National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Satish Kumar Dabas vs Shambu Dayal & 6 Ors. on 14 November, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1858 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 11/03/2015 in Appeal No. 689/2009 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. DR. SATISH KUMAR DABAS S/O LATE SH. KHEM CHAND R/O VETERINARY GOVT. HOSPITAL,GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI-110043 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHAMBU DAYAL & 6 ORS. S/O SH. KUDE RAM R/O NEAR KAKROLA NAMAK FACTORY, UTTAM NAGAR NEW DELHI 2. DR. E.K. CHAKI AND DR. DEWAN VETERINARY GOVT. HOSPITAL, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI,NANGLI FARM, NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI-110043 3. DR. TRIPATHY & DR. DEVENDER SINGH, VETERINARY GOVT. HOSPITAL GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI,KAKROLA DAIRY NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI-110043 4. DR. VIDYAVIR KAKROLA DAIRY, NEW DELHI-110043 5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI NEW DELHI-110043 6. THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY GOVT. OF NCTM ROOM NO.98-101,OLD SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI-110054 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF DEVELOPMENT(ANIMAL HUSBANDRY) GOVT. OF NCT, 5/9, UNDER HILL ROAD NEW DELHI-110054 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1869 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 11/03/2015 in Appeal No. 689/2009 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT & 2 ORS. OF DELHI, NEW DELHI-110043 2. THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY GOVT. OF NCT, ROOM NO. 98-101, OLD SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI-54 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF DEVELOPMENT (ANIMAL HUSBANDRY), GOVT. OF NCT,5/9, UNDER HILL ROAD, NEW DELHI-110054 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHAMBU DAYAL & 4 ORS. C/O SH. KUDE RAM R/O NEAR KAKROLA NAMAK FACTORY,UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI 2. DR. E.K. CHAKI AND DR. DEWAN VERERINARY GOVT. HOSPITAL,GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, NANGLI FARM, NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI-110043 3. DR. TRIPATHY & DR. DEVENDER SINGH, VERERINARY GOVT. HOSPITAL,GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI,KAKROLA DAIRY NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI-110043 4. DR. VIDYAVIR KAKROLA DAIRY NEW DELHI-110043 5. DR. SATISH KUMAR DABAS S/O LATE SHRI KHEM CHAND R/O VETERINARY GOVT. HOSPITAL, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI-110043 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Singh Kalkal, Advocate With Dr. Satish Kumar Dabas.
For the Govt. of NCT: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Govt. Counsel with Dr.Purushotam For the Respondent : For Shambu Dayal,Complainant : In person Dated : 14 Nov 2017 ORDER PER MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
Challenge in these Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"), is to the order dated 11.03.2015, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short "the State Commission"), in First Appeal No. 689 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Opposite Parties and enhanced the compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum (in short "the District Forum") from ₹5,00,000/- to ₹9,40,000 with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint i.e. 26.02.2004, till the date of realization. The District Forum has fastened the liability on Opposite Parties No. 1,5,6 and 7 which has been confirmed by the State Commission.
2. For the sake of convenience, the first Opposite Party is hereinafter referred to as 'the treating doctor'.
3. Both the treating doctor and the Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi together with the Director Animal Husbandry and the Commissioner of Development have preferred Revision Petition Nos. 1858 of 2015 and 1869 of 2015 respectively.
4. Succinctly put, the facts material to the case are that on 31.12.2003, the Complainant approached the first Opposite Party for treatment of two of his buffaloes, which were not well. It was averred that the treating doctor after examining the buffaloes administered some injections and medicines and also advised to give the same injections to the other buffaloes as well for their protection. On 01.01.2004, the treating doctor visited the Dairy again and administered the injections to 17 other buffaloes. While so, on 03.01.2004 the condition of all the 19 buffaloes deteriorated and the treating doctor called the Government Veterinary doctors arrayed as the second, third and fourth Opposite Parties, to examine the buffaloes. The complainant took all the necessary precautions as advised by the team of Government Veterinary doctors. On 05.01.2004 all the 19 buffaloes expired one after the other. It was pleaded that the Complainant has been running his Dairy for the last 45 years and is adequately experienced in taking care of the buffaloes and no such incident had ever occurred earlier. It was stated that the Complainant had spent an amount of ₹25,000/- towards the purchase of injections and medicines as prescribed by the treating doctor and it was only due to the gross negligence of the team of doctors that all his buffaloes expired. It was pleaded that some of the medicines were purchased by the treating doctor, but he did not furnish any bill or receipts for what he had purchased. The Complainant approached the Police Station for getting an FIR registered, but no action was taken. On 10.02.2004, the Complainant also got issued a legal notice, but received no response.
5. Hence, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking compensation for the financial loss and mental agony amounting to ₹9,40,000/- the details of which are given as hereunder:
i. Price of 19 buffaloes ₹4,75,000/- ii. Cost of medicines & injections ₹25,000/- iii. Loss of earnings for one year ₹2,40,000/- iv. Compensation for the Physical; mental agony and loss of reputation ₹2,00,000/- ₹9,40,000/-
In addition to the aforenoted amounts, the Complainant also prayed for interest at 18% p.a. and other costs.
6. The Opposite Parties in their defence before the District Forum, filed their Written Version stating that the treating doctor visited the Complainant's Dairy on 31.12.2003 and examined only two sick buffaloes. It was denied that injections were administered to the other buffaloes. It was averred that the treating doctor informed the Animal Husbandry Director about the sickness of the other buffaloes and denied that he had ever visited the Dairy on 01.01.2004. It was the Director who immediately called the second, third and fourth Opposite Parties to assist the treating doctor in analyzing the cause of the sickness of the buffaloes. It was pleaded that the blood sample of the deceased animals was collected by the team and sent to the laboratory for examination and that the buffaloes died due to exposure to cold and that the Complainant reported to the police the death of eight buffaloes only. It was averred that the postmortem report and the viscera was handed over to the Police. It was denied that they had ever purchased any medicines on behalf of the Complainant. Since the Animal Husbandry Department provides free services, no charges were taken from the Complainant for the treatment of the buffaloes. It was asserted that the team of doctors had given the right treatment to the buffaloes and no negligence could be attributed to them.
7. The District Forum allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Parties 1, 5, 6 and 7 to pay an amount of ₹5,00,000/- as compensation for the financial loss, mental tension and agony suffered by the Complainant. The District Forum observed as follows:
"Complainant had in all 22 buffaloes in his Dairy and as per complaint 19 buffaloes died one after the other whereas the rest three buffaloes which were not treated by Dr. Dabas did not die. Dr. Dabas including his team of doctors could not clarify during the entire enquiry proceedings the miraculous escape of three buffaloes which were not treated by them whereas all the 19 buffaloes who were injected by Dr. Dabas - OP-1 in the beginning of the treatment had died. The living three buffaloes were also in the same condition in the Dairy and therefore, if all the 19 buffaloes had died in the same way, which did not happen. Complainant argued that he was running the Dairy for the last 45 years and as such was well conservant with the precautions to be taken to protect the buffaloes from cold. OP-1 in all fairness should have advised for Postmortem examination of the dead buffaloes by some other team of doctors instead of conducting the Postmortem on the dead buffaloes himself. The very fact that OPs. Including Dr. Dabas (OP-1) despite death of such a large number of buffaloes could not record any diagnosis so as to show with which disease the 19 buffaloes were suffering proves deficiency in service on their part. No lab tests stated to have been got conducted during treatment have been placed on record by OPs for the reasons best known.
Much was argued as to the number of buffaloes which died. According to the complainant the number of buffaloes which died was 19 but according to OP-1 Dr. Dabas and police D.D. entry the number of buffaloes which died was only 8. About the number of buffaloes which died, there also appears to be concealment of the part of Dr. Dabas and the police authorities. The Press Cutting from Hindi Daily " Dainik Jagran" is available on record which refers to the number of buffaloes which died as 14.
Unfortunately, after taking Viscera samples of the 8 dead buffaloes on 06.01.2004 the investigation officer or SHO, Uttam Nagar did not sent the Viscera of the 8 buffaloes for examination to CFSL till the direction in this regard was given by this District Forum in March,2008. It remains unexplained why police authorities had chosen to close the investigation in such a serious case by not sending the Viscera of 8 buffaloes as long as for about four years without directions issued by this District Forum. However, the viscera report has been received but states that on chemical and TLC examination, metallic poisons, phosphide, alkaloids, and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7' & '8'. No doubt the Viscera report leads us nowhere but the conduct of police authorities raises a serious doubt why they had chosen to get the Postmortem conducted from Dr. Dabas and then sitting over the Viscera samples for about 5 years and sent the same to CFSL only after directions of the District Forum. Such insensitive attitude of the police authorities needs to be investigated by the higher authorities for appropriate action against the delinquent officials."
8. On an Appeal by the treating doctor and the Department, the State Commission has observed that the Affidavits filed by the Appellants do not disclose any reason for the death of the buffaloes; that the postmortem carried out on the eight buffaloes showed reports contrary to one another; the cause of death being shown as food poisoning in one, severe cold exposure in another and malnutrition in yet another; that only three buffaloes which were not treated by the team of doctors survived; that the final diagnosis of the treatment was never mentioned in the Written Version and that no departmental enquiry was conducted against the team of doctors. The State Commission, while enhancing the compensation from ₹5,00,000/- to ₹9,40,000/- observed as follows:
" The buffaloes who survived were three in number. These were the buffaloes which were not treated by the OP doctors. Had it been a case of severe cold, then the said three buffaloes too should have met the same fate. It is the admitted case of the OPs that on the first day of visit of Dr. S.K. Dabas, all the buffaloes except the two buffaloes, were active. What caused the death of the nineteen buffaloes one after the other within a period of 3-4 days has been made a mystery by the OPs. A poor and illiterate farmer is pitted against the qualified doctors who have not come up with any version in relation to the diagnosis or the treatment. The reports relied upon them as discussed above are contrary to each other. No explanation is given by the OPs on their failure to send the viscera of the dead buffaloes to the laboratory after taking the samples. The unfortunate incident took place between 02.01.2004 and 05.01.2004. The complainant had been running from pillar to post since then. Death of the buffaloes is not a simple financial loss on a particular day. It was a perpetuating loss as it is a question of bread and butter for the complainant and his family. In a span of eleven years, he practically has been unable to get any relief from any quarter. Buffaloes not only provide milk, they also multiply in number by way of reproduction. Expansion of their family takes place. No compensation has been given to the respondent either by the appellants of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. No Departmental enquiry has been instituted against the negligent doctors. The relief prayed for by the complainant in his complaint filed in the District Forum itself is on the lower side. He has simply asked for the compensation to the tune of ₹9.40 Lac along with interest @ 18% p.a. compounded annually. Ld. Trail forum has awarded a relief of compensation to the tune of ₹ 5 Lac. Keeping in view the average price of the buffaloes prevailing in the year 2004, the amount prayed for by the complainant is lesser than the total price of the buffaloes. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, the complainant is awarded compensation of ₹9.40 Lac as prayed for by him along with interest @ 18% from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 26.02.2004 till the date of its realization. These order be complied with by the OPs within a period of sixty days from today failing which the interest @ 24%shallbe liable to be paid on the amount accruing after sixty days from today. Before parting it may be mentioned here that the doctors treating the buffaloes were either highly negligent or ignorant in their basic knowledge of veterinary science though the capital city Delhi has been urbanized but still there are buffaloes and other livestock being reared in certain pockets. Govt. of NCT of Delhi must ensure that all its veterinary doctors are trained in at least the basic things. Such veterinary doctors and especially the doctor who treated the buffaloes in the present case must be put to training to avoid any mishap in future. Appeal is accordingly disposed of."(Underlined for emphasis)
9. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission the treating doctor and the Department preferred these Revision Petitions.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the treating doctor administered medicines only to two buffaloes on 31.12.2003; never visited the Dairy on 01.01.2004; the buffaloes died of 'babesia'; the postmortem of the eight buffaloes revealed that they died of exposure to severe cold; that the treatment was provided free of cost ; they also collected the blood samples and sent them to the laboratory for examination and there was no negligence in the line of treatment rendered by the team of veterinary doctors. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the State Commission has erred in enhancing the compensation from ₹5,00,000/- to ₹9,40,000/- , on an Appeal preferred by the Opposite Parties. He submitted that when the Complainant did not prefer any Appeal, he was not entitled to the enhanced compensation.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the Complainant was not in a position to defend his case, Mr. Rajiv Yadav, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curie. The amount of ₹1,25,000/- deposited by the Petitioners before the State Commission was directed to be released to the Complainant.
12. Though, we are conscious of the fact that the scope of Revisional Jurisdiction conferred on this Commission is very limited, but bearing in mind the fact that the Petitioner did not produce the relevant documents before the fora below which were sought to be placed before us, for an effectual adjudication of the issue involved, the petitioners were permitted to produce the original file of the Department of Animal Husbandry, wherein the subject matter of the Complaint, particularly relating to the report which was dealt with. The material filed before us does not anywhere evidence any enquiry conducted by the Department regarding the actual diagnosis and the cause of death of 19 buffaloes. In rejecting the stand of the Petitioners that the buffaloes had died because of exposure to cold, the State Commission has observed that even the post mortem reports were conflicting. The relevant observations read as follows:
"First report at S. No. 4158 shows that the buffalo died of suspected food poisoning and severe cold exposure. In case of the buffalo at S.No. 4159, the cause of the death is a blockage of alimentary canal, malnutrition and sever cold exposure. In case of report at S. No. 4160, the cause of the death is shown as severe cold exposure and malnutrition. In case of report at S. No. 4161, the diagnosis is of suspected food poisoning and cold exposure. In case of S. No. 4162, cause of death is only severe cold exposure. In S. No. 4163, the cause of death is suspected food poisoning and malnutrition. In S. No. 4164, cause of death is very severe cold exposure. In S. No. 4165, the cause of death is malnutrition and suspected food poisoning and cold exposure. Not only this, against column, 'remarks'. It is indicated that the parts of liver, spleen and small intestine were sent for chemical examination."
13. No explanation was given by the Petitioners for their failure to send the viscera of the dead buffaloes to the laboratory after collecting the samples, for four long years. It is pertinent to note that the samples were sent to the Laboratory in March, 2008 only on the directions of the District Forum. The viscera report simply rules out the existence of metallic poison, alcohol and pesticides. In fact, the State Commission has rightly observed that the diagnosis was based on blood slides and dump samples which were belatedly placed on record only to cover-up the case of negligence. There was also an observation by the District Forum that the Postmortem was performed by the treating doctor, which was denied by the Petitioners. It is relevant to note that neither the postmortem nor the viscera reports were filed before this Commission. The submission of the learned counsel that the treating doctor did not visit the Dairy on 01.01.2004 is of no relevance as the treatment began on 31.12.2003 itself. If the submission of the learned counsel to the effect that the cause of death was exposure to severe cold, was to be accepted, we fail to comprehend any reason as to how the remaining three buffaloes, which were not treated by the team of doctors, survived, when they were also exposed to the same weather conditions, like the dead buffaloes.
14. It is shocking that even the prescription has not been filed and names of the medicines and injections administered are still a mystery. As the onus of the line of treatment rendered had not been discharged, any correlation between the treatment and diagnosis cannot be evidenced by the Petitioners. The Complainant is an illiterate person, the unfortunate incident took place between 02.01.2004 and 05.01.2004 and he has been made to run from pillar to post for the last 13 years. In the absence of any departmental enquiry conducted by the Petitioners, lack of any documentary evidence substantiating the diagnosis of 'babesia' specially in the light of the fact that there was no pleading either in the Written Version or Affidavit before the fora below; there is no other material on record to disagree with the fora below that the petitioners have failed to establish the actual cause of the death of the buffaloes. Therefore, the concurrent finding of both the fora below regarding negligence of the petitioners herein stands confirmed.
15. Now we address ourselves to the question whether the State Commission could enhance the compensation as awarded by the District Forum in the absence of an Appeal by the Complainant. Learned Amicus Curie submitted that Section 14(1) (iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Section18 empowers the State Commission " to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party". It was submitted that the concept of reasonableness is inherent in such a power and the same had to be adhered to while awarding compensation.
16. Examining the scope of Order 41 Rule 33, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Bakshish Singh (1998) 8SCC 222 observed as follows:
"8. This provision gives very wide power to the appellate court to do complete justice between the parties and enables it to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed or as the nature of the case may require notwithstanding that the party in whose favour the power is sought to be exercised has not filed any appeal or cross-objections Further, it was observed in Bankshish Singh that "the powers of the appellate court are also indicated in Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that the appellate court shall have the same powers as are conferred on the original court"
It may be relevant to note the following observation of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police v. S. Sarath AIHC 3153 (Mad):
"It is true that the power of the Appellate court under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. is discretion to determine all questions urged in order to do complete justice between the parties. In the decision reported in 1999 II CTC 569 (cited supra) the learned Judge held that the Court should not become a silent spectator and fail to deliver justice according to the needs of the litigant and the learned Judge has referred to the various decisions in which the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C. was resorted to: to do justice between the parties. Therefore, I am satisfied that if the circumstances warrants the amount of compensation may be revised upward even in the absence of cross-objection by the claimants. The question is whether this discretion must be exercised in this case to do justice."
17. In the aforenoted judgment the scope and width of the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 33 has been explained. It is observed that even if the Respondents or parties may not have filed an Appeal or Petition and where there have been decrees in cross suits or two or more decrees passed in one suit, the Appellate Court has the power to pass a decree as the case may require. The State Commission being the first Appellate Court, it was competent to enhance the compensation.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Balram Prasad Vs. Kunal Shah, (2014) 1 SCC 384, has dealt with the plea urged on behalf of the Complainant, that the National Commission was wrong in rejecting different claims on the ground that same had not been made in the pleadings. The Hon'ble Apex Court while observing that the claim for enhancement of compensation by the Claimant was justified relied upon its judgment in Ningamma and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, held that the Court is duty-bound and entitled to award "just compensation", irrespective of the fact whether any plea on that behalf was raised by the Claimant or not. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"34. Undoubtedly, Section 166 of the MVA deals with "just compensation" and even if in the pleadings no specific claim was made under Section 166 of the MVA, in our considered opinion a party should not be deprived from getting "just compensation" in case the claimant is able to make out a case under any provision of law. Needless to say, the MVA is beneficial and welfare legislation. In fact, the court is duty-bound and entitled to award "just compensation" irrespective of the fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not."
19. In Raj Rani & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 654, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that there is no restriction that compensation should be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"14. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 279, para 7) "7. Firstly, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award."
Hence, the broad principle to be borne in mind is that the compensation should be 'just' compensation. That is to say, it should neither be arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence.
20. In Laxman @ Laxaman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 756, the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded more compensation than what was claimed by the Claimant after making the following categorical observations:-
"In the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason, any competent court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
21. In Ibrahim Vs. Raju & Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 756, referring to a catena of documents, the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded double the compensation sought for by the Complainant.
22. It has thus, been emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'just and reasonable' compensation should be the yardstick regardless of lower amount of compensation being claimed by the aggrieved party. It is opined that the Complainant must receive the sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been, if he had not sustained the wrong. It has been held that it is the duty of the Tribunals, Commissions and the Courts to bear in mind the relevant facts and circumstances of each case for awarding 'just and reasonable compensation'.
23. Regard being had to the aforenoted broad principle, enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that on facts at hand, the State commission was justified in enhancing the compensation to what was originally prayed for in the Complaint. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that in the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Parties, the State Commission has erred in enhancing the compensation, is unsustainable. The Complainant, an illiterate, landless Dairy farmer, depending on income through sale of milk, to meet the basic requirements of life involving securing food, fodder, medicine, clothing and shelter, was forced to close down his Diary, his only source of livelihood. To earn his daily bread and support himself and his family, he is completely dependent on his livestock. Keeping in view the Complainant's pitiable plight and having regard to the fact that 19 out of 22 buffaloes, owned by the Complainant who was running a small Dairy for the last 40 years, died one after the other within a span of three days resulting in the closure of his Dairy, the only source of his income, and awaiting justice since the year 2004, the award of the compensation as claimed in the Complaint, cannot be held to be excessive or unjust, warranting our interference. Nevertheless, we felt that the interest awarded at 18% p.a. is on the higher side. Consequently the same is reduced to 9% p.a.
24. In the result, these Revision Petitions are allowed in part only to the extent of modifying the interest rate from 18% to 9% p.a. The amount of ₹3,75,000/- deposited in this Commission in terms of the order dated 06.04.2017 shall be released to the Complainant forthwith. The balance decretal amount due to the Complainant shall be remitted to him within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest at 12% p.a. shall be payable on the balance amount, from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of realization. The amounts already released to the Complainant shall be accounted for.
25. Before parting with the case, we place on record our deep appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Rajiv Yadav, Learned Amicus Curiae. He shall be paid an amount of ₹15,000/- as out of pocket expenses, if not already paid.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER