Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance vs Laxman S/O Pandurang Bhore And Ors on 6 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108
MFA No. 202334 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017
MFA No. 201259 of 2017
AND 1 OTHER
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202334 OF 2017 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201257 OF 2017 (MV-I)
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201259 OF 2017 (MV-I)
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202335 OF 2017 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 202334/2017
BETWEEN:
LAXMAN S/O PANDURANT BHORE,
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: HAMALI,
Location: HIGH R/O SIDDAPUR, TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101
COURT OF ...APPELLANT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAHKAR MAHARSHI SHANKAR RAO,
MOHITE PATIL SAH SAKHAR KARKHANE LTD.,
YASHAVANT NAGAR, AKLUJ, TQ. MALSHIRAS,
DIST. SOLAPUR-434 104,
OWNER OF DUMPER BEARING NOMH-45-0136.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108
MFA No. 202334 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017
MFA No. 201259 of 2017
AND 1 OTHER
HC-KAR
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
1ST FLOOR BIDARI COMPLEX, S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101,
POLICY NO.162401/31/2013/779,
VALID FROM:27.10.2012 TO 26.10.2013,
INSURER OF DUMPER NO.MH-45-0136),
3. SHAMGONDA S/O ADAGONDA PATIL,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 1039, NANDINI, TQ. SHIROL,
DIST. KOLHAPUR,
(OWNER OF TEMPO NO.MH-09/BC-7995.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ICICI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
OPP: GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR
POLICY NO.3003/77614584/00/000,
VALID FROM:06.02.2013 TO 05.02.2014,
INSURER OF TEMPO NO.MH-09/BC-7995.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
V/O DTD.26.04.2025 APPEAL AGAINST R3 STANDS
DISMISSED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
VIJAYAPUR, AT-VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.1419/2014 DATED-
30.01.2017 BY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND BE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108
MFA No. 202334 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017
MFA No. 201259 of 2017
AND 1 OTHER
HC-KAR
PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING THE
RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE APPELLANT.
IN MFA NO. 201257/2017
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, BIDARI COMPLES, S.S.FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYPUR,
NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAXMAN S/O PANDURANG BHORE,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HAMALI,
R/O. SIDDAPUR, VIJAYPUR-586 101.
2. SAHKAR MAHARSHI SHANKAR RAO,
MOHITE PATIL SAH SAKHAR KARKHANE LTD.,
YASHWANT NAGAR, AKLUJ, TQ. MALSHIRAS,
DIST. SOLAPUR -413 001.
3. SHAMGONDA S/O ADAGONDA PATIL,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 1039, NANDINI, TQ. SHIROL,
DIST. KOLHAPUR-416 001.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ICICI GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
OPP. GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYPUR-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108
MFA No. 202334 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017
MFA No. 201259 of 2017
AND 1 OTHER
HC-KAR
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DTD. 26.04.2025 APPEAL AS AGINST DECEASED
R3 STANDS ABATED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED-30.01.2017 IN MVC NO.1419/2014 PASSED
BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VIAJAYAPUR.
IN MFA NO. 201259/2017
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, BIDARI COMPLEX, S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR,
NOW REPRESENTED BY,
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJKUMAR S/O MARUTI BADAKE,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HAMALI,
R/O JADAR GALLI, VIJAYPUR-586 101.
2. SAHKAR MAHARSHI SHANKAR RAO,
MOHITE PATIL SAH SAKHAR KARKHANE LTD.,
YASHWANT NAGAR, AKLUJ, TQ. MALSHIRAS,
DIST. SOLAPUR-413 001.
3. SHAMGONDA S/O ADAGONDA PATIL,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108
MFA No. 202334 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017
MFA No. 201259 of 2017
AND 1 OTHER
HC-KAR
R/O. 1039, NANDINI, TQ. SHIROL,
DIST. KOLHAPUR-416 001.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ICICI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP. GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYPUR-586 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
V/O DTD.26.04.2025 APPEAL AS AGAINST DECEASED
R3 STANDS ABATED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2017 IN MVC
NO.1423/2014 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL VIJAYAPUR.
IN MFA NO. 202335/2017
BETWEEN:
RAJKUMAR S/O MARUTI BADAKE,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HAMALI,
R/O JADAR GALLI, VIJAYAPUR-586 101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAHKAR MAHARSHI SHANKAR RAO
MOHITE PATIL SAH SAKHAR KARKHANE LTD.,
YASHAVANT NAGAR, AKLUJ, TQ. MALSHIRAS,
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108
MFA No. 202334 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017
MFA No. 201259 of 2017
AND 1 OTHER
HC-KAR
DIST. SOLAPUR-434 104,
OWNER OF DUMPER BEARING NO.MH-45-0136.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
1st FLOOR BIDARI COMPLEX, S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101,
POLICY NO.162401/31/2013/779,
VALID FROM:27.10.2012 TO 26.10.2013,
INSURER OF DUMPER NO.MH-45/0136.
3. SHAMGONDA S/O ADAGONDA PATIL,
AGE: 43 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 1039, NANDINI, TQ. SHIROL,
DIST. KOLHAPUR,
(OWNER OF TEMPO NO. MH-09/BC-7995.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ICICI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
OPP: GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR,
POLICY NO.3003/77614584/00/000,
VALID FROM: 06.02.2013 TO 05.02.2014,
INSURER OF TEMPO NO.MH-09/BC-7995.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
V/O DTD.06.04.2018 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DTD.26.04.2025 APPEAL AGAINST DECEASED
R3 STANDS DISMISSED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL VIJAYAPUR, AT-VIJAYAPUR IN
MVCNO.1423/2014 DATED-30.01.2017 BY MODIFYING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER AND TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108
MFA No. 202334 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017
MFA No. 201259 of 2017
AND 1 OTHER
HC-KAR
GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE APPELLANT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are arising out of the Judgment and award dated 30.01.2017 in MVC No.1419/2014 and MVC No.1423/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayapur (for short 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the claimants.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts for adjudication of these appeals are that, the claimants were travelling in a Eicher Tempo bearing registration No.MH-09/BC-7795 on 01.08.2013 towards Pandharapur side and at around 10.00 p.m., the driver of the Dumper vehicle bearing registration No.MH-45/0136 has wrongly parked the said vehicle on the middle of the road without there being any parking lights and -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108 MFA No. 202334 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017 MFA No. 201259 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR on account of the same, the driver of the Eicher Tempo dashed to the Dumper vehicle which was being stationed and on account of the same, the claimants sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the claimants have preferred MVC No.1419/2014 and MVC No.1423/2014 seeking compensation.
4. After service of notice, the respondents entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.
5. In order to prove their case, the claimants have examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked 19 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. On the other hand, two witnesses were examined by the respondent side as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and produced two documents as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. The Tribunal after considering the material on record by its Judgment and award dated 30.01.2017, awarded compensation of Rs.52,600/- in MVC No.1419/2014 and Rs.2,66,000/- in MVC No.1423/2014 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108 MFA No. 202334 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017 MFA No. 201259 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR
6. It is also forthcoming from the impugned award that, the Tribunal has held that the drivers of both the vehicles in question are liable for 50:50 insofar as the negligence on their part and accordingly disposed of the claim petition.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and on the liability, the Insurance company has preferred MFA No.201257/2017 and MFA No.201259/2017. The claimants have preferred MFA No.202334/2017 and MFA No.202335/2017 seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Smt. Preeti Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company argued that, the Tribunal has overlooked the charge-sheet produced at Ex.P.5, wherein, the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the Eicher Tempo and therefore, it is contended that, the Dumper vehicle was parked by the side of the road, despite the same the contributory negligence to an extent of 50% is
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108 MFA No. 202334 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017 MFA No. 201259 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR made against the Dumper vehicle which requires to be interfered with in this appeal.
9. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the award of interest at the rate of 9% per annum is on the higher side which requires to be reduced to 6%.
10. It is also argued that, the claimants were travelling as unauthorized passengers and therefore, submitted that the impugned award requires to be interference with in these appeals.
11. Per contra, Sri. Sanganabasava B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimants argued that, the contributory negligence fastened on the driver of the Eicher vehicle by the Tribunal requires to be interfered with as the Dumper vehicle was parked in the middle of the road which is a single road and therefore, sought for fastening the entire liability on the driver of the Dumper vehicle. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108 MFA No. 202334 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017 MFA No. 201259 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR claimants that the award of compensation requires to be enhanced in these appeals.
12. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1, wherein, it is forthcoming that, the width of the tar road was 24 feet having kachcha road of 5 feet on either side. It is also stated that, the Eicher vehicle was situated at a distance from 04 feet from the western edge and its back wheel is situated in a distance of 5 and ½ feet on tar road. It is also not in dispute that, the said Dumper vehicle is having ten wheels. The front left side wheel of the Dumper is situated on the western edge patti and Kachcha side patti and its back wheel is situated on the road in a distance of ½ feet from the western edge of the road. The said aspect is forthcoming from the spot panchanama (Ex.P.4). Taking into consideration the said aspect of the matter as the accident in question was took place at about 10.00 p.m. and therefore, as the tar road is single road, not having two roads with bifurcating line on either side of the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108 MFA No. 202334 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017 MFA No. 201259 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR road and such being the case, the driver of the Dumper has parked the vehicle without leaving space for other vehicles to ply from the very same side.
13. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Archit Saini and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in 2018 3 SCC 365, under similar circumstances, wherein at paragraph Nos.8 and 10 has held as follows:
"8. After having perused the evidence of PW7, site map (Ext. P-45) and the detailed analysis undertaken by the Tribunal, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the approach of the High Court in reversing the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on Issue 1 has been very casual, if not cryptic and perverse. Indeed, the appeal before the High Court is required to be decided on fact and law. That, however, would not permit the High Court to casually overturn the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. As is evident from the analysis done by the Tribunal, it is a well-considered opinion and a plausible view. The High Court has not adverted to any specific reason as to why the view taken by the Tribunal was incorrect or not supported by the evidence on record. It is well settled that the nature of proof required in cases concerning accident claims is qualitatively different from the one in criminal cases, which must be beyond any reasonable doubts. The Tribunal
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108 MFA No. 202334 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017 MFA No. 201259 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR applied the correct test in the analysis of the evidence before it. Notably, the High Court has not doubted the evidence of PW 7 as being unreliable nor has it discarded his version that the driver of the Maruti car could not spot the parked Gas Tanker due to the flashlights of the oncoming traffic from the front side. Further, the Tribunal also adverted to the legal presumption against the driver of the Gas Tanker of having parked his vehicle in a negligent manner in the middle of the road. The site plan (Ext. P-45) reinforces the version of PW 7 that the truck (Gas Tanker) was parked in the middle of the road but the High Court opined to the contrary without assigning parked o any reason whatsoever. In our view, the site plan (Ext. P-45) filed along with the charge-sheet does not support the finding recorded by the High Court that the Gas Tanker was not parked in the middle of the road. Notably, the High Court has also not doubted the claimant's plea that the Gas Tanker/offending vehicle was parked without any indicator or parking lights. The fact that PW 7 who was standing on the opposite side of the road at a distance of about 70 ft, could see the Gas Tanker parked on the other side of the road does not discredit his version that the Maruti car coming from the opposite side could not spot the Gas Tanker due to flashlights of the oncoming traffic from the front side. It is not in dispute that the road is a busy road. In the cross-examination, neither has any attempt been made to discredit the version of PW7 nor has any suggestion been made that no vehicle with flashlights on was coming from the opposite direction of the parked Gas Tanker at the relevant time.
10. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the said finding of the High Court. As a
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108 MFA No. 202334 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017 MFA No. 201259 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR result, the appellants would be entitled to the enhanced compensation as determined by the High Court in its entirety without any deduction towards contributory negligence. In other words, we restore the finding of the Tribunal rendered on Issue 1 against the respondents and hold that Respondent 1 negligently parked the Gas Tanker/offending vehicle in the middle of the road without any indicator or parking lights."
14. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applying the principle to the case on hand and by looking into the spot panchanama at Ex.P.3, I am of the view that, the driver of the Dumper vehicle bearing registration No.MH-45/0136 is solely responsible for the alleged accident. In that view of the matter, the entire negligence has to be fastened on the owner of the Dumper vehicle bearing registration No.MH-45/0136.
15. Insofar as the award of compensation is concerned in MVC No.1419/2014, having taken note of the injury sustained by the claimant and the evidence of P.W.3 and as the accident is of the year 2013 and as per the guidelines of the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, the monthly income of the claimant has to be taken at
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108 MFA No. 202334 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017 MFA No. 201259 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR Rs.7,000/- per month and by applying the appropriate multiplier of '14' by taking into account the disability to the extent of 10%, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,17,600/- (Rs.7,000/- X 12 X 14 X 10%) towards loss of earning capacity.
16. Taking into consideration the other aspects as to the injury sustained by the claimant and award of compensation is re-assessed as under:
Sl.No. Heads of compensation Amount 1 Loss of earning capacity Rs.1,17,600/- 2 Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/-
3 Diet Rs.20,000/-
4 Loss of income during laid up Rs.21,000/-
period (Rs.7,000/- X 3 months) 5 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
6 Medical expenses Rs.3,992/-
Total Rs.2,62,592/-
17. Insofar as MVC No.1423/2014 is concerned, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, makes it clear that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 25% to 30% as to the limb. In that view of the matter as the claimant has sustained united right and left femur shaft with interlocking nails with united right tibia fracture with both knee joints space narrow and haizy and right clavicle area
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108 MFA No. 202334 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017 MFA No. 201259 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR swelling with pain and tenderness with united fracture of right clavicle. The accident is of the year 2013 and as per the guidelines of the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, the monthly income of the claimant has to be taken at Rs.7,000/- per month and by applying the appropriate multiplier of '14' by taking into account the disability to the extent of 30%, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled for Rs.3,52,800/- (Rs.7,000/- X 12 X 14 X 30%) towards loss of earning capacity.
18. Taking into consideration the other aspects as to the injury sustained by the claimant and award of compensation is re-assessed as under:
Sl.No. Heads of compensation Amount 1 Loss of earning capacity Rs.3,52,800/- 2 Pain and sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- 3 Conveyance Rs.50,000/-
4 Loss of income during laid up Rs.42,000/-
period (Rs.7,000/- X 7 months) 5 Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
6 Medical expenses Rs.90,962/-
Total Rs.7,35,762/-
19. Accordingly, the following order:
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108
MFA No. 202334 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017
MFA No. 201259 of 2017
AND 1 OTHER
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) MFA No.201257/2017 and MFA
No.201259/2017 are hereby dismissed;
(ii) MFA No.202334/2017 and MFA No.202335/2017 are partly allowed, holding that the owner of the vehicle bearing No.MH-45/0136 - respondent No.1 before the Tribunal is liable and thereby the respondent No.2 Insurance company- Oriental Insurance company is liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 to satisfy the entire claim of the claimants.
(iii) The claimant in MVC No.1419/2014 is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,62,592/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and claimant in MVC No.1423/2014 is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.7,35,762/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the claim petitions filed by the claimants are allowed in-part.
(iv) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1108 MFA No. 202334 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201257 of 2017 MFA No. 201259 of 2017 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR
(v) In view of the order dated 06.04.2018, the claimant in MFA No.202334/2017 is not entitled for the interest for the delayed period of 196 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:PK