Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Ramilaben Bhurabhai Parmar on 10 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE --Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
RAMILABEN BHURABHAI PARMAR & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR.DIPEN F CHAUDHARI(6740) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,5
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 10/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the original opponent no.2 - insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 24 th September, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha at Palanpur in MACP no.495 of 2010. By the Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants
- respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding them entitled to recover sum of Rs.7,29,000/- from the original opponent nos.1 to 3, jointly and severally, together with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual realization with proportionate costs. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the appellant-Insurance Company, mainly disputing the liability to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants.
2. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal memo and the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court, vide order dated 6th February, 2015 had admitted the appeal. While considering their interim application for stay, this Court had directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation with the concerned Tribunal, permitting the claimants to receive 20% of the deposited award amount and remaining 80% was directed to be invested in the fixed FDRs, initially for a period of two years, which was directed to be renewed pending the adjudication of the appeal. Thus, this Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined Court has stayed the execution, implementation of the award, under challenge, pending the appeal.
3. Ms. Dimple A. Thakar, learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal mainly on the grounds raised in the appeal memo disputing their liability to pay any amount of compensation. It was submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error despite cogent evidence being brought on record to hold the appellant insurance company liable to pay compensation. 3.1 The attention of this Court was invited to the evidence of the Branch Manager of the insurance company, recorded at Exh.42, wherein he has categorically deposed that the insured of the vehicle has paid premium of Rs.5,730/-. As can be gathered from the policy produced at Exh.32, it indicates that Rs.5,580/- is paid towards third party basic risk coverage and Rs.100/- has been paid towards compulsory personal accident to owner - driver and Rs.50/- has been paid towards Workmen's compensation to cover risk of employee. She has therefore submitted that in absence of any other premium Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined being paid, there was no coverage of risk of labourer travelling in the insured vehicle. There being no contractual liability incurred, has been covered to hold the appellant - insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. 3.2 Alternatively, learned advocate had submitted that even considering the statutory provision Section 147(1) of the M.V. Act, it excludes risk of any employee of owner of vehicle except covered under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. At the best the appellant - insurance company can be held liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,70,632/- in terms of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 instead of Rs.7,29,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. She has therefore urged this Court to allow the appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award.
4. Mr. Tushar Chaudhary, learned advocate for the respondent no.4 - original owner of the offending vehicle has submitted that in absence of any challenge being made on the issue of negligence and the quantum of compensation and he being the owner of the offending vehicle, he supports the Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal. He has therefore urged this Court to pass appropriate orders. 4.1 Learned advocate has invited my attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Prembai Patel and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 172. Learned advocate had mainly relied upon the observations made in para-12 to 18 and has submitted that once the insurance policy taken by the owner is an act liability policy, the liability of the insurance company would be limited to the extent arising under Section 4 of the W.C. Act, 1923. In the facts of the case, the Hon'ble supreme Court had given liberty to appellant - insurance company to recover the amount paid in excess and the liability under 1923 Act to the dependents of the victim from the respondent - owner/employer.
5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. I have considered their submissions in light of the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal. I have carefully considered the judgment relied upon by learned advocates. I have also perused the evidence on Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined record. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court in the present appeal is as to whether the Tribunal committed any error in holding the appellant - insurance company liable to pay entire amount of compensation of Rs.7,29,000/-, with interest and proportionate cost, in the facts of the case and evidence on record while adjudicating claim petition preferred under section 166 of the Act of 1988?
6. Before considering the merits of the appeal, it would be appropriate to note that foundational facts as regards the occurrence of accident, the manner of occurrence of accident, the involvement of the vehicles, the negligence of the drivers of the respective vehicles as adjudicated by the Tribunal, the deceased having succumbed to fatal injuries caused in the aforesaid accident, the quantum of compensation, in absence of any challenge being made by either of the parties, the same has attained finality.
7. Considering the background of the facts of the case and limited issue raised in the appeal, it would be appropriate to straightway consider the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal while adjudicating the issue of liability. The Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined appellant - insurance company has submitted its written statement at Exh.39 and has disputed their liability to pay any compensation. Despite aforesaid defense being categorically raised, the Tribunal has failed to frame separate issue on the issue of liability. However, while adjudicating on the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel representing the appellant - insurance company as placed on record at Exh.53. As can be noted from the findings and reasons recorded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has appreciated the policy produced on record at Exh.32, wherein under the schedule of premium the amount of Rs.5,580/- is paid by the insured towards the basic third party risk. The amount of Rs.100/- is paid towards the compulsory personal accident coverage to owner - driver, whereas premium of Rs.50/- is accepted towards Workmen's Compensation Act for two employees. The Tribunal having noted the aforesaid schedule of premium, has arrived at a conclusion that additional premium of Rs.50/- has been paid towards two workmen. Having accepted the case of the claimant that the deceased was engaged by the owner of the insured vehicle for the purpose of unloading the goods, the Tribunal has decided Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined the issue of negligence in light of the documentary evidence viz. the FIR, the panchnama and the evidence of the claimant holding the opponent no.1 and 2 i.e. the owner and driver of the appellant - insurance company 80% negligent towards occurrence of accident, whereas opponent no.3 driver of the other vehicle 20% negligent. With these findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has drawn the award holding the appellant - insurance company liable to pay entire amount of compensation to the extent of the negligence of the owner and driver of the insured vehicle.
