Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR versus SUNDARARAJAN 2. MUTHU

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Managing Director v. Sundararajan 2. Muthu - C.M.A.(MD).No.515 of 2000 [2007] RD-TN 219 (19 January 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 19/01/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

C.M.A.(MD).No.515 of 2000

and

C.M.A.(MD).Nos.516, 1026 & 1094 of 2000

and

C.M.P.(MD).Nos.4392,4393 of 2000

The Managing Director

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

(Kumbakonam Division II) Limited,

Trichy.

... Appellant in all the appeals vs.

1. Sundararajan ... Respondent in CMA.515 of 2000 2. Muthu ... Respondent in CMA.516 of 2000 3. Sarasu ... Respondent in CMA.1026 of2000 4. Natarajan ... Respondent in CMA.1094 of 2000 Prayer

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.1999 and made in M.C.O.P.Nos.2619/1997, 2618/1997, 2623/1997 and 2620/1997 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (3rd Additional Sub Court), Trichy and praying to set aside the same. For Appellant ... Ms.Rajnish Pathiyil For Respondents ... Ms.A.Saravanan

Mr.R.Devaprasad

:COMMON JUDGMENT



All the four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the awards dated 13.10.1999 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.2619 of 1997, 2618 of 1997, 2623 of 1997 and 2620 of 1997 respectively, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (3rd Additional Sub Court) Trichy. The above said cases along with two other cases were tried jointly by the Tribunal and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The respondents in all the four appeals had preferred separate claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.2619/1997, 2618/1997, 2623/1997 & 2620/1997 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (3rd Additional Sub Court), Trichy claiming Rs.1,00,000/- for each one of the claimants as compensation for the injuries sustained by him/her in an accident said to have taken place on 24.4.1997 involving the passenger bus belonging to the appellant and having Registration No.45-N-1130. Two other persons had also filed M.C.O.P.Nos.2621/1997 & 2622/1997. Without filing any appeal in respect of the said two cases (MCOP.Nos.2621/1997 & 2622/1997) in which a sum of Rs.6000/- was awarded as compensation to each one of the petitioners therein, the appellant Transport Corporation has filed these appeals.

3. According to the respondents/claimants, the driver of the said bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a lorry that had been parked on the road side and hence, he was solely responsible for the accident. Contending that the respondents/claimants who happened to travel in the said bus as passengers sustained injuries and hence are entitled to invoke the vicarious liability of the appellant/respondent for the fault of its driver, the respondents/claimants had made the above said claims for compensation against the appellant/respondent.

4. The appellant/respondent resisted the claims made by the respondents/claimants contending that there was no fault on the part of the driver of its bus; that while he was driving the bus from east to west at a moderate speed a pedestrian (deceased) with a head load suddenly cross the road from south to north; that on seeing the same, the driver of the bus applied its breaks and swerved it towards right in an attempt to avoid hitting the said pedestrian and that only under such circumstances, the bus came into contact with a lorry that had been parked on the northern side of the road. The appellant/respondent before the Tribunal had also denied the petition averments regarding the respective age, profession, income, nature of injuries and disability sustained by each one of the claimants. With the further contention that the claim made by each one of the claimants was highly excessive and exorbitant, the appellant herein had prayed for the dismissal of all the petitions with costs.

5. The Tribunal, after framing the following issues common for all the MCOPs conducted a joint trial. The issues framed by the Tribunal are as follows: 1) Whether the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the respondent (appellant herein) and having Registration No.TN-45-N-1130 was the cause of the accident that took place on 24.4.1997? 2) Whether each one of the claimants (respondent in these appeals) is entitled to compensation? If so, what is the reasonable amount that can be awarded as compensation to each one of them?

6. In the common enquiry conducted in all the above said MCOPs, 7 persons were examined and 12 documents were marked on the side of the respondents herein/claimants. On the side of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal, only one witness was examined and no document was marked.

7. After hearing the arguments advanced on both sides and after critically appraising the evidence adduced on both sides, the Tribunal answered the first issue in favour of the claimants. Based on the answer regarding the first issue and relying on the evidence of claimants side witnesses, especially the evidence of P.W.7-the Medical Officer and the disability certificates marked on the side of the claimants as Ex.A.9 to A.12, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that each one of the claimants was entitled to be compensated by the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- for the respondent in CMA.No.515 of 2000 (claimant in MCOP.No.2619/1997), Rs.65,000/- for the respondent in CMA.No.516 of 2000 (claimant in MCOP.No.2618/1997), Rs.70,000/- for the respondent in CMA.No.1026 of 2000 (claimant in MCOP.No.2623/1997) and Rs.65,000/- for the respondent in CMA.No.1094 of 2000 (claimant in MCOP.No.2620/1997) as compensation. Rs.6000/- was awarded as compensation to each one of the claimants in MCOP.Nos.2621 & 2622 of 1997 against which no appeal has been preferred. Hence, we are not concerned with the same.

