Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Shanthi Nanaiah on 24 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 2529, 2018 (4) AKR 482, (2019) 3 ACJ 2221, 2019 (3) ALLMR (JS) 28, (2019) 4 TAC 809, 2019 AAC 230 (KAR)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
M.F.A.No.11869/2012
C/W
M.F.A.CROB No.76/2013(MV)
M.F.A.No.11869/2012:
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI
AND ITS BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE
AT LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001
AND DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER
THE BRANCH OFFICE AT VIRAJPET
OF THE APPELLANT CO.
IS NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE ..APPELLANT
(BY SRI M SOWRI RAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.SHANTHI NANAIAH
W/O LATE NANAIAH
HINDU, FEMALE ADULT,
RESIDING AT KARADA VILLAGE AND POST,
MADIKERI TALUK,
2
KODAGU DISTRICT
2.NEHA NANAIAH
NOW AGED 14 YEARS,
D/O LATE NANAIAH HINDU, FEMALE,
MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SHANTHI NANAIAH
RESIDING AT KARADA VILLAGE AND POST,
MADIKERI TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT
3.MAHIMA NANAIAH
NOW AGED 11 YEARS,
D/O LATE NANAIAH HINDU, FEMALE,
MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SHANTHI NANAIAH
RESIDING AT KARADA VILLAGE AND POST,
MADIKERI TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT
4.B.S. BIDDAPPA
HINDU, MALE ADULT,
RESIDING AT KARADI VILLAGE AND POST,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT
5.RANI BIDAPPA
W/O BIDDAPPA, HINDU, FEMALE ADULT,
RESIDING AT KARADI VILLAGE AND POST,
MADIKERI TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT
6.K.K. RAJESH
S/O ACHUTHA
HINDU, MALE, ADULT
LORRY DRIVER, RESIDING AT
ENGILAGERRE PULIYERI VILLAGE,
SIDDAPUR
3
7.S.D.KUMARA SWAMY
S/O P. DEVAREY,
HINDU MALE ADULT,
RESIDING AT ASHYAYA TEMPLE,
STREET VITTALA, BANTWALA TALUK
8.KUNJANGADA B ARUNA
S/O BHEEMAIAH, HINDU MALE, ADULT,
RESIDING AT WEST NEMMALE VILLAGE
AND POST, VIRAJPET TALUK,
SOUTH KODAGU
9.B.S. BIDDAPPA
HINDU, MALE ADULT
RESIDING AT KARADA VILLAGE AND POST,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S P SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
SMT MAMTHA G KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1-R-3,
R-4, 5, 8 AND 9 ARE SERVED, NOTICE TO R-6 & R-7 HELD
SUFFICIENT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 09.04.2015)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:12.09.2012 PASSED
IN MVC NO.81/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MACT, VIRAJPET, AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF `12,32,144/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
MFA CROB No.76/2013:
BETWEEN:
1.SMT. SHANTHI NANAIAH
W/O LATE NANAIAH,
MAJOR
R/O KARADA VILLAGE AND POST
MADIKERE TALUK AND
4
DISTRICT-571212
2.KUMARI NEHA NANAIAH
D/O LATE NANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT.SHANTHI NANAIAH
3.KUMARI MAHIMA NANAIAH
D/O LATE NANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT.SHANTHI NANAIAH
4.B.S.BIDDAPPA
MAJOR
COVERKOLLI ESTATE,
TATA COFFEE LTD.
