Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bayanna vs B. Purushotam Reddy And Another on 28 October, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI
****
M.A.C.M.A.No.1313 of 2006
Between:
Bayanna, S/o.Adeppa, Aged 28 years,
Hindu, R/o.N.Rangapuram (V), Peapully Mandal,
Kurnool District. ... Appellant
And
1. B.Purushotam Reddy, S/o.B.Venkata Reddy,
Aged 26 years, Hindu, Owner of Tractor and Trailer
No.AP 02 F 1452 and 1453, R/o.Bukkapatnam(V),
Kondapuram (M), Kadapa District.
2. M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
Kurnool. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28-10-2022
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
+ M.A.C.M.A.No.1313 of 2006
% 28-10-2022
Between:
Bayanna, S/o.Adeppa, Aged 28 years,
Hindu, R/o.N.Rangapuram (V), Peapully Mandal,
Kurnool District. ... Appellant
And
1. B.Purushotam Reddy, S/o.B.Venkata Reddy,
Aged 26 years, Hindu, Owner of Tractor and Trailer
No.AP 02 F 1452 and 1453, R/o.Bukkapatnam(V),
Kondapuram (M), Kadapa District.
2. M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
Kurnool. ... Respondents
! Counsel for Appellant : Sri A.Jaya Sankar Reddy
^ Counsel for 2nd Respondent : Sri N.Ramakrishna
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (1965) 1 All ER 563
2) 2013 ACJ 2161 (SC)
3) 2008 ACJ 2039 (SC)
4) 2012 ACJ 583 (SC)
5) 2014 ACJ 653 (SC)
6) 2013 ACJ 2161 (SC)
7) 2011 ACJ 1 (SC)
8) (2003) 2 SCC 274
This Court made the following:
3
4
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1313 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the judgment and award dt.26.10.2005 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Court, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2004 granting compensation of a sum of Rs.2,23,300/- along with 7.5% interest thereon from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization of the amount to the petitioner on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident near Sivalayam at Kadapa-Tadipatri road on 08.03.2003.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal‟).
3. The factual matrix of the case is thus:
a) The Petitioner in the claim petition filed the above O.P stating inter alia that on 08.03.2003 while he was traveling by a R.T.C bus bearing Registration No.AP 9 Z 7484 from Pulivendula to Tadipatri and when the bus reached Sivalayam at about 7.10 p.m., the offending vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer bearing 5 Registration Nos.AP 02 F 1452 and AP 02 F 1453 respectively loaded with Napa Stones came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus.
Thus, caused the accident, as a result, he sustained a crush injury on his right leg besides sustained injuries all over his body and he was shifted to the hospital for treatment. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said tractor and trailer and based on the F.I.R lodged by the driver of the R.T.C bus, a case in Crime No.35 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Sections 337 & 338 I.P.C. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused- driver of the offending vehicle for having committed offence punishable under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. Thereafter, the injured filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries i.e., for Amputation of the right leg above the knee sustained by him in the road accident, against the 1st and 2nd respondents who are the insured and the insurer respectively of the offending vehicle.
(b) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter contending inter alia that the petitioner is put to 6 strict proof that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and further strict proof that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence and got a valid permit and fitness etc., to drive the same on the road. Further, it is contended that the owner of the bus (A.P.S.R.T.C) is the necessary party to the proceedings and further contended that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
(c) On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues as under:
(1) Whether the accident occurred due to the collision between the bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 7484 and the tractor-cum-trailer bearing Nos.AP 02 F 1452 and AP 02 F 1453?
(2) Whether the accident not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-cum-trailer bearing Nos.AP 02 F 1452 and AP 02 F 1453?
(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom?
(4) To what relief?
