- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5234 OF 2016(MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.816 OF 2016(MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.817 OF 2016(MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5235 OF 2016(MV-I) IN MFA No. 5234/2016: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE NARYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. N. SAVINDRA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 3. KUM. N. MANJULA, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 4. KUM. N. USHA, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT AMMERAHALLI VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 563 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER AND: 1. SRI. M. GUNANITHI, S/O MANIVANNAN, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO 13/8, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 002. 2. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.06.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1864/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT & XLI ACMM, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO.816/2016: BETWEEN: 1. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BHOOPATHI GOWDA, @ BHOOPATHI K.C. S/O LATE CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KOOTERI VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 563 101. 2. SRI. M. GUNANITHI, S/O MANIVANNAN, MAJOR BY AGE R/AT NO.13/8, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, KPN EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 002. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 30.10.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED17.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1863/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SCJ, MACT AND XLI ACMM, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,18,971/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FORM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER IN MFA NO.817/2016: BETWEEN: 1. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. SRI. N. SAVINDRA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 3. KUM. N MANJULA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 4. KUM. N USHA, D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT: AMMERAHALLI VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 563 101. 5. SRI. M. GUNANITHI, S/O MANIVANNAN, MAJOR BY AGE, - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER R/AT NO 13/8, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, KPN EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 002 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N GOPAL KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 30.10.2025 SERVICE FO NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1864/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT, XLI ACMM, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.11,22,600/- OUT OF WHICH THE PETITIONERS THEREIN ARE ENTITLED FOR COMPENSATION TO THE EXTENT OF 75% ie., Rs.8,41,950/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 5235/2016: BETWEEN: SRI. BHOOPATHI GOWDA, @ BHOOPATHI K.C., S/O LATE CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOOTERI VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 563 101. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M. GUNANITHI, S/O MANIVANNAN, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO 13/8, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, K P N EXTENSION BANGALORE - 560 002. 2. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP BY ITS MANAGER ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.06.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UDNER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1863/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 19th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MACT & XLI ACMM, BENGLAURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging common judgment and award dated 17.10.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17) in MVC nos.1863/2014 and 1864/2014, these appeals are filed. 2. MFA no.5234/2016 is filed by claimants in MVC no.1864/2014 for enhancement of compensation and challenging finding on negligence. Against very same award, insurer has filed MFA no.817/2016, challenging finding on negligence and quantum. Likewise, MFA no.5235/2016 is filed by claimant in MVC no.1863/2014, wherein insurer has filed MFA no.816/2016. 3. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that on 04.12.2013, Bhoopathi Gowda was riding motorcycle no.KA-07- L-6377 with his relative Narayanappa as pillion rider on outskirts of Kolar town, when driver of Lorry no.KA-01-D-2556 drove it in rash and negligent manner and it dashed against motorcycle from behind. Thereafter wheel of lorry ran over Narayanappa as well as right hand of Bhoopathi Gowda. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER Narayanappa died on spot, while Bhoopathi Gowda sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar, where his forearm was amputated, he did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. 4. Claiming compensation for same, MVCs no.1863/2014 and 1864/2014 were filed against owner and insurer of lorry. Since both arose out of same accident, they were clubbed together. 5. Despite service of notice owner did not appear and was placed ex parte. Only insurer opposed claim petition denying age, occupation, income of deceased as well loss of earning/dependency. Even violation of policy conditions was alleged. Insurer also specifically contended that accident occurred due to sole negligence rider of motorcyclist. 6. Based on pleadings Tribunal framed following issues: IN MVC no.1863/2014: (i) Whether the petitioner proves that on 04.12.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. he was - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER proceedings on a TVS Star City motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-07-L-6377 near KEB (KPTCL Power Station) on Bengaluru - Chennai NH-75 road, Kolar Town. At that time, one lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-D-2556 came from behind with high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed petitioner's motor cycle. As a result of which, he fell down, lorry run over on the forearm and sustained injuries as alleged? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom? (iii) What order or decree? IN MVC no.1864/2014: (i) Whether the petitioners prove that on 04.12.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. the deceased Narayanappa was proceeding as a pillion rider on TVS Star City motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-07-L-6377 near KEB (KPTCL power station), on Bengaluru-Chennai NH-75 road, Kolar Town. At that time, one lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-D-2556 came from behind with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased motor cycle. As a result of which, he fell down and lorry run over - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER on him, he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital, as alleged? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what amount and from whom? (iii) What order or decree? 7. Claimants examined 4 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-20. Insurer examined its official as RW1 and got marked insurance policy as Ex.R-1. 8. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in both cases in affirmative, issue no.2 partly in affirmative and issue no.3 in MVC no.1863/2014 by assessing total compensation as Rs.3,18,971/-, but claimant entitled to 75% of same i.e., Rs.2,38,228/- with interest at 6% p.a. from insurer. And in MFA no.1864/2016 it held total compensation as Rs.11,22,600/- and claimants entitled for 75% of same i.e., Rs.8,14,950/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from insurer. Dissatisfied with quantum and denial of compensation and finding on negligence, both claimants and insurer are in appeal. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 9. Sri Gopalkrishna, learned counsel for claimants submitted that there was no justification for Tribunal to apportion 25% negligence against rider of motorcycle and deny compensation to said extent to claimants. While passing impugned award, Tribunal in fact noted that in their objections filed, insurer it admitted occurrence of accident was due to insured lorry dashing against motorcycle from behind. It was submitted that as per police investigation records and as per claimants, accident occurred when lorry dashed against motorcycle from behind and thereafter, running over pillion rider and right arm of rider. And police, after investigation filed charge sheet only against driver of lorry, therefore entire negligence was required to be held against driver of lorry and ought to have awarded 100% of compensation. 10. On quantum, it was submitted that in MVC no.1864/2014, deceased Narayanappa was 50 years of age, working as agriculturist and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. To substantiate same, he had produced RTC. Without justification, Tribunal considered lower monthly income of only - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER Rs.6,000/- and awarded inadequate compensation. On said grounds, sought for enhancement of compensation. 11. In MVC no.1863/2014 it was stated that claimant was a 40 years old agriculturist earning Rs.20,000/- per month, had sustained amputation of right forearm. PW4 – a doctor examined claimant had assessed 70% disability to right upper limb and 35% to whole body. However, Tribunal erred in considering only 23% as ‘loss of earning capacity’. It was submitted that loss of right forearm would result in loss of earning capacity at 100% by relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court S.Ettiappan v. D. Kumar and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 3690. 12. It was stated that monthly income assessed at Rs.6,000/- was erroneous and inadequate. Even compensation awarded under other heads i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.13,571/- towards medical expenses, Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period, Rs.2,48,400/- towards future loss of income and Rs.15,000/- and Rs.9,000/- towards food, nourishment and attendant charges, were on - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER lower side. It was submitted that compensation awarded towards loss of amenities. It was submitted that Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects to monthly income. On above grounds, sought for allowing appeal. 13. On other hand, Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for insurer submitted that as per complaint filed by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, accident occurred when rider of motorcycle had traversed a cross road onto highway and motorcycle dashed against front right side of lorry. This would indicate that entire negligence for accident was on rider of motorcycle. Fact that rider failed to produce driving licence, would also be a ground for attributing negligence against rider. 14. Insofar as quantum, it was submitted that in MVC no.1864/2014, since it was submitted that deceased was aged 50 years, Tribunal erred in adding 30% future prospects instead of 25%. On said grounds, sought for allowing insurer’s appeal and dismissal of claimants’ appeal. 15. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award and records. - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 16. From above and since both claimant as well as insurer are challenging finding on negligence as well seeking for variation on quantum, points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether finding of Tribunal on apportionment of negligence calls for modification? (ii) Whether assessment of compensation by Tribunal, calls for modification? RE. POINT NO.1: 17. Occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle leading to death of Narayanappa and amputation of right forearm of Bhoopathi Gowda in said accident, are not in dispute. To establish actionable negligence against driver of insured vehicle, claimants relied on police investigation records i.e., FIR, complaint, spot panchanama, spot sketch, Motor Vehicles Inspector report, charge sheet marked as Exs.P-1 to P-5 and P-9 respectively. As rightly submitted, after independent investigation police filed charge sheet against driver of lorry. Though insurer has sought to contend that accident occurred when rider of motorcyclist failed to observe traffic rules after traversing a cross road onto highway, its - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER specific pleading in para 5(c) is that accident occurred when rider of motorcycle going ahead of lorry suddenly applied brakes leading to collision of lorry against motorcycle. 