HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC App. No.40 of 2024
The Branch Manager
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Dharmanagar Branch,
Rajbari, Dharmanagar, Dist:- North Tripura
(Insurer of the bike vehicle bearing
Registration Number TR-05-B-7023)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Shefali Rudra Paul,
W/O Late Umesh Rudra Paul
2. Smt. Uttama Rudra Paul
D/O Late Umesh Rudra Paul,
Both are resident of Vill- Durgapur
Hawrerbazar, PO:- Birchandranagar
PS & Sub Div:- Kailashahar,
Dist:- Unakoti Tripura, Pin-799280
----Claimant-respondents
3. Sri Abdul Khalik
S/O Aftar Ali of Fulbari
PS:- Churaibari
Sub-Div:- Dharmanagar
Dist:- North Tripura, Pin-799262
(Owner of the bike vehicle bearing
Registration No. TR-05-B-7023)
----Owner respondent.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. De, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, Adv,
Mr. R. Datta, Adv.
Date of hearing : 29.07.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 31.07.2024
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
HON‟BLE MR
Judgment & Order
This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment
st
and award dated 26.09.2023 delivered by Learned MAC(1 ),
Page 2 of 16
Unakoti District, Kailashahar in connection with case
No.T.S(MAC) No.9 of 2022. By the said judgment, the Learned
Tribunal below has awarded compensation at Rs.8, 30,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of filing of the case i.e. w.e.f. 18.05.2022 within a period of
2(two) months from that day, failing which it was further
ordered to pay penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum till
the date of actual payment.
2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. K. De representing the
appellant-Insurance Company and also heard Learned Counsel
Mr. R. Datta for the owner-respondent of the bike bearing
No.TR-05-B-7023 and further heard Learned Counsel Mr. H. K.
Bhowmik representing the claimant-respondents.
3. Before coming to the conclusion of the appeal let
us discuss about the subject matter of the claim petition filed
before the Learned Tribunal below.
4. The respondent-claimant-petitioners filed one
claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act before the Learned
Tribunal below for the death of the husband of respondent No.1
and the father of respondent No.2 respectively in a road
accident occurred on 01.05.2019 at Kirtantali under Kailashahar
Police Station due to rash and negligent driving of the bike
bearing No.TR-05-B-7023. According to the respondent-
claimant-petitioners, on 01.05.2019 Umesh Rudra Paul,
husband and father of claimant-respondent Nos.1 and 2, was
proceeding towards Kailashahar town by riding his bi-cycle via
Page 3 of 16
Kailashahar-Dalugaon road and when he reached at
Kirtantali(near Shanshanghat), that time, one motor bike
bearing No.TR-05-B-7023(Pulsar 150), which was also coming
from Kailashahar towards Dalugaon with high speed suddenly
dashed against said Umesh Rudra Paul, as a result, he fell down
on the ground and received injury on his person. Immediately
on receipt of information, Fire Service personnel came to rescue
the victim and shifted him to District hospital, Kailashahar from
where the victim was brought to Silchar and after that, the
injured was treated at Shillong and Gauhati Medical College and
Hospital and in course of his treatment, said Umesh Rudra Paul
succumbed to his injuries on 06.05.2019.
It was further stated that the accident took place
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bike.
On that issue, Kailashahar P.S case No.33/2019 under Section
279/338/304(A) IPC was registered. It was further submitted
that at the time of accident the monthly income of the deceased
was Rs.15,000/-. So, the respondent-claimant-petitioners filed
the claim petition.
5. The OP No.1 i.e. owner-respondent No.3 herein,
appeared and contested the petition by filing written statement
denying the assertion of the respondent-claimant-petitioners. It
was further submitted that he was the owner of the vehicle
bearing No.TR-05-B-7023(pulsar 150). It was duly registered
and valid up to 15.08.2023. Further stated that the vehicle was
duly insured with the OP No.2-Insurance Company on the date
Page 4 of 16
of the accident and on the day of alleged accident, he was also
having valid driving licence upto 21.11.2037.