SOMWARPET,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
KARADA VILLAGE AND POST-571212
5.SMT. RANI BIDDAPPA
W/O BIDDAPPA,
R/O COVERKOLLI ESTATE,
TATA COFFEE LTD. SOMWARPET,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
KARADA VILLAGE AND POST,
MADIKERI TALUK AND
DISTRICT-571212 ..CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI S P SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH
SMT MAMATA G KULKARNI, ADVOCATE
CROSS OBJECTORS 1 TO 4 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF CROSS OBJECTOR No.5)
5
AND:
1.THE BRANCH MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BADSHA BUILDING,
NEAR CLOCK TOWER,
VIRAJPET-571218
2.K.K.RAJESH
S/O ACHUTHA, MAJOR,
LORRY DRIVER
ENGILAGERRE
PULIYERI VILLAGE,
SIDDAPUR -581355
3.S.D.KUMARA SWAMY
S/O P DEVARAY
MAJOR
ASHYAYA TEMPLE STREET, VITTALA
BANTWALA TALUK-574243
4.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE PB 16 MANNA BUILDING
MAIN ROAD, VIRAJPET,
S.KODAGU-571218
5.KUNJANGADA B ARUNA
S/O BHEEMAIAH,
WEST NEMMALE VILLAGE AND POST,
VIRAJPET TALUK
S.KODAGU-571212
6.SRI.B.S.BIDDAPPA
MAJOR,
S/O LATE SUBBAIAH,
R/O KARADA VILLAGE AND POST,
MADIKERE TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571212 ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M SOWRI RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
6
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.11869/2012 FILED U/O
41, RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED:12.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.81/2002
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT,
VIRAJPET, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND PRAYING TO MODIFY THE FINDING
OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE HELD BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, VIRAJPET IN MVC No.81/2002
DATED 12.09.2012 AND FIXING THE LIABILITY ON 50-50
BASIS AND FIX THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON ONE OF THE
TWO JOINT TORT-FEASORS AND THEIR INSURERS.
THE MFA AND MFA CROB COMING ON FOR
DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.11869/2012 and MFA Crob No.76/2013 are directed against the Judgment and award dated 12.09.2012 passed in MVC No.81/2002 by the Senior Civil Judge, Member, MACT, Virajpet wherein claim petition came to be allowed in part and compensation of `12,32,144/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. was ordered to be paid by saddling the liability in the ratio of 50:50 on respondents 1 and 2 and respondent No.5.
7
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties hereinafter are referred to as per their rankings held by them before the Tribunal.
3. The incident that gave raise to the proceedings before the Tribunal is that Jeep bearing No.KA-12-M- 9074 was given to deceased Nanaiah for not taking certain repairs to the jeep and to visit their relatives house at Nellihudikeri. After repairing the Jeep said Nanaiah along with his father visited their relatives house at Nellihudikeri and when returning back from Nellihudikeri to Virajpet said jeep driven by Biddappa at Puliyeri Village at about 12.30 a.m met with accident with lorry bearing registration No.KA-20- 2545 because of which Nanaiah suffered serious injuries and was offered first aid at Government Hospital, Siddapur and later shifted to District Hospital, Madikeri. Being unable to recover, the said Nanaiah succumbed to injuries.
8
4. A claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal and learned Member by Judgment and award in MVC No.81/2002 on 10.03.2005 partly allowed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and granted compensation of `12,12,394/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. The liability of respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 were held joint and several. The liability to pay compensation was on respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5- insurer of the Jeep.
5. It was against the said Judgment and award appeal was preferred by Kunjangada B.Arun in MFA No.5129/2005 and on 15.02.2011 appeal came to be allowed and matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal and thus in the second phase of proceedings the register number of MVC remained the same and learned Member disposed it on 12.09.2012. 9
6. Respondents 1 and 2 namely K.K.Rajesh, lorry driver and S.D.Kumaraswamy, owner of the lorry was directed to meet the liability to the extent of 50% and the liability to pay remaining 50% of compensation was saddled on respondent No.5-insurer of the Jeep.
7. Thus, it is against this diposal, MFA No.11869/2012 is filed by the insurance company seeking to set aside the liability fastened on it. MFA Crob No.76/2013 is by the claimants seeking modification of finding of contributory negligence and to fix the entire liability on one of the two joint tort- feasors and their insurers.
8. The materials that were available before the Tribunal are oral evidence of PW-1 -Shanthi Nanaiah, RW-1- V.Muralidhara from the respondent side. Documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioners 10 Exhibits P-1 to P-16 and on behalf of the respondents Exhibits R-1 to R-3. Learned Member proceeded to adjudicate the matter considering the aspect of negligence, accident, impact, loss of dependency, entitlement for compensation and liability to pay compensation.
