THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
DATED : 26th April, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAC App. No.03 of 2021
0
Appellant : The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
versus
Respondents : Smt. Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Pramit Chettri with Ms. Sarala Gurung, Advocates for the
Appellant.
Ms. Manita Pradhan, Advocate for Respondents No.1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Ashok Pradhan, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Ms. Pritima Sunam, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1.(i) This Appeal is confined to two points, the first one
assails the monthly income of the deceased, which was computed
by the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Sikkim, at
Gangtok, (for short, the "Learned Tribunal") at Rs.1,28,747/-
(Rupees one lakh, twenty eight thousand, seven hundred and forty
seven) only, instead of Rs.1,09,962/- (Rupees one lakh, nine
thousand, nine hundred and sixty two) only, which the deceased
would have received after his monthly Income Tax deductions.
(ii) The second point pertains to deduction of one-third
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased which would
have been incurred by him had he been alive, instead of one-fourth
as deducted by the Learned Tribunal. To fortify his submission on
the second point, Learned Counsel for the Appellant drew strength MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
from the ratio in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport 1 Corporation and Another . It is contended that although in the Memo
of Appeal, other grounds have been raised including a prayer for
disregarding the Additional House Rent Allowance indicated in
Exhibit 16, the Monthly Pay Slip of the deceased, while computing
the compensation, Learned Counsel for the Appellant does not seek
to press either this point, or the other points raised therein,
besides the above-mentioned two issues.
2. Learned Counsel for Respondents No.1, 2 and 3
(Claimants No.1, 2 and 3 before the Learned Tribunal), on the
other hand, while conceding that the income of the deceased would
be the amount in hand after deduction of Income Tax, contended
that there is however no error in the Learned Tribunal having
deducted one-fourth towards the personal and living expenses of
the deceased. The attention of this Court was drawn to the ratio of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2, Reshma
Kumari vs. Madan Mohan3 and Sarla Verma supra. It was urged that
even though in Sarla Verma supra, it has been held that where the
deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the
number of dependent family members is two to three, one-fourth
(1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is four to
six, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family
members exceeds six, however, in Reshma Kumari supra, it has
been held that if departure from the norm can be proved, then
deduction can be made at the discretion of the Tribunal. According 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 AIR 2017 SC 5157 3 (2013) 9 SCC 65 MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 3 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
to Learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 3, the evidence led by
the said Respondents clearly indicate that there was a departure
from the norm and there is no error in the deduction of one-fourth
towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. Reliance
on this aspect was also placed on Hem Raj vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited and Others4. Hence, it is prayed that the Appeal be
dismissed.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 and
Respondent No.5 had no submissions to put forth.
4. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard in extenso,
all documents on record including the evidence examined
meticulously, as also the impugned Judgment and the citations
made at the Bar. It is now to be examined whether the Learned
Tribunal was correct in computing the compensation as obtains in
the impugned Judgment.
5. The brief facts essential for the present purposes is
that on 28.11.2017, at around 19:35 Hrs, the deceased, Late
Birendra Kumar Panigrahi, was walking on the footpath along the
National Highway-10, near "Golden Gaming" Building, Gangtok,
East Sikkim. A speeding Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration
No.SK-01-J-2586, driven by the Respondent No.5 herein (Opposite
Party No.3 before the Learned Tribunal), came on the wrong side
of the road and hit the deceased by breaking the supporting iron
railings. The deceased was evacuated to the Hospital but
succumbed to his injuries. Respondent No.1 is the wife of the
deceased while Respondents No.2 and 3 are his unmarried
4 (2018) 15 SCC 654 MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 4 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
daughters, who sought compensation of Rs.1,79,57,940/- (Rupees
one crore, seventy nine lakhs, fifty seven thousand, nine hundred
and forty) only, with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of
filing of the Claim Petition till final payment. The Learned Tribunal,
on consideration of the evidence before it, computed the total
compensation at Rs.1,47,27,852/- (Rupees one crore, forty seven
lakhs, twenty seven thousand, eight hundred and fifty two) only,
with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the Claim
Petition till full and final payment.