8. Aggrieved by and challenging the awards passed in MCOP.Nos.2619/1997, 2618/1997, 2623/1997 and 2620/1997, the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal has preferred all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals on various grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal.

9. As the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence as well as quantum has been assailed, the following points for consideration arise in these appeals:

1) Whether the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant/respondent and having Registration No.TN-45-N-1130 was the cause of the accident that took place on 24.4.1997? 2) Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to each one of the claimants is excessive or unreasonable?

10. The appellant in all the above appeals have challenged the award not only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to each one of the claimants is excessive, but also on the ground that the very finding on the question of negligence made by the Tribunal is erroneous. Even then, the learned counsel for the appellant conceded that he was not in a position to advance any argument regarding the question of negligence and confined his arguments with regard to the reasonableness of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to each one of the claimants. Perhaps due to the fact that the passenger bus had hit the stationary lorry parked on the road side, after going to the wrong side would have prompted the counsel not to venture any attempt at advancing arguments on the question of negligence. As the learned counsel for the appellant has not advanced any arguments regarding the question of negligence, I am of the view that the finding of the Tribunal holding that the driver of the appellant's bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident has to be confirmed and no case has been made out warranting any interference with the said finding of the Tribunal. Hence, finding of the Tribunal regarding issue No.1 is hereby confirmed.

11. CMA.No.515 of 2006: (i) The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2619/1997 is the respondent in CMA.No.515 of 2000. In his claim petition, Sundarrajan has stated that he sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body including loss of teeth and injuries over the right knee joint and head for which he had treatment initially at Government Hospital, Trichy and then in a Private Hospital. It is his further averment that inspite of such treatment, he sustained permanent disability. Ex.A.4 is the case sheet issued to P.W.2-Sundarrajan in Annal Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Trichirappalli. From the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.7- the Medical Officer who issued the disability certificate, Ex.A.4-case sheet and Ex.A.10-disability certificate, it is found that P.W.2-Sundarrajan had lost 5 teeth on the upper jaw and two more teeth one on upper jaw and one on the lower jaw had lost their grip. The doctor has assessed P.W2's permanent disability at 35. As there is no contra evidence the assessment made by the doctor has to be accepted to be correct and hence it is hereby held that the claimant (P.W.2) has suffered 35 permanent disability. Even then, the same may be a functional disability causing inconvenience for taking food and some times hindrance to the fluency in speech. But the same can be rectified by fixing proper dentures. The said disability will in no way come in the way of his earning. The said disability may be only functional and the same will not result in loss of earning capacity. Therefore no amount can be awarded for the loss of future earning capacity.

(ii) Without supported by any medical bill, the Tribunal seems to have awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for medical expenses, according to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. No doubt the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he spent any amount towards medical expenses. But it cannot be denied that the petitioner might have spent or shall have to spend, if not spent earlier, a substantial amount for fixing dentures. At the rate of Rs.2500/- per tooth, a sum of Rs.12,500/- will be needed to fix dentures. Considering the age of the claimant and the future necessity to change the dentures another some of Rs.6000/- can be added and the total amount towards future medical expenses, if not incurred earlier, can be assessed at Rs.18,500/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the same is liable to be enhanced to Rs.18,500/-. (iii) The claimant while being examined as P.W.2 has stated that his monthly income prior to accident was Rs.2000/- as a cooli engaged in breaking stones. There is no other corroborating piece of evidence in this regard. Assuming that he would have earned Rs.1500/- per month and that he would have taken complete rest for two months resulting in total loss of earning for the said period, Rs.3000/- can be awarded as compensation for the same. (iv) A sum of Rs.2000/- awarded by the Tribunal for extra nourishment, transport expenses and the expenditure incurred for the persons who might have accompanied the petitioner shall be reasonable and hence, the same deserves to be confirmed.

(v) The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3000/- towards pain and suffering. The said amount is definitely on the lower side. Taking into account, the nature of injuries and disability sustained by the claimant (P.W.2) a sum of Rs.7500/- in this regard shall be the reasonable compensation. Therefore, the award of Rs.3000/- by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is liable to be increased to Rs.7500/-.

(vi) The medical officer (P.W.7) has assessed the disability at 35. The disability certificate issued by him has been marked as Ex.A.10. As there is no contra evidence and nothing inherent in the evidence adduced on the side of the injured claimant to show that the assessment of permanent disability is excessive, this Court accepts the evidence of P.W.7 and holds that the claimant (P.W.2) has suffered 35 permanent disability.

(vii) In view of the finding recorded supra, that the claimant (P.W.2) has suffered 35 permanent disability and that the same may be functional alone without affecting his earning capacity and in view of the fact that no amount is awarded for loss of earning capacity, it is just and necessary that conventional damages for the loss of comforts occasioned by the disability should be awarded. Considering the nature of disability and the fact that substantial amount is awarded for correcting the disability by fixing dentures, this Court comes to a conclusion that awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/- shall be reasonable. In view of the discussions made above, the total compensation to which the respondent in CMA.No.515 of 2000/claimant in MCOP.No.2619/1997 is entitled to is fixed at Rs.51,000/-.

(viii) Hence, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent in CMA.No.515 of 2000 deserves to be reduced to Rs.51,000/- from Rs.75,000/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed.

12. CMA.No.516 of 2000: (i) The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2618/1997 is the respondent in CMA.No.516 of 2000. He claims to have sustained injuries on the lower jaw, head and mouth for which he was given treatment for two weeks as an inpatient in the Government Hospital, Trichy. It is his further case that after being discharged from the said Government Hospital, he had treatment in a Private Hospital and that inspite of the best treatment given to him he suffered permanent disability. In his evidence as P.W.6, he would say that he sustained fracture on the lower jaw, lost two teeth in the upper jaw, sustained a cut injury on the right side of the tongue and sustained grievous injuries on the right and left knees for which, he was given treatment as an inpatient for 15 days in the Government Hospital, Trichy at the first instance and thereafter in a Private Hospital. There is nothing on record to show that he paid any amount for the treatment provided to him in the Government Hospital, Trichy. He has also not produced any document to prove the alleged treatment given at Private Hospital. Without any document evidencing medical expenditure, according to the arguments advanced on the side of the appellant, the Tribunal seems to have awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for medical expenses. We can come to a conclusion that he would not have paid any amount for the treatment received by him at the Government Hospital, Trichy.

(ii) On the other hand, it is quite clear from the evidence of P.W.6 and the doctor who was examined as P.W.7 that on the upper jaw he had lost one tooth completely and that one of the molars on the right side was found broken at the time of examination of P.W.6 by P.W.7. For providing denture for the lost tooth and cap for the broken tooth or a denture after the removal of the broken tooth, he may have to incur an expenditure of atleast Rs.5000/- if not spent earlier. Considering the age of the petitioner (Muthu) and the necessity to replace the old denture with a new one in future, the expenditure may be increased by Rs.2500/-. Hence, a sum of Rs.7500/- as compensation towards medical expenses shall alone be reasonable and the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is bound to be reduced to Rs.7500/-. (iii) The claimant, while being examined as P.W.6 has stated that he was having an income of Rs.50 per day. Even according to his statement, his monthly income prior to accident was Rs.1500/-. Assuming that the petitioner would have required rest for two months and thus, incurred loss of total earning for the above said period of two months, a sum of Rs.3000/- can be awarded for the same as compensation. For extra nourishment, transport expenses and the expenditure incurred for the persons who would have accompanied the claimant, awarding a sum of Rs.2000/- shall be reasonable. Hence, the award of Rs.2000/- by the Tribunal on the above said head shall be confirmed.

(iv) The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3000/- towards pain and suffering. The said amount is on the lower side. Taking into account, the nature of injuries and disability sustained by the claimant (P.W.6) a sum of Rs.6000/- in this regard as compensation shall be reasonable. Therefore, the award of Rs.3000/- by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is liable to be increased to Rs.6000/-.

(v) The medical officer (P.W.7) has assessed the disability at 25. Thd disability certificate issued by him has been marked as Ex.A.9. As there is no contra evidence and nothing inherent in the evidence adduced on the side of the injured claimant to show that the assessment of permanent disability is excessive, this Court accepts the evidence of P.W.7 and holds that the claimant (P.W.6) has suffered 25 permanent disability.

(vi) In view of the finding recorded supra, that the claimant (P.W.6) has suffered 25 permanent disability and that the same may be functional alone without affecting his earning capacity and in view of the fact that no amount is awarded for loss of earning capacity, it is just and necessary that conventional damages for the loss of comforts occasioned by the disability should be awarded. Considering the nature of disability and the fact that substantial amount is awarded for correcting the disability by fixing dentures, this Court comes to a conclusion that awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- shall be reasonable. In view of the discussions made above, the total compensation to which the respondent in CMA.No.516 of 2000/claimant in MCOP.No.2618/1997 will be entitled to is fixed at Rs.33,500/-.

(vii) Hence, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent in CMA.No.516 of 2000 deserves to be reduced to Rs.33,500/- from Rs.65,000/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed.

13. CMA.No.1026 of 2000: (i) Sarasu, the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2623/1997 is the respondent in CMA.No.1026 of 2000. She has stated that she lost four teeth on the lower jaw and sustained injuries all over the body for which, she initially took treatment in the Government Hospital, Kulithalai and thereafter, in the Government Hospital, Trichy followed by treatment at a Private Hospital. From the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.7-the Medical Officer who issued the disability certificate and Ex.A.7-case sheet, it is obvious that 4 teeth in the lower jaw were found elevated and had to be removed. Without supported by any medical bill, according to the arguments advanced on the side of the appellant, the Tribunal seems to have awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for medical expenses. No doubt, the petitioner has not produced any document to show, he spent any amount towards medical expenses. But it cannot be denied that the petitioner should have spent or shall have to spend, if not spent earlier, a substantial amount for fixing dentures. At the rate of Rs.2500/- per tooth, a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be needed to fix dentures. Considering the age of the claimant (40 years as per her own testimony) and the future necessity to change the dentures another sum of Rs.5,000/- can be added and the total amount towards future medical expenses, if not incurred earlier, can be assessed at Rs.15,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses and hence the same is to be confirmed.

(ii) The claimant while being examined as P.W.5 has stated that her monthly income prior to accident was Rs.2000/- as a cooli engaged in breaking stones. There is no other corroborating piece of evidence in this regard. Assuming that she would have earned Rs.1500/- per month and that she would have taken complete rest for two months resulting in total loss of earning for the said period, Rs.3000/- can be awarded as compensation for the same. (iii) A sum of Rs.2000/- awarded by the Tribunal for extra nourishment, transport expenses and the expenditure incurred for the persons who might have accompanied the petitioner shall be reasonable and hence, the same deserves to be confirmed.

(iv) The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3000/- towards pain and suffering. The said amount is on the lower side. Taking into account, the nature of injuries and disability sustained by the claimant (P.W.5) a sum of Rs.7500/- in this regard shall be the reasonable compensation. Therefore, the award of Rs.3000/- by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is liable to be increased to Rs.7500/-.

(v) The medical officer (P.W.7) has assessed the disability at 30. Thd disability certificate issued by her has been marked as Ex.A.12. As there is no contra evidence and nothing inherent in the evidence adduced on the side of the injured claimant to show that the assessment of permanent disability is excessive, this Court accepts the evidence of P.W.7 and holds that the claimant (P.W.5) has suffered 30 permanent disability.

(vi) In view of the finding recorded supra, that the claimant (P.W.5) has suffered 30 permanent disability and that the same may be functional alone without affecting her earning capacity and in view of the fact that no amount is awarded for loss of earning capacity, it is just and necessary that conventional damages for the loss of comforts occasioned by the disability should be awarded. Considering the nature of disability and the fact that substantial amount is awarded for correcting the disability by fixing dentures, this Court comes to a conclusion that awarding a sum of Rs.16,000/- shall be reasonable. In view of the discussions made above, the total compensation to which the respondent in CMA.No.1026 of 2000/claimant in MCOP.No.2623/1997 is entitled to is fixed at Rs.43,500/-.

(vii) Hence, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent in CMA.No.1026 of 2000 deserves to be reduced to Rs.43,500/- from Rs.70,000/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed.

14. CMA.No.1094 of 2006: (i) The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2620/1997 is the respondent in CMA.No.1094 of 2000. The claimant Natarajan (P.W.3) has deposed that he lost one tooth on the upper jaw and sustained injuries over the face and both knees for which he took first aid treatment in the Government Hospital, Kulithalai and thereafter, in the Government Hospital, Trichy followed by treatment at a Private Hospital. Even though, the claimant as P.W.3 would have stated that he lost only one tooth, the doctor who was examined as P.W.7 has not only given a certificate to the effect that P.W.3 had lost 5 teeth altogether in the upper jaw and that 2 teeth in the lower jaw had been broken resulting change of colour, but also assessed the disability of P.W.3 at 30 and issued Ex.A.11- disability certificate. It can't be believed that the petitioner (P.W.3) had lost altogether 6 teeth in the accident. The percentage of disability arrived at by the doctor (P.W.7) also cannot be accepted to be correct. From the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A.5-case sheet, it is obvious that in the upper jaw two incisors were missing and the crown of one tooth up to the middle third had fractured. The medical officer (P.W.7) has assessed the disability suffered by the claimant (P.W.3) at 30 compared with the assessment of disability made in respect of the other claimants by the very same doctor, the said assessment of disability suffered by the claimant (P.W.3) seems to be incorrect and excessive. As he has lost two teeth altogether and another tooth had fractured, this Court comes to a conclusion that the said disability can be properly assessed at 15. Though the same is a permanent disability, the said disability will in no way come in the way of his earning. The said disability may be only functional and the same will not result in loss of earning capacity. Therefore, no amount can be awarded for the loss of future earning capacity. (ii) Without supported by any medical bill the Tribunal seems to have awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for medical expenses, according to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. No doubt the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he spent any amount towards medical expenses. But it cannot be denied that the petitioner should have spent or shall have to spend, if not spent earlier, a substantial amount for fixing dentures for the missing teeth and cap for the broken tooth or denture after extraction of the broken tooth. At the rate of Rs.2500/- per tooth, a sum of Rs.7500/- will be needed to fix dentures. Considering the age of the claimant (47 years as per his testimony) and the future necessity to change the dentures another some of Rs.3000/- can be added and the total amount towards future medical expenses, if not incurred earlier, can be assessed at Rs.10,500/- . But the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the same should be reduced to Rs.10,500/-.

(iii) The claimant while being examined as P.W.3 has stated that his monthly income prior to accident was Rs.2000/- as a cooli engaged in breaking stones. There is no other corroborating piece of evidence in this regard. Assuming that he would have earned Rs.1500/- per month and that he would have taken complete rest for two months resulting in total loss of earning for the said period, Rs.3000/- can be awarded as compensation for the same. (iv) A sum of Rs.2000/- awarded by the Tribunal for extra nourishment, transport expenses and the expenditure incurred for the persons who might have accompanied the petitioner shall be reasonable and hence, the same deserves to be confirmed.

(v) The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3000/- towards pain and suffering. The said amount is definitely on the lower side. Taking into account, the nature of injuries and disability sustained by the claimant (P.W.3) a sum of Rs.6000/- in this regard shall be the reasonable compensation. Therefore, the award of Rs.3000/- by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is liable to be increased to Rs.6000/-.

(vi) In view of the finding recorded supra, that the claimant (P.W.3) has suffered 15 permanent disability and that the same may be functional alone without affecting his earning capacity and in view of the fact that no amount is awarded for loss of earning capacity, it is just and necessary that conventional damages for the loss of comforts occasioned by the disability should be awarded. Considering the nature of disability and the fact that substantial amount is awarded for correcting the disability by fixing dentures, this Court comes to a conclusion that awarding a sum of Rs.10,500/- shall be reasonable. In view of the discussions made above, the total compensation to which the respondent in CMA.No.1094 of 2000/claimant in MCOP.No.2620/1997 is entitled to is fixed at Rs.31,500/-.

(vii) Hence, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent in CMA.No.1094 of 2000 deserves to be reduced to Rs.31,500/- from Rs.65,000/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed.

15. In the result, (a) C.M.A.No.515 of 2000 is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified by reducing the compensation from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.51,000/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to payment of costs in the appeal. Consequently, connected

C.M.P.No.4392 of 2000 is closed.

(b) C.M.A.No.516 of 2000 is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified by reducing the compensation from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.33,500/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to payment of costs in the appeal. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.4393 of 2000 is closed. (c) C.M.A.No.1026 of 2000 is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified by reducing the compensation from Rs.70,000/- to Rs.43,500/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to payment of costs in the appeal. (d) C.M.A.No.1094 of 2000 is partly allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified by reducing the compensation from Rs.65,000/- to Rs.31,500/-. In all other respects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed. There shall be no order as to payment of costs in the appeal. sgl


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.