State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Kanchan Bai vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. on 16 December, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/15/367
Instituted on : 10.09.2015
Smt. Kanchan Bai, Widow of Ramkaran,
Caste ;- Gond, R/o - Village - Bilora, Post - Girjapur,
Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
Rama Trade Centre,
Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. South Eastern Coal Fields Limited,
Through : Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coal
Fields Limited, Baikunthpur Area,
Post, Police Station & Tehsil Baikuntpur,
District Korea (C.G.). ... Respondents.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S.SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri K.M. Garg, for the appellant.
Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, for the respondent No.1.
Shri O.P. Agrawal, for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
Dated : 16/12/2015 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.06.2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korea - Baikunthpur (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint // 2 // Case No.59/2014. By the impugned order, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant).
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint case are that the deceased Ramkaran was husband of the appellant (complainant). Ramkaran was employee of the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) - S.E.C.L. and he obtained Group Janta Personal Accident Policy No.153300/47/000/00000/00247/2000 from the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1). The sum assured under the said policy was Rs.5,00,000/- and the policy was effective for the period from 16.10.1999 to 15.10.2009 and premium thereof was deducted from the salary of the deceased life assured Ramkaran. On 06.10.2008 the deceased life assured Ramkaran had gone to his well for taking bath, which is situated at badi (fence) and when he was pulling water from the well, his leg was slipped and he fell down in the well. Ramkaran died on 07.10.2008 due to drowning. The appellant (complainant) is an illiterate rustic woman and she did not know regarding the insurance policy obtained by her husband from the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1). The appellant (complainant) came to know regarding the insurance policy on 18.10.2013 from the other employees of the colliery, then the appellant (complainant) submitted claim form along with relevant documents before the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1), but the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) illegally repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant). The appellant (complainant) is entitled to get sum // 3 // assured under the Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest, but the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) did not settle the claim of the appellant (complainant). Hence this complaint.
3. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) filed its written statement and averred that insurance policy was cancelled by the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) on 08.03.2002 and contract of insurance is not in existence between the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) and the appellant (complainant) and prior to the death of the life assured Ramkaran, the insurance policy was cancelled by the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1), therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get sum assured from the respondent No.1 (O.P. NO.1) under the Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy. The deceased did not die due to drowning in well but he was in habit to consume liquor and due to intoxication, he committed suicide and his death was not accidental in nature. The intimation regarding death of the life assured was not given to the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) within prescribed period of 15 days. The complaint was filed by the appellant (complainant) after lapse of 6 years, which is hopelessly barred by time. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) further averred that on the basis of Condition No.5 mentioned in the insurance policy, the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) is entitled to cancel the insurance policy unilaterally and the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) had already cancelled the insurance policy prior to // 4 // death of the deceased Ramkaran, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not entitled for sum assured and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) S.E.C.L. has filed its written statement and averred that the deceased Ramkaran was working with the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) and he was insured with the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) under Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy. After receiving intimation regarding death of the life assured, the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) along with relevant documents requested the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) for payment of the compensation, but the respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1) deliberately did not pay the compensation as per terms and condition of the insurance policy. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) is liable to pay sum assured under the insurance policy to the appellant (complainant). The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) has no right to cancel the insurance policy unilaterally. In these circumstances, the above insurance policy is still in existence and the respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1) is liable to pay compensation to the appellant (complainant). The deceased died on 07.10.2008 and the appellant (complainant) filed complaint before the District Forum after lapse of six years, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, dismissed the complaint.
