.1 shall apply and according to Clause 2A of the Insurance
Company, if the deposit amount is up to Rs.69,999/-, the sum
insured would become Rs.2 lac, where deposits are made in
more than one scheme, the scheme under which the deposit is
maximum would be considered. The seminal question is,
whether, the insurance claim to be governed by the terms and
conditions of opposite party No.1 or the Sahara India?
15. The question as formulated is that what is the quantum of
compensation payable to the petitioner? The primary
question is whether the Sahara India is an Insurance
Intermediary or Insurance Company by itself? One may
argue that any dispute over death insurance claim where
Sahara India and the National Insurance Company are
involved, the liability for payment would fall upon former
being the entity providing the policy to its clients. It may also
be claimed that the Sahara India has an agreement with the
Insurance Company, it could be for reinsurance or other
support. The Sahara India often sells policies directly to the
consumers under different schemes, which include accidental
death benefits. In the case at hand, the late husband of the
petitioner had been issued with a policy coupon under a
scheme. In such a situation, one could question, whether, the
Sahara India can ever be held as an Insurance Intermediary.
The Insurance Company's role is normally involved as a
reinsurer or in a similar capacity, where it provides support to
the Sahara India in managing the risks associated with the
policies. But the fact remains, the consumers' claim is
typically against the Sahara India as it has sold the policy and
collected the premiums. As a necessary corollary, it may be
concluded that the Sahara India is to settle the claim with the
policyholders' nominees. Unfortunately, on account of a
contract between the Sahara India and opposite party No.1,
such a dispute has emerged involving the petitioner, who is
stuck in the middle. It may also be concluded that while the
Insurance Company may have an agreement with the Sahara
India, the primary liability for settling the policy claims rests
with the latter, which is to bear the liability. In the instant
case, though, such a ground was raised before the learned
National Commission, the liability to settle the claim of the
nominee has been saddled with opposite party No.1 but for a
lesser amount in view of Clause 2A dealing with depositors
under the scheme. The claim of the petitioner is based on
Clause 18 of the policy of the Sahara India and since the
account holder died after four years not before ten year
timeline, such is the demand for death compensation of Rs.2
lac for each of the coupon and for an amount of Rs.8 lac.
16. One of the grounds opposing the claim by opposite party
No.1 before the learned National Commission was that
Clause 2 A of the policy conditions to apply and even if the
petitioner may be entitled to an amount of Rs.8 lac under the
scheme and Clause18 thereof, the same is recoverable from
the Sahara India but ultimately, the claim is settled against
the Insurance Company perhaps considering the Sahara India
as an Insurance Intermediary and on the premise that
opposite party No.1 is the insurer and hence, to settle the
claim of the petitioner and thus, directed it to pay the death
compensation. A question may be asked, whether, the Sahara
India is really an Insurance Intermediary. As is understood in
the ordinary parlance, the insurance intermediaries are the
entities that facilitate sale and servicing of the insurance
policies between the Insurance Company and customers and
they do not themselves underwrite the policies. The
Insurance Companies are actually involved in issuance and
management of policies taking on the risks of providing the
coverage. As far as the Sahara India Life Insurance Company
Limited is concerned, it has the license received from the
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India
(IRDAI) to operate as a life insurer since 2004. While the
Sahara India has interests in various sectors and utilizes
intermediary for distribution, it has a direct involvement in
the insurance market as a Life Insurance Company and not
just as an intermediary. In fact, an insurance intermediary
like a broker or agent acts as a go-between the Insurance
Companies and consumers helping them find and purchase
insurance policies, whereas, the Sahara India Life Insurance
is the insurer itself selling own policies to the customers.
17. The petitioner's husband purchased the policy under a
scheme of the Sahara India, which outlined the insurance
amount and compensation payable against accidental death
benefits. As per Clause 18 and terms and conditions
stipulated therein, if death of the account holder occurs after
four years but before ten years, insurance amount in case of
Options A and B, the insurance amount would be Rs.5 lac,
whereas, for Option C, the compensation stands at Rs.2 lac.
The insurance claim of the petitioner is referred to Clause 18
under the Scheme but in view of the fact that the Sahara India
has an agreement with opposite party No.1, Clause 2 A of the
Insurance Company has been applied. Admittedly, there is no
privity of contract between the petitioner and opposite party
No.1. On the other hand, the contract has been entered in
between the Sahara India and the Insurance Company. In that
case, who is to honour the claim when the contract is
between the Insurance Company and Sahara India? As it was
earlier discussed, the Sahara India cannot be said as an
Insurance Intermediary as intermediaries serve as a bridge
between the consumers and insurance companies seeking to
sell the latter's policies. But, herein, it has to be held that the
Sahara India has a contract with opposite party No.1 to cover
the risks. If under the scheme, the death compensation is
allowed as per Clause18 by the Sahara India and opposite
party No.1 is to cover the risk, it shall have to be according to
the scheme and in the humble view of the Court, the same
cannot be as per Clause 2A of the Insurance Company's
policy. What was the understanding between the Sahara India
and the Insurance Company is in between them and any such
risk covered by an agreement, must have to be as per the
terms and conditions of Clause 18 concerning accidental
death benefits payable to the customers. The Court is also of
the view that had it been a case of the Sahara India being an
Insurance Intermediary, things would have been different and
in that case, the claim was to be dealt with on the terms and
conditions of the policy of the Insurance Company. Such a
contract between the Sahara India and the National Insurance
Company if not properly understood would certainly lead to
confusion or a chaotic situation and create a lot of hardship to
the customers, many of whom do not really possess the basic
knowledge and nuances of insurance policies obtained by
them. In view of contract between the Sahara India and the
Insurance Company, it shall have to be understood so as to
cover the potential death benefits. In other words, the
agreement between them on death insurance is an outcome of
business arrangement where one offers such insurance to its
customers and the other provides the actual insurance
coverage for that scheme. In the considered view of the
Court, accidental death benefits shall have to be settled as per
the scheme and in view of the insurance coverage with a
contract, opposite party No.1 shall have to settle the claim. If
there is any deficiency in service, obviously, the Sahara India
and National Insurance Company are to be made liable. The
conclusion is that in the case of the scheme, the nominee of a
deceased investor would claim the insurance compensation
from the Sahara India which would then settle the claim
based on the terms of the scheme and the contract, it has with
the Insurance Company. It is incomprehensible to oppose the
claim applying the terms and conditions of Clause 2(A) of
the Insurance Company in view of the contract between the
Sahara India and the Insurance Company on death insurance.