9. Before adverting on the further aspects of the case, it is necessary to place on record the undisputed facts insofar as lorry bearing registration No.KA-20- 2545 is concerned, the insurance policy had expired earlier and the question of considering the liability on the insurer of the lorry does not arise. Criminal case came to be registered against the driver of the lorry. The other vehicle involved in the accident is the Jeep bearing registration No.KA-12M-9074. 11
10. In the over all context and circumstances of the case there are no substantial or seriously disputed question on the violation of policy conditions or the aspects of driving licence. It is in respect of the nature and extent of liability to be borne whether exclusively on the jeep or both on jeep and lorry and if so in what proportion. Learned Senior counsel Sri. S.P.Shankar would submit that the liability to compensate is in the nature of composite negligence.
11. In the pre-amendment stage claimant No.4 was one Biddappa said to be father of deceased Nanaiah. After the matter was remanded by this Court to the Tribunal there was amendment to the pleadings and transposing of the parties that is 4th petitioner- B.S.Biddappa in the claim petition was ordered to be transposed as 6th respondent by the learned Member on allowing application for amendment filed by the 12 claimants. It is necessary to mention not only the transposition of claimant No.4 as respondent No.6 but also the pleadings came to be amended. Column No.23 of claim petition got substantially changed to state that the negligence of both the vehicles are involved and in the context and circumstances according to claimants the placement of claimant No.4 as respondent No.6 is a natural process.
The cause title in the pre-amendment stage is as under:
CLAIMANTS RELATION- RESPONDENTS
SHIP WITH
DECEASED-
NANAIAH
1. Shanthi Nanaiah Wife 1. K.K.Rajesh
2. Kumari Neha Daughter 2.S.D.Kumaraswamy
Nanaiah
3. Kumari Mahima Daughter 3.The Branch
Nanaiah Manager,
National Insurance
company
4. B.S.Biddappa Father 4. Kunjangada B.
Aruna
13
5. Rani Biddappa Mother 5. The Branch
Manager,
Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
The cause title in the post-amendment stage is as under:
CLAIMANTS RELATION- RESPONDENTS
SHIP WITH
DECEASED-
NANAIAH
1. Shanthi Nanaiah Wife 1. K.K.Rajesh
2. Kumari Neha Daughter 2.S.D.Kumaraswamy
Nanaiah
3. Kumari Mahima Daughter 3.National Insurance
Nanaiah company Ltd.,
4. B.S.Biddappa Father 4. Kunjangada B.
Aruna
5. Rani Biddappa Mother 5. The Branch
Manager,
Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
6. B.S.Biddappa
12. The next point is, in the first phase of the proceedings respondents consisted of driver, owner, insurer of the lorry and subsequently the claim 14 petition was amended to include other respondents as well.
13. The learned counsel for appellant would further submit that the accident occurred due to negligence of the lorry driver, as he had parked the lorry on the centre of the road in gross violation of relevant rules regarding signals, light, warnings etc.
14. The liability of the lorry driver and owner was considered, regard being had to the fact that the lorry was sans insurance.
15. It was also submitted by learned Senior counsel that the insurer did not challenge the Judgment and award in the first phase of proceedings and he had not obtained leave under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act and learned Senior counsel would further 15 emphasize estoppel operated against insurance company from raising its voice against the contention of the claimants and insurer would be liable to bear all the duties and responsibilities of the insured. Learned Senior counsel relied on the following decisions:
(i) (2015)9 SCC 273 - Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Company Limited and others.
(ii) ILR 2004 Kar 26 - Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation by its Managing Director Vs Arun @ Aravind and others
16. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that the circumstances are clear regarding the first phase of proceedings when the matter was disposed of and compensation was ordered to be paid to the claimants which included Claimant No.4-Biddappa, father of deceased Nanaiah. However, by virtue of transposition of claimant No.4 before the Tribunal in 16 the post remand stage the claimants are 4 in number and claimant No.4- Biddappa stands eliminated from the platform of claimants.
17. Thus, needless to reiterate he cannot be beneficiary to the compensation awarded. The fact of the matter is the necessity of transposing the claimant No.4 into respondent No.6.