The OP No.2 i.e. appellant-Insurance Company
herein also appeared on receipt of notice and contested the
claim by filing written statement and it was further submitted
that the claim petition was subjected to strict prove by the
respondent-claimant-petitioners.
6. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Learned
Tribunal below framed the following issues:
i) Whether on 01.05.2019 at about 08:00 to 08:30
hours the vehicle bearing No.TR-02-B-7023
driven by Abdul Khalik in rash & negligent
manner dashed the husband of the claimant No.1
namely Umesh Rudra paul, at Kirtantali on KLS-
Dalugaon road under Kailashahar PS, who
received head injuries and 06-05-2019 he
succumbed to his injuries in Guwahati Medical
College & Hospital?
ii) Whether the claimant-petitioners are entitled to
get any compensation, if so, to what extent?
iii) Who is liable to pay the compensation?
iv) To any other relief/reliefs to which the parties
are entitled to, if any?
7. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-claimant-
petitioner No.2 Smt. Uttama Rudra Paul was examined as PW-1
and she relied upon some documents which were marked as
Exbt.-P1 to Exbt.-P8.
From the side of the OP No.1 i.e. owner-
respondent No.3 herein, Md. Abdul Khalik was examined as
DW-1 and he relied upon certain documents which were marked
as Exbt.-A to Exbt.-D.
8. Finally on conclusion of proceeding, Learned
Tribunal below by the judgment and award allowed the claim
Page 5 of 16
petition. The operative portion of the judgment and award
dated 26.09.2023 of the Learned Tribunal below runs as
follows:
A W A R D
“11. In the result, it is ordered that O.P. No.2,
the Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, Dharmanagar Branch,
Rajbari, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, the
Insurer of the offending bike vehicle bearing
No.TR-05-B-7023 shall pay the awarded
amount of compensation of Rs.8,30,000/-
(rupees eight lacs and thirty thousand) with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the case, i.e., on 18-05-2022 to the
claimant-petitioners within 02(two) months
from today, failing which the OP No.2 shall
have to pay penal interest of 9% p.a. till the
date of actual payment.
12. Order regarding manner of disbursement
of the compensation amount shall be passed
as per the guidelines of the Hon‟ble High
Court of Tripura after payment of the
awarded amount.
13. Supply copy of this award free of cost to
the claimant-petitioner and OP No.3 through
their engaged learned counsels.
14. The case stands disposed of.”
Challenging that award, the present appellant has
preferred this appeal.
9. In course of hearing of argument, Learned
Counsel for the Insurance-Company, Mr. K. De drawn the
attention of the Court that on the alleged date of accident, the
rider-cum-owner of the bike did not have any valid driving
licence but the Learned Tribunal below did not consider the
same and fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company in
place of fastening the liability upon the owner-respondent.
Learned Counsel in course of hearing also drawn the attention
of the Court referring para No.6 of the judgment/award and
submitted that in the said judgment, it was referred in para
Page 6 of 16
No.6 that during cross-examination by OP No.2-Insurance
Company, DW-1 stated that the driving licence was issued on
04.07.2019 and that was valid up to 21.11.2037 from which it
appears that on the alleged date of accident, he had no valid
driving licence. So, in view of the principle laid down by Ho
n’ble
the Apex Court, according to Learned Counsel for the appellant,
there was no scope on the part of Learned Tribunal below to
fasten the liability the amount of compensation upon the
appellant-Insurance Company.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant further drawn
the attention of this Court referring para No.10 of the said
judgment and award and submitted that the Learned Tribunal
below at the time of delivery of judgment relied upon the
reported in AIR 2011 SC 1234
citation of Hon’ble Apex Court
(Kusum Lata & Ors. vs. Satbir and Ors.), but the
Hon’ble
Apex Court also in another judgment of 3 judges Bench
reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. dated 05.01.2004 wherein in
para Nos.84, 85, 86, 87, 92 and 93, Hon
’ble the Apex Court
observed as under:
“When, admittedly, no licence was obtained
by a driver
84. We have analysed the relevant provisions
of the said Act in terms whereof a motor
vehicle must be driven by a person having a
driving licence. The owner of a motor vehicle
in terms of Section 5 of the Act has a
responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven
except by a person who does not satisfy the
provisions of Section 3 of 4 of the Act. In a
case, therefore, where the driver of the
vehicle, admittedly, did not hold any licence
and the same was allowed consciously to be
driven by the owner of the vehicle by such
Page 7 of 16
person, the insurer is entitled to succeed in
its defence and avoid liability. The matter,
however, may be different where a disputed
question of fact arises as to whether the
driver had a valid licence or where the owner
of the vehicle committed a breach of the
terms of the contract of insurance as also the
provisions of the Act by consciously allowing
any person to drive a vehicle who did not
have a valid driving licence. In a given case,
the driver of the vehicle may not have any
hand in it at all e.g. a case where an accident
takes place owing to a mechanical fault or vis
major.(See Jitendra Kumar:(2003) 5 SC 538.)
85. In V. Mepherson v. Shiv Charan
Singh:(1998 ACJ 601(Del), the owner of the
vehicle was held not to be guilty of violating
the condition of policy by willfully permitting
his son to drive the car who had no driving
licence at the time of accident. In that case, it
was held that the owner and insurer both
were jointly and severally liable.
86. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagtar
Singh:(1998 ACJ 1074(HP)) Hon‟ble M.
Srinivasan, C.J., as His Lordship then was,
was dealing with the case where a duly
licensed driver was driving a vehicle but there
was a dispute as to who was driving the
vehicle. In that case the Court referred to the
judgment in Kashiram Yadav v. Oriental Fire
& General Insurance Co.:(1989) 4 SCC 128
and expressed its agreement with the views
taken therein.
87. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ishroo
Devi:(1999 ACJ 615(HP) where there was no
evidence that the society which employed the
driver was having knowledge that the driver
was not holding a valid licence, it was held
that the insurance company is liable. The
Court relied upon the decisions of this Court
in Kashiram Yadav case:(1989) 4 SCC 128,
Skandia case:(1987) 2 SCC 654 and Sohan Lal
Passi case:(1996) 5 SCC 21.
Where the driver‟s licence is found to be fake
92. It may be true as has been contended on
behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged
licence is as good as no licence but the
question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is
whether the insurer must prove that the
owner was guilty of the wilful breach of the
conditions of the insurance policy or the
contract of insurance. In Lehru case:(2003) 3
SCC 338 the matter has been considered in
some detail. We are in general agreement
with the approach of the Bench but we intend
to point out that the observations made
therein must be understood to have been
made in the light of the requirements of the
law in terms whereof the insurer is to
establish wilful breach on the part of the
insured and not for the purpose of its
disentitlement from raising any defence or for
the owners to be absolved from any liability
whatsoever. We would be dealing in some
Page 8 of 16
detail with this aspect of the matter a little
later.
Learner‟s licence
93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for
grant of learner‟s licence. [See Section 4(3),
Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14.]
A learner‟s licence is, thus, also a licence
within the meaning of the provisions of the
said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that
when a vehicle is being driven by a learner
subject to the conditions mentioned in the
licence, he would not be a person who is not
“duly licensed” resulting in conferring a right
on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third
party. It cannot be said that a person holding
a learner‟s licence is not entitled to drive the
vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the
contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot
be driven by a person holding a learner‟s
licence, the same would run counter to the
provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act.
Referring the same, learned Counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company submitted that in view of the
principle the
of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in
aforesaid 3 Judges bench in absence of valid driving licence, the
observation of the Learned Tribunal below cannot be sustained
in the eye of law.
11. Learned Counsel further referred another citation
reported in AIR 1996 SC 1150 in New
of Hon’ble Apex Court
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe & Ors.
dated 14.12.1995
wherein in para No.15, Hon’ble the Apex
Court further observed as under:
“15. Apart from the fact that a learner having
such a licence would not be regarded as duly
licenced, the aforesaid clause in the insurance
policy makes it abundantly clear that the
insurance company, in the event of an
accident, would be liable only if the vehicle
was being driven by a person holding a valid
driving licence or a permanent driving licence
“other than a learner‟s licence”. This clause
specifically provides that even if respondent
No.3 had held a current learners licence at
the time of the accident, the appellant would
not be liable. In the present case it is clear
that the respondent No.3 did not have a
permanent learner‟s licence before the date
Page 9 of 16
of the accident and he had held only a
learner‟s licence and it lapsed nearly two
years before the accident. The High Court
observed that the Act did not contemplate a
“permanent driving licence” because a driving
licence is valid only for a certain period after
which it has to be renewed. This may be so,
but the use of the words “permanent driving
licence” in the insurance policy was to
emphasise that a temporary or a learner‟s
licence holder would not be covered by the
insurance policy. The intention and meaning
of the policy clearly is that the person driving
the vehicles at the time of the accident must
be one who holds a „driving licence‟ within
the meaning of Section 2(5A) of the Act. This
being so, we are unable to agree with the
conclusions of the High Court that the
appellant was liable to pay the amount which
had been awarded in favour of respondent
No.1.”
Referring the same, Learned Counsel further
submitted that even it was found that on the day of alleged
accident, if the owner-cum-rider had learner ce, in that
’s licen
case also, there was no scope on the part of the Tribunal to
impose any liability of payment of compensation upon the
Insurance Company but the Learned Tribunal below did not
consider the same and fastened the liability upon the Insurance
Company for which according to Learned Counsel, the
interference of the Court is required and Learned Counsel urged
for allowing this appeal by setting aside the judgment of the
Learned Tribunal below and to fasten the liability upon the
owner-cum-rider of the offending motor bike.
12. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the
owner-cum-rider or the motor bike, Mr. R. Datta submitted that
from the record, it appears that the driving licence was issued
by the Authority on 04.07.2019 and the same is valid upto
21.11.2037 but the alleged accident took place on 01.05.2019.
Page 10 of 16
So, on the day of alleged accident, although the OP-cum-rider
of the bike could not produce any driving licence in his favour
ce and the said owner-
but definitely he had valid learner’s licen
respondent might have applied for the licence prior to the
accident although the same was issued later on and
furthermore, there was no evidence on record that the said
respondent was not capable to ride/drive any vehicle on the
alleged day. So, according to Learned Counsel, the observation
of the Learned Tribunal below in para No.10 of the judgment
was rational and justified. According to Learned Counsel, Mr. R.
Datta, Learned Tribunal below rightly fastened the liability of
payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company with
direction to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It
was further submitted that there is no other contrary evidence
on record that on the alleged day, the vehicle had no insurance
coverage. So, according to Learned Counsel, there is no scope
to interfere with the judgment of the Learned Tribunal below
and the Learned Tribunal below, after considering all the
aspects with justification, has awarded compensation upon the
respondent-claimant-petitioners. So, Learned Counsel at the
end urged for dismissal of the appeal.
13. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant-
petitioners, Mr. H. K. Bhowmik submitted that although it was
the liability upon the owner-cum-rider of the bike to pay the
compensation but since the bike was duly insured with the
appellant-Insurance Company on that relevant day, so, the
Page 11 of 16
Learned Tribunal below as per law has rightly fastened the
liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance
Company. So, there was no perversity in the judgment of the
Learned Tribunal below and urged for dismissal of this appeal
upholding the judgment and award of the Learned Tribunal
below.
14. I have heard arguments of the contesting parties.
There is no dispute on record regarding the fact of accident on
the alleged day i.e. 01.05.2019 and there is also no dispute on
record that after the accident on 01.05.2019, the deceased
victim succumbed to his injuries on 06.05.2019. From the
relevant documents submitted by the respondent-claimant-
petitioners, it appears that respondent-claimant-petitioner could
prove that on the alleged day, an accident took place and due
to accident, the injured sustained grievous injuries and
ultimately he was succumbed to his injuries and on the alleged
day, the vehicle of the respondent OP No.1 of the claim petition
i.e. owner-respondent No.3 herein, had valid insurance
coverage. From the record of the Learned Tribunal, further it
appears that on the alleged day of accident, the respondent
No.3 herein could not adduce any valid driving licence in his
favour although he produced valid driving licence from which it
appears that his driving licence was valid w.e.f. 04.07.2019
upto 21.11.2037.
The said respondent OP No.3 also could not
ce in support of his contention before
produce any learner’s licen
Page 12 of 16
the Learned Tribunal below but the vehicle of the respondent
OP No.3 has valid insurance coverage on the day of accident
vide policy No.32790/31/2019/948 covering the period w.e.f.
08.08.2018 to midnight of 07.08.2019. But prior to that,
whether the said respondent No.3 or
had any learner’s licence
not? In this regard, no documentary evidence could produce by
the said respondent before the Learned Tribunal below and
finally, on conclusion of proceeding, Learned Tribunal below in
para No.10 of the judgment fastened the liability of payment of
compensation upon the Insurance Company with a direction
that the Insurance Company shall pay the amount of
compensation upon the respondent-claimant-petitioners and
thereafter shall recover the same from the owner-cum-rider of
the vehicle i.e. offending bike. There is no contrary evidence on
record that on the alleged day he was unable to ride/drive any
vehicle.
15. More so, from the policy document, it appears
that the alleged offending vehicle was nothing but a motor bike,
so, Learned Tribunal below rightly and reasonably in para 10 of
the judgment and award relied upon the judgme
nt of Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 1234 (Kusum Lata
& Ors vs. Satbir and Ors.) and fastened the liability upon the
Insurance Company with direction to recover the amount from
the owner-cum-driver. In this regard,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in another case reported in AIR 2011 SC 1234 in Pappu
and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and anr. dated 19.01.2018
Page 13 of 16
reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208, wherein in para Nos.13, 16, 17
and 19, observed as under:
Hon’ble the Apex Court
“13. In the present case, Respondent 1 owner
of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague
plea in the written statement that the
offending vehicle No. DIL 5955 was being
driven by a person having valid driving
licence. He did not disclose the name of the
driver and his other details. Besides,
Respondent 1 did not enter the witness box
or examine any witness in support of this
plea. Respondent 2 insurance company in the
written statement has plainly refuted that
plea and also asserted that the offending
vehicle was not driven by an authorised
person and having valid driving licence.
Respondent 1 owner of the offending vehicle
did not produce any evidence except a driving
licence of one Joginder Singh, without any
specific stand taken in the pleadings or in the
evidence that the same Joginder Singh was,
in fact, authorised to drive the vehicle in
question at the relevant time. Only then
would onus shift, requiring Respondent 2
insurance company to rebut such evidence
and to produce other evidence to substantiate
its defence. Merely producing a valid
insurance certificate in respect of the
offending truck was not enough for
Respondent 1 to make the insurance company
liable to discharge his liability arising from
rash and negligent driving by the driver of his
vehicle. The insurance company can be
fastened with the liability on the basis of a
valid insurance policy only after the basic
facts are pleaded and established by the
owner of the offending vehicle that the
vehicle was not only duly insured but also
that it was driven by an authorised person
having a valid driving licence. Without
disclosing the name of the driver in the
written statement or producing any evidence
to substantiate the fact that the copy of the
driving licence produced in support was of a
person who, in fact, was authorised to drive
the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the
owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have
extricated himself from his liability. The
insurance company would become liable only
after such foundational facts are pleaded and
proved by the owner of the offending vehicle.
16. The next question is: whether in the fact
situation of this case the insurance company
can be and ought to be directed to pay the
claim amount, with liberty to recover the
same from the owner of the vehicle
(Respondent 1)?