// 5 //
6. The appellant (complainant) filed documents. Document A-1 is letter dated 23.10.2013 sent by the appellant (complainant) to the Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.), A-2 is letter dated 01.11.2013 sent by the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) to the appellant (complainant), A-3 is death certificate issued by Registrar, Birth and Death, A-4 is letter dated 11.12.2013 sent by Senior Manager (Personnel), Jhilimili Sub Area, S.E.C.L. to Regional Public Information Officer, Baikunthpur Area, A-5 is application for post mortem examination, A-6 is terms and conditions of the Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy, A-7 is Memorandum of Understanding, dated 06.09.1999 executed between the South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, A-8 is postal receipt, A-9 is Dehati Merg Intimation, A-10 is Inquest, A-11 is Investigation Report dated 11.06.2015 issued by Superintendent of Police, District Korea (C.G.). Merg Intimation, Inquest, Application for post mortem examination, Post Mortem Report, salary slip letter dated 16.01.1997 sent by South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., to Shri Ram Karan, Medical Service Card issued by S.E.C.L., Baikunthpur Area, Office order dated 28-29/01/1999 issued by South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
7. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) has also filed documents. Ex. D-1 is letter date 01.11.2013 sent by Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur (C.G.) to the appellant // 6 // (complainant), Ex.D-2 are application for post mortem and Post mortem report, Ex.D-3 is Dehati Merg Intimation, Ex.D-4 is terms and conditions of the Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ex.D-5 is Certificate of Insurance (Model Certificate), Ex.D-6 is letter dated 06.03.2002 sent by the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) to the Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur (C.G.), D-7 is Policy Schedule of Group Janta Personal Accident Policy issued by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., D-8 is letter dated 09.03.2005 sent by Manager, R.I.D. Regional Office, Indore of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited to the Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Bilaspur (C.G.), letter dated 28.03.2005 sent by Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur to the Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, Bilaspur (C.G.), Ex.D-9 are Disbursement/Adjustment Vouchers, D-10 is photocopy of cheque No.0076975 dated 28.03.2005 issued by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited in favour of the South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Ex.D-11 is terms and conditions of the Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy.
8. Shri K.M. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the learned District Forum has committed error in holding that the complaint is barred by time. The appellant (complainant) is an illiterate rustic woman and when she // 7 // came to know about the insurance policy from the other employees of the colliery, then she immediately submitted claim form before the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1), but the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) did not settle the claim of the appellant (complainant), hence the appellant (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and the complaint is within limitation. So far as limitation is concerned, being an illiterate rustic woman, it was essential for the District Forum as well as for this Commission that the case of the appellant (complainant) be considered sympathetically and liberal view was required to be taken, but learned District Forum, has erroneously held that the complaint is barred by time. The learned District Forum has also erroneously held that the deceased consumed liquor. The finding recorded by the District Forum, is illegal. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) did not produce any evidence which indicate that at the time of incident, the deceased consumed liquor. Mere consumption of the liquor is not sufficient to hold that the deceased life assured was in intoxication condition, therefore, the ground taken by the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) for repudiation of the claim of the appellant (complainant) i.e. at the time of incident the deceased consumed liquor, is illegal. According to the appellant (complainant), the deceased life assured was pulling water from his well for bathing and fell down in the well, therefore, his death is accidental in nature. The appellant (complainant) , who is widow of Ramkaran is entitled for // 8 // getting sum assured under the Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy, but the learned District Forum, has wrongly dismissed the compliant of the appellant (complainant). The appeal may be allowed and relief as mentioned in the complaint be granted to the appellant (complainant).
9. Smt. Chitra Shrivasvata, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) has argued that in the instant case, the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) has already cancelled the insurance policy prior to the date of the life assured Ramkaran. She further argued that the appellant (complainant) did not lodge any formal claim before the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1). The complaint of the appellant (complainant) is barred by time and learned District Forum has rightly reached to the conclusion that the complaint is time barred. She further argued that at the time of incident, the deceased consumed liquor and due to influence of liquor, he fell down in the well, therefore, his death is not accidental in nature. The appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get sum assured under the insurance policy from the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. Shri O.P. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) has argued that the complaint of the appellant (complainant) is barred by time and learned District Forum, has rightly dismissed the complaint on that ground.
// 9 //
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties present at length and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
12. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. vs. Manish Abhay Bedmutha & Anr., IV (2013) CPJ 303 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission observed thus:
"21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given three citations of the National Commission :
In the case of Ashok Jain v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2012) CPJ 150 (NC), wherein this Commission has observed that "it is thus clear that in cancelling the insurance policy in question, the Insurance Company needed to write to "the insured" and not to "the insured person". Perusal of the certificate of insurance shows that the State Bank of India Officers Association, Chjandigarh Circle was recorded as the "insured", whereas Adesh Kumar Jain was recorded as "the insured person". In other words, for cancellation of the policy it was sufficient for the Insurance Company to send notice only to the "insured", viz., the State Bank of India Officers Association, Chandigarh Circle. It is not in dispute that this was done by the Insurance Company. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not valid and cannot be accepted."
