State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Haresh Dhirajlal Badiyani vs National Ins. Co. Ltd on 22 October, 2021
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 22 10 2021
Date of filling 14 08 2014
Duration 08 02 07
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Court-2
COMPLAINT CASE NO. 223 of 2014
Haresh Dhirajlal Badiyani
Jamnagar Earth Avenue, Flat no.301,
Patel Colony, Sheri No. 8,
Jamnagar ...Complainant
Vs.
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office,
Near Town Hall,
Hasmukhbhai Chambers,
Ellis bridge, Ahmedabad.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Notice to be served to Branch Manager)
2nd Floor, Shakti Shoping Centre,
Near Bus stand,
Branch Office,Kalol,
Gandhinagar-382721 ...Opponents
Appearance: Ld. Advocate Mr. P.K. Parmar
For the Complainant
Ld. Advocate Ms. Nayanaben Shah
For the Opponents
Coram : Shri M.J.Mehta Judicial Member
Order by Shri M.J.Mehta, Judicial Member
1. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint u/s. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 due to B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 1 of 19 deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of opponents.
2. The complainant has purchased a truck on 09.05.2013 truck Tata LPT-3118 it was registered in GJ-10-TT-9401 and it was insured with the respondent company vide policy No. 302200/31/13/6300000818(I.D.V) Insured Declare View Rs. 23,00,000/- for the period of 15.05.2013 to 14.05.2014 the vehicle in question was using for transportation business for the maintenance of family members.
Further it is case of the complainant that policy was issued for the said vehicle and for that policy complainant was paying premium of Rs. 37,900/- and for that receipt and policy document was issued from the insurance company without any kind of clause, sub- clause or terms and condition of the policy. According to the complainant case at night on 07.08.2013 driver has parked the truck in question at the Sikka office in front of the office of Babulal Bhimji and he also locked the vehicle carefully and kept keys with himself, and next morning truck was missing, andthan complainant lodged the FIR at Meghpur police station FIR No. 40/2013 under section 379 of IPC the FIR and panchnama was produced with the complaint. As per the requirement of the procedure the claim form, R.C.Book, Driving License, Permit Fitness,FIR, Police Panchnama,File investigation report as well the report of National Crime Bureau was submitted to the insurance company, on 24.10.2013 complainant was intimated by the opponent about the repudiation of the claim in question.
B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 2 of 19Further it is the case of the complainant that repudiation of the claim of the complainant by opponent company is not legal and valid because the reason given for repudiation of the claim by insurance company is that the key of the truck was kept in the cabin of the truck and due to this reason they repudiated the claim, that's why the decision to repudiate the claim is not legal and valid , so that it can be considered as the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opponent insurance company.
Moreover it is also submitted that key of the vehicle kept in the cabin this statement is wrongfully obtained by police from the driver.
In addition to that the complaint is filed within jurisdiction and within time limit as per the section 24 Aof the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
As the policy of the Truck was of Rs. 23,00,000/- Complainant has prayed for Rs. 23,00,000/- along with the 18% interest from the date of filing the complaint., Rs. 30,000/- for Mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- for the cost of complaint.
3. Notice was duly served upon to opponent side and opponent side appeared and filed their reply before the Forum.
4. Ld. Advocate Nayanaben Shah appeared on behalf of the opponent insurance company and Written Submission are filed for the complaint at Exh. 9 opponent insurance company has submitted that the complaint is not true and it should not be acceptable, complainant has committed breach of insurance policy and vehicle was used for transportation that's why the complaint is not B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 3 of 19 maintainable further it is submitted that intimation of the theft was given on 22.08.2013 to the insurance company there after the surveyor was appointed to assessed the loss suffered by the complainant and investigator appointed to investigate the factual aspect.