18. Sri Sowri Raju, learned counsel for insurance company would submit that the entire scheme of filing amendment application for transposing claimant No.4 into respondent No.6 literally placing him on the platform as one of the party liable for paying compensation is a suppression of fact and exposes the hidden agenda of the claimants to ensure that right of claiming compensation and quantum are not hampered.
17
19. Learned counsel would further submit that regard being had to the fact that order passed on amendment was not challenged by the insurance company which was always open to the aggrieved party to agitate all those points and challenge the orders passed on interlocutory applications at the time of final arguments or during the appellate stage.
20. By this time it is clear that when the claimants are insisting that the nature of negligence in this case is composite one. Thus the liability to be saddled on the respondents who are liable must be that of joint and several and the claimants have the right to claim compensation from any one of the respondent. Needless to state it is understandable that the claimants somehow insist to proceed against the insurance company for realisation according to 18 doctrine of joint and several liability to enable them to claim compensation against any or all of them.
21. When the claim petition was made in the first segment Column No.8(a) was clear that the nature of negligence was contributory.
22. The term negligence literally means breach of legal duty to take care of oneself and others. It may be a state of indifference, irresponsibility certain time recklessness and kind of irresponsible mental attitude. Regard being had to the fact that when the compensation was ordered it was for all the petitioners including the driver-Biddappa who was claimant No.4 presently respondent No.6.
23. Petitioners-claimants were abreast, as who was driving the vehicle and they have reason to believe that it was contributory negligence that caused the 19 accident. However the contradictory statement in the claim petition at pre-amendment stage is that paragraph 8(a) claims that it is contributory negligence but the prayer for compensation proceeds claiming the liability of owner, driver of lorry along with owner and insurer of the jeep.
24. In the road traffic accident the negligence of the vehicle means and includes that of the driver or rider as the case may be and not of any other person except when it is because of mechanical failure of the vehicle. In the circumstances, in case of composite negligence by virtue of doctrine of joint and several liability, the driver, insured, insurer of the vehicles will have to bear the blunt.
25. It is necessary to refer the meaning of Contributory negligence and Composite negligence as 20 observed in Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Company Limited and others [(2015) 9 SCC 273] which reads as under:
"Contributory negligence', a person who has himself contributed to the accident cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but due to the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons."
"6. `Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer, is jointly and 21 severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where as person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence."22
26. Here the criminal case is registered against the driver of the lorry in Crime No.723/2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. It is necessary to make a mention that the final report of the police is not having vetoing power and police are not copyright holders in declaring who were negligent. Insofar as registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet speak that driver of the lorry was negligent. But the conduct of the parties and texture of the claim petition tells that both are negligent. In the circumstances, the manner of accident that at the spot, lorry was stationed at the centre of the road without taking necessary precautions and warnings for alerting others and in this connection it is also to be noted that when the parties are not bound by the earlier Judgment and award as it has been set aside and in the initial phase claim petition was preferred only against the lorry driver, insurer and owner. The 23 moment it was made known that lorry had no insurance thereafter the insurer and owner of jeep were made parties. Now the question that would arise is as objected by Sri Sowri Raju, learned counsel for insurance company that the mechanical adjudication of imposing liability without there being a reason during the first disposal by the Tribunal was seriously questionable.
27. Sri S P Shankar, learned Senior counsel emphasizes the aspect that the scope of negligence involved in the case is composite one and not contributory.
28. The reliance made by the learned counsel is that unless the driver or his legal representatives are one of the respondents the question of considering contributory negligence does not arise and in this 24 connection driver is not claimant he is respondent No.6 and hence composite negligence is applicable.
