Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramji Lal vs Kaniya Lal & Ors on 2 November, 2011
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.870/2001. Smt.Nana Devi & Ors. Vs. Gurumel Singh & Ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.1606/2004. Smt.Parvati Devi & Anr. Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma & Ors. 3) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.243/2006. Shanker Singh & Anr. Vs. Bheem Singh Rawat & Ors. 4) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.934/2009. Mewa Ram & Anr. Vs. Madan Lal & Ors. 5) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.4401/2009. Prabhu Dayal & Anr. Vs. Umrab Lal & Anr. 6) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.2652/2006. Kailash Chand & Ors. Vs. Permanand & Ors. 7) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.766/2007. Babulal & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors. 8) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.815/2011. Lal Chand @ Pradeep Kumar & Anr. Vs. Bhanwar Singh & Ors. 9) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.79/2004. Smt.Sadhana Gupta & Anr. Vs. Dayaram & Ors. 10) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.1443/2004. Shankar Lal & Anr. Vs. Phool Chand & Ors. 11) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.2876/2005. Bhikam Singh Naruka & Anr. Vs. Kripal Singh & Ors. 12) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.2920/2005. Cheetar & Anr. Vs. Vedpal & Ors. 13) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.3463/2005. Nirbhay Singh & Anr. Vs. Prem Narayan & Ors. 14) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.192/2008. Ramji Lal & Ors. Vs. Kanhaiyalal & Ors. 15) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.1880/2008. Gajraj Singh & Ors. Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. 16) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.841/2009. Ramesh & Anr. Vs. Chittar Lal & Ors. 17) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.1157/2009. Biram & Anr. Vs. Raghuveer & Ors. 18) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.1261/2009. Ram Dayal & Ors. Vs. Surendra Singh & Anr. 19) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.2302/2009. Morpal Vs. Shankar Lal & Ors. 20) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.4254/2009. Suresh Chandra @ Surendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. 21) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.688/2010. Godiya & Ors. Vs. Surajmal & Ors. 22) S.B. CIVIL MISC.APPEAL NO.1990/2010. Mahaveer Prasad Suman & Ors. Vs. Babulal Sahariya & Ors. Date of Order :- November 2, 2011. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr.Advocate with Shri Harendra Singh Sinsinwar Shri Ashok Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Shri Rajpal Choudhary Shri Vinay Mathur Shri Ali Mohd.Khan Shri Kapil Mathur Shri Sunil Jain Shri Girish Khandelwal Shri Vivek Goyal Shri Virendra Agrawal Shri Ripu Daman Singh Naruka Shri Manu Bhargava Shri Sandeep Mathur Ms. Suman Sharma Shri Ramdayal Meena Shri Reashm Bhargava Shri A.K. Sharma Shri Pankaj Gupta Shri L.L. Gupta Shri J.P. Gupta Shri Sanjay Singhal for the appellants. Shri K.C. Jain Shri Rajesh Parashar Shri Tripurari Sharma Shri Suresh Kumar Shri Virendra Goyal Shri V.P. Mathur Shri Praveen Jain Shri Tej Prakash Sharma Ms. Sangeeta Sen Shri Sukhram Jatav Shri Ashok Bansal Shri Inderjeet Singh Shri Deepak Goyal Shri Dinesh Kala Shri Ram Singh Bhati Shri Sanjay Singhal Shri Amar Nath Pareek Shri Virendra Saraswat Shri Omprakash Gupta Shri Akash Agrawal Shri Pritam Bijlani and Shri Kartar Singh for the respondents. ****** Reportable BY THE COURT:-
1) All these appeals arise out of the awards passed by different Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, wherein claimant-appellants have approached this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation for untimely death of their children in road accidents involving vehicles insured with the respondents-Insurance Companies.
2) For the facility of reference, these appeals are divided in following three age groups:-
(i) 1st batch of appeals (SBCMA Nos.870/01, 1606/04, 243/06, 934/09 & 4401/09) pertains to those claim cases, wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was upto 5 years and in which the Tribunals awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.60,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.90,500/-, respectively.
(ii) 2nd batch of appeals (SBCMA Nos.2652/06, 766/07, 815/11 & 688/10) pertains to those claim cases wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was more than 5 years but not more than 10 years and in which the Tribunals awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/-, respectively.
(iii) 3rd batch of appeals (SBCMA Nos.79/04, 1443/04, 2876/05, 2920/05, 3463/05, 192/08, 1880/08, 841/09, 1157/09, 1261/09, 2302/09, 4254/09, 688/10 & 1990/10), pertains to those death claim cases wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was more than 10 years but not more than 15 years in which the Tribunals awarded compensation of Rs.54,000/-, Rs.1,35,000/-, Rs.1,66,000/-, Rs.1,75,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,80,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.2,27,300/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,72,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,80,000/-, Rs.2,15,000/- & Rs.2,00,000/-, respectively.
3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4) Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that as per Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act of 1988), structured formula has to be applied in the case of those persons, who die due to accidental death involving motor vehicles and whose income cannot be proved, accepting notional income of Rs.15,000/- and compensation has to be awarded to the claimants in such cases uniformally to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/-. It was argued that in view of above, no discrimination can be made in payment of compensation to the claimants for the death of children aged upto 15 years, who died accidental death. Learned counsel in support of their argument placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in M.S. Grewal & Anr. Vs. Deep Chand Sood & Ors. : (2001) 8 SCC 151 and argued that the Supreme Court in that case awarded Rs.5,00,000/- to the claimants, whose children died due to drowning in the river on account of the negligence of school teachers when they had gone for a school picnic. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in S.C. Mittal & Ors. Vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. : RLR 2005(2) 525 wherein, for the accidental death of 4 years old child, an amount of Rs.90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, was enhanced to Rs.2,25,000/-. Special appeal was filed thereagainst being DBSAW No.55/2001, which was decided on 8/7/2005. The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the special appeal filed by the RSRTC, relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Manju Devi & Anr. Vs. Musafir Paswan & Anr. : 2005(1) TAC 609, in which the compensation of Rs.90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of a child aged 14 years, Supreme Court accepting the notional income of a non-earning person at Rs.15,000/- per month, adopted multiplier of 15 and enhanced amount of compensation to Rs.2,25,000/-, held that even though age of the child at the relevant time was 4 years but the law as per the IInd Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act does not make any distinction between the minimum and maximum age mentioned therein. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that this Court in Smt.Malti & 52 Others Vs. M.K. Vasu and 52 Others : 2008(1) WLC (Raj.) 589, which judgment was delivered on 24/5/2007, granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant for death of children upto the age group of 5 years, Rs.1,80,000/-, for the age group of more than 5 years upto 10 years and Rs.2,25,000/- for more than 10 years upto 15 years. In support of this argument, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in R.K. Malik and Another Vs. Kiran Pal and Others : (2009) 14 SCC 1. Learned counsel also relied on another judgment of this Court delivered at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Natha Lal and etc. Vs. Lala alias Dhaval and Anr. : AIR 2009 Raj. 66 in which case, Rs.1,80,000/- each was awarded for the death claim of two children aged 3 and 7 years, respectively. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of this Court in the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Smt.Saroj & Ors. (SBCMA No.605/2010) decided on 11/10/2011 to argue that that was a case in which the age of the deceased child was six years and this Court taking judicial notice of the fact that due to inflation, value of rupee has certainly diminished since the time judgment of this Court in Smt.Malti supra was delivered on 29/5/2007, which awarded Rs.1,50,000/- for this age group, this Court while partly allowing the appeal, reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.2,00,000/- holding claimants in that case entitled to interest @7.5% from the date of filing claim petition. It is therefore argued that compensation that has been awarded in all these cases is highly inadequate and unjust. This Court ought to therefore enhance compensation suitably.
5) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance companies have opposed the appeals and argued that judgments of the Supreme Court especially, that of R.K. Malik supra, which have been relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, are isolated examples and cannot be cited as precedents. The Supreme Court in those cases enhanced the amount of compensation while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution keeping in view the fact that in some of those cases, the evidence fully proved that deceased was the only child of the parents and after his death, the pedigree (vanshavali) came to an end, which has not been proved in these cases. It was argued that deceased-children were not the earning members of the family and therefore structured formula given in Second Schedule appended to the Act of 1988 cannot be invoked in their case applying the multiplier of 15 and accepting their notional income of Rs.15,000 per annum. Learned counsel argued that compensation that is awarded should be just and reasonable and cannot be a bonanza. It was argued that child has not been defined anywhere except in the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890. The compensation is payable on the analogy and assumption that due to death of the young child, surviving claimants, who would be dependent on the deceased, would suffer financial loss and support in future. None of the children in these cases can be said to be earning members of the family. There are cases in which Supreme Court has even upheld the award, wherein much lesser amount of compensation was granted by the Tribunal. Reliance in this connection was placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Syed Ibrahim and Others : (2007) 11 SCC 512. That was a case in which age of the child was 7 years and Rs.51,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal. High Court in appeal enhanced that compensation to Rs.1,52,000/-. Supreme Court reduced the amount enhanced by the High Court and maintained the award of the Tribunal holding that in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. Reliance was also place on another judgment of Supreme Court in Kaushlya Devi Vs. Shri Karan Arora and Others : (2007) 11 SCC 120 in which, age of the deceased-child was 14 years. Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Appeal filed thereagainst by the claimants was dismissed. Supreme Court dismissed further appeal upholding compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is therefore prayed that appeals be dismissed and the award passed in these cases by the Tribunals be maintained.
6) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the impugned awards passed by the Tribunals and closely scrutinized the cited law on the subject.
7) In M.S. Grewal supra, children between the age group of 10-12 years, were taken for picnic by the school administration to the river side. They were allowed to play nearby a dangerous distance of the river point without caution and warning. Suddenly, 14 children fell down in the river and drowned, wherein the High Court ordered for a CBI enquiry. The CBI in its enquiry report, opined that death of 14 students by drowning was due to rash and negligent act of two teachers. High Court holding the management of the school liable for the death of children and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar : (2001) 8 SCC 197, awarded compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- to the parents of each child, who died in the incident.
8) Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Satender and Others : (2006) 13 SCC 60 while relying on its earlier judgments in State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur : (2003) 7 SCC 484 declined to interfere wherein a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- was awarded as compensation together with interest @7.5% p.a. even though the deceased child was of the tender age.
9) In Lata Wadhwa supra, Supreme Court categorically held victims of the children between the age group of 5-10 years entitled to receive uniform compensation of Rs.50,000/- with conventional adding figure of Rs.25,000/- and thus, Rs.75,000/- was awarded for each of the child and for the age group of 10-15 years, Rs.75,000/- was doubled as per the statement of learned counsel appearing on behalf of TISCO holding that it should be Rs.1,50,000/-. Supreme Court further added Rs.50,000/- in the said amount and awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for the claimant-victims of the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years. In the case of children between the age group of 10-15 years, Supreme Court accepting the contribution of Rs.24,000 per annum instead of Rs.12,000 per annum of the children to the family and applying the multiplier of 15 instead of 11, awarded Rs.3,60,000/- and after adding therein a sum of Rs.50,000/-, total compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- was awarded. That judgment was delivered on its own peculiar circumstances. It cannot be therefore straightway applied in these matters, nevertheless the observations made and guidelines laid down therein are of immense relevance for deciding the accidental claim cases as is evident from the subsequent Supreme Court judgments, where this judgment has been followed.
10) The learned Single Bench of this Court in S.C. Mittal supra while placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Manju Devi supra, applied the multiplier of 15, even though the age of the child, who died in accident was only 4 years and enhanced compensation of Rs.90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.2,25,000/-. The special appeal filed by the RSRTC thereagainst was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court while placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court observing thus:-
Even though, therefore, where in the present case, age of the child at the relevant time was 4 years and the one who died in the case decided by the Honble Supreme Court was 13 years, no distinction can be made on the ground of age. Multiplier of 15 as per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 does not make any distinction between minimum and maximum age mentioned therein.
11) In Manju Devi supra, while determining the compensation for accidental death of 13 years' old child, the Supreme Court relying on its earlier judgment in U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Trilok Chandra : 1996 ACJ 831 (SC), held that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation and that the multiplier method is the most acceptable method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method, which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. Supreme Court applied multiplier of 15 on the basis of age of the deceased-child aged, who was 13 years and accepting his notional income of Rs.15,000 per annum, awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-.
12) Supreme Court in Satender supra while relying on its earlier judgment in Jasbir Kaur supra, held that in cases of death of young children of tender age, in view of uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed with reasonable certainty. In that case, the child aged 9 years died due to accident. It was held by the Supreme Court that merely because no pecuniary benefit was derived by the parents during lifetime of the child, they would not be debarred from claiming compensation. Prospective loss will find a valid claim provided that the parents establish a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit had the child lived.
13) In Kaushlya Devi supra, son of the claimant died as a result of vehicular accident. Age of the deceased-son was 14 years and he was the only son of his parents. Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation together with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Since the Insurance Company was exonerated, appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle was dismissed. In Lalaram & Anr. Vs. Ganpat Lal & Anr. : ACCT 2007(1) 93, age of the child was more than 10 years and therefore by taking notional income, the multiplier of 15 was applied and thus the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation.
14) This Court in Smt.Malti & 52 Others supra, after discussing the entire law available uptill that time, awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the dependents of the children upto the age group of 5 years, Rs.1,80,000/- for the accidental death of children in the age group of more than 5 years upto 10 years and Rs.2,25,000/- for the children in the age group of more than 10 years upto 15 years.
15) In R.K. Malik supra was a case in which, the school bus carrying 29 children to school, got drowned in Yamuna river after overrunning the road and breaking the railing. Due to the accident, all 29 children died. Tribunal in that case, awarded Rs.1,55,000/- to the dependents of children between the age group of 10 to 15 years and Rs.1,65,000/- between the age group of 15 to 18 years. Three of the children were less than 10 years, therefore, in their cases, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-, Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs.1,31,000/-. Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- each towards funeral and last rites. Tribunal applied multiplier of 15 for children below 15 years and multiplier of 16 for children between 16 to 18 years. Tribunal also awarded interest @6% for four years. In appeal filed by the claimants, High Court enhanced compensation in all the cases by Rs.75,000/- and directed for payment of interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment made. When claimants filed further special leave to petition, Supreme Court awarded Rs.75,000/- over and above the amount of Rs.75,000/- enhanced by the High Court. Thus in those cases, the amount of compensation was enhanced by Rs.1,50,000/- (75000+75000) over and above the amount that was awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants i.e. Rs.1,55,000/- between the age group of 10 to 15 years, Rs.1,65,000/- between 15 to 18 years, Rs.1,05,000/-, Rs.1,30,000/- & Rs.1,31,000/- in the age group of children less than 10 years, respectively.
16) Judgment of Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa supra was delivered on 16/8/2001. In that case, accident took place due to fire in pandal that was erected by the TISCO in its factory premises for celebrating the birth anniversary of Sir Jamshedji Tata. Supreme Court in the year 2001 finally awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the victim of each child between the age group of 5-10 years and Rs.4,10,000/- for the victim of each child between the age group of 10-15 years. Even in the case of Satender supra that was decided in 2006 by the Supreme Court, claim arose out of the accidental death of a 9 years old child, award was reduced to Rs.1,80,000/- together with interest @7.5% from the date of filing claim petition till payment is made.