In fact, the Sahara India is a financial company that used the
Insurance Company as its insurer to provide coverage for
own policy holders with a promise selling the policies on
death benefits but instead of directly managing the claims, it
entered into a contract with the Insurance Company to handle
the insurance aspect of the scheme. Having reached this far
with the above discussions, the irresistible conclusion of the
Court is that the Sahara India though acted like an
intermediary but essentially floated the scheme and issued
the policies insuring the potential death benefits with a
contract between it and the Insurance Company and such
insurance coverage and payment of death compensation shall
have to be under the scheme in question and obviously with
reference to the terms and conditions of Clause18. For that
matter, opposite party No.1 cannot be allowed to deny any
such coverage for the scheme with independent terms and
conditions like Clause 2A when the policy was sold
according to the conditions and in terms of Clause 18 of the
Scheme floated by the Sahara India. Any other conclusion
would be like misguiding the investors making them believe
that the death claim is based on the scheme totally ignorant
about any such contract between the Sahara India and the
Insurance Company. Such denial of compensation applying
the policy of the Insurance Company could be alleged as a
case of unfair business practice with the interest of the
investors at stake. The further conclusion is that the contract
between the Sahara India and the Insurance Company for
death insurance is an agreement outsourcing the actual
insurance coverage and such an arrangement cannot be
detrimental to the interest of the depositors. The only view
acceptable would be to treat the contract as an insurance
coverage for the potential death threats and therefore, it shall
have to be obliged by the Insurance Company Both the
learned Forums below accepted the contention of the
petitioner and in absence of any dispute over the policy in
question rightly therefore held and concluded that an amount
of Rs.8 lac is payable to settle the insurance claim.
18. To add up, when an investor is motivated to make
deposits under a scheme and as per the terms and conditions
of the scheme, it allows financial assistance post-accidental
death, such claim shall have to be settled accordingly in
favour of the nominee. In fact, the death compensation with
such monetary assistance is assured by the Sahara India
pursuant to the scheme floated by it. When the petitioner
fulfilled all the conditions in respect of the scheme and her
husband had made the deposits and later died, no justiciable
reason lies opposing the claim by the Insurance Company
when it has agreed upon to cover the risk based upon a
contract with the Sahara India having received premiums
therefor. It was never an understanding between the
depositors and the Sahara India on any such terms and
conditions of the Insurance Company, rather, the deposits
have been made looking at the scheme in place and death
compensation allowed thereunder in favour of the nominees.
The said aspect in the humble view of the Court has been lost
sight of by learned National Commission. At no point of
time, either the Sahara India or the Insurance Company ever
questioned liability to be discharged on any such ground
before learned Forums below and raised it before learned
National Commission with a plea that the terms and
conditions of Clause 2A of the Insurance Company would
rather apply. No doubt such a question may be entertained at
any stage and even before learned National Commission,
since the claim shall have to be settled on the basis of the
scheme and contract between the parties. The account holder
of the policy never had any contract with the Insurance
Company he having purchased, made deposits as per the
scheme of the Sahara India and when a question arose to
settle the death compensation, it is totally unfair to oppose it
applying the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company.
Any such decision could well be alleged as unfair trade
practice and defrauding the investors. In the present case, the
husband of the petitioner died in 2010 and in the meantime,
15 years have gone by and still the claim is not fully settled
as per the scheme. It is really disheartening to notice that the
nominee is yet to be paid the death compensation in full
taking an excuse and advantage of a contract between the
Sahara India and the Insurance Company. The course of
action adopted by the Sahara India in association with the
Insurance Company has taken the toll leaving the petitioner
being the nominee in great distress, that too, for such a long
period of time and hence, according to Court, reasonable cost
should be awarded to her as a solace and to mitigate the
suffering to a certain extent.
19. Interestingly, a Division Bench of the learned National
Commission in an identical case in National Insurance
Company Limited Vrs. Smt. Shimla Sharma & others in
Revision Petition No. 527 of 2012 disposed of on 15th April,
2013 held that the insured amount is to be paid on each of the
investments made by the insured and not taking all the
investments cumulatively as brought to the notice of the
Court by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. In such
view of the matter, the Single Bench of the National
Commission should have followed it as a binding precedent
to maintain the judicial discipline and propriety but has
departed rather adopted a course denying the entitlement of
the petitioner, which cannot be countenanced and hence,
deserves to be interfered with in the interest of justice and
accordingly, it is ordered.
20. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a logical
sequitur, the impugned order dated 18th October, 2023 passed
in Revision Petition No.2188 of 2019 as at Annexure-8 by
learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
New Delhi is hereby set aside confirming the decision of the
learned State Commission with a direction to opposite party
Nos. 1 and 5 to ensure payment of Rs. 8 (Eight) lac to the
petitioner at the rate of interest fixed by learned Forum along
with an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) towards
compensation on account of deficiency in service with a cost
assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) on the head of
litigation and other expenses.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU/Balaram