18. Though complaint is sought to be relied on, complainant - Assistant Sub Inspector of Police is indisputably not an eye witness. He arrived at accident spot after receiving information about accident. Therefore, his observation regarding manner of occurrence of accident would have no bearing. Appropriate person to depose about manner of occurrence of accident, would be driver or cleaner of lorry, but who have not been examined. Insofar as contention that rider of motorcycle did not have a driving licence and therefore, negligence has to be attributed against rider absolving insurer on that count, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh and Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 436, has held that mere absence of driving licence would not by itself imply negligence. 19. Accident in question occurred when lorry dashed against motorcycle from behind. Ex.P-4 spot sketch would - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER indicate that accident spot is on extreme left side of national highway, there is no indication about existence of about any cross road. There is also no material to establish that accident occurred due to sudden braking by rider of motorcycle. Nothing material is elicited from injured rider of motorcycle to substantiate their contention. 20. In view of above and since charge sheet implicates entire negligence only on driver of lorry, apportionment of negligence by Tribunal would not be justified. Point no.2 is therefore answered in favour of claimants. RE. POINT NO.3 in MVC NO.1864/2014: 21. Though claimant stated that deceased was 50 years of age, working as agriculturist and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, except production of RTCs, there is no material to substantiate income. Record of rights do not mention crop/crop pattern. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in taking monthly income notionally. However, notional income for year 2013 is Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, Tribunal ought to have considered Rs.8,000/- as per monthly income. - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 22. As rightly contended, since deceased was self employed and aged above 50 years, addition of future prospects has to be at 25% and not 30% as done by Tribunal. Deduction towards personal expenses has to be at 1/4th and multiplier applicable would be '13'. Compensation towards loss of dependency would thus be, Rs.11,17,000/- instead of Rs.9,12,600/-. Thus, there is enhancement of compensation by Rs.2,04,400/-. Award in other aspects is sustained. 23. In MVC no.1865/2014, though claimant stated that he was 40 years of age, working as agriculturist and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, same is not substantiated with any material. In absence, as held above, monthly income has to be taken at Rs.8,000/-. Admittedly, there is amputation of right forearm of claimant. PW4 – Doctor who examined claimant assessed 70% limb disability and 35% to whole body disability. Tribunal has considered loss of earning capacity at 23%. Therefore, it would not hard for this Court to fathom that claimant would face difficulty in performing all agricultural activities. At same time however, claimant cannot be stated to - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER be disabled to carryout any agricultural activities. Normally, right hand of a person will be dominant. Therefore, assessment of loss of earning capacity on account of amputation of right hand at 23% would be inadequate and found appropriate to assess it at 40%. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, claimant would be entitled for consideration of future prospects even in case of person injury claims. Thus, compensation towards future loss of income would be: (Rs.8,000 + 40%) x 12 x 15 x 40% = Rs.8,06,400/- 24. Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- only towards pain and suffering. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, same would not be justified and found appropriate to enhance it to Rs.1,00,000/- 25. Tribunal has awarded Rs.13,571/- towards medical expenses in full reimburse of medical bills produced leaving no scope for enhancement. - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER 26. Tribunal has considered three months as period of lay off. Considering monthly income at Rs.8,000/-, claimant would be entitled for Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. 27. Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- plus Rs.9,000/- towards food, nourishment and attendant charges, which is found to be adequate. 28. Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards ‘loss of amenities’. Taking note of facts and circumstances, it is held appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’. 29. Thus total compensation would be Rs.10,67,971/- as against Rs.3,18,971/-. Point no.3 is answered accordingly. 30. In view of above, following: ORDER (i) MFA no.817/2016 filed by insurer is allowed in part only insofar as reduction in extent of future prospects. - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010525142016 NC: 2026:KHC:50751 MFA No. 5234 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 816 of 2016 MFA No. 817 of 2016 AND 1 OTHER (ii) MFA no.5234/2016 is allowed in part. Claimant is held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.2,04,400/-, which shall carry interest @ 6% excluding 195 days being delay in filing appeal. (iii) MFA no.816/2016 filed by insurer is dismissed. (iv) MFA no.5235/2016 filed by claimant is allowed and compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,18,971/- to Rs.10,67,971/-. (v) Amount in deposit in insurer’s appeal is directed to be transferred to claimant. (vi) Insurer to deposit balance compensation within six weeks. (vii) On deposit entire compensation is ordered to be released in favour of claimants through electronic means. (viii) Apportionment of compensation shall be in terms of Tribunal. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13