17) This Court on 24/5/2007, decided a bunch of appeals in Smt.Malti supra, awarding a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- for the victims of the children between the age group of 5-10 years and Rs.2,25,000/- for the victims of the children between the age group of 10-15 years. However, keeping in view the subsequent judgment of Supreme Court in R.K. Malik supra, which was also was a case of accidental death of the children, amount of compensation awardable to the claimants for the accidental death of children deserves to be moderately enhanced, if not to the same level as awarded by the Supreme Court. As already noticed above, in that case, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- to the claimants for the accidental death of all children between the age group of 10-15 years, Rs.1,65,000/- for the victims of the children between the age group of 15-18 years and awarded Rs.1,05,000/-, Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs.1,31,000/- for three children, who were less than 10 years. High Court enhanced the compensation in all the cases by Rs.75,000/- each. When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the claimants, Supreme Court enhanced it further by awarding additional amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/- over and above the amount of Rs.75,000/- enhanced by the High Court. The claimants of the children less than the age group of 10 years were thus awarded Rs.2,55,000/-, Rs.2,60,000/- & Rs.2,91,000/-. Though age of the child, who was awarded an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- was not mentioned but it appears that that child must have been less than 5 years as compared to other two children, who were respectively awarded Rs.1,30,000/- & Rs.1,31,000/-, which indicates that they were more than 5 years. Compensation for the accidental death of children in the age group of 10-15 years thus stood enhanced to Rs.3,05,000/- and for those, who were more than 15 years of age but less than 18 years, it was enhanced to Rs.3,15,000/-. Although it has been laid down by the Supreme Court in number of cases that multiplier is the time tested method of computing compensation in death claim but in view of the fact that it involves death of children, latest judgment of Supreme Court in R.K. Malik supra can be relied as a guideline to be followed in such accidental death cases in which liability of tort-feasor has to be fixed. No doubt, in R.K. Malik supra, Supreme Court has also taken into consideration aspect of future prospects in all such matters, where children died on account of accident, accepting that if he lived longer life, he/she would certainly have advanced in life to be of help to his/her family and utility to the nation. It must therefore be held that the amount so awarded as compensation ought to be a reasonable sum, which should be compensation but at the same time, it should not be a bonanza or excessive.
18) In view however of the fact that judgment of Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa supra was delivered prior to the subsequently delivered judgment in Jasbir Kaur supra and keeping in view the fact that value of rupee has certainly diminished and gone down due to inflation during all this intervening period, it is deemed appropriate to enhance compensation in each of these appeals and allow all these appeals by enhancing the compensation in the following manner:-
(i) Compensation in 1st batch of appeals i.e. SBCMA Nos.870/01, 1606/04, 243/06, 934/09 & 4401/09, which pertains to those claim cases wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was upto 5 years and in which the Tribunals awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.60,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.90,500/- respectively, is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/-.
(ii) Compensation in 2nd batch of appeals i.e. SBCMA Nos.2652/06, 766/07, 815/11 & 688/10, which pertains to those claim cases wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was more than 5 years but not more than 10 years and in which the Tribunals awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.1,80,000/- respectively, is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-.
(iii) Compensation in 3rd batch of appeals i.e. SBCMA Nos.79/04, 1443/04, 2876/05, 2920/05, 3463/05, 192/08, 1880/08, 841/09, 1157/09, 1261/09, 2302/09, 4254/09, 688/10 & 1990/10, which pertains to those claim cases wherein age of the children at the time of accidental death was more than 10 years but not more than 15 years and in which the Tribunals awarded compensation of Rs.54,000/-, Rs.1,35,000/-, Rs.1,66,000/-, Rs.1,75,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,80,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.2,27,300/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,72,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,80,000/-, Rs.2,15,000/- & Rs.2,00,000/- respectively, is enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/-.
19) It is further directed that all the appellants shall be entitled to get interest @7.5% on the above enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of respective claim petitions till actual payment is made.
20) Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date its certified copy is produced before the respondents-Insurance Companies.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
anil