(d) In order to establish the claim of the petitioner, at the time of enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and X.1 were got marked. The Assistant Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company (R.2) was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1 was marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
7
(e) Appreciating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and placing reliance upon Exs.A.1 to A.6 and X.1, the certified copies of F.I.R., Wound Certificate, Charge Sheet, Calender and Judgment in C.C.405 of 2003, Disability Certificate, Bunch of Medical Bills and Case Sheet respectively the learned Tribunal was of the view that the accident in the instant case was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Apart from that, the driver of the offending vehicle made a confession the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The driver of the offending vehicle was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 337 & 338 IPC and was sentenced to pay fines of Rs.300/- and 600/- respectively, in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and one month respectively for the offence committed.
(f) On considering the above documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,23,300/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner/claimant and the 1st respondent has to pay the amount as the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent has to indemnify the same, being the insurer of the vehicle.
8
4. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal dated 26.10.2005 made in M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2004, the appellant/claimant has preferred the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the same.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/injured would submit that the Tribunal has failed to consider the appropriate income of the claimant and has not awarded just and reasonable compensation under different heads and it would be appropriate to reconsider the quantum by taking Rs.3,000/- per month as earnings of the claimant at the time of the accident. Further, he would submit that, by taking into consideration the age of the injured i.e., 28 years, as per the Amended Act, the multiplier of 18 should be applied for passing the award. He would further contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards Pain and Suffering. Whereas the evidence on record shows that his right leg was amputated above the knee and he underwent treatment in different hospitals. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in granting amounts under various heads by following the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Therefore, it makes clear that the award passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and needs to be modified by following Raj Kumar‟s case. Though the said ruling was not pronounced by the time of passing the 9 award, the said ruling is applicable to the pending appeals and the same may not be applied to the disadvantage of the claimants. He, thus, prayed to suitably enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company supporting the award passed by the Tribunal would submit that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. He would further submit that fixing of notional income of the injured at Rs.1,600/- per month is proper even in the absence of documentary evidence regarding the income of the injured. He would further submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable and does not require further enhancement. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
7. In the light of the above rival arguments, the points for determination in this appeal are:
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with the principles of law and requires enhancement?
2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or need interference?
8. POINT Nos.1 & 2: The accident, involvement of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP 02 F 1452 and AP 02 F 1453 and the injuries i.e., for Amputation of the right leg above the knee 10 sustained by the claimant are not in dispute, as stated supra. It is a well settled principle that while determining the compensation payable to him in the claim filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ward Vs. James1 Halsbury‟s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 12 (Page 446) wherein it was held as follows:
"When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration".
9. Further, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,2 wherein it was held as follows:
"It is well settled principle that in granting compensation for personal injury, in injured has to be compensated (1) for pain and suffering (2) for loss of amenities, (3) shortened expectation of life, if any, (4) loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity or in some cases for both, and (5) medical treatment and other special damages".1
(1965) 1 All ER 563 2 2013 ACJ 2161 (SC) 11
10. If the above two judgments are read together, the intention of the Hon‟ble Apex Court though under different contexts, is crystal clear that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is not just and reasonable, which becomes law of the land.
11. At this juncture, it needs to refer to the decisions rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of, K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,3, Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar4 and Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar5. The judgments make clear the intention of the Hon‟ble Apex Court that in case, of amputation of either of the legs above the knee or below the knee, considering the loss of earning capacity of the victim may be high as 100%, but in no case, it would be not less than 90% or 70%.
12. In the present case of nature, the injured sustained 60% disability as per the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, and P.W.2(Doctor) who treated the injured deposed that on 11.03.2003 the injured had been admitted in the hospital with a crush injury on the right leg and the knee amputation was done on 11.03.2003 and revision amputation was done on 3 2008 ACJ 2039 (SC) 4 2012 ACJ 583 (SC) 5 2014 ACJ 653 (SC) 12 05.04.2003. The patient was discharged on 17.04.2003. Ex.A.5 is the Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Anantapur. Ex.A.5 would show that the disability of the injured was assessed at 60%. In view of the evidence of P.W.2, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the disability not less than 70%. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Tribunal needs to be modified under the head of loss of earning capacity by following Raj Kumar's case.
13. In the present case of nature, the claimant is a labourer attending the work of cutting slabs in a quarry and may not have the better prospect and should be entitled to better amenities in his life. The Tribunal had failed to consider the proper income of the claimant and has not awarded just and reasonable compensation under different conventional heads. It would be proper to reconsider the quantum by taking the income of the injured at Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of the incident. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is meager and the claimant is entitled to more compensation in view of the evidence adduced which was not properly appreciated by the Claims Tribunal. Though an amount of Rs.3,000/- was claimed as the monthly income of the injured, the Claims Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the injured as Rs.1,600/- per month. It would be appropriate to reconsider 13 the quantum by taking the monthly income of the injured at Rs.3,000/- at the time of the accident.
14. However, it may be appropriate to mention here, while laying down the legal position with regard to awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the case of Kavita Vs. Deepak and Others6 wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court relied on the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar7 while awarding compensation. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer Raj Kumar's case wherein it was held as follows:
"The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K.Subramonia Iyer Vs. T.Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 6 2013 ACJ 2161 (SC) 7 2011 ACJ 1 (SC) 14 1970 SC 376, R.D.Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker Vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467) The heads under which the compensation need to be awarded in personal injury cases as under:
Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages):
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity) In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item
(i) and item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actual and are easily ascertainable from the evidence.
Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) - depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi)
- involves determination of lump sum amounts 15 with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability -
item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability."
15. In the present case of nature, the Claims Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier „17‟ as the injured was found to be 28 years old and ought to have considered the future prospects of the injured. Having failed to consider the same, the Claims Tribunal committed an illegality in awarding a meager amount of compensation payable to the claimant by following the decisions rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court stated supra.
16. In the present case, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards extra nourishment and transportation to the hospital, Rs.1,49,760/- towards future loss of income, Rs.50,000/- towards pain & suffering and loss of amenities, Rs.7,680/- towards loss of earnings, and Rs.9,860/- towards medical bills and in total Rs.2,23,300/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.
17. The Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under various conventional heads. As per the decision in Raj Kumar case stated supra, loss of future earnings has to be assessed. 16 Loss of earning capacity has to be assessed on the basis of evidence. The claimant who is a labourer attending the work of cutting slabs in the quarry and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of the labourer was between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month. In my view, the claim was honest and bonafide, and therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,600/-. Therefore, it would be proper to reconsider the quantum by taking the income of the injured at Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of the incident. During cross-examination of P.W.1, it was elicited by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the injured used to earn Rs.100/- per day. That itself is sufficient to reconsider the quantum by taking Rs.3,000/- per month as the income of the injured. Therefore, the Tribunal has failed to consider the appropriate income of the claimant and has not awarded just and reasonable compensation under different heads. As such, it would be appropriate to reconsider the quantum by taking a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as income of the injured at the time of the accident.
18. (a) So far as disability is concerned, the claimant has pleaded to consider the same as 100% because of the amputation to his right leg above the knee and unable to do any 17 work by sitting on the floor. In view of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar, referred supra, and considering the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board in this case, assessing the loss of earning capacity of the injured at 60% at least, would be just and reasonable. Thus, the calculation of compensation towards loss of future earnings, as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar's case will be as follows:
a) Annual income before the accident .... Rs.36,000/-
b) Loss of future earnings per annum (60% of the prior annual income) .... Rs. 21,600/-
c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age .... 17
d) Loss of future earnings (21,600 x 17) ....Rs.3,67,200/-
But, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,49,000/- towards loss of future earnings. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,67,200/- towards loss of future earnings.
(b) The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,860/- towards medical bills. The right leg of the injured was amputated and he was hospitalized for 45 days. The injured who is a labourer is not 18 supposed to be that much meticulous so as to maintain the bills for any future use. The claimant has remained in the hospital for a period of more than 45 days. Though he joined in Government Hospital, certainly the medical expenditure incurred would be more than the awarded amount, as his right leg was amputated above the knee. Therefore, the compensation under the head of medical bills is enhanced from Rs.9,860/- to Rs.50,000/-.
(c) The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of amenities as the person who is suffering permanent disability at 60% cannot lead a normal life. Since the right leg was amputated, any amount of compensation cannot make the life of an injured normal one as it was before the accident. The compensation is only the means to grant some support for the loss he suffered with which he is expected to live for the rest of his life. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Rs.1,00,000/- has to be awarded towards the loss of amenities of life.
(d) Further, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,680/- towards loss of earnings for 45 days i.e., during the period of treatment. The injured claimed his income as Rs.100/- per day prior to the accident. By taking into consideration the 19 evidence of the injured, an amount of Rs.100/- per day is taken as income of the injured, and loss of earnings for 45 days during the period during which he was hospitalized would come to Rs.100 x 45 = Rs.4,500/-. As such, reducing the amount of Rs.7,680/- to Rs.4,500/- under this head is just and reasonable.
(e) Apart from that, the amount under another conventional head i.e., Attendant Charges needs to be awarded to the injured. Since the injured was hospitalized for a period of 45 days and his right leg was amputated, at least two persons are required to attend to the injured even to lift him from the bed for other purposes. As such, at least Rs.200/- for each attendant has to be awarded which comes to Rs.200 x 2 x 45 = Rs.18,000/-. Hence, an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards attendant charges deserves to be granted to the claimant.
(f) The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- towards extra nourishment and transportation from the place of the accident to Tadipatri and from Tadipatri to Kurnool. This Court is of the view that Rs.6,000/- is sufficient for transportation, and an amount of Rs.40,000/- needs to be awarded towards extra nourishment.
(g) Though the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, it needs to be enhanced 20 to Rs.1,00,000/- as the injured had suffered in consequence to the amputation of the right leg above the knee.
(h) Apart from this, by taking the pathetic situation of the injured into consideration because of the amputation of his right leg above the knee, an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards artificial leg including the future medical expenses deserves to be granted to the claimant.
19. Hence, keeping in view the permanent disability of the claimant/injured, this Court is of the view that the compensation of Rs.2,23,300/- awarded by the Tribunal has to be enhanced as follows:
S.No Name of the Head Awarded by Enhanced/Redu the Tribunal ced by this Court 1 Loss of future Rs.1,49,760/- Rs. 3,67,200/-
earnings 2 Medical Bills Rs. 9,860/- Rs. 50,000/-
3 Loss of amenities ---- Rs. 1,00,000/-
4 Loss of earnings Rs. 7,680/- Rs. 4,500/-
during the period of treatment 5 Transportation Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 6,000/-
6 Attendant Charges ---- Rs. 18,000/-
7 Extra Nourishment ---- Rs. 40,000/-
8 Pain & Suffering Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 9 Artificial Leg & ---- Rs. 50,000/-
Future Medical
Expenses
Total Rs.2,23,300/- Rs. 7,35,700/-
21
20. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others8, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award "just compensation", even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation which should appear to be just and proper. In the present case, the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable and the claimant is entitled to more compensation though he might not have claimed the same at the time of filing of the claim petition.
8 (2003) 2 SCC 274 22
21. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,23,300/- to Rs.7,35,700/-.
22. Consequently, the appeal is hereby allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,23,300/- to Rs.7,35,700/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, with proportionate costs from the date of the petition till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them. The appellant/claimant shall pay the requisite Court-fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed. Rest of the directions given by the Tribunal with regard to entitlement of the appellant/injured in withdrawing the amount shall remain unaltered.
The impugned award of the Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA Date: 28.10.2022 L.R.Copy to be marked.
Dinesh 23 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA M.A.C.M.A.No.1313 OF 2006 28.10.2022 Dinesh