17. This issue has been answered in National
Insurance Co. Ltd.:(2004) 3 SCC 297. In that
case, it was contended by the insurance
company that once the defence taken by the
insurer is accepted by the Tribunal, it is
Page 14 of 16
bound to discharge the insurer and fix the
liability only on the owner and/or the driver
of the vehicle. However, this Court held that
even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its
defence, the Tribunal or the court can direct
the insurance company to pay the award
amount to the claimant(s) and, in turn,
recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle. The three-Judge Bench, after
analysing the earlier decisions on the point,
held that there was no reason to deviate from
the said well-settled principle. In para 107,
the Court then observed thus: (SCC p. 340)
“107. We may, however, hasten to add
that the Tribunal and the court must,
however, exercise their jurisdiction to
issue such a direction upon
consideration of the facts and
circumstances of each case and in the
event such a direction has been issued,
despite arriving at a finding of fact to
the effect that the insurer has been
able to establish that the insured has
committed a breach of contract of
insurance as envisaged under sub-
clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section
(2) of Section 149 of the Act, the
insurance company shall be entitled to
realise the awarded amount from the
owner or driver of the vehicle, as the
case may be, in execution of the same
award having regard to the provisions
of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act.
However, in the event, having regard to
the limited scope of inquiry in the
proceedings before the Tribunal it had
not been able to do so, the insurance
company may initiate a separate action
therefor against the owner or the
driver of the vehicle or both, as the
case may be. Those exceptional cases
may arise when the evidence becomes
available to or comes to the notice of
the insurer at a subsequent stage or for
one reason or the other, the insurer
was not given an opportunity to defend
at all. Such a course of action may also
be resorted to when a fraud or
collusion between the victim and the
owner of the vehicle is detected or
comes to the knowledge of the insurer
at a later stage.”
19. In the present case, the owner of the
vehicle (Respondent 1) had produced the
insurance certificate indicating that Vehicle
No. DIL 5955 was comprehensively insured
by Respondent 2 (insurance company) for
unlimited liability. Applying the dictum in
National Insurance Co. Ltd.:(2004) 3 SCC
297, to subserve the ends of justice, the
insurer (Respondent 2) shall pay the claim
amount awarded by the Tribunal to the
appellants in the first instance, with liberty to
recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle (Respondent 1) in accordance with
law.”
Page 15 of 16
From the aforesaid principle of law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court, it also appears that Hon’ble the Apex
Court in the aforenoted judgment also observed that the
Insurance Company shall pay the claim amount as awarded by
the Tribunal to the respondent-claimant-petitioner in the first
instance with liberty to recover the same in accordance with law
from the owner/rider of the bike. The said principle of law is
also affirmed by the judgment referred by Learned Counsel for
the appellant at the time of hearing.
16. Here, in the case at hand as it is already
discussed that on the alleged day, the offending bike had valid
insurance coverage although the respondent No.3 could not
adduce any valid driving licence on the date of alleged accident
in support of his defence before the Learned Tribunal below. So,
in my considered view, Learned Tribunal below rightly decided
the matter on merit and fastened the liability of payment of
compensation upon the appellant-Insurance Company with
further direction to recover the same from the owner after
applying the principle of pay and recover policy. Situated thus,
it appears that there is no infirmity and perversity in the
judgment of the Learned Tribunal below.
17. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant
stands dismissed being devoid of merit. The judgment and
st
award dated 26.09.2023 delivered by Learned MAC(1 ),
Unakoti District, Kailashahar in connection with case
Page 16 of 16
No.T.S(MAC) No.9 of 2022 is hereby upheld and accordingly it
is affirmed. The appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the
aforesaid amount within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of the judgment and to deposit the
amount to the Learned Tribunal below for disbursal in
accordance with the judgment of the Learned Tribunal below.
With this observation, the appeal stands disposed
of on contest.
Send down the LCR along with a copy of
judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by MOUMITA
DATTA
DATTA Date: 2024.08.01 16:41:36
-07'00'
Deepshikha