SMT. SHIDDAWWA W/O BHUTAPPA KABADAGI vs SHRI MARUTI S/O SHANKAR CHOUGALA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100071 OF 2021 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101196 OF 2022 (MV-D)

IN MFA No. 100071/2021
BETWEEN:

1. MARUTI S/O SHANKAR CHOUGALA
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,

2. BHARATI W/O. MARUTI CHOUGALA
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,

3. DAYANAND S/O. MARUTI CHOUGALA
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

4. SHANKAR S/O. CHANNAPPA CHOUGLA
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O. KONKERI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI,
PRESENTLY AT DESAI GALLI,
KAKATI BELAGAVI,
TAL & DIST. BELAGAVI,
PIN-591113.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHIDDAWWA BHUTAPPA KABADAGI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE,
KABBUR, TAL: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591222.
(OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


NO.MH-09/L6669)

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
D. O.1568, MARUTI GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590002.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
ND
09.11.2020 PASSED BY THE 2 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND
MEMBER OF ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI IN MVC 620 OF 2017 AND
ALLOW THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL BY AWARDING
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

IN MFA NO. 101196/2022
BETWEEN:

SMT. SHIDDAWWA
W/O. BHUTAPPA KABADAGI,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE,
KABBUR, TQ: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE-591222.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI. MARUTI
S/O. SHANKAR CHOUGALA,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,

2. SMT. BHARATI W/O. MARUTI CHOUGALA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

3. KUMAR DAYANAND S/O. MARUTI CHOUGALA
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC:--

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


4. SHRI. SHANKAR CHANNAPPA CHOUGALA
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
PRESENTLY AT DESAI GALLI, KAKATI,
BELAGAVI

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT
R/O. KONAKERI(KONANKERI),

TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
PIN CODE: 591225.

5. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
D. O. 1568, MARUTI GALLI,
BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE.
INSURER OF TRUCK BEARING
REGISTERED NO. MH 09-L-6669.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR KOTIN FOR
SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 09.11.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.620/2017
BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER AND
ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
FOR RS.8,84,00/- WITH INTEREST OF AT 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION, BY HOLDING THE APPELLANT HEREIN
LIABLE TO PAY THE SAID COMPENSATION TO THE
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 HEREIN BE KINDLY SET ASIDE, BY
HOLDING THE RESPONDENT NO.5 HEREIN INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD, TO SATISFY THE AWARD AMOUNT, AS
INDEMNIFIED OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL, WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
24.09.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


CAV JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 09.11.2020
in MVC No.620/2017 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge
1
and Member of Additional MACT, Belagavi , the petitioners
before the Tribunal filed an appeal in MFA No.100071/2021
seeking enhancement of compensation and the respondent
No.2, who is the owner of the Truck filed an appeal in MFA
No.101196/2022 challenging its liability.

2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.2017 at
about 17.30 hours, Shivanand Maruti Chougala was proceeding
on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/EK-1109 as pillion
rider. Motorcycle was rided by its rider from Belagavi towards
Konkeri, in a moderate speed with proper care and caution on
his correct left side of the road. When they reached near the
Belagavi-Sankeshwar road, near Reliance Petrol Pump, at that
2
time, one Truck bearing registration No.MH-09/L-6669 driven
by its driver, in a high speed, rash and negligent manner, came

1
For short, ‘the Tribunal’
2
For short, ‘the Truck’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


from behind and dashed to the motorcycle and caused the
accident. Due to this impact, Shivanand Maruti Chougala
sustained grievous injuries on vital part of the body and died on
the spot.

4. The petitioners contended that prior to the accident,
the deceased-Shivanand was hale and healthy, young and
energetic. Further contended that the deceased was aged 21
years at the time of the accident and he was I.T.I student and
doing electrician work and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. and
maintaining his family. Due to the sudden death of the
deceased, the petitioners have suffered mentally, physically
and financially. The petitioners being the legal representatives
of the deceased have filed petition claiming compensation
before the Tribunal.

5. On filing of the petition, notices have been issued to
the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have appeared
through their respective counsel and filed objections.

6. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the Truck
denied the entire petition averments and contended that the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


claim petition of the petitioners is false, frivolous and vexatious.
It is contended that, as per the complaint it is clear that, as on
the date of accident, the complainant-cum-rider of the said
motorcycle was suffering from severe head ache and he was
not mentally and physically fit to ride motorcycle that too on
national Highway and he was unable to control the speed of his
vehicle, and at the time he was unsuccessfully trying to
overtake the Truck of the respondent No.1 and lost his control
over the motorcycle and fell on the road. It is further contended
that taking advantage that the Truck of the respondent No.1
was also moving on road by the side of the said motorcycle the
rider managed to file complaint to the jurisdictional police and
the police also looking to the death caused to one of the inmate
of the motorcycle got registered the FIR against the driver of
the Truck. It is further contended that the accident occurred
due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and
not by the driver of the Truck. It is crystal clear that, the
accident in question is due to collusion between two vehicles
and in the present claim petition, owner and insurer of the
motorcycle are not made as parties to the present proceedings
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


and they being necessary parties, the petition is not
maintainable. It is further contended that the compensation, if
any, be saddled on the respondent No.2/Insurance Company of
the Truck and prays to dismiss the claim petition with costs.

7. Respondent No.2/Insurer of the Truck contended
that the petitioners have not produced surviving family
member's certificate issued by the jurisdictional Tahasildar to
show that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased. It is
further contended that the petitioners have not impleaded
insured and insurer of the motorcycle and without impleading
them, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Further, the petitioners have not produced MVI report and
charge sheet to prove the negligence on the part of Truck
driver, in the absence of the said documents, the petition is not
maintainable. It is further contended that the driver of the
Truck was holding valid and effective DL as on the date of
accident. It is further contended that there is violation of the
basic terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the
Insurance Company cannot be saddled with liability, if any.
Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the claim petition with costs.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021



8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner No.1 himself
examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P.1 to
P.17. On behalf of respondents, three witnesses have been
examined as RW1 to RW3 and got marked Exs.D1 to D3.

9. On hearing the argument, the Tribunal partly
allowed the claim petition of the petitioners awarding
compensation under the following heads:
Sl.
Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Loss of dependency 8,64,000/-
2 Loss of estate 10,000/-
3 Funeral expenses 10,000/-
TOTAL 8,84,000/-


10. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against
respondent No.2/Insurance Company and further held that the
respondent No.1, who is the owner of Truck is liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners and directed to deposit the
compensation amount within one month from the date of the
order with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of petition till realization.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021



11. Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
award, the petitioners as well as the respondent No.1/owner of
the Truck preferred these appeals.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the
monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal at
Rs.8,000/- is not correct as the accident occurred in the year
2017. Further the Tribunal awarded meager compensation
under the conventional heads and also the interest awarded by
the Tribunal at the rate of 6% on compensation amount is on
the lower side. Accordingly, prays for enhancement of the
compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1
argued that the Tribunal passed an award without considering
the material evidence available on record. It is argued that the
Tribunal fixed the liability on the owner of the truck to pay the
compensation to the petitioners which is not correct. Further it
is argued that the driver of the truck was having effective
driving license at the time of accident, and the Tribunal wrongly
observed that there is actionable negligence on the part of the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


driver. It is further argued that there was no breach of
insurance policy conditions.

14. It is further argued that on the alleged time of
accident, the driver was not keeping well so without the
consent of the owner, the driver handed over the vehicle i.e.,
the truck to the cleaner by name Govinda Rajangale and the
accident occurred when the driver was not driving the vehicle,
but the cleaner was steering the vehicle.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company in both the appeals argued that the police have
investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the
cleaner Govinda who is having driving license. Further, Ex.P8 is
the statement of the owner of the Truck Smt. Shiddawwa W/o.
Bhutappa Kabadagi. She had produced the RC of the Truck and
also given a statement that the driver was not having driving
license to drive the vehicle as on 20.03.2017. She has also
given a statement that Truck is insured with United India
Insurance Company which was valid till 19.12.2017. The
respondent No.1 raised many contentions in the appeal
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


preferred by her, but those contentions were not raised before
the Tribunal.

16. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:

(i) Whether the petitioners prove that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate and it deserves to be modified?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in saddling
the liability on respondent No.1/owner of the
Truck to pay the compensation?

(iii) What order?

17. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.(ii) : Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.(iii): As per the final order, for the
following:

18. Regarding Point No.(i): The accident is not in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that the driver of the Truck ran
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on 20.03.2017 at
17.30 hours and dashed against the motorcycle from behind,
by which Shivanand Maruti Chougala sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The police have
investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the
driver of the Truck. The respondent No.1 before the Tribunal
was the owner of the Truck.

19. According to the petitioners, the Tribunal awarded
meager compensation. The deceased was aged 21 years at the
time of the accident and prior to the accident was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month by doing electrician work and
maintaining his family. But, the petitioners have not produced
any documents to prove the income of the deceased. Since
there is no proof of income, the income of the deceased should
be assessed by following the chart issued by the Karnataka
Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in the year
2017. Hence, the notional income of deceased should be taken
at Rs.10,250/-.

20. The deceased died at the age of 21 years. In view
of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


3
others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , the
applicable multiplier would be “18” .

21. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
4
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi ,
towards future prospects 40% of the income of the deceased is
to be added, and also 50% of the income is to be deducted
towards personal living expenses of the deceased

22. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for compensation
under the head of “loss of dependency” as under:
Rs.10,250/- + 40% = Rs.14,350/-
Rs.14,350/- - 50% = Rs.7,175/-
Rs.7,175 X 12 X 18 = Rs.15,49,800/-


23. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.10,000/- each under the head of “loss of estate” and
“funeral expenses”. In Pranay Sethi ’s case, the Hon’ble Apex
Court quantified the compensation under the heads of “loss of
estate” and “funeral expenses” at Rs.15,000/- each with 10%

3
2009 ACJ 1298
4
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


escalation. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to award
compensation of Rs.16,500/- each under the said heads.

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a landmark judgments
in Pranay Sethi’s case and Magma General Insurance
5
Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram , restricts
the legal definition of consortium strictly to three distinct
categories i.e., i)spousal consortium to be awarded to a
surviving husband or wife, ii)parental consortium to be awarded
to a surviving children who lost parents and iii)filial consortium
to be awarded to surviving parents who lost their child. The
grandparents and brother of the deceased do not fall into any
of these three categories. Hence, this Court is of the opinion
that, they are excluded from claiming consortium.

25. The petitioners No.1 and 2 being the parents of the
deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each
with 10% escalation i.e, to Rs.88,000/- under the head of
“loss of filial consortium”. In all compensation is awarded under
the following heads:


5
(2018) 18 SCC 130
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


Sl. Amount in
Heads
No. Rs.
1 Loss of dependency 15,49,800/-
2 Loss of estate 16,500/-
3 Funeral expenses 16,500/-
4 Filial consortium 88,000/-
TOTAL 16,70,800/-


26. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.16,70,800/- as against Rs.8,84,000/- as
awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered
partly in the affirmative.

27. Regarding point No.(ii): According to the owner
of the Truck the insurance is valid so, the Insurance Company
is liable to pay the compensation. On the other hand, the
Tribunal wrongly directed the owner to pay the compensation
to the petitioners.

28. Ex.D3 is the insurance policy of the Truck, which is
valid from 20.12.2016 to midnight of 19.12.2017. The accident
occurred on 20.03.2017. So, as on the date of accident the
truck covered with insurance.

29. It is the contention of the Insurance Company that
the driver allowed the cleaner to drive the vehicle at the time of
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


accident, and the cleaner was not having valid driving license to
drive the vehicle and thereby the owner violated the terms and
conditions of the policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

30. It is an undisputed fact that, at the time of accident
the cleaner was driving the Truck and caused an accident. The
explanation given by the driver of the truck that he was not
comfortable with his health, so he allowed the cleaner to drive
the vehicle. Whoever may be the driver at the time of accident,
the driver of the Truck was not holding effective driving license.
The charge sheet has been filed against the cleaner who was
driving the vehicle at the time of accident which has not been
challenged.

31. In this case, the driver was a third party and the
Insurance Company cannot say that it is not liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioners as the driver is not having
driving license.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021



32. It is pertinent to note that the owner has paid the
premium. The Insurance Company has collected the premium
and insurance holds good at the time of accident.

33. In a case Rama Bai V. M/s. Amit Minerals and
6
Another , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that when the
driver was not having driving license and when the insurance is
valid, the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation at
the first instance and then to recover from the owner of the
offending vehicle.

34. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
Insurance Company shall satisfy the award and then it can be
recovered by the insurer from the insured i.e., owner of the
Truck. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal directing the
respondent No.1/owner of the Truck to pay the compensation
to the petitioners is not sustainable and it deserves to be
modified.

35. With the above discussions, this Court is of the
opinion that, the Insurance Company shall pay the

6
2025 SCC 2067,
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021


compensation to the petitioners along with accrued interest at
the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of
the Truck. Further, the petitioners claiming enhancement of
rate of interest at 9% per annum on the compensation amount.
But, this Court does not find any reason to award the same and
modify the rate of interest on the compensation amount.

36. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered partly in the
affirmative.

37. Regarding point No.(iii): In view of the findings
on points No.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER

(i) The appeal filed by the petitioners in MFA
No.100071/2021 is allowed in part.


(ii) The appeal filed by the respondent
No.1/owner of the Truck in MFA
No.101196/2022 is allowed in part .

Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021



(iii) The petitioners are entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.16,70,800/- as
against Rs.8,84,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.

(iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of
payment.

(v) Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally directed to pay the compensation
to the petitioners.

(vi) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall
deposit the compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Tribunal within a
period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment
and then may recover the same from the
respondent No.1/owner of the Truck.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17321
MFA No. 100071 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 101196 of 2022


CNR: KAHC020126162021



(vii) The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to
be refunded to the appellant in MFA
No.101196/2022.

(viii) Draw modified award accordingly.

(ix) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records
forthwith.


(x) In view of disposal of this appeal, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and the same are accordingly
disposed of.




(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE



SMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 17-10-2026