8. Having noted the aforesaid findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court there is no challenge to the fact that the deceased was engaged as a labourer by the owner of the insured vehicle. It is also an admitted fact that the policy was issued in the name of the registered owner of the vehicle. With such evidence on record, if one looks at the contents of the policy, it is evident that the amount of Rs.50/- was paid towards additional premium to cover the risk of two employees. Considering the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act and the foundational facts of the deceased being engaged as a Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined labourer, this Court has no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the Tribunal has rightly extended the benefit of the coverage of risk towards the employees covered under the W.C., Act in case of the claimants.
9. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to consider the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Samrat Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 243. The facts of the case suggest that the person who had hired the truck to carry goods had engaged two labourers who were traveling in the insured vehicle with goods at the time of accident. The question arose before the Court was whether the insurer was obliged under the law to indemnify owner of a goods vehicle when the employees engaged by the hirer of the vehicle travel with the owner of the goods on the foundation that they should be treated as "employees" covered under the policy issued in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 147 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering Section 147(1) of the Act, more particularly noticing Clause(i)(b) Subsection- 1 of Section 147, noted that the policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons to the Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined extent specified in Subsection-2 against the liability incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of vehicle in public place. Having noted the aforesaid provision, the Court had further taken into consideration Section 149 of the Act as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Satpal Singh reported in (2001) 2 SCC 237. It was opined that the decisions rendered under 1939 Act in respect of gratuitous passengers were of no avail while considering the liability of insurer after the new act came into force. The same was further considered by Three Judges' Bench in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. Asha Rani reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223. Having noted the various decisions, the Court has further taken into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 423 which lays down that the provisions engrafted under Section 147 of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods vehicle and therefore the Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined injury to any person in Section 147(i)(b) would only mean a third party and not a passenger traveling in a goods vehicle whether gratuitous or otherwise.
10. Having noted the aforesaid decisions, the Court has further referred to Three Judges' Bench judgment in the case of Prembai Patel (supra). After discussing the schematic postulates of the provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision had ruled-out that where a policy is taken by the owner of the goods vehicle, the liability of insurance company would be confined to that arising under 1923 Act in case of an employee. Bearing in mind the aforesaid enunciation of law, the Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Samrat (supra) has considered the term 'employee' appearing in Section 147. The Court observed as under :
"19. Keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is to be seen how the term "employee" used in Section 147 is required to be understood. Prior to that, it is necessary to state that as per Section 147(1)(b)(i), the policy is required to cover a person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. As has been interpreted by this Court, an owner of the goods or his authorised agent is covered under the policy. That is the statutory requirement. It does not cover any passenger. We are absolutely conscious that the authorities to which we have referred to hereinbefore lay down the principle regarding non- coverage of passengers.Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined The other principle that has been stated is that the insurer's liability as regards employee is restricted to the compensation payable under the 1923 Act. In this context, the question that has been posed in the beginning to the effect whether the employees of the owner of goods would come within the ambit and sweep of the term "employee"
as used in Section 147(1), is to be answered. In this context, the proviso to Section 147(1)(b) gains significance. The categories of employees which have been enumerated in the sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso (i) to Section 147(1) are the driver of a vehicle, or the conductor of the vehicle if it is a public service vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that sub- clause (c) is of wide import as it covers employees in a goods carriage being carried in a vehicle. The learned counsel for the insurer would submit that it should be read in the context of the entire proviso, regard being had to the schematic concept of the 1923 Act and the restricted liability of the insurer. It is further urged that contextually read, the meaning becomes absolutely plain and clear that employee which is statutorily mandated to be taken by the insured only covers the employees employed or engaged by the employer as per the policy.
20. It is the settled principle of law that the liability of an insurer for payment of compensation either could be statutory or contractual. On a reading of the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 147 of the Act, it is demonstrable that the insurer is required to cover the risk of certain categories of employees of the insured stated therein. The insurance company is not under statutory obligation to cover all kinds of employees of the insurer as the statute does not show command. That apart, the liability of the insurer in respect of the said covered category of employees is limited to the extent of the liability that arises under the 1923 Act. There is also a stipulation in Section 147 that the owner of the vehicle is free to secure a policy of insurance providing wider Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined coverage. In that event, needless to say, the liability would travel beyond the requirement of Section 147 of the Act, regard being had to its contractual nature. But, a pregnant one, the amount of premium would be different.
21. At this stage, we may usefully refer to Section 167 of the Act which reads as follows: -
"167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both."
From the aforesaid provision, it is quite vivid that where a death or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim under the Act as well as under the 1923 Act, the said person is entitled to compensation under either of the Acts, but not under both.
22. Coming to the scheme of the 1923 Act, it is worth noticing that under Section 3 of the said Act, the employer is liable to pay compensation to the workman in respect of personal injury or death caused by an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment. Section 5 provides the procedure how the amount of compensation is to be determined. In this context, we may usefully quote a passage from Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 339 : -
"....Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service vehicle". The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "the WC Act"). There is no reference to any passenger in "goods carriage."
23. In Ved Prakash Gara Vs. Pjremi Devi and Others [10], after referring to the scheme of the 1923 Act in the context of payment of penalty for default by the insurer under Section 4-A of the Act, this Court held thus: -
"On a conjoint operation of the relevant schemes of the aforesaid twin Acts, in our view, there is no escape from the conclusion that the insurance companies will be liable to make good not only the principal amounts of compensation payable by insured employers but also interest thereon, if ordered by the Commissioner to be paid by the insured employers. Reason for this conclusion is obvious. As we have noted earlier the liability to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act gets foisted on the employer provided it is shown that the workman concerned suffered from personal injury, fatal or otherwise, by any motor accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Such an accident is also covered by the statutory coverage contemplated by Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the identical provisions under the very contracts of insurance reflected by the policy which would make the insurance company liable to cover all such claims for compensation for which statutory liability is imposed on the employer under Section 3 read with Section 4-A of the Compensation Act." [Emphasis supplied] Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state thus:-
"So far as interest is concerned it is almost Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined automatic once default, on the part of the employer in paying the compensation due, takes place beyond the permissible limit of one month. No element of penalty is involved therein. It is a statutory elongation of the liability of the employer to make good the principal amount of compensation within permissible time-limit during which interest may not run but otherwise liability of paying interest on delayed compensation will ipso facto follow."
Though the said decision was rendered in a different context, yet we have referred to the same only to highlight the liability of the insurer in respect of certain classes of employees.
24. It is worthy to note that sub-clause (i)(c) refers to an employee who is being carried in the vehicle covered by the policy. Such vehicle being a goods carriage, an employee has to be covered by the statutory policy. On an apposite reading of Sections 147 and 167 the intendment of the Legislature, as it appears to us, is to cover the injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in a vehicle and an employee who is carried in the said vehicle. It is apt to state here that the proviso commences in a different way. A policy is not required to cover the liability of the employee except an employee covered under the 1923 Act and that too in respect of an employee carried in a vehicle. To put it differently, it does not cover all kinds of employees. Thus, on a contextual reading of the provision, schematic analysis of the Act and the 1923 Act, it is quite limpid that the statutory policy only covers the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage. It does not cover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an authorised agent in place of the owner of goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of goods, cannot be covered by the statutory policy and to hold otherwise would tantamount to causing violence to the language Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined employed in the Statute. Therefore, we conclude that the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured."
11. Thus, it can be culled-out that the question as regards whether the employees of the owner of the goods would come within the ambit and sweep of the term employee as used in Section 147(1) of the Act, the Court has categorically held that the said provision has to be read in context of the entire proviso, being made to the schematic concept of 1923 Act and followed by the restricted liability of the insurer. The Court has therefore noted that the meaning to be attributed to the term employee has to be read contextually i.e. employee which is statutorily mandated to be taken by the insured only covers the employees employed or engaged by the employer as per the policy.
12. Admittedly the deceased was the labourer engaged by the owner of the insured vehicle not by the hirer of the insured vehicle as the case was in Sanjeev Kumar Samrat (supra), and therefore can be treated as an employee in terms of the scheme of 1923 Act.
13. Considering the aforesaid principles in the facts of the present case, in my view, the insurance company shall be Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined liable to the extent of the statutory liability incurred by the employer under Section 3 read with section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Having held so, the insurance company shall be liable to the extent of amount of compensation by keeping in mind the provisions of Section 3 read with Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in the facts of the case. Considering the fact that the deceased was 28 years at the time of accident and the minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident i.e. on 20 th August, 2010, applying 50% the amount of compensation under the W.C. Act, would come to Rs.3,70,632/- (Rs.1,750 x 211.79).
14. Hence, the appellant - insurance company shall be entitled to seek refund of Rs.7,29,000/- - Rs.3,70,632/- = Rs.3,58,368/- interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of deposit of the award amount with the concerned Tribunal in terms of the order dated 6th February, 2015 passed by this Court in the present proceedings.
15. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 24 th September Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Banaskantha at Palanpur in MACP no.495 of 2010 is hereby modified by holding the original claimants entitled to seek recovery of Rs.3,70,632/- from the original opponent nos.1 and 2, as well as from the original opponent no.3 - insurance company together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual realization with proportionate cost. The inter se liability of the opponents nos.1 and 2 and the opponent no.3 on the other hand as fixed to the extent of 80% and 20% is hereby upheld and the amount of compensation to be paid shall accordingly be borne by the respective opponents accordingly.
16. In view of these directions, the Tribunal shall refund amount of Rs.3,58,368/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of deposit till its realization in favour of appellant - insurance company and shall further proceed with release and disbursement of the remaining amount in favour of claimants. Let such exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Tribunal shall duly verify identity of parties and adhere to guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined
17. With these observations, the present appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. The registry is directed to sent record and proceedings back to concerned Tribunal with the writ of this order.
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD.../sfs/13.04/fo/02.05 Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Sat May 02 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 21:09:09 IST 2026