5. Immediately truck owner was contacted but he was not available investigator has visited on 20.09.2013 at the office of insured. According to investigation report complainant has made statement that he is engaged in transportation business and he has 11 trucks and he do the business in nearby area. He purchased one TATA LPT 3118 TC/52 BS III HGV in May,2013 with HPA interest of TATA motor finance Ltd.,Jamnagar. Bearing registration No. GJ10-TT-9401 was parked at 22 hours on 06.08.2013 in front of his office near Shreeji Complex, Sikka Patiya, Dist Jamnagar by his driver Hemantgiri Goswami. Thereafter, driver went to his residence. On 07.08.2013 he noticed that vehicle was not available at the parking place. Search was made for vehicle in nearby area but the vehicle could not trace out. FIR was lodged vide FIR No.40/2013 under section 379 of the IPC on 07.08.2013, claim form was submitted to the insurance company on 10.08.2013. according to the police case the driver kept the keys into vehicle and went to his residence. Investigator has also collected the certificate copy of the FIR from the police station. Investigator has cross checked their records and found the same as per the documents submitted by the claimant observation conclusion of the investigator are as under:
6. As per the records of observation and conclusions on verifications, of all records/documents and discussion B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 4 of 19 with the insured, police and other related persons it is of the opinion that it's genuine case of theft of vehicle bearing Registration Number GJ-10-TT-9401 form the parking place near Shreeji complex, Sikka Patiya, District Jamnagar during 22.00 hours of 06.08.2013 to 15.00 hours of 07.08.2013. the vehicle was parked without being locked. The driver Mr. Hemantgiri Goswami went to his residence keeping the vehicle keys into the vehicle itself as per police interrogations.
7. Thereby the insurance company has repudiated the claim on relying on claim paper, contents of FIR, Panchnama, Statements of the driver and report of the investigator, so that there is no any kind of deficiency in service and no unfair trade practices adopted by the insurance company present complaint is not maintainable as per the submission of the opponent insurance company.
8. Further it is contended that the incident of theft taken place on 07.08.2013 but the intimation received by the insurance company on 22.08.2013 after long period of 15 days approximately.
9. Moreover, it is submitted that driver has admitted that the truck was parked and key was kept in cabin as per the statement made before the police and that's why repudiation is correct and according to law because it is breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy in question therefore complainant is not entitled to have any claim form the insurance company.
10. Complainant side has produced the list of document on page no.9 and 10 which are as under 1. The insurance policy 2. R.C.book 3. Goods Carriage Permit 4. Fitness B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 5 of 19 Certificate 5. Theft claim intimation format 6.Theft claim intimation 7. Claim form 8. Cargo Motors Delivery slip 9.
Retail invoice 10. FIR, Panchnama 11.Final report of CRPC-173 13.Letter of National Crime bureau
14.Repudiation letter dated 24.10.2013 from insurance company 15. Legal notice to the opponent dated 26.03.2014 16.Typed copy of Police panchnama and FIR,17. Copy of truck driver affidavit. 18. Through RTI ,copy of policy conditions which covers the risk of theft, burglary, and housebreaking is covered.
11. On the other hand opponent side has produced the documentary evidence, 1. A copy of intimation letter dated 22.08.2013 2. A copy of investigation report dated 16.10.2013 and 3. A copy of repudiation letter on 24.10.2013.etc.4. A copy of Legal notice on 26.03.2014.
12. Heard both the sides Ld. Advocates here in the complaint Ld. Advocate Nayanaben Shah has submitted before me that the complainant was having insurance policy and it was effective when the incident taken place and thereby claim was filed before the insurance company and they repudiated the claim on the ground that the vide page no.33 on the basis of investigation report it has been observed that driver went to his resident after parking the vehicle without locked the vehicle keeping the vehicle keys into the vehicle it is as per the police interrogation hence it seems that it is clear case of careless and negligence on the part of the driver as vehicle was left unattended with keys into the vehicle therefore the claim is not liable to pay and claim stands repudiated.
B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 6 of 1913. Now Ld. Advocate Mr. Parmar on behalf of the complainant has submitted before me that police have wrongly obtain a statement from the driver that truck was unattended and the key was in the cabin of the truck as the driver Hemantgiri Goswami has disclosed the fact that the key was not kept in the parked truck. According to the affidavit of driver wherein they take the wrongful statement is on page no. 41.and he further added that the truck was properly locked and due care was taken by the driver and the questioned keys was already handed over to the complainant i.e. truck owner.
14. Ld.Advocate Mr. Parmar for the complainant side has submitted before me that the truck was not unattended proper care was taken and driver has locked the truck properly and it was parked near the office which was a safe place so it cannot be treated as negligence on the part of the driver and he has further submitted that they are ready to produce the original key at the time of filing the complaint, thereby question regarding the objection raised by the insurance company that truck was unattended and truck's keys was kept in cabin, the police statement cannot apply as the conclusive proof, unless and until competent court dealt with the issue and come to a conclusion that the key was kept in the cabin and further the question of Investigator report in that relying upon the document which is contrary and thereby as per the legal provision with investigation report there is no any affidavit has been produced along with it so it is not helpful to the opponent side.
15. Further Ld. Advocate Mr. Parmar for the complainant side has submitted before me that the questioned policy B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 7 of 19 was effective on the day of the incident taken place , truck was properly cared as the truck driver at night take out the key after locking the ignition and both the door of the truck was as well locked properly andthan the truck was kept at the office, the complainant himself went to lodge the police complaint but as per their advice the search for vehicle was carried out and it was not found anywhere so ultimately official complaint intimated to the insurance company and insurance company repudiated the claim on 24.10.2013 thereby according to the complainant case no any breach of terms and condition of policy is there, decision by the opponent insurance company to repudiate the claim is not legal and valid as it should be considered that ex- party decision has taken without opportunity being given to explain, I am of the opinion that genuine event of theft is happen it is established as the vehicle in question is not traced out and it is undetected.
16. Moreover Ld. Advocate Mr. Parmar has submitted that in the claim intimation are duly given as well the claim report, there is no where established that key was kept in the cabin of the truck, further it is not trace out from the summery Meghpur police 12/2013 it was sent to the court for approval of summary proceeding, and in that summery not disclosed that key of the truck was kept in the cabin and that's why without any substantial evidence only relying upon the bare words of the investigator is not acceptable as a concrete proof for repudiation of the claim in question.
17. Complainant has given legal notice on 26.03.2014 and insurance company has not answer the legal notice at page no. 34 and 35. moreover it is also argued before me B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 8 of 19 that policy condition are not given to the complainant and thereby RTI was preferred and asked for terms and condition which is produced at page no. 42 wherein only the proper care is required to be taken by the insured and it was just because to prevent the damages by taking the care of the vehicle but when the vehicle is theft and vehicle in question was parked at the proper place ignition key was locked two other doors was looked by driver so the proper care was taken by the driver of the complainant and thereby there is no breach of term and condition No. 5 as alleged by the opponent.
18. Further Ld Advocate Mr. Parmar for the complainant side has submitted before me that the investigator report have no value and that' s why he rely upon the decision of Supreme Court GLR- 1-2010 (12) SC Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Others, wherein it is decided that in the Criminal Procedure Code does not recognize is private investigation report is not binding courts and thereby insurance company is not liable to repudiate the claim only relying upon the submission of investigator here in the case.
19. Ld. Advocate Mr Parmar for the complainant side has submitted that FIR was lodged on the 07.08.2013 police has informed to found out the vehicle nearby places and after that no where it is trace out the vehicle and ultimately the complaint was filed before the police station insurance company was intimated about the events, insurance agent was also intimated orally.
20. Further Ld.Advocate Mr. Parmar for the complainant has submitted before me that there is IRDA Circular B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 9 of 19 dated 20.09.2011 where in it is provides that the theft is not wrong and purely on the technical grounds there is delay in intimation, claim may not be repudiated by the insurance company and that's why in this case of claim is true and claim cannot be rejected by the insurance company.