29. It is necessary to place on record that the question of claimant No.4 being respondent No.6 would only arise when the benefit of amendment application was available to the claimants. Once they are not allowed the matter backs to square one wherein pleadings as stated earlier would prevail and matter becomes contributory negligence. The undisputed facts are parties to negligence undisputedly include the drivers of the jeep and also that of the lorry. It is necessary to mention that during the entire proceedings there was no whisper from any of the claimants as to regarding who was driver and why he was retained as claimant No.4 specifically except narration of `contributory negligence' in the petition averments. Another logical 25 analysis is that claimant No.4 said to be beneficiary as per the orders in the first phase of disposal of the claim petition was entitled for a particular share along with the claimants. But the moment the amendment application came to be allowed he looses the benefit and stays as an outsider falls in the grove of liability holders. Regard being had to the fact application for transposing was not made by claimant No.4-Biddappa who is also none other than father of the deceased. Said application was filed by claimant No.1 -Shanthi Nanaiah. Interesting development in the case is that Biddappa who was proposed to be eliminated from the group of claimants did not object and the application came to be allowed. Needless to say that he consented for the same at the cost of losing compensation. It is to be observed that the cause for losing his share and to keep the liability on the insurer intact. It may also be considered as a small sacrifice in 26 anticipation of a bigger benefit. It is also necessary to place it on record that learned Member did not think for a while the cardinal principle of amendment application as the proposed amendment should not change the character of the suit, nor insert a fresh cause of action, nor take away rights already vested in the other person. Thus, without assigning valid reasons, the learned Member mechanically allowed the amendment application wherein claimant is made respondent and many of the status as prevailed earlier got dislodged. Further, the amendment violated the said principle. Thus, I do not find that the amendment deserved to be allowed and learned Member committed serious error in allowing amendment application. In the over all circumstances of the case I find that the phenomena of transposing claimant as a respondent dividing the curtain and thereafter relying composite negligence was a definite 27 move by the claimants to ensure that they would be entitled for entire compensation without there being pilferage because of the proposed contributory negligence.
30. Thus, the amendment took away the right of the respondent and changed the nature and texture of the claim. Thus, I hold that the matter as stood in the pre-amendment stage should have been considered as one of the grounds for adjudication. Invariably it suggests that the liability that was saddled earlier was in the ratio of 50:50 each on the driver, owner of lorry and the insurer of jeep. However, the liability as observed in the case on the lorry is without sting insofar as claimants are concerned as there is no bearing of the insurance company for the very reason that it is not accompanied by valid insurance policy. Now that insofar as from the point of adjudication the 28 status of claimant No.4-Biddappa driver of jeep is concerned it is not significant as the liability is contributory negligence of both the vehicles. Whether Biddappa stays as a claimant or respondent, the liability of the driver of jeep that includes Biddappa even if he had stayed as claimant No.4 was not entitled for compensation and liable for making good the compensation. Thus conduct of the parties, stationing of the lorry and dashing by the jeep, I hold both of them liable for their negligence for the purpose of bearing liability.
31. If the lorry was on the centre of the road it goes without saying jeep also got to the middle to dash from hind side. Thus, on the lengthy analysis as stated above both the vehicles contributed for negligence. It is contributory and not composite negligence.
29
32. Next point is quantum of compensation. The data available is age of Nanaiah 32 years who succumbed to injuries and his monthly income is `8,729/-. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel that Rani Biddappa who is claimant No.5 in the capacity of mother of deceased Nanaiah is dead. Thus, in view of non heritability of dependency 1/3rd is deducted towards personal and living expenses. Then compensation towards `loss of dependency' would be as under:
`8,729 +50% added towards future prospects.
= 13,093-1/3=4,364= 8,729x12x16=`16,75,968 Add:Conventional heads ` 70,000
-------------
`17,45,968 Less: Awarded by Tribunal `12,32,144
-------------
Enhancement ` 5,13,824
=======
33. It is made clear that the nature of negligence is not composite negligence on the other hand it is 30 equally saddled between both the vehicles lorry and jeep and liability to pay compensation shall be equally divided between the owner and driver of the lorry in the absence of valid insurance policy and rest is on the insurer of the jeep. Needless to mention that claimant No.4 is not entitled for any compensation.
The finding of the learned member regarding quantum of compensation and considering the amendment application is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
1. MFA No.11869/2012 and MFA Crob No.76/2013 are allowed in part.
2. Judgment and award dated 12.09.2012 passed in MVC No.81/2002 by Senior Civil Judge, MACT, Virajpet is proportionately set 31 aside by fixing contributory negligence in the ratio of 50:50 between the owner and driver of the lorry and insurer of the jeep and by granting additional compensation of `5,13,824/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
3. The owner and driver of lorry and insurer of the jeep are directed to deposit the compensation amount in the ratio of 50:50 with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Amount is deposit be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN