SMT. ASHA vs RAMAKRISHNA S GHATGE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
R
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4119 OF 2021(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ASHA
W/O LATE PANDURANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2.
SMT. MAHANTHAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/O RAM NAGARA,
INDUSTRIAL AREA, DAVANAGERE,
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
NANDIGAVI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 516.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.J. SUNKAPUR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMAKRISHNA.S. GHATGE
S/O SHIVAJI RAO GHATGE,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OWNER CUM DRIVER OF CAR BEARING
REG. NO. KA27/N-4515,
R/O HALEPETE STREET, SAVANUR CITY,
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 118.
Digitally signed by
SUMATHY KANNAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNTAKA
1
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
MELAGIRI PLAZA,
MCC ‘B’ BLOCK, DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
3. GEETHA
LATE PANDURANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD WORKER,
R/O NANDIGAVI VILLAGE,
NOW R/O ATTIGERE VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 514.
4. KUSHI
D/O LATE PANDURANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS,
R/O ATTIGERE VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 514.
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS REPRESENTING
RESPONDENT NO.4 AS NEXT FRIEND TO MINOR
DAUGHTER AS SHE IS UNDER HER
CARE AND CUSTODY.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O/DTD:27.09.2021, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R3 & R4-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.765/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, M.A.C.T., DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
2
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)
1. The present appeal seeks to challenge the judgment
and award dated 30.11.2020, in MVC No.765/2016, passed
by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and IV Motor Vehicles
Accident Claims Tribunal, Davanagere (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned Award, the
learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the
appellants/claimants in a sum of Rs.15,10,000/-, along with
interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till
its realisation.
2. The challenge in the present case has been made by
the appellants/claimants. Although respondents Nos 3 and
4 are served, they have remained unrepresented before this
Court. Notice to respondent No.1 was dispensed with by this
Court on 27.09.2021. The appeal has been contested by the
appellants/claimants and learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
3
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
2.1 Although the matter was listed for Admission, with the
consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing
and final disposal at the stage of admission.
3. At the outset, it is pointed out by the learned counsel
for both the parties that there was an additional issue raised
in this matter, that since respondent Nos.3 and 4 stated
nd
before the learned Tribunal that they were 2 wife and a
minor daughter of the deceased, while the claim petition
was filed by the first wife and the mother of the deceased.
4. Briefly, the facts relevant for this adjudication are that
on 09.03.2019, at about 8.30 p.m., when the deceased was
riding as a pillion on a motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-17/EL-8528, along with his friend from Nandigave to
Meleri Village, at that time, a Maruti Alto Car bearing
registration No.KA-27/N-4515 came from Ranebennur side,
stated to being driven in a rash and negligent manner with
high speed, tried to overtake an Innova Car bearing
registration No.KA-49/M-0919, but collided with the front
side of Innova Car and after that the Innova car hit the
4
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
motorcycle in which the deceased was riding. As a result,
the deceased, who was a pillion rider on the motorcycle, fell
from the motorcycle and sustained severe injuries and
succumbed to the injuries at the spot of the accident.
5. A claim petition was filed by the appellants/claimants
stating that the deceased was an agriculturalist and grew
flower crops and earned Rs 40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per
month. The appellants/claimants also made respondent
nd
nos. 3 and 4 viz., the 2 wife, as well as the minor daughter
of the deceased, as parties to the claim petition. The
respondent No.1/owner/driver of the offending vehicle, as
well as the respondent No.2/insurance company, appeared
before the learned Tribunal and filed their objections.
Respondent nos. 3 and 4 also filed objections.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following
issues were framed:
“1) Whether the petitioners prove that on 09.03.2009 at
about 8-30 p.m. the deceased Pandurangappa was
going as a pillion rider along with his friend
Shivakumar in Motorcycle bearing Reg.No. KA-17/EL-
8528 from Nandigavi to Medleri village. While they
were going near Karur cross NH.4 road and to cross
the road with signal at that time, the respondent No.1
5
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
being owner cum driver of Maruthi Alto Car bearing
Reg.No. KA-27/N-4515 drove it in a rash and
negligent manner in order to overtake the Innova Car
bearing Reg.No. KA-49/M-0919 and dashed to the
Innova Car to the front side and without observing the
deceased motorcycle, dashed to the deceased
motorcycle and caused the accident. As a result,
deceased Pandurangappa sustained grievous injuries
and died at the spot?
2) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that it is not
liable to pay any compensation if terms and conditions
of the policy are violated by R1?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what quantum and from whom?
4) What order or award?”
6.1 An additional issue was framed by the learned
Tribunal on the marital relationship between petitioner
No.1 and the deceased, which is set out below:
“1. Whether the respondent No.3 and 4 prove that
there is no marital relationship between petitioner No.1
and the deceased?”
7. The appellant/claimant was examined as PW1 and one
witness was examined as PW2 and marked documents as
Exhibits-P1 to P16 including Exhibit-P1 (FIR), Exhibit-P3
(spot mahazar), Exhibit-P4 (vehicle seizure report),
Exhibits-P5 and P6 (I.M.V. reports), Exhibit-P9 (final report)
Exhibits-P12, P13 and P16 (copy Aadhaar Card of the
6
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
petitioner, aadhar card of the mother of the deceased and
bank pass book of the petitioner). The respondent
No.2/insurance company and the respondent No.1/owner of
the vehicle did not lead any evidence. However, the
respondent No.3, the second wife was examined as RW-1
and she marked documents as Exhibits R1 to R4.
8. Based on the evidence produced, the learned Tribunal
found that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Maruti Auto Car bearing registration
No.KA-27/N-4515 and also it was found that there was no
breach in the Insurance Policy, and thus the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company is liable to make payment of
compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’).
9. On the Additional Issue No.1, the learned Tribunal
found that although there is no dispute that appellant
no.2/claimant No.2 is the mother of the deceased, there are
two persons being appellant/claimant no. 1 and respondent
No.3, both claiming to be the wives of the deceased, while
7
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
respondent no.4 is stated to be the daughter of the
deceased. The learned Tribunal also found that it cannot
adjudicate on the jural relationship of the deceased, with
appellant/claimant No.1 and respondent No.3, since it is not
a Competent Court for the same and thus held that the issue
would not arise. Accordingly, although the learned Tribunal
granted compensation, it did not apportion the
compensation awarded.
10. In order to calculate the loss of dependency, the
learned Tribunal held that since there were four dependents
of the deceased, including the respondent Nos. 3 and 4,
th
1/4 expenses are required to be deducted and since the
deceased was 34 years at the time of the accident, the
multiplier should be taken at ‘16’. The learned Tribunal,
however, awarded monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/- and calculated the loss of dependency in the
following manner:
“7500 x 12 x 16 = Rs.14,40,000/-”
8
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
10.1 The learned Tribunal also awarded amounts for ‘loss
of estate’, ‘loss of consortium and funeral expenses’ in the
following manner:
Sl.No. Heads Amount(Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency Rs.14,40,000/-
2 Toward loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral
expenses
Rs. 70,000/-
Total Rs.15,10,000/-
10.2 Thus, it was held that the appellants/claimants were
entitled to a sum of Rs.15,10,000/- along with 9% interest
per annum.
11. As stated above, the challenge before this Court is
only by the appellants/claimants. The learned counsel for
the appellants/claimants submits that the notional income
for the year 2019 was Rs.14,000/- per month as per the
Chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority and the learned Tribunal could not have taken the
notional income to calculate dependency as Rs.10,000/-.
Thus, it is contended that the amounts awarded for ‘loss of
9
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
dependency’ should be enhanced. In addition, he contends
that so far as the additional issue that was framed by the
learned Tribunal, the appellant/claimant no.1 and
respondent No.3 amicably resolved this issue by each of
them taking 50% of the amount awarded before the learned
Tribunal.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/insurance company is unable to controvert the fact
that the notional income for the year 2019 is Rs.14,000/-
per month. He however challenges the amounts awarded
for ‘loss of dependency’.
13. The points for determination before this Court are:
(i) Whether the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are to be treated
as dependents, to calculate the ‘loss of dependency’?
(ii) Whether the compensation has been awarded
correctly by the learned Tribunal?
14. The appellants/claimants in this case are the wife and
the mother. However, it is also stated that the deceased had
10
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
a second wife and a minor child who were dependent on him
as well. The learned Tribunal has held that the deceased
had four dependents including the second wife and minor
daughter as dependent on the deceased.
15. The issue as to who can be considered as a dependant
for the purpose of a MV Act claim is no longer res integra .
In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v.
1
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai , the Supreme Court while
examining the meaning of a legal representative as
applicable to the amended MV Act has held that a legal
representative need not necessarily be confined to the wife,
husband, parent and child of the deceased and that every
person who represents the estate of the deceased and also
suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor
vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of
compensation. The Court further held that the expression
"legal representative" under the Motor Vehicles Act is to be
accorded a wider meaning and is not confined merely to the
1
(1987) 3 SCC 234
11
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
spouse, parent and children of the deceased. The relevant
extract is below:
“11. Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 110-
A of the Act provide that an application for compensation
arising out of an accident may be made where death has
resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal
representatives of the deceased or by any agent duly
authorised by all or any of the legal representatives of the
deceased. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 110-
A provides that where all the legal representatives of the
deceased have not joined in any such application for
compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of
or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the
deceased and the legal representatives who have not so
joined shall be impleaded as respondents to the
application. The expression “legal representative”
has not been defined in the Act. Section 2(11) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 defines “legal
representative” as a person who in law represents
the estate of a deceased person and includes any
person who intermeddles with the estate of the
deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a
representative character the person on whom the
estate devolves on the death of the party so suing
or sued. The above definition, no doubt, in terms
does not apply to a case before the Claims Tribunal
but it has to be stated that even in ordinary parlance
the said expression is understood almost in the
same way in which it is defined in the Code of Civil
Procedure. A legal representative ordinarily means
a person who in law represents the estate of a
deceased person or a person on whom the estate
devolves on the death of an individual. Clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act authorises all
or any of the legal representatives of the deceased to
make an application for compensation before the Claims
Tribunal for the death of the deceased on account of a
motor vehicle accident and clause (c) of that sub-section
authorises any agent duly authorised by all or any of the
legal representatives of the deceased to make it. The
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Act
appears to be of some significance. It provides that the
application for compensation shall be made on behalf of
or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the
12
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
deceased. Section 110-A(1) of the Act thus expressly
states that (i) an application for compensation may be
made by the legal representatives of the deceased or their
agent, and (ii) that such application shall be made on
behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives.
Both the person or persons who can make an application
for compensation and the persons for whose benefit such
application can be made are thus indicated in Section 110-
A of the Act. This section in a way is a substitute to the
extent indicated above for the provisions of Section 1-A of
the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which provides that “every
such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife,
husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose
death shall have been so caused, and shall be brought by
and in the name of the executor, administrator or
representative of the person deceased”. While the Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 provides that such suit shall be for
the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child of the
deceased. Section 110-A(1) of the Act says that the
application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of
the legal representatives of the deceased. A legal
representative in a given case need not necessarily
be a wife, husband, parent and child. It is further
seen from Section 110-B of the Act that the Claims
Tribunal is authorised to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which
appears to it to be just and specifying the person or
persons to whom compensation shall be paid….”
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. The Supreme Court in N. Jayasree v.
2
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Limited ,
held that for maintaining a claim petition under Section 166
of the Act, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish loss
of dependency and that every legal representative who
2
(2022) 14 SCC 712
13
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor
vehicle accident is entitled to a remedy for realisation of
compensation. The Court further held that the percentage
of deduction towards personal expenses cannot be
governed by a rigid formula or by the nature of relationship
between the claimant and the deceased, and that the same
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The
relevant extract is set out below:
“16. In our view, the term “legal representative”
should be given a wider interpretation for the
purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should
not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents
and children of the deceased. As noticed above, the
MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the
object of providing monetary relief to the victims or
their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a
liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real
purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its
legislative intent. We are also of the view that in
order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for
the claimant to establish his loss of dependency.
Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every
legal representative who suffers on account of the
death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should
have a remedy for realisation of compensation.
17. It is settled that percentage of deduction for
personal expenses cannot be governed by a rigid
rule or formula of universal application. It also does
not depend upon the basis of relationship of the
claimant with the deceased. In some cases, the father
may have his own income and thus will not be considered
as dependent. Sometimes, brothers and sisters will not be
considered as dependents because they may either be
independent or earning or married or be dependent on the
father. The percentage of deduction for personal
14
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
expenditure, thus, depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
16.1 Relying on the Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation case, it was reiterated that every legal
representative who suffers on account of the death of a
person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a
remedy for realisation of compensation and that
dependency, rather than strict legal status, is the
determinative factor. The Supreme Court also reiterated
that the expression “legal representative” is of wide import
and is not confined to legal heirs alone. The relevant extract
is set out below:
“ 18. In the instant case, the question for
consideration is whether the fourth appellant would
fall under the expression “legal representative” for
the purpose of claiming compensation. In Gujarat
SRTC v. Raman bhai Prabhat bhai [Gujarat
SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, (1987) 3 SCC 234 :
1987 SCC (Cri) 482] this Court while considering the
entitlement of the brother of a deceased who died in
a motor vehicle accident to maintain a claim petition
under the provisions of the MV Act , held as under :
(SCC p. 250, para 13)
“13. We feel that the view [Gujarat
SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai First Appeal No.
1379 of 1986, order dated 24-12-1986 (Guj)] taken
by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the
principles of justice, equity and good conscience
15
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
having regard to the conditions of the Indian society.
Every legal representative who suffers on
account of the death of a person due to a motor
vehicle accident should have a remedy for
realisation of compensation and that is provided
by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These
provisions are in consonance with the principles of
law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It
is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to
determine the compensation which appears to it to
be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and
to specify the person or persons to whom
compensation shall be paid . The determination of
the compensation payable and its
apportionment as required by Section 110-B of
the Act amongst the legal representatives for
whose benefit an application may be filed
under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done
in accordance with well-known principles of
law . We should remember that in an Indian family
brothers, sisters and brothers' children and
sometimes foster children live together and they are
dependent upon the bread-winner of the family and
if the bread-winner is killed on account of a motor
vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny
them compensation relying upon the provisions
of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we
have already held has been substantially
modified by the provisions contained in the Act
in relation to cases arising out of motor
vehicles accidents. We express our approval of the
decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai
Taljabhai [Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai
Taljabhai, 1977 SCC OnLine Guj 3 : AIR 1977 Guj
195] and hold that the brother of a person who dies
in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a
petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal
representative of the deceased.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
16
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
17. In addition, in a recent judgment in this behalf, the
Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Tomar and Others
3
vs. Ashok Kushwaha and Others , has held that:
“13. This Court has clarified in the case of Meena Devi v.
Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204], that the objective
of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, is to ensure that just and fair compensation is paid
to the aggrieved party. Another question which arose
for our consideration, as for the purpose of loss of
dependency, the deduction of annual income should
be 1/3rd or 1/4th, as there are five claimants. The
Tribunal did not consider appellant Nos. 4 and 5,
namely, the father and the younger sister,
respectively, of the deceased as dependents,
stating therein that the father was not dependent
on the income of the deceased and since the father
is alive, the younger sister is also not dependent on
the income of the deceased. This Court in Gujarat SRTC
v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234], observed
that a legal representative is one, who suffers on account
of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and
need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child.”
[Emphasis supplied]
18. Concededly, the notional income for the year 2019 is
Rs.14,000/- per month and there is no dispute that at the
time of the accident, the deceased was 34 years of age.
Hence, the multiplier to be taken is ‘16’. Since 40% is to be
added towards future prospects, the loss of dependency
3
2025 SCC Online SC 554
17
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
would require to be calculated keeping in mind the
additional issue framed.
19. Accordingly, and in view of the settled law, since the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 were also dependents on the
income of the deceased, they would be taken into account
for calculating the compensation. Thus, the loss of
dependency would be calculated as follows:
Head Amount
Loss of dependency Rs.14,000 + Rs.5,600 (40%) x ¾ x 12 x
16 = Rs.28,22,400/-
20. Accordingly, the compensation awarded is to be
recalculated as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of Dependency
(14,000+5,600 (40%) x ¾ x 12 x 16)
28,22,400/-
2 Loss of Consortium
(Rs.40,000 x 4)
1,60,000/-
3 Loss of Estate 15,000/-
4 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
TOTAL 30,12,400/-
Less: Awarded by the Tribunal 15,10,000/-
Enhanced compensation 15,02,400/-
18
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
21. Hence, the appellants/claimants and respondent Nos.3
and 4 are entitled to a total compensation in the sum of
Rs .30,12,400/- along with interest at 9% per annum as
awarded by the learned Tribunal, from the date of petition
till its realization.
22. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 30.11.2020, in MVC
No.765/2016, passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and IV Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal,
Davanagere is modified, enhancing the compensation
by Rs.15,02,400/- along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal
from the date of petition till realization;
(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the
learned Tribunal remains undisturbed;
(iv) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is directed
to pay the enhanced compensation with interest as
19
NC: 2026:KHC:29484-DB
MFA No. 4119 of 2021
HC-KAR
awarded by the Tribunal within eight weeks from
today;
(v) On such deposit of compensation, the same shall be
released in favour of the appellants/claimants, on
filing of an appropriate application for withdrawal of
the enhanced amount;
(vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award
accordingly;
(vii) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this
judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its
records;
(viii) Pending applications, if any, stand closed.
(ix) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
JJ/YN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
20