6.(i) The Learned Tribunal, in the impugned Judgment, took
the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.1,28,747/- (Rupees one
lakh, twenty eight thousand, seven hundred and forty seven) only,
which is clearly erroneous in view of the fact that Exhibit 16, the
monthly Pay Slip of the deceased, indicates that his Gross Salary
was Rs.1,28,747/- (Rupees one lakh, twenty eight thousand, seven
hundred and forty seven) only, however, Tax Deduction at Source
amounted to Rs.18,785/- (Rupees eighteen thousand, seven
hundred and eighty five) only, leaving the deceased with a monthly
income of Rs.1,09,962/- (Rupees one lakh, nine thousand, nine
hundred and sixty two) only. While discussing this aspect,
reference may be made to P. Ramanatha Aiyar's, Advanced Law
Lexicon, The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary with Words & Phrases Legal
Maxims and Latin Terms, 6th Edition, Volume 2, D-1, Page No.2713,
which defines "income" inter alia as under;
"‟INCOME‟ means--
(i).............
(ii).............
(iii) the value of any benefit or perquisite whether convertible into money or not, obtained from a company either by a director or a person who has substantial interest in the company, and any sum paid by such MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 5 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
company in respect of any obligation, which but for such payment would have been payable by the director or other person aforesaid, occurring or arising to a person within the State from any profession, trade or calling other than agriculture. [M.P. Vriti Kar Adhiniyam (16 of 1995) , S. 2(e) as cited in High Court of M.P. Employees' Association v. State of M.P., AIR 1997 MP 155, para 9] The return in money from business, labour, capital investments, gain, profit. That which comes in to a person as payment for labour, or services rendered in some office, or as gain from lands, the investment of capital. „Income is defined as that gain which proceeds from labour, business, or property of any kind; the profits of commerce or business.‟ ....................................................................................................... The term „income‟ by itself is elastic and has a wide connotation. Whatever comes in or is received is income. In popular parlance „income‟ comprehends receipts from wide species having a nexus however to one‟s labour or one‟s expertise, or one‟s properties or one‟s investments and having further some element or regularity from such source. Black's Law Dictionary Revised, 4th edition P.906. ............."
(ii) In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Indira
Srivastava and Ors.5 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held inter alia
as follows;
"19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted."
(Emphasis supplied)
(iii) The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.N. State Transport
Corporation Ltd. vs. S. Rajapriya and Ors.6 inter alia observed as
under;
"8. The assessment of damages to compensate the dependants is beset with difficulties because from the nature of things, it has to take into account many imponderables e.g. the life expectancy of the deceased and the dependants, the amount that the deceased would have earned during the remainder of his life, the amount that he would have contributed to the dependants during that period, the chances that the deceased may not have lived or the dependants may not live up to the estimated
5 (2008) 2 SCC 763 6 AIR 2005 SC 2985 MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 6 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
remaining period of their life expectancy, the chances that the deceased might have got better employment or income or might have lost his employment or income together.
9. The manner of arriving at the damages is to ascertain the net income of the deceased available for the support of himself and his dependants, and to deduct therefrom such part of his income as the deceased was accustomed to spend upon himself, as regards both self- maintenance and pleasure, and to ascertain what part of his net income the deceased was accustomed to spend for the benefit of the dependants. Then that should be capitalised by multiplying it by a figure representing the proper number of years' purchase.
10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered."
(Emphasis supplied)
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie and Anr. 7, the view held in
T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra) has been reiterated and
also followed in the decision of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Kalpana (Smt.) and Ors.8 In Shyamwati Sharma and Others vs. Karam
Singh and Others9 it was held that where annual income is in the
taxable range appropriate deduction has to be made towards
Income Tax, however, deductions towards GPF, Life Insurance
Premium, repayment of Loan etc. shown in the Salary Certificate
should not be excluded from the deceased‟s income. In Vijay Kumar
Rastogi vs. Uttar Pradesh State Roadways Transport Corporation 10 the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court yet again has observed that Income Tax
payable is to be deducted from the gross income.
(iv) In light of the above ratiocinations, it is essential to
reproduce the relevant portion of Exhibit 16 herein;
7 AIR 2005 SC 2157 8 AIR 2007 SC 1243 9 (2010) 12 SCC 378 10 2018 SCC OnLine SC 193 MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 7 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
"Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (A Govt. of India Enterprise) Payslip for the Month of November-2017 ...........................................................................................................................
Earnings Amount Deductions Amount Perks/Other Amount
Income/Rebates
Additional HRA 4353.00 Prof Tax-split 200.00 Exemption U/S 10 20000.00 period Basic Pay 48760.00 TDS from 18785.00 Agg of Chapter VI 150000.00 Employee IDS-DA 60609.00 GPF 40000.00 Subscription HRA 4876.00 GSLIS 525.00 Prof. Upgradation 975.00 Union 50.00 Allow. Subscription SCA-RL-Rs.1300 2600.00 Special duty 5774.00 allowance Transport Allow 800.00 Total 128747.00 Total 59560.00
..........................................................................................................................."
Consequently, in consideration of the deduction of Income Tax of
Rs.18,785/- (Rupees eighteen thousand, seven hundred and eighty
five) only, as reflected in Exhibit 16 supra, the Monthly Income of
the deceased admittedly would be Rs.1,09,962/- (Rupees one lakh,
nine thousand, nine hundred and sixty two) only, instead of
Rs.1,28,747/- (Rupees one lakh, twenty eight thousand, seven
hundred and forty seven) only, as calculated by the Learned
Tribunal.
(v) While addressing the second aspect pertaining to the
deduction of one-fourth of the annual income towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased which would have been incurred by
him had he been alive, the Learned Tribunal took an erroneous
view in making such a deduction instead of a deduction of one-
MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 8 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
third. On this count, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma
(supra), has observed inter alia as follows;
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra [(1996) 4 SCC 362], the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
.................................................................................
49. As an earning member, the deceased would have spent more on himself than the other members of the family apart from the fact that he would have incurred expenditure on travelling/transportation and other needs. Therefore we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if one-fifth is deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased. ........."
(Emphasis supplied)
In Reshma Kumari supra, it was propounded as follows;
"43.6. Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paras 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121:(2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770:(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] subject to the observations made by us in para 41 above."
Para 41 referred to supra, reads as under;
"41. The above does provide guidance for the appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses. One must bear in mind that the proportion of a man's net earnings that he saves or spends exclusively for the maintenance of others does not form part of his living expenses but what he spends exclusively on himself does. The percentage of deduction on account of personal and living expenses may vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family and the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependants.
42. In our view, the standards fixed by this Court in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] on the aspect of deduction for personal living expenses in paras 30, 31 and 32 must ordinarily be followed unless a case for departure in the circumstances noted in the preceding paragraph is made out."
(Emphasis supplied) MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 9 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
A Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi
supra, while supporting the above stance on deductions towards
personal expenses of the deceased, held as follows;
"41. On a perusal of the analysis made in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121:(2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770:(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] which has been reconsidered in Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65:(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191:(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826], we think it appropriate to state that as far as the guidance provided for appropriate deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, the tribunals and courts should be guided by Conclusion 43.6 of Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65:(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191:(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826]. We concur with the same as we have no hesitation in approving the method provided therein."
It is an admitted fact that the dependent family members of the
deceased were three, i.e. Respondents No.1 to 3 herein. No
departure from the norm has been established by Learned Counsel
for Respondents No.1 to 3 nor does the evidence of the
Respondents reveal such departure, hence, the Learned Tribunal
ought to have deducted one-third of the annual income of the
deceased towards his personal and living expenses instead of one-
fourth.
7.(i) Next, it is essential to notice that Rs.40,000/- (Rupees
forty thousand) only, has been granted as Loss of Consortium
towards Respondent No.1. The Learned Tribunal has certainly
overlooked the ratiocination of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and
Others11 wherein it is inter alia held as follows;
"21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680:(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248:(2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, 11 2018 (8) SCC 130 MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 10 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
"consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse:[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54:(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179:(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817:(2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation". [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training".
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
........................................................................................................
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680:(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248: (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205]. In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium."
(Emphasis supplied)
(ii) In Pranay Sethi (supra), the Court inter alia held as
follows;
"52. .................................Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. .................."
In view of the above, it is essential to grant Spousal Consortium to
Respondent No.1 amounting to Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) only, which has been granted by the Learned Tribunal
and requires no interference. Parental Consortium of Rs.40,000/-
MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 11 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
(Rupees forty thousand) only, each, is granted to Respondents
No.2 and 3, upon the loss of their father.
(iii) While adding the amount by way of Parental
Consortium, to the compensation, it is pertinent to mention that
this Court is clothed with powers to consider "just compensation" in
terms of the provisions of Section 168 of the M.V. Act. In Pranay
Sethi (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed inter alia as
under;
"55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of "just compensation" and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of "just compensation" has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, "just compensation". The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121:(2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770:(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65:(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191:(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826]. The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well- accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardisation which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardisation keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 12 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
principle of "standardisation" so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age."
(iv) Hence, the compensation computed by the Learned
Tribunal is modified and stands recomputed as follows;
Annual Income of the deceased
(Rs.1,09,962/- x 12) Rs.13,19,544.00
Multiplier of "11" adopted in terms of the ratio in
Sarla Verma supra (Rs. 13,19,544/- x 11) Rs.1,45,14,984.00
Add 15% of Rs.1,45,14,984/- as Future Prospects (+) Rs.21,77,248.00
[As per the ratio in Pranay Sethi supra]
Net Yearly Income of the deceased Rs.1,66,92,232.00
Less 1/3 of Rs. 1,66,92,232/- (i.e. Rs.55,64,077/-) (-) Rs. 55,64,077.00
[As per the ratio in Sarla Verma supra] Rs.1,11,28,155.00
Add Funeral Expenses (+) Rs.15,000.00
[As per the ratio in Pranay Sethi supra]
Add Loss of Consortium (+) Rs.1,20,000.00
[Rs.40,000/- each, payable to Respondent No. 1 as Spousal Consortium and to Respondents No.2 and 3 as Parental Consortium, respectively]
[As per the ratio in Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. (supra)
Add Loss of Estate (+) Rs.15,000.00
[As per the ratio in Pranay Sethi supra]
Total Rs.1,12,78,155.00
(Rupees one crore, twelve lakhs, seventy eight thousand, one hundred and fifty five) only.
8. The Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 shall be entitled to
Simple Interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount of
Rs.1,12,78,155/- (Rupees one crore, twelve lakhs, seventy eight
thousand, one hundred and fifty five) only, with effect from the
date of filing of the Claim Petition before the Learned Tribunal i.e.
15.03.2018 till full realization.
9. The awarded amount shall be paid by the Appellant to
the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 within one month from today with
interest @ 9%, failing which, the Appellant shall pay Simple
Interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim MAC App. No.03 of 2021 The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 13 vs.
Namita Rani Panigrahi and Others
Petition till realization, duly deducting the amounts, if any, already
paid by it to the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
10. The modified awarded amount of compensation along
with interest as specified above, shall be divided amongst the
Respondent-Claimant No.1 being the wife of the deceased and
Respondents-Claimant Nos.2 and 3 being the children of the
deceased, as follows;
(i) From the amount awarded, Respondent-Claimant
No.1, wife of the deceased, is entitled to 60%.
(ii) Respondents-Claimants No.2 and 3, daughters of
the deceased, shall be granted 40% @ 20% each.
11. In the end result, Appeal allowed to the extent above.
12. MAC App. No.03 of 2021 stands disposed of
accordingly.
13. No order as to costs.
14. Copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the Learned
Tribunal, for information and compliance.
15. Records of the Learned Tribunal be remitted forthwith.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) Judge 26.04.2022
Approved for reporting : Yes ml
