Bali Ahmed & Ors vs United India Ins Co Ltd & Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~11 & 13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 09 July 2026
(11)
+ MAC.APP. 889/2018 & CM APPL. 41412/2018
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv.
versus
BALI AHMED & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
(13)
+ MAC.APP. 208/2019
BALI AHMED & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
versus
UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. for R=1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019
1. These cross-appeals have been filed assailing impugned award dated
th
14 August 2018, passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [‘ MACT/Tribunal ’], in MACT No.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 1/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
311/16 [‘ impugned award ’]; MAC.APP. 889/2018 being the appeal filed by
Insurance Company seeking recovery rights against the driver and the owner
[ respondent nos. 4 and 5 respectively ]; MAC.APP. 208/2019 , being the
appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
th
2. These cross-appeals arise out of an accident which occurred on 05
May 2016, when Rabia Khatoon [hereinafter, ‘ deceased ’] was travelling,
along with other passengers, from Delhi to Jaipur in vehicle bearing
registration no. RJ 14 TB 7798 [hereinafter, ‘ offending vehicle ’]. The
offending vehicle collided with a roadside tree, resulting in multiple injuries
to the deceased; another occupant died, while several others sustained
grievous injuries.
3. The MACT, while determining the claim for compensation, and after
examining the testimonies, arrived at the conclusion that driver of the
offending vehicle, which was a Tavera , had been negligent in driving and,
therefore, awarded compensation at Rs.5,67,536/- .
4. Mr. Pradeep Gaur , counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that
the Tavera /offending vehicle was carrying 11 passengers, whereas the permit
had only been issued for 7 passengers. The offending vehicle was, therefore,
overloaded and was operating beyond the cover provided by the Insurance
Company. He further contends that since there had been a breach of policy,
the Insurance Company ought to have been granted recovery rights against
driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
5. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to appear despite
th
service, and were, therefore, proceeded ex parte vide order dated 28 May
2025. It is noted, however, that driver and owner of the offending vehicle had
been represented before the MACT.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 2/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
6. Despite the Insurance Company’s contention, as recorded in
paragraph 6 of the impugned award, wherein the testimony of R3W1 [ officer
of the Insurance Company ] has been noted, the MACT failed to examine the
issue of breach of Insurance policy while rendering its final finding on the
issue of liability.
7. It is, therefore essential, that the MACT determines the aforesaid issue
by giving driver and owner of the offending vehicle an opportunity to respond
and reply to the same.
8. For this purpose, MAC.APP. 889/2018 is remanded back to the MACT
for assessment of the aforesaid issue, and to return its finding within a period
of three months.
9. Mr. Anshuman Bal , counsel for the claimants, in support of his plea
seeking enhancement, essentially points out, that in terms of the principles
enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC
680, the compensation awarded ought to be realigned on the following
counts:
(i) Loss of consortium was awarded at Rs.40,000/- , despite there
being three legal heirs, i.e., husband and two sons of the
deceased. Therefore, compensation towards loss of consortium
ought to have been Rs.40,000 x 3 , that is Rs. 1,20,000/- ;
(ii) Future prospects ought to have been granted at 25% .
10. Considering that these are standardized parameters enunciated by the
Supreme Court, the Court is inclined to consider the enhancement of
compensation.
11. On the issue of loss of estate being awarded in place of loss of
dependency , submission of Mr. Anshuman Bal , counsel for the claimants,
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 3/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
needs to be examined. MACT, in paragraph 20 of the impugned award, has
made the said determination on the basis of the decision of this Court in Keith
Rowe v. Prashant Sagar , 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4686 , which has since been
reconsidered by this Court, particularly in the recent decision of Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vinay Jain , 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4909.
12. In Vinay Jain ( supra ), this Court, while considering Keith Rowe
( supra ) and the subsequent decision in Indrawati v. Ranbir Singh , 2021 SCC
OnLine Del 114, wherein a clarification of Keith Rowe (supra) had been
supplied, held that the principles laid down in Keith Rowe (supra) do not
apply to those falling within the realm of ‘ dependency ’, namely, parents,
spouses, and children . For ease of reference, the relevant portion from Vinay
Jain ( supra ) is extracted as under:
“ 48. The Court relied upon the decision of the Karnataka
High Court in A. Manavalagan (supra). Relevant paragraphs
of A. Manavalagan (supra), upon which reliance was placed
by the Court, note that there were “two categories” of
damages in cases involving the death of a person: first,
pecuniary loss sustained by family members dependent upon
the deceased as a result of such death; and second, loss
caused to the estate as a result of the death of the deceased.
In the first category, action is brought by the legal
representatives as trustees for the dependants claiming
entitlement to compensation. In the second category, action
is brought by the legal representatives on behalf of the estate
of the deceased, and the compensation recovered forms part
of the assets of the estate. A distinction was thereafter drawn
between “loss of dependency” and “loss of estate”. Where
the claim was for dependency, the basis for the award of
compensation was “loss of dependency”, which refers to the
contribution made by the deceased to such claimants.
Conversely, where the claim was brought by legal
representatives of the deceased who were not dependants,
compensation was assessed as “loss to the estate”, that is,
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 4/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
loss of savings of the deceased. The method for determination
of “loss of estate” was broadly similar to that of “loss of
dependency”, which includes ascertaining the multiplicand
and multiplying the same by the multiplier. As noted in A.
Manavalagan (supra), the significant difference lay in the
figure adopted as the multiplicand. For the assessment of
“loss of dependency”, the annual contribution made by the
deceased to the family constitutes the multiplicand, whereas,
in cases of “loss of estate”, the multiplicand comprises the
annual savings of the deceased; the selection of multiplier
remains the same.
xxx
52. However, in the Supreme Court's decision in Arun Kumar
Agrawal (supra), Justice A.K. Ganguly specifically observed,
albeit without reference to Keith Rowe (supra), that limiting
the income of a “non-earning spouse” to not more
than one-third of the income of the earning spouse cannot be
justified on any rational basis.
xxx
55. From the assessment in Keith Rowe (supra) and the
subsequent decisions following it, it transpires that the
principles laid down in Keith Rowe (supra) do not apply to
those falling within the realm of “dependency”,
namely parents, spouses, and children. Therefore, the said
principles may not be strictly applicable to the case at hand,
where the claimant is the husband of the deceased. However,
it is necessary to clear the air with respect to these principles.
56. In Indrawati v. Ranbir Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 114,
a clarification of Keith Rowe (supra) and Dinesh
Adhlak (supra) was supplied by the same judge who
authored Keith Rowe (supra). This case involved a claim
by parents of the deceased in respect of the death of
their child who was 23 years of age.
57. The Tribunal held that they were not entitled to
compensation under the head of “loss of dependency”, but
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 5/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
only under the “loss of estate” in terms of principles laid
down in Keith Rowe (supra).
58. However, the High Court concluded that parents of the
deceased are considered, in law, as dependent on
their children, as children are bound to support
their parents in old age. Even if parents are not dependant on
their children at the time of accident, they would be both
financially and emotionally dependant on their children at
later stages of life. On this basis, it was clarified that
principles laid down in Keith Rowe (supra) and Dinesh
Adhlak (supra) would not apply to a claim for compensation
filed by parents in respect of death of their child, and would
apply to claims of “loss of estate” made by claimants other
than parents, spouse and children.
xxx
64. It is, therefore, quite clear that, even though the
principles enunciated in Keith Rowe (supra), relying upon A.
Manavalagan (supra), have not been deviated from by any
judgment of the Supreme Court or any High Court, on the
point of law, the principles governing compensation would
be split into two worlds. The first pertains to compensation
under “loss of dependency”, in cases where claim for
compensation is brought by dependants, including
the spouse, parents and children and, the second, includes
claims brought by claimants other than parents,
spouse, and children, such as siblings and other relatives to
whom loss of estate would be granted.
65. Compensation under “loss of dependency” would be
calculated in accordance with the principles enunciated
in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Varma (supra). Therefore,
the multiplicand would be calculated on the basis of notional
income of the deceased, after adding future prospects and
deducting personal and living expenses. The same would
then be multiplied by the appropriate multiplier, as provided
in the standard tabulation. However, to calculate “loss of
estate”, the element of savings would have to be considered
which, depending on the facts of the case, may differ, from
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 6/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
the amount to be considered while calculating the “loss of
dependency”. Thereafter, the appropriate multiplier would
be applied .
66. Furthermore, the Court notes that there is not too much
of a difference between these two approaches and that they
may, in some cases, lead to a similar calculation. However,
for the purposes of classification, we clarify that the
terminologies employed in “loss of dependency” and “loss of
estate” are different. While “loss of dependency” refers to
compensation for the loss of benefit arising from the
income/services of the deceased, “loss of estate”, in effect,
refers to the contribution that the deceased would have made
to his or her estate, the benefit of which would now be go to
whoever claims for the estate.
(emphasis added)
13. Therefore, the formula applied by the MACT while considering loss of
estate is no longer considered to be in vogue, particularly in light of the later
judgments of this Court, wherein the notional income of a housewife has been
taken into account, while adjudicating upon the question of loss of
dependency . This Court has already taken a detailed view in this regard in
Uma Rani v. Simranjeet Singh , 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4907. For the sake of
convenience, the relevant portion from Uma Rani ( supra ) has been
reproduced herein below-
“ 28. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme
Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance
Company Ltd.; (2010) 9 SCC 218 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ)
664 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1313, where the Supreme Court
stated that it is not possible to quantify any particular amount
considering that a wife/mother does not work by the clock,
but some pecuniary estimate has to be made. The Court noted
that this decision had been followed in Rajendra
Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. SLP (C) No.
13964/2018, where notional income of deceased housewife
was considered at Rs. 5,000/- per month.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 7/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
29. The Court then went on to make certain observations,
which are extracted as under:
“ 25. The sheer amount of time and effort that is
dedicated to household work by individuals, who are
more likely to be women than men, is not surprising
when one considers the plethora of activities a
housemaker undertakes. A housemaker often prepares
food for the entire family, manages the procurement of
groceries and other household shopping needs, cleans
and manages the house and its surroundings,
undertakes decoration, repairs and maintenance work,
looks after the needs of the children and any aged
member of the household, manages budgets and so
much more. In rural households, they often also assist in
the sowing, harvesting and transplanting activities in
the field, apart from tending cattle [see Arun Kumar
Agrawal [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ)
664 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1313]; National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Deepika [National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Deepika, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 828]. However,
despite all the above, the conception that housemakers
do not “work” or that they do not add economic value to
the household is a problematic idea that has persisted
for many years and must be overcome.
30. The issue of fixing notional income for a
homemaker, therefore, serves extremely important
functions. It is a recognition of the multitude of women
who are engaged in this activity, whether by choice or
as a result of social/cultural norms. It signals to society
at large that the law and the courts of the land believe in
the value of the labour, services and sacrifices of
homemakers. It is an acceptance of the idea that these
activities contribute in a very real way to the economic
condition of the family, and the economy of the nation,
regardless of the fact that it may have been traditionally
excluded from economic analyses. It is a reflection of
changing attitudes and mindsets and of our
international law obligations. And, most importantly, it
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 8/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
is a step towards the constitutional vision of social
equality and ensuring dignity of life to all individuals.
31. Returning to the question of how such notional
income of a homemaker is to be calculated, there can be
no fixed approach. It is to be understood that in such
cases the attempt by the court is to fix an approximate
economic value for all the work that a homemaker does,
impossible though that task may be. Courts must keep in
mind the idea of awarding just compensation in such
cases, looking to the facts and circumstances. [See R.K.
Malik v. Kiran Pal [See R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal, (2009)
14 SCC 1 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 265 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
1265, para 9:, (2009) 14 SCC 1 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
265 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1265].]
32. One method of computing the notional income of a
homemaker is by using the formula provided in
the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
which has now been omitted by the Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2019. The Second Schedule provided
that the income of a spouse could be calculated as
one-third of the income of the earning surviving
spouse. This was the method ultimately adopted by the
Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal [Arun Kumar
Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC
218 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 664 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
1313]. However, rationale behind fixing the ratio as
one-third is not very clear. [See Arun Kumar
Agrawal [Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ)
664 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1313]”
(emphasis added)
30. The Court also noted decision of the Division Bench of
Madras High Court in National Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Deepika; 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 828, where the
Court held as under:
“10. The Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act
gives a value to the compensation payable in respect of
those who had no income prior to the accident and for a
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 9/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
spouse, it says that one-third of the income of the
earning surviving spouse should be the value.
Exploration on the internet shows that there have been
efforts to understand the value of a homemaker's unpaid
labour by different methods. One is, the opportunity cost
which evaluates her wages by assessing what she would
have earned had she not remained at home viz. the
opportunity lost. The second is, the partnership method
which assumes that a marriage is an equal economic
partnership and in this method, the homemaker's salary
is valued at half her husband's salary. Yet another
method is to evaluate homemaking by determining how
much it would cost to replace the homemaker with paid
workers. This is called the replacement method.”
(emphasis added)
31. Thereafter, certain observations were made by the Court
which are extracted as under:
“ 34. However, it must be remembered that all the above
methods are merely suggestions. There can be no exact
calculation or formula that can magically ascertain the
true value provided by an individual gratuitously for
those that they are near and dear to. The attempt of the
court in such matters should therefore be towards
determining, in the best manner possible, the truest
approximation of the value added by a homemaker for
the purpose of granting monetary compensation.
35. Whichever method a court ultimately chooses to
value the activities of a homemaker, would ultimately
depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The
court needs to keep in mind its duty to award just
compensation, neither assessing the same
conservatively, nor so liberally as to make it a bounty to
claimants [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16
SCC 680 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ)
248]; Kajal v. Jagdish Chand [Kajal v. Jagdish
Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri)
577 : (2020) 3 SCC (Civ) 27].”
(emphasis added)
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 10/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
xxx
33. Lastly, the Supreme Court culled out the observations
and summarized them as under:
“ 41. Therefore, on the basis of the above, certain
general observations can be made regarding the issue
of calculation of notional income for homemakers and
the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for
the purposes of grant of compensation which can be
summarised as follows:
41.1. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with
respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.
41.2. Taking into account the gendered nature of
housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women
being engaged in the same as compared to men, the
fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains
special significance. It becomes a recognition of the
work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a
reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance
of our nation's international law obligations and our
constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring
dignity to all.
41.3. Various methods can be employed by the court to
fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on
the facts and circumstances of the case.
41.4. The court should ensure while choosing the
method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is
just in the facts and circumstances of the particular
case, neither assessing the compensation too
conservatively, nor too liberally.
41.5. The granting of future prospects, on the notional
income calculated in such cases, is a component of just
compensation.”
(emphasis added)
34. Reliance may also be placed upon a decision by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Dalbir Singh 2025:DHC:917, where this Court was
considering the issue of notional income of a deceased
housewife, who was rendering gratuitous service to the
family. The Court traversed through various decisions inter
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 11/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
alia Lata Wadhwa (supra), Arun Kumar
Agrawal (supra), Kirti (supra), Rajendra Singh (supra) and
the decision in Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Girish Pandey, Civil
Appeal No. 2515/2024 decided on 16th February 2024,
which noted that “direct or indirect income of a homemaker
cannot be less than the prevailing minimum wages of the
State at the time of the accident”.
xxx
40. In view of the above discussion, this Court is conscious
that domestic work performed by a housewife goes
unrecognized in terms of monetizing or calculating her
income. While there is no straitjacket formula, Courts have
emphasized the need for assessing the position held by a
housewife in her family and the duties performed by her in
order to assess the loss suffered by the family. Courts must
exercise a balance while taking into account the unsaid roles
performed by her, without deviating from the principles
of just compensation prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (‘ MV Act ’).
(emphasis added)
14. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the loss of dependency shall be
calculated by applying the following formula: [{Monthly Income of deceased
rd
( Rs. 9,568/- ) + 25% towards future prospects } – 1/3 towards personal
expenses ] x 12 x Multiplier of 13 ]; multiplier of 13 being applicable since the
deceased was 46 years of age at the time of the accident.
15. Accordingly, the compensation shall be revised as under:
S. NO. HEADS AWARDED BY
AWARDED BY
THE
TRIBUNAL
THIS COURT
1. Monthly Income of deceased
(A) (less Income Tax)
Rs. 9, 568/- Rs. 9,568/-
2. Add Future Prospects (B) @
25%
NIL Rs. 11,960
3. Less Personal expenses of
rd
the deceased (C) @ 1/3
NIL Rs. 3,987
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 12/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
4. Monthly loss of dependency
[(A +B)-C = D]
NIL Rs. 7,973
5. Annual loss of dependency
(Dx12)
NIL Rs. 95,676/-
6. Multiplier (E) 13 13
7. Loss of dependency [F] Rs. 4,97,536/-
Rs. 12,43,788/-
[1/3 of (A x
[D x 12 x E]
12 x E)]
8. Compensation for loss of
consortium (G)
Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 1,20,000/-
[Rs. 40,000 x 3]
9. Compensation for loss of
estate (H)
Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
10. Compensation towards
funeral expenses (I)
Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/-
11. Total compensation
(F + G + H+I = J)
Rs. 5,67,536/- Rs. 13,93,788/-
12. Interest 9% 9%
13. Enhanced compensation Rs. 8,26,252/-
Directions
16. Accordingly, the compensation shall stand enhanced by Rs. 8,26,252/-
[‘ enhanced amount ’].
17. Enhanced amount along with 9% interest per annum from the date of
filing the petition shall be deposited before MACT within a period of six
weeks. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be
released to the claimants from the deposit of enhanced amount within a period
of two weeks thereafter. Remaining enhanced amount, along with accrued
interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts [‘ FDRs ’] of Rs. 25,000/-
each for periods of 3 month, 6 months, 9 months and so on, in succession as
maybe calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall be credited to the
designated Savings Bank Account of claimants. The amount of FDRs on
maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon
due verification.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 13/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22
18. Needless to say, the Insurance Company shall be entitled to claim the
rights of recovery in respect of the enhanced amount as well.
19. The aforesaid enhancement has been made only to align the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal with the prevailing position of law.
The absence or non-appearance of the driver and the owner shall, therefore,
have no bearing on said issue.
20. Statutory amount shall be refunded to the Insurance Company.
21. MAC.APP.889/2018 is remanded back to the MACT, to be listed
th
before MACT on 05 August 2026.
22. MAC.APP.208/2019 is allowed in terms of paragraphs 15-17 above.
23. The appeals are disposed of, accordingly.
24. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
25. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
JULY 9, 2026/mk/ ya
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 889/2018 & MAC.APP. 208/2019 Page- 14/14
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:16.07.2026
15:33:22