In the case of Usha Sharma and Ors. V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors., I (2012) CPJ 488 (NC), this Commission has held that "a perusal of the above condition would show that the Insurance Company was within the right to cancel the policy in question at any time provided the written notice are sent to the policy-holders and the balance premium for the unexpired/uncovered policy period is returned to the insured. In the present case, as per condition No.5 of the insurance policy, the policy in question was cancelled by the Insurance Company and intimation was sent to the policy holder by registered letter. Cheque of Rs.601 towards balance premium was also returned to the insured. Public notice of cancellation was also given through newspapers and it was enough notice to the respondent regarding cancellation of the policy. Since, the policy was cancelled during the life time of the insured and due intimation was given to him along with cheque of balance premium, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainants. Even the Hon'ble // 10 // Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. v. Harcharan Chand Rai Chandan Lal, IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC) = V (2004) SLT 876 and National Insurance Company v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC) = IV (2007) SLT 102, has held that the policy is a contract between the parties and both the parties are bound by terms of contract". In the case of Nand Kumari and Ors. V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2012) CPJ 357 (NC), the National Commission has held that "it is not in dispute before us that the policy could be cancelled at any time by the insurer as averred by the respondent in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of its written version. The insured died on 22.7.2006. Policy had been cancelled by the respondent on 26.11.2000 and an intimation to the effect was sent to the insured by a registered letter addressed to him at the address given by him in the proposal form for obtaining the said policy. Intimation regarding cancellation was sent to the insured along with cheque of prorate premium drawn on Bank of India".
23. In view of the above, are of the view that the petition had cancelled the policy as per Clause No.5 of the terms and conditions of the policy which had been issued in favour of respondent No.2 even giving the reasons for cancellation of the policy. Respondent No.2 did not challenge the cancellation of the policy. Respondent No.2 also failed to the inform the individual beneficiaries including respondent No.1 of cancellation of the policy and failed to refund the prorate premium sent to them vide letter dated 6.9.2006. They thus denied the opportunity to the petitioner and her husband to avail of an alternate policy, if they so desired. Petitioner's husband Dr. Abhay Bansilal Bedmutha died on 14.10.2008. Hence, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that complaint /application of the complainant is admitted only against respondent No.2 who should pay the expenses of Rs.5,000 as also Rs.5.00 lakh with interest @ 9% per annum from the date 13.11.2006 till that period to getting the full amount. Similarly for the mental /psychological harassment the damages amount of Rs.10,000/- be given to the complainant within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this order."
13. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) did not send intimation to the life assured or appellant (complainant) regarding cancellation of the insurance policy, therefore, the contention of the // 11 // respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1) that the insurance policy has already been cancelled by it, is not acceptable.
14. So far as consumption of the alcohol by the deceased life assured at the time of incident, is concerned, in the instant case, the appellant (complainant) has filed document i.e. Dehati Merg Intimation (A-9), Inquest (A-10), Regular Merg Intimation, Application for Post Mortem examination and Post Mortem Report. In the Merg Intimation it is mentioned that on 06.10.2008 Ramkaran went to well for taking bath along with rope and bucket at about 4.30 P.M., his wife, appellant (complainant) heard sound from the well, then she went near well and saw that her husband fell down in the well and died, and dead body was taken out from the well. The same thing has been mentioned in the inquest also.
15. In the Post Mortem Report, it is not mentioned that the deceased life assured consumed alcohol. According to the post mortem report, the cause of death of the deceased is "Asphyxia due to drowning".
16. From bare perusal of the merg intimation and inquest, it appears that the badi of the appellant (complainant) is an open place and accessible for all the villagers. There is no evidence on record which shows that badi was surrounded with boundary wall or fencing. It appears that the badi of the appellant (complainant) is accessible for all // 12 // persons of the village and anybody can move there freely without prior permission of the appellant (complainant).
17. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) is unable to prove that deceased life assured had consumed liquor at the time of the incident and he committed suicide. On the contrary, from the evidence adduced by the appellant (complainant) , it is established that deceased Ramkaran fell down in the well, when he was pulling water. It appears that the death of the deceased life assured was accidental in nature.
18. Now we shall examine whether the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant), is barred by time ?
19. The appellant (complainant) herself pleaded that her husband Ramkaran died on 07.10.2008 and she submitted claim before the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) on 23.10.2013. The deceased Ramkaran died on 07.10.2008, therefore, case of action for insurance claim arisen when the death of the life assured occurred. The appellant (complainant) did not submit claim form before the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) within 12 months from the date of death of her husband.
20. In Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rapeti Aruna, 2015 (3) CLT 86, Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
// 13 // "6. In a recent authority titled as Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SLP No.9307 of 2013, decided on 8.3.2013, the Supreme Court has held :
` "We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the State Commission and the National Commission for holding that the complaint was barred by time are correct. It is not in dispute that the claim made by the petitioner was repudiated by the respondent vide communication dated 30.10.2002 and the complaint was filed on 25.5.2008 i.e. after three years and five months of repudiation of the claim. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the complaint was barred by time. This view finds support from the judgment of this Commission in HUDA vs. B.K. Sood (2006) 1 SCC 164, SBI vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) 2009 5 SCC 121, Kandimala Raghavaiah vs. National Insurance Company (2009) 7 SCC 768 and V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53."
21. In Kandimalla Raghavaiah And Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. & Anr., (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 768, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"17. Section 24-A of the Act bars any fora set up under the Act, from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The provision expressly casts a duty on the Commission, admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. Recently, in SBI v. B.S.Agriculture Industries (I) this Court, while dealing with the same provision, has held:
(SCC p. 125, paras 11-12) // 14 // "11. ...It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, 'shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24-A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder.
12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24-A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
18. The term "cause of action" is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. Generally, it is described as "bundle of facts", which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for.
Pithily stated, "cause of action" means the cause of action for which the suit is brought, "Cause of action" is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. (See Sidramappa v. Rajashetty.) In the context of limitation with reference to a fire insurance policy, undoubtedly, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out."
22. In H.P.State Forest Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, 2009 AIR SCW 865, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"5. It is clear from the record that the timber had been washed away sometime in September 1988 and after prolonged correspondence, the respondent ultimately vide its communication dated 13th October, 1988 repudiated the // 15 // appellant's claim. It is also clear from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent that the appellant had, vide its letter dated 7th November, 1987, asked for insurance cover for a period of 8 months and that the period of one year fixed in the insurance policy was evidently a typographical mistake which had, in any case, been rectified in the records of the company on 17th December, 1987, that is long before the flood. The claim of the appellant that the respondent - company had, even after the 13th October, 1988, impliedly admitted its liability under the policy also appears to be incorrect as the surveyors had been appointed on the persistent demand of the claimant / appellant and the premium taken thereafter was only to make good the deficiency in the premium that had been paid for the policy for the period of eight months. It is therefore, apparent that as on the date of the flood, there was no insurance policy in existence or any commitment on behalf of the respondent to make the payment under the policy. We therefore, endorse the argument raised by the respondent that even accepting the case of the appellant at its very best that the period of limitation would be 3 years under Section 44 of the Limitation Act, the complaint would, even then, be beyond time, having been filed in April 1994."
23. In Smita Madhav Patki Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors, I (2013) CPJ 331 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission observed thus:
"17. State Commission in its order has observed:
5. Cause of action for the insurance claim in question but arose on the death of late Madhav Patki and not on the date of repudiation of the insurance claim as alleged by the complainant. A useful reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd. and Others, 2009 CTJ 951 (SC) (CP). Insurance claim, thus, is preferred beyond the period of two years from the date of cause of action, supra and as such barred by limitation. There is no application for condonation of delay, admittedly, made.
6. Janata Personal Group Accident Policy is on record. Amongst other terms it also submitted as under:
"It is also hereby further expressly agreed and declared that if the Company shall disclaim liability to the insured for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not within 12 calendar months from the date of such ...have been made the subject of a suit in a Court of Law then the // 16 // claim shall for all purpose be deemed ... been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder."
7. As held by the Apex Court in the matter of Himachal Pradesh State Forest Co. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, (2009) 2 SCC 252, though above referred clause in view of Section 28 of the Contract Act will not be acted upon for the curtailment of the period of limitation still the later part of it which refers to extension of the right itself unless exercised within specified time can be enforced. Therefore, since the claim was not made within 12 calendar months from the date of happening, the claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and is not recoverable after the expiry of the said period.
8. For the above said reasons, we find that no fault can be found with the impugned order resulting into dismissal of consumer complaint. Holding accordingly, we pass the following order."
24. In the instant case, it appears that the death of the life assured Ramkaran took place on 07.10.2008 and the appellant (complainant) submitted her claim before the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) on 23.10.2013 i.e. after 12 months of the date of death of the life assured Ramkaran. The appellant (complainant) did not file any letters regarding the correspondence made by her with the respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1). Merely mentioning that she came to know regarding the insurance policy from other employees of the colliery on 18.10.2013, is not sufficient to hold that the appellant (complainant) for the first time came to know regarding the policy on 18.10.2013. It appears that the appellant (complainant) submitted her claim before the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) for the first time on 23.10.2013 i.e. after 12 months of // 17 // the date of the lie assured Ramkaran and the complaint has been filed on 27.11.2014, therefore, the complaint is barred by time.
25. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the impugned order dated 24.06.2015, passed by the District Forum, is reasonable, just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission.
26. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member
/12/2015 /12/2015