Bangalore District Court
) Mohammed Amanullah vs ) Satyanarayana K on 5 August, 2016
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
Dated this the 5th day of August 2016
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L, ., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No.4375/2015
Petitioners: 1) Mohammed Amanullah,
S/o Mohammed Zahiruddin,
Aged 66 years.
2) Syeda Shams Jahan Hussiny,
W/o Mohammed Amanullah,
Aged about 58 years.
3) Ayesha Siddiqua,
D/o Mohammed Amanullah,
Aged about 22 years.
All are Residing at
No.370, 6th Main, 2nd cross,
Near Wipro Park,
1st Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore -560 034.
(By Sri A.S., Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondents: 1) Satyanarayana K.,
S/o Kameswara Sarma,
No.1-2-11, Gangeluvari Veedi,
F2, Sridurga Nilayam,
Kakinada,
Andhra Pradesh-533001.
(By Sri V.K..S. , Advocate)
SCCH 1 2 MVC No.4375/2015
2. The Manager,
National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
R.O.No.144, 2nd floor,
Shubharam Complex,
M.G.Road,
Bangalore -560 001.
Policy NO.566007311410001232
Validity 21.03.2015 to 20.03.2016.
(By Sri B.T.R., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.3 crores from the respondents with regard to the death of their son Dr.Mohammed Sheeb Zaki in the road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are :
It is the case of the petitioner that on 23.9.20154 at about 12.40 p.m. when the deceased was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-01- HM-0148 from Forum Mall towards Adugodi junction and when he reached near Veternity Hospital on the way to Hosur Lashkar road, at that time the driver of car bearing No.AP-05-DA-0568 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's SCCH 1 3 MVC No.4375/2015 motor cycle from behind and as a result deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries .
3. Immediately after the accident, injured was shifted to St.John's hospital and injured succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was hale and healthy and he was the only bread earner of the family and the petitioners are father, mother and unmarried sister of the deceased and they were depending upon him. The deceased was aged 27 years and he was a graduate in Medicine and had a better future and he was a experienced doctor and was working in Jain hospital, Vasanthanagar and was earning Rs.60,000/p.m. and apart from that he was doing part time work as doctor and earning Rs.50,000/p.m. The deceased was highly ambitious and wanted to open a Nursing Home on his own. Due to untimely death of the deceased his sister's marriage is getting delayed and the petitioner's future has become quite bleak. The deceased was hale, healthy and hardworking prior to the accident. The petitioners were entirely depending on the earnings of the deceased and they are finding extremely difficult to eke out their livelihood as the deceased was the only son and bread earner of their family.
SCCH 1 4 MVC No.4375/2015 The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car bearing No. AP-05-DA-0568 and the respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent NO.2 being the insurer of the car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
4. In pursuance of this claim petition, this Court issued notice against the respondents. Respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before the Court through their respective counsels and have filed written statement separately.
Respondent NO.1 owner of car has filed written statement denying the petition averments. This respondent has denied the date, time and mode of accident, age , avocation and income of the deceased, deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident, expenses incurred by the petitioners towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies etc., It is further denied that the petitioners are entirely depending on the earnings of the deceased and they are finding extreme difficult to eke out their livelihood as the deceased was the only son and bread earner of their family. The compensation claimed by the petitioners are excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
SCCH 1 5 MVC No.4375/2015
5. The second respondent has filed written statement denying the petition averments. This respondent admits that he is the insurer of car bearing No. AP-05-DA-0568 and the liability of this respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that the first respondent owner has not complied the statutory obligation under section 134(c) of M.V.Act and the concerned police have not complied the provisions of section 158(6)of M.V.Act. It is further contended that the second respondent reserves his right to amend its statement of objection and also to take over the defence of the insured in the event of the owner does not contest the proceedings under section 170 of M.V.Act.
6. It is further contended that the deceased was riding his motor cycle on the left side of the road in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without observing flow of traffic, without wearing helmet and dashed against a pedestrian and fell on the footpath stone sustained head injury and the car was not at all dashed against the motor cycle and as per IMV "No visible damages found on the car bearing No. AP-05-DA-0568 and due to his negligent act the entire accident took place. The involvement of the car in the accident is denied and actionable negligence can not be attributed against the SCCH 1 6 MVC No.4375/2015 driver of car. The relationship of the petitioners with the deceased is denied. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Based on the pleadings, this Court has framed the following:-
1) Whether the Petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 23.09.2015 at about 12.40 p.m. near Veternity hospital , opposite B.M.T.C. bus stop, Hosur Lashkar road, Bangalore, within the jurisdiction of Adugodi police station on account of rash and negligent driving of the Santro Car bearing registration No. AP-05-DA-0568 by its driver?
2) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3) What Order ?
8. In order to prove their claim, the second petitioner is examined as PW-1, another witnesses is examined as PW-2 and they have got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to 30. On the other hand, the respondents have not led either oral or documentary evidence.
9. I heard the arguments of petitioner counsel and respondent No.2 counsel.
SCCH 1 7 MVC No.4375/2015
10. Having heard the arguments, based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
1. Issue No.1 ... In the affirmative
2. Issue No.2 ... partly in the affirmative
3. Issue No.3 ... As per final order For the following:
REASONS
11. Issue No.1 : It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 23.9.20154 at about 12.40 p.m. when the deceased was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-01-HM- 0148 from Forum Mall towards Adugodi junction and when he reached near Veternity Hospital on the way to Hosur Lashkar road, at that time the driver of car bearing No.AP-05-DA-0568 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's motor cycle from behind and as a result deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
12. The petitioner in order to prove their case , second petitioner has filed affidavit reiterating the petition averments and also got marked the documents FIR, spot mahazar, charge sheet, inquest, IMV report, P.M.Report as Ex.P.1 to 6. She was subjected to cross-
SCCH 1 8 MVC No.4375/2015 examination. She admits she did not witness the accident. It is suggested that the accident was occurred due to negligence of his son and not the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the said suggestion was denied. She further admits her son has completed MBBS in 2011 and he was making preparation to write the P.G.Seat examination and he was also doing Fellowship in St.John's hospital and he has completed the same in 2015. It is further admitted that the accident was occurred in 2015 September and he has finished his fellowship in June 2015. He joined in the month of July to Mahaveer Jain hospital. It is suggested that even though the accident occurred due to negligence of his son, he is giving false evidence before the Court and the same is denied.
13. Now, let me appreciate the oral and documentary evidence regarding the negligence is concerned. The petitioners in order to prove their case have examined petitioner NO.2 as PW-1. PW-1 has relied upon the FIR, spot mahazar, charge sheet, IMV report as Ex.P.1 to 3 and 5 and also driving licence which is marked at Ex.P.11. The petitioner has mainly relied upon the documentary evidence regarding negligence since she is not the eye witness to the accident. On perusal of the Ex.P.1, FIR, accident was occurred on 23.9.2015 and the SCCH 1 9 MVC No.4375/2015 accident was occurred on 23.9.2015 and the information was reached on the same day at 22.30 hours and the accident was occurred at 12.40 p.m. The complaint was given by S.S.Hussiny, mother of the deceased stating that she has received the information from the St.John's hospital that the injured is admitted in the hospital and immediately, he reached to the hospital and her son was in semiconscious condition. The person who was present in the hospital he has revealed about the accident that the offending vehicle driver dashed rear portion of motor cycle of his son, as a result he sustained injuries. Based on the information given by the public she has lodged the complaint and case has been registered . The police have conducted mahazar in terms of Ex.P.2 and after investigation Poalice have filed charge sheet in terms of Ex.P.3 against the driver of the offending vehicle making allegation that he was dashed against the rear portion of the motor cycle, as a result he fell down and sustained injuries. On perusal of the IMV report which is marked at Ex.P.5 no visual damages were found on the offending vehicle and motor cycle was damaged to the front left side mirror damaged, right side fuel tank damaged and right side crash guard damaged. The M.V.Inspector has opined that the accident has been occurred not due to any mechanical SCCH 1 10 MVC No.4375/2015 defect. The respondents have not disputed the fact of the accident, only it is contended that the accident is also on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased. The respondent counsel in his arguments he vehemently contended that the deceased