Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Tehra Khatoon Widow Of Late Abdul Karim ... on 14 June, 2022
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1
M.A. No. 109 of 2008
With
M.A. No. 208 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.109 of 2008
------
National Insurance Company Ltd., having its Divisional Office at B.P. Agarwalla Building, Dhansar, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, town & District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... .... ....Appellant Versus
1. Tehra Khatoon widow of late Abdul Karim Khan
2. Ahmad Raja Khan son of late Abdul Karim Khan
3. Jajrina Khatoon
4. Sahina Khatoon, both daughters of late Abdul Karim Khan
5. Arshad Khan son of late Abdul Karim Khan
6. Amjad Khan late of Abdul Karim Khan All resident of Qr. No.104, Bhaga No.5, P.O. Jealgora, P.S.-Jorapokhar, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
7. Deepak Kumar Poddar son of Shri S.M. Poddar, resident of Jora Fatak Road, Dhansar, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Respondents With M.A. No.208 of 2008
------
1. Tahra Khatoon widow of late Abdul Karim Khan
2. Minor Ahmad Raja Khan son of late Abdul Karim Khan
3. Minor NajrinaKhatoon @ JajrinaKhatoon
4. Minor Sahina Khatoon, daughters of late Abdul Karim Khan
5. Minor Arshad Khan son of late Abdul Karim Khan
6. Minor Amjad Khan late of Abdul Karim Khan Appellant no.2 to 6 being minors, represented through their natural guardian, mother Tahra Khatoon (Appellant No.1) Resident of Qr. No.104, Bhaga No.5, P.O. Jealgora, P.S.-Jorapokhar, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Appellant Versus M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office at B.P. Agarwalla Building, Dhansar, P.O. Dhansar, P.S.- Bankmore, District- Dhanbad (Insurer of Dumper No.BR-17G-0251) .... .... .... Respondents
------
For the Appellants : Mr. D.C. Ghose, Advocate
(In MA. No.109 of 2008)
: Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate
(In M.A. No.208 of 2008)
For the Respondents : Mr. D.C. Ghose, Advocate
(In M.A. No.208 of 2008)
: Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate
(In M.A. No.109 of 2008)
For the Appellants : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate
2
M.A. No. 109 of 2008
With
M.A. No. 208 of 2008
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. Since both these appeals have been preferred by the parties to the claim petition against the common judgment and award dated 15.12.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No.42 of 2004, whereby and where under, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,86,110/- as compensation and after deducting Rs.50,000/- already paid as compensation to the claimants under Section 140 of M.V. Act directed the defendant no.2- M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay Rs.3,36,110/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award that is on 15.12.2007.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased Abdul Karim Khan while coming with a motorcycle, the offending dumper which was coming from the other side dashed the motorcycle and there was a head on collusion with the dumper and the motorcycle as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and died during the course of treatment of such injuries in the said motor vehicle accident. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 35 years and he was an employee of BCCL. The salary slip from 21.12.2003 to 20.01.2004 which was marked Ext.1 shows the income of Rs.9,365.31/- which includes leave salary and Sunday salary but his salary slip in the month of December, 2003 shows the gross salary of the deceased to be Rs.7,943.20/- and the learned Tribunal after rounding off the income assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,945/- per month. The Tribunal applied the 3 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 multiplier 12 and paid Rs.9,500/- under conventional head and deducted 1/3rd of the income towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased left behind six dependents who are the claimants of the claim petition.
4. Mr. D.C. Ghose, learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No.109 of 2008 submits that since the driver of the offending dumper of which the appellant was the insurer was holding a fake driving license hence, the insurer should be absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount and the learned Tribunal ought to have given insurance company the right to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. It is next submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the Ext. D which is the certificate of D.T.O., Gumla and Ext. G which is the certificate of D.T.O., Dhanbad wherefrom it is apparent that the driving license of the driver Shri Ajay Kumar Saw was not being issued by the respective D.T.O. office. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be modified to the aforesaid extent.
5. Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No.208 of 2008 and learned counsel for the respondent in M.A. No.109 of 2008 on the other hand defended the portion of the impugned judgment and award by which the insurance company was saddled with the liability to pay the compensation amount. Relying upon the judgment of this Bench in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Faziran Bibi & Ors. in M.A. No.240 of 2010, paragraph no.16, 17, 18 and 21 of which reads as under :-
"16. Mr. Laik, further draws attention of the Court to a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manorama Devi and Others reported in 2009 ACJ 401 wherein one of the Hon'ble Judges of 4 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 the Division Bench in the case of TripurariMandal (supra) was also part of the Bench, and submitted that in the case of Manorama Devi, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, when the question arose for consideration was, whether in absence of any evidence to the effect that the owner knowing fully well that driver was not having a valid driving licence or the driver holding a defective license, the insurance company can be exonerated from its liability, and where in that case the Tribunal although took notice of the fact the owner failed to prove the driving licence , it held that no evidence was led by the insurance company that the owner of the vehicle had knowledge about the fact that driver had defective driving licence, and further held that in such circumstances the insurance company cannot disown its liability, relying upon the judgment of Swarna Sing (supra) held as under in paragraph 8:-
"8. In the light of the aforesaid ratio decided by the Supreme Court we are of the view that in absence of any evidence to the effect that the insured was in know of the fact that the driver had no valid driving licence and even then handed over the vehicle for being driven, the finding of the tribunal needs no interference by this court.
17. Mr. Laik further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. 9 M.A. 240 of 2010 Tulna Devi & Others reported in 2009 ACJ 581 wherein Supreme Court held as under in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6:-
"............................ 4. The insurance company had entered appearance before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and filed its written statement. In the written statement, the defence taken by the respondent insurance company to the claim petition is as under-
" That the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license and the liability, if any, is therefore of the owner of the vehicle or its driver. The replying respondent, however, reserves its right to ascertain the factual position in case the particulars about the driving license are supplied by the correspondent to prove its defence."
No amendment was made in the written statement at a later stage nor did the insurance company lead any evidence except that the Licensing Authority was called to prove the driving license of the driver at the relevant time. As a matter of fact, it has been proved that the driver was not holding a licence to drive the passenger vehicle at the time of the accident. The insurance company had not led any evidence to prove that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver and the cause of the accident was disqualification of the driver to drive a passenger vehicle as he was holding a different type of driving licence whereas he was driving a different category vehicle.
5. In our view, the case is fully covered by a decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this court reported in 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein this court in para 102 (iii) at page 33 has held as under:
"(iii) the breach of policy conditions, e.g. disqualification of driver of invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the 5 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
6. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the owner had not taken any care before the vehicle was given to the driver to drive it and that he was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver, the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation qua the owner of the vehicle cannot be doubted." (Emphasis supplied)
18. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that assuming for the sake of argument that the driving M.A. 240 of 2010 licence of the driver of the trekker was fake still there being no pleading or evidence put forth by the insurer appellant- insurance company who was accorded permission under Section 170 (b) M.V. Act to contest the proceeding by availing the defence of the owner of the offending vehicle, to the effect that the insured owner of the offending vehicle was guilty for negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of policy, regarding the use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver or by a driver who was not disqualified to drive the vehicle at the relevant time, learned tribunal has rightly held that the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount by way of indemnifying the owner of the trekker concerned, which was involved in the accident.
21. Having hard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the records, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the ratio of the case of Swarna Singh (supra), in order to absolve itself from the liability of the insurance policies that besides the evidence to establish that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake, it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to further plead and prove that the insured owner of the offending vehicle was having knowledge of the fact that the driver did not have valid driving licence and even after knowing that the insured owner of the offending vehicle handed over the vehicle for being driven and in the absence of such evidence, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant so far as first ground is concerned. Hence the insurance company is liable to pay the entire amount of the award."
6. It is next submitted by Mr. Laik that in order to absolve itself from the liability of the insurance policy besides the evidence to establish that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake, it was incumbent upon the insurance company to further plead and prove that the insured owner of the offending vehicle was having knowledge of 6 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 the fact that the driver did not have valid driving licence and even after knowing that the insured owner of the offending vehicle handed over the vehicle for being driven and in the absence of such pleading or evidence by the appellant-insurance company in M.A. No.109 of 2008 before the learned Tribunal, the insurance company cannot be given the waiver of liability to pay the insurance amount.
7. Mr. Laik in so far as M.A. No.208 of 2008 is concerned, submits that since it is a case of head on collusion between the bigger vehicle like dumper and smaller vehicle like motorcycle, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability of the dumper and the motorcycle in the ratio of 75% and 25% in other words the insurer of the offending dumper would have been saddled with the liability to pay 75% of the compensation amount and the liability of 25% of the compensation amount should have been imposed upon the motorcycle but the learned Tribunal erred in apportioning of the liability in the ratio of 50-50 and in support of his contention, Mr. Laik relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Interlink Coal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sudha Devi & Ors. reported in (2010) 2 JLJR 115 (HC) : 2010 SCC OnLine Jhar 158, paragraph no.5 of which reads as under :-
"Hence, after hearing the counsel for the parties, we hold that the liability in between the truck and the Santro car should have been apportioned in the ratio of 75% and 25%. The truck being a heavier vehicle is to be saddled with the liability to the extent of 75% and the Santro car being the lighter vehicle is to be saddled with the liability of 25%."
In this respect, Mr. Laik also relied upon the judgment of division Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Kalim Khan & Ors. Vs. M/s. Jain Trading Corporation & Ors. reported in 2008 (4) JLJR 26 paragraph nos.7 & 8 of which reads as under: -
"7. The next question that falls for consideration is as to 7 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 whether the Tribunal was justified in apportioning the amount in equal shares. It appears that the Tribunal has pointed out that the offending vehicle was a heavy tanker and by reason of the aforesaid accident, most of the occupants of the car died either at the spot or at the hospital. It is, therefore, clear that the tanker was at such a high speed that it could not mitigate the accident and damages resulting into death of the occupants of the car at the spot. Besides the above, in case of head on collision between the two vehicles, one heavy tanker and another being light car, the apportionment should not have been 50%-50%. In any case, we are of the view that, the liability upon the tanker should be at least 75% and 25% on the car.
8. Having regard to the nature of the accident and the death of the occupants of the car, the owner and insurer of the tanker must be saddled with 75% liability. In this way, if 75% out of Rs.11,22,000/- is taken, the liability comes to Rs.8,42,000/- upon the owner and insurer of the tanker. The rest amount should be paid by the owner of the car."
8. It is further submitted by Mr. Laik that considering the age of the deceased as 35 years, the learned Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier 16 instead of multiplier 12, in view of judgment of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in, (2017) 16 SCC 680, paragraph no.59 of which reads as under :-
"59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:
59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
59.2. As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. 59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 8 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. 59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment. 59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
It is submitted by Mr. Laik that the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years hence the learned tribunal erred by not adding of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. It is also submitted by Mr. Laik that the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,360.31/- on the basis of the salary slip for the period 21.12.2003 to 21.01.2004 which was marked Ext.1. It is further submitted by Mr. Laik that keeping in view the deceased was having six dependents all of whom are claimants before the Tribunal, in view of principle of law settled by Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (supra), paragraph no.30 of which reads as under :-
"30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards 9 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one- third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six."
1/4th of the income of the deceased ought to have been deducted towards his personal expenses instead of 1/3rd which has erroneously been done by the learned Tribunal. It is then submitted by Mr. Laik that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded interest of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition instead from the date of the award as the claimants were no way responsible for the delay in disposal of the claim petition in any manner. It is lastly submitted by Mr. Laik that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others (supra) a total sum of Rs.70,000/- ought to have been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the conventional head instead of meager amount of Rs.9,500/-. Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Laik that the impugned judgment and award by modified by enhancing the compensation.
10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, the following points for determination cropped up in this appeal for consideration:
(i) Whether the Insurance Company would be given the right to recover the compensation amount paid by it from the owner of the vehicle?
(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded needs to be enhanced?
11. Now coming to the first point of determination, it is a settled principle of law that when the insurance policy is valid but for some reason or the other, the insurance company is held not liable to pay the 10 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 compensation amount in those cases, in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of cases that the insurance company be directed to pay the compensation and later on to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle without any separate proceeding by way of execution of the award passed but the condition precedent for passing such an order is that the insurance company in the fact of that cases ought not have been held liable to pay the compensation for any valid reason.
12. Now coming to the facts of the case as has been held by this court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Faziran Bibi & Ors. (supra), relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 and also the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tulna Devi & Ors. (Supra), wherein it has been held is under " In order to absolve itself from the liability to pay the compensation amount if undisputedly, the insurance policy is a valid one, it is incumbent upon the Insurance Company to further plead and prove that the insured owner of the offending vehicle was having knowledge of the fact that the driver did not have valid driving licence and even after knowing that the insured owner of the offending vehicle handed over the vehicle for being driven and in the absence of such evidence."
So in order to absolve itself from the liability of paying the compensation amount the Insurance Company, besides proving that the driving license of the driver of the dumper was a fake one ought to have pleaded and proved that the insured owner of the offending vehicle was having knowledge of the fact that the driver did not have valid driving license and even after knowing that the insured owner of the offending vehicle handed over the vehicle being driven but the perusal of the record reveals that an employee of the insurance company being the D.W.1 11 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 himself proved the driving license of the driver which has been marked Ext.A which shows that the driving license of the driver was valid up to 01.09.2005. True it is that the insurance company also produced some verification reports of the office of D.T.O., Gumla and D.T.O., Dhanbad but the same as per the appreciation of evidence made by the Tribunal were not sufficient to establish that the driving license of the driver of the offending dumper was a fake one. Be that as it may, even assuming for the sake of argument that the driving license of the driver of the dumper was a fake one still as there is absolutely no pleading nor any proof in the record made by the insurance company to the effect that the owner of the offending dumper was having knowledge of the fact that the driver did not have valid driving licence and even after knowing that the insured owner of the offending vehicle handed over the vehicle for being driven, this Court is not inclined to absolve the insurance company for the liability to pay the compensation amount and in the absence of that, certainly, the insurance company cannot be given the right to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. The first point of determination is answered accordingly.
13. So far as the second point of determination is concerned, regarding the quantum of compensation is concerned, in the facts of the case, as there was a head on collision between the motorcycle and a dumper, in view of the settled principle of law in the case of M/s. Interlink Coal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sudha Devi & Ors. (supra) and Md. Kalim Khan & Ors. Vs. M/s. Jain Trading Corporation & Ors. (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the dumper must have been saddled with 75% of the liability of the compensation amount. In view of the settled principle of law in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others 12 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (supra), in paragraph no.41 since the age of the deceased is 36 years the multiplier 16 ought to have been applied by the Tribunal and also in view of the paragraph 30 of the judgment of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another (supra), as the deceased was having six family members as dependents 1/4th of his income ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd as erroneously made by the learned Tribunal and in view of the principle of law settled in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others (supra), a total sum of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional head ought to have been awarded. This Court is of the considered view that the claimants are entitled to total sum of Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head. Now coming to the date from which the interest is to be paid, after carefully going through the record, I do not find any material in the record to suggest that the claimants were in any manner responsible for the delay in disposal of the claim application. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the claimants are entitled to interest from the date of filing of the claim petition but perusal of the record reveals that it is not clear as to when claim petition was filed; this being an old record but it was certainly filed in the year 2004 hence, this Court is of the considered view that the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the claim amount from 01.01.2005.
14. Now coming to the income assessed by the learned Tribunal, perusal of the record reveals that Ext. 1 was not a regular pay slip and that was a pay slip which was not from the first date of month to the end of the month rather it was a pay slip in connection with leave salary and Sunday salary whereas Ext. G was the regular pay slip of salary of the 13 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 month of December 2003 that is from the period of 1.12.2003 to 31.12. 2003 hence, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal was right in considering the income of the deceased of Rs.7,945/- on the basis of the pay slip of the month of December, 2003 but in view of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others (supra),, the learned Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the income towards future prospects thus, the monthly income of the deceased including the 50% future prospects, comes out to Rs.11,917.50/- per month and deducting the 1/4th of the amount of income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the net amount is Rs.8,938/- per month which comes to Rs.1,07,256/- per year. Now applying the multiplier 16, the amount come to Rs.17,16,096/- and after deducting 25% of the amount towards the contributory negligence factor, the amount comes to Rs.12,87,072/-. By adding Rs.70,000/- towards conventional head, the total amount comes to Rs.13,57,072/-.
15. In view of the discussions made above, the National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay Rs.13,57,072/- along with simple interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from 01.01.2005 to the date of actual payment less the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid as interim compensation under Section 140 of M.V. Act and less the further amount, if any, already paid within three months from the date of this Judgment.
16. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent.
17. Registry is directed to remit the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- if any, deposited by the insurance company in this court in connection with these appeals to the concerned Motor Vehicle Claim 14 M.A. No. 109 of 2008 With M.A. No. 208 of 2008 Tribunal by appropriate mode.
18. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.
19. In the result, M.A. No.208 of 2008 is disposed of with the aforesaid modification and in view of the finding on the first point of determination, M.A. No.109 of 2008 is dismissed on contest but under circumstances without any costs.
20. Parties to bear their own costs.
21. In view of the disposal of these appeals, interlocutory applications if any stands disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th June, 2022 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-