21. Further Ld. Advocate Mr. Parmar has submitted before me that citations Cited judgement Listfor General Policy Condition breach SC(theft of vehicle) 1) AIR 2008 SC(Supp) 1166 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khanderwal 2) ACJ-2010-0-1250 (SC) Amlendu Sahu Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. judgement for General Policy condition breach of NC 3)CPJ-2011-2-132 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Truck Way Securities and Finance Pvt. Ltd.4) IV (2013) CPJ-218 (NC) Sukhwindar Sing (Petitioner)Vs Chola Mangalam-Ms General Insurance Compnay Ltd. & Ors. Judgement for late intimation by National Commission 5) I (2021) CPJ 429 (NC) United India Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs Sushilkumar Godara6)II (2020) CPJ 170 (NC) Anandbhai Chaudhari Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Judgement for late intimation by Gujarat State Commission 7) I (2021)CPJ 192 (Guj) Bandhulbhai Jaljibhai Solanki Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 8)For Late Intimation IRDA Cirular NO. IRDA/MISC/CIR/216/9/2011 dt.20.09.2011, judgement for Private investigation agency report cannot be considered as per the Supreme Court 9) GLR-1-2010 (12) SC Babubhai Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.Judgement for late FIR by State of Gujarat and Supreme Court. 10)Appeal No. 831/2011(Gujarat State Commission) in National Insurance Co. Vs. Mayurbhai V.Patel11) 2017 AIAR(Civil) 1046- Supreme B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 10 of 19 Court of India Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
22. Ld. Advocte Mr. Parmar in cited judgement AIR 2008 SC(Supp) 1166 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khanderwal wherein it is observed that the case of the theft of the vehicle breach of the condition and rejected the claim State commission allowed only 75% claim of the respondent on non-standard basis held in the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane and insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when insurer has obtain comprehensive policy for the loss of the cause to the insurer .in case of theft of the vehicle, nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into and the thereby insurance company cannot repudiate the claim on that basis, thereby he submitted that the here in the case as per the supreme court observation theft of the vehicle is established on record and hence the claim must have to be awarded to the complainant.
23. Further Ld. Advocate rely upon the decision ofACJ-2010- 0-1250 (SC) Amlendu Sahu Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.wherein the Hon'ble SC has referred the judgement of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khanderwal where in a terms and condition of the policy was breached and vehicle was used for the hiring in the course of that the claim was repudiated and thereby full- fledged claim have not tobe repudiated as the observation non-standard basis 75% claim is to be allowed.
B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 11 of 1924. In CPJ-2011-2-132 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Truck Way Securities and Finance Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is held that general policy condition breach National Consumer Commission has observed and viewed that nonstandard claim is to be awarded.
25. IV (2013) CPJ-218 (NC) Sukhwindar Sing Vs Chola Mangalam- Ms General Insurance Compnay Ltd. & Ors.theft of vehicle Driver Forgot to remove the keys form the ignition switch violation of condition of policy alleged repudiated the claim thereby District Forum has allowed the claim of complainant and State commission allowed the appeal hence revision Leaving of key in ignition of car on all occasions cannot be termed as so serious breach.
26. Further Ld. Advocate Mr. Parmar has submitted before me that in the case of late intimation breach of condition I (2021) CPJ 429 (NC) United India Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs Sushilkumar Godara theft of the vehicle ,delay in intimation so that repudiated the claim, that is considered as deficiency in service District forum has dismissed the complaint state commission allowed the appeal, the person who lost his vehicle may not straightway go to insurance company to claim compensation at first , he will make the efforts to trace the vehicle owner has to intimate insurer immediately after theft of the vehicle, however this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances , condition regarding the delay shall not be shelter to repudiate insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine insurance company is held liable to pay compensation.
B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 12 of 1927. II (2020) CPJ 170 (NC) Anandbhai Chaudhari Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.wherein it is held that Circular issued by IRDA has instructed all insurer companies to consider genuine claim filed even with delay two important conditions of policy have been violated 50% of claim allowed. As we already considered the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khanderwal that leaving the key at the ignition is all condition cannot be seen as a so serious breach of condition so it is entitled for seeking claim under insurance policy and thereby repudiation of the claim should not be justified.
28. Ld.Advocate Mr. Parmar has relied uponthe judgment GLR-1-2010 (12) SC Babubhai Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.judgement wherein Criminal Procedure Code does not recognize private investigating agency, through there is no bar for any person to hire a private agency and get the matter investigated.
29. Further Ld.Advocate Mr. Parmar has relied upon the judgment Appeal No. 831/2011 of Guajrat State Commission National Insurance Co. Vs. Mayurbhai V.Patel where in they have referred the judgement of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khanderwal as well the IRDA circular and partly allowed the appeal
30. On the other hand Ld.Advocate for the insurance company Nayanaben Shah has submitted before me that on the hearing present complaint complainant side assured that the key of the vehicle was in their possession and it will be produce before the commission and that's why complaint was admitted but till today the B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 13 of 19 key was not produced before the commission and that's why complainant story should be presume regarding the incident of the theft of the vehicle and it is concocted built up story and complaint is not genuine one.
31. As per the FIR and the investigation report the complaint is lodged under section 379 of IPC on 07.08.2013 said truck was park near office of Babulal Bhimji from that incident took place as it was unattended vehicle and it is breach of terms and condition that's why the repudiation of the claim is just and proper there was 15days delay on intimation to the insurance company that's why the immediately the steps was not taken by the complainant so the claim is not required to be awarded.
32. In this case the vehicle was parked without being locked by the driver the vehicle keys left in the vehicle it is as per the police investigation but this fact is not in a summery , affidavit filed by the driver of the vehicle is to be looked into and police has taken this statement under pressure from the driver that key was in the cabin of the truck so I am of the opinion that this is a poor evidence produced by the insurance company and there was no any strict proof and opportunity was not given being heard about the this issue prior to the repudiation of the claim.
33. Thereby Ld. Advocate Nayanaben shah For the opponent submitted that citation relied by the complainant side are not identical issue so that is not applicable to the present matter particularly Amlendu Sahu Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.in the above cited repudiation of the claim was as violation of condition of the policy as to B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 14 of 19 nature use of vehicle so the case of the complaint is different footing having no any relevancy in the facts of the present case so it is not applicable to instant matter.
34. Further Ld. Advocate for the Opponent Nayanaben shah has submitted that Sukhwindar Sing Vs Chola Mangalam- Ms General Insurance Compnay Ltd. & Ors in that case car was stolen, when driver parked the vehicle at road side and went to ease for himself, forgetting to remove the keys form the ignition, while in the instant matter driver went to his residence, keeping the vehicle keys in the cabin of the vehicle itself which tantamount to clear case of carelessness and gross negligence on the part of the insured's driver as vehicle was left unattended with key left out in the vehicle, which is a breach of key left out in the vehicle, which is a breach of condition no.5 of the motor policy. so said citation is not applicable to instant matter. I would like to observe that the driver has properly locked the vehicle and key are already with the driver is under taken by the complainant to produce before the commission and that's why the case is somehow is matched with the decision of above case that Driver has not kept the key at the ignition because it is kept with him that's why I am of the opinion that there is no breach of terms and condition.
35. Ld Advocate Nayana Shah has submitted in the referred judgement by the complainant that I2021 CPJ 429 United India Insurance Co. V/s Sushil Kumar as per the contents 14 of the vehicle was locked and parked outside the guest house and went to sleep. While in the instant matter vehicle was unlocked and all original papers B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 15 of 19 related to vehicle was lying in the truck at the time of theft of vehicle, so not applicable to instant matter. As we have seen earlier that this is relatable as the key of the vehicle was with the driver and he carefully locked the vehicle
36. Further Ld.Advocate Nayanaben Shah in the Judgement I 2021 CPJ192 Guj Bundubhai N.Solanki Vs Reliance General Insurance company where in claim was repudiated for late intimation was given after 15 days which is a huge delay vehicle can be dismantled and sold or it can be taken out of territorial boundary of country, which would make the recovery of the vehicle impossible. According to record of the complainant driver has directly to the Sabarmati police station lodged the complaint and than after the search they lodged the complaint duly the intimation was given to the insurance company so there is a false complaint possibility cannot be looked into as the conclusive by the insurance company to repudiate the claim of the complainant.
37. And in the case of II 2011 CPJ 132 NC National Insurance V / s Trackway Securities In the said judgment claim was repudiated because vehicle was being used for commercial purpose by the complainant. while in the instance claim repudiated because vehicle at the material time of theft was unlocked and unattended .so said citation relied by complainant is not applicable to instant matter
38. National Insurance co V / s Nitin Khandelwala IV 2008 CPJ 1 SC In the said citation vehicle was being plied in violation of the condition of policy regarding nature of use of the vehicle . While in the instant claim is B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 16 of 19 repudiated because vehicle was unlocked at material time of accident. So said citation is not applicable.
39. Ld Advocate judgement II 2016 CPJ 385 NC Shmasur Alam Vs. RelianceGeneral Industries & II 2017CPJ 83 NC Universal sompo Genearal Ins. Vs. Rooplal Dangi the theft of the vehicle due to negligence of the driver the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for repudiation of the claim is valid.
40. Further it was delay intimation to the insurance company and thereby it should not be treated deficiency in service repudiation was justified but as we have discussed both this which supported initially to the claim repudiation as we have earlier discussed in General Policy Condition Breach in the National Commission has also dealt with and Hon'ble Supreme Court has also decide in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khanderwal wherein breach policy condition is not so serious sand looking and considering the surrounding circumstances the claim is adjudicated by the insurance company here according to factual aspect.
41. Insurance company has relied upon only investigator report but the investigation report is not support by concrete proof as the truck was kept unattended and key was kept in the cabin and accordance to that Ld. Advocate for the complainant Mr. Parmar has already assured to the commission key of the vehicle was in the possession of the owner further vehicle unattended or key kept open in the cabin is not tenable as alleged by B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 17 of 19 the insurance company for the cause of repudiation of the claim.
42. Thereby I am of the opinion that breach of terms and condition as we have gone through the judgement cited by the Ld. advocate for the complainant Mr. Parmar is impressed that the proper care was taken by the complainant driver moreover key was left in the cabin has no any strict proof by the insurance company ,investigation report is not supported by any affidavit thereby reputation of the claim is not fully acceptable and at list insurance company has to come to conclusion that claim should be allowed on non-standard basis even there is slightest deficiency in the proper care of the vehicle in question so according to my view I am of the opinion that 60% of the claim amount should be awarded to the complainant because insurance company has considered the fact but not considered the case of the complainant it should be loosely observed the fault, therefore I am of the opinion that the complaint is partly allowed.
FINAL ORDER
i) Complaint No.223 of 2014 is partly allowed.
ii) Opponents are directed to pay 60% of the claimed amount i.e. Rs.13,80,000/- is to be awarded with 7% interest from the date of filing the complaint.
iii) Rs.5,000/- for the cost of complaint.
B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 18 of 19iv) Hereby complainant side is directed to produce the key of the vehicle in question to the insurance company as they made submission before the commission at the time of admission of the complaint.
v) Copy of the judgment be provided to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced in the open court on 22nd October, 2021.
(M.J.Mehta) Judicial Member B.H.Gadhavi CC-14-223 Page 19 of 19