was not wearing helmet and IMV report says no damages to the santro car, hence, this Court has to take contributory negligence. It has to be noted that when the respondent has contended that the accident is on account of the contributory negligence, the respondent ought to have examined the driver of the car who is the right person to speak with regard to the negligence of the deceased and he has not been examined before the Court and there is no rebuttal evidence as against the evidence of PW-1. Admittedly, charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the santro car and the same would have been rebutted by adducing evidence and there is no rebuttal evidence. The right person to speak about the contributory negligence is the driver of the car himself and he has not been examined. In order to consider the contributory negligence there must be cogent evidence as held in the judgment reported in (2014 Kant.M.A.C. 330 (SC) ( Meera Devi and another )-No cogent evidence to prove plea of contributory SCCH 1 11 MVC No.4375/2015 negligence, doctrine of common law cannot be applied. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
14. Issue No.2:- It is the case of the petitioners that deceased was working as Doctor at Jain hospital , Vasanthanagar, Bangalore and his monthly income is Rs.1,10,000/p.m. and he is an income tax assessee and due to the death of their son they have lost the earning member of the family. Further it is contended that the deceased was a graduate in Medicine and he had better future and he was an experienced doctor and was working in Jain hospital and earning salary of Rs.60,000/-p.m. Apart from that he was doing part time work as Doctor earning Rs.50,000/-p.m. and deceased was highly ambitious and wanted to open a Nursing Home of his own. Due to the untimely death of the deceased his sister's marriage is getting delayed and the petitioner's future has become quite bleak. On the other hand, the respondent has denied the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was working as Doctor and earning Rs.60,000/p.m.
15. Petitioners in order to prove that the deceased was working as doctor and he is a graduate of medicine, they have produced notarized copy of MBBS marks cards, notarized copy of internship SCCH 1 12 MVC No.4375/2015 certificate, notarized copy of provisional degree certificate, notarized copy of KMC registration certificate, notarized copy of convocation certificate, notarized coy of emergency certificate, notarized copy of emergency certificate, notarized copy of employer identity card and notarized copy of PAN card, appointment letter , salary certificate, Bank statement. PW-1 was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that her son has completed MBBS in the year 2011. Her son was making preparation to write the P.G. seat exam and he was also doing Fellowship in St.John's hospital and he has completed the same in the year 2015. He has finished his fellowship in June 2015 and he joined in the month of July to Mahaveer Jain hospital and the accident was occurred in 2015. She further says immediately after the completion of MBBS he was practicing in their area and she has not produced any document to show about his income of Rs.50,000/p.m. She admits he is not an income tax assessee. She admits she is working in the Planning Department and she is retiring next year. Now she is getting Rs.30,000/p.m. and her husband earlier working in the private concerned. It is suggested that her son was not earning any money and still he was pursuing his higher studies and he was depending on his SCCH 1 13 MVC No.4375/2015 income and the said suggestion was denied. It is further suggested that Ex.P.23 and 24 are created for the purpose of getting more compensation and the same was denied. The respondent also disputed the identity card which is marked at Ex.P.21. so also Ex.P.26 bank statement also disputed. The petitioner also relied upon the evidence of PW-2 who is the Senior Manager HR in Bhagawan Mahaveer Jain hospital . PW-2 says that deceased was working as doctor in the hospital from 25.6.2015 till his death but he was getting gross salary of Rs.60,000/p.m. and he was hale and healthy and hard working prior to his death in the accident. PW-2 produced notarized copy of identity card of PW-2 , payslip for the month of July to September 2015 , salary register for the month of July to September 2015 of the deceased at Ex.P.28 to 30. He was subjected to cross- examination. In the cross-examination he admits that he was on probationary period and the probationary period is 6 months. The salary will be disbursed based on the number of working days. The gross salary is Rs.60,000/- and the same will be divided based on the number of working days. He was appointed on 25.6.2015 at the consolidated salary of Rs.50,000/- and the same was increased in the month of September to Rs.60,000/- since he has produced the SCCH 1 14 MVC No.4375/2015 fellowship certificate. He admits that in Ex.P.23 salary is mentioned as Rs.50,000/-. He also admits that salary will also consists of development charges i.e, purchase of books for professional development and there is a fixed medical reimbursement is also given to him . The arrears which is mentioned in the salary slip of July is in respect of June 5 days work. It is suggested that Ex.P.23, 24, 27 to 30 are given to help the family of the petitioner and he was not getting that much of salary and the said suggestion was denied. It is further suggested that he is giving evidence before the Court to help the family of the petitioner and the same was denied.
16. Now, let me appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Ex.P.13 to 20 are the educational qualification certificate of the deceased and Ex.P.21 is identity card and notarized copy of Pan card is at Ex.P.22, Ex.P.23 is appointment letter , Ex.P.24 salary certificate of the deceased, Ex.P.2 is bank statement, Ex.P.27 authorisation letter, Ex.P.28 notarised copy of employer identity card. On perusal of the Ex.P.23 discloses appointment was offered on a gross salary of Rs.50,000/p.m. and this letter was issued in the month of June 2015. Ex.P.24 is the certificate issued by the very same hospital confirming the employment and stating the last drawn salary SCCH 1 15 MVC No.4375/2015 in September 2016 amounting to Rs.60,000/-. The petitioners have also relied upon the document of salary certificate through PW-2 . Ex.P.29 shows his gross salary as Rs.59,000/- after deducting towards income tax and P.T. for the month of August 2015 his salary is Rs.33,869/- since the working days is only 21 days and this accident was occurred in the month of September 23rd 2015. In the month of September he was working for a period of 22 days and his salary is Rs.43,999/-. Hence, it is clear that his income tax was deducted in the salary slip itself. He has not completed one year to file income tax returns since he joined the hospital in the month of June. It is also elicited from the mouth of PW-2 that in the month of July salary Rs.10,000/- has been deducted at out of Rs.60,000/- and the PW-2 categorically says that it is towards payment for the month of June since he has joined for duty in the month of June .
17. The petitioners have also relied upon the Ex.P.30 wage register for the period from July 15 to September 2015. This extract also discloses that gross salary is Rs.50,000/-. In the cross- examination, he says his salary was increased in the month of September 2015 by enhancing Rs.10,000/- since he has produced fellowship certificate same is evident from his salary. At the rate of SCCH 1 16 MVC No.4375/2015 Rs.60,000/- his salary was calculated for the month of September 2015 and he worked for a period of 22 days and giving salary to the tune of Rs.43,999/-. It is clear from Ex.P.30 that his gross salary was Rs.60,000/-. Hence, I have taken his salary as Rs.60,000/-p.m.. Professional tax Rs.200/- was deducted in each salary slip and also deducted income tax. I have not deducted the income tax and the same will be deducted after calculating the loss of dependency.
18. On perusal of Ex.P.10 date of birth of the deceased is shown as 25.11.1987. In Ex.P.11, driving licence of the deceased also his date of birth is mentioned as 25.11.1987. Hence, it is clear that he was running 28 years and the relevant multiplier applicable is 17.
19. It is important to note that in the recent judgment reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 (SC)( Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs. National Insurance company Ltd. And others) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
Quantum - fatal accident -principles of assessment-multiplier-choice of -deceased aged 26 and claimants are father , mother and sister who got married during pendency of claim application -Tribunal adopted multiplier of 17-High Court reduced multiplier to 13 -whether multiplier of 17 based on the age of the deceased be applied - Held:yes, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation .
SCCH 1 17 MVC No.4375/2015 As per the above judgment in this case also I have taken the age of the deceased to arrive the proper multiplier.
20. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held that even if a person is self employed, loss of future prospects has to be taken into consideration and hence, as the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident, 50%, of his income, has to be taken as loss of future prospects. I have already taken the income of the deceased per month as Rs.60,000/- and 50% of it works out to Rs.30,000/- and thus the total works out to Rs.90,000/-.
21. The deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, hence, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards his personal income. It works out to be Rs.45,000/-p.m.. (90,000-45,000) . Then the annual income is Rs.5,40,000/-. (45000x12). Here, it has to be noted that there is an exemption of income tax for Rs.2,50,000/-. For remaining Rs.2,90,000/- calculation is made as follows:
For Rs.2,50,000 to 5,00,000/- Tax is 10% i.e., 25,000 For Rs.5,00,000/- to 10 lakhs Tax is 20% i.e., 8000 SCCH 1 18 MVC No.4375/2015 Hence, total tax deducted at source is Rs.33,000/-. Hence, I have deducted Rs.33,000/- from Rs.5,40,000/-, it comes to Rs.5,07,000/-. The proper multiplier applicable is 17 and if we multiply the annual income of the deceased by the multiplier , the same works out to Rs.86,19,000/- (5,07,000x17), to which the petitioner is entitled to under the head loss of dependency on account of death of their son in the accident. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.86,19,000/- towards loss of dependency.
22. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, since the SCCH 1 19 MVC No.4375/2015 deceased has left behind his parents and sister , I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the parents and sister for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
23. The petitioners have produced medical bills to the tune of Rs.67,791/-. Petitioner has produced inpatient bill amounting to Rs.66,791/-. There is an another bill amounting to Rs.1000/- paid towards mortuary charges. Hence, in all it comes to Rs.67,791/-. The same is rounded off to Rs.68,000/-. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.68,000/- towards medical expenses.
24.The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1 Loss of dependency 86,19,000-00
2 Compensation to the family 1,00,000-00
members (children and family
members other than wife) for loss
of love and affection, deprivation
of protection, social security etc.
3 Cost incurred on account of 10,000-00
funeral and ritual expenses
4. Medical bills 68,000-00
Total 87,97,000-00
SCCH 1 20 MVC No.4375/2015
25. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others), with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para 13 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that Insurance Company is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment and also by following the principles laid down in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy). In view of the above judgments with regard to the rate of interest, and also it is settled law that while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the rate of interest at 9% cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
26. As regards the liability to be fixed on the respondents, admittedly the respondent No.1 is the owner of the and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car bearing No. AP-05-DA-0568. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, primary liability is fixed SCCH 1 21 MVC No.4375/2015 on respondent No.2 insurance company to satisfy the award. Hence, I answer issue No.2 accordingly.
27. Issue No.3: In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.87,97,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and he is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
The compensation amount is equally distributed among the petitioners No.1 to 3.
The entire compensation amount awarded in favour of the petitioner NO.1 along with interest is ordered to be released to him.
SCCH 1 22 MVC No.4375/2015
Out of the total compensation amount, 50% with
proportionate interest is ordered to be released in the favour of the petitioner NO.2 and remaining 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be deposited in the name of petitioner No.2 in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 3 years.
Out of the total compensation amount, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in the favour of the petitioner NO.3 and remaining 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be deposited in the name of petitioner No.3 in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 5th day of August , 2016) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 Syeda Shams Jahan Hussiny
P.W.2 Satish
SCCH 1 23 MVC No.4375/2015
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : Copy of FIR Ex.P.2 : Copy of spot mahazar Ex.P-3 : Copy of charge sheet Ex.P-4 : Copy of Inquest Ex.P-5 : Copy of IMV Report Ex.P-6 : Copy of P.M.Report Ex.P-7 to 10 4 notarised copy of Aadhar cards Ex.P.11 Original driving licence Ex.P.12 Notarised copy of Pass certificate Ex.P.13 Statement of marks Ex.P.14 Notarised copy of PUC marks card Ex.P.15 Notarised copy of MBBS marks cards(4 in NO.) Ex.P.16 Notarised copy of internship certificate Ex.P.17 Notarised copy of Provisional degree certificate Ex.P.18 Notarised copy of KMC registration certificate Ex.P.19 Notarised copy of Convocation certificate Ex.P.20 Notarised copy of Emergency certificate Ex.P.21 Notarised copy of Employer identity card Ex.P.22 Notarised copy of PAN card Ex.P.23 Appointment letter Ex.P.24 Salary certificate Ex.P.25 Medical bills(2) Ex.P.26 Bank statement Ex.P.27 Authoristion letter SCCH 1 24 MVC No.4375/2015 Ex.P.28 Notarised copy of employer identity card Ex.P.29 Pay slips (3) Ex.P.30 Salary register
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
-Nil-
(H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore