My photo




Friday, February 20, 2015

the appellant shall be entitled to the compensation figured out in the following table under different heads: |SL.No |Particulars |Amount of compensation | |1. |Loss of future income due | Rs.8,64,000/- | | |to disability | | |2. |Loss of income during | Rs.76,500/- | | |period of treatment | | |3. |Pain and suffering | Rs.1,50,000/- | |4. |Medical Expenses | Rs.2,00,000/- | |5. |Attendant charges during | Rs.40,000/- | | |the period of treatment for| | | |17 months | | |6. |Transportation charges | Rs.20,000/- | | |during the period of | | | |treatment | | |7. |Special diet and nutrition | Rs.20,000/- | | |as advised by the doctor | | | |during the period of | | | |treatment | | |8. |Permanent Disability/ |Rs.1,50,000/- | | |loss of amenities, | | | |happiness and enjoyment of | | | |life | | |9. |Future medical expenses |Rs.2,00,000/- | |10. |Expenses during pendency of|Rs.40,000/- | | |appeal | | | |TOTAL |Rs.17,60,500/- | Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant by the respondent Insurance Company will be Rs.17,60,500/- as per amount awarded against different heads mentioned above in the table with interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded by this Court from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2006 OF 2015
                   (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 981 OF 2014)

JAKIR HUSSEIN                            ... APPELLANT


SABIR & ORS.                             ... RESPONDENTS

                               J U D G M E N T


  Leave granted.

2.  This appeal has been filed by the appellant  against  the  judgment  and
order dated 24.01.2013 passed in M.A. No. 3414 of 2010 by the High Court  of
Madhya Pradesh at Indore, wherein the High Court partly allowed  the  appeal
of the appellant by modifying the award passed by the MACT,  Mandsor,  M.P.,
in claim case No. 3 of 2009 dated 29.07.2010.

3.   The relevant facts of the case are stated as under:

     On 12.11.2008 at about 6.30 p.m., Jakir Hussein, the appellant  herein,
was driving a Tempo bearing registration No. MP-14-G-0547 from  Krishi  Upaj
Mandi, Mandsor to Multanpura village, Madhya  Pradesh.  A  few  others  were
also riding along with the appellant, namely, Santosh, Kumari Krishna,  Smt.
Paipa Bai etc. While the  appellant  was  on  the  way,  a  tractor  bearing
registration No. MP 14-K- 4886 which was  driven  by  Sabir-respondent  no.1
herein, in rash and negligent manner hit the  appellant's  tempo  which  was
coming from the opposite direction with enormous force. Due  to  the  impact
of the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries.  The  right  arm
of  the  appellant  had  severe  compound  fractures  preventing  him   from
performing his regular work as a driver hereafter. At the time of  the  said
accident, the appellant was earning Rs.4,500/- per month  by  working  as  a

4. The appellant filed Claim Petition No. 3 of 2009  under  Section  166  of
the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,   1988   before   the   Motor   Accidents   Claim
Tribunal/Additional First Member,  Mandsor,  Madhya  Pradesh.  The  Tribunal
determined the permanent disability suffered by the appellant on account  of
the motor vehicle accident at 30%  and  his  monthly  income  was  taken  at
Rs.3,000/- for the purpose of assessing annual income of  the  appellant  to
compute his loss of future earnings.  On the basis  of  the  annual  income,
his future loss of income due to permanent disability suffered  by  him  was
estimated at Rs.1,72,800/-  and  loss  of  income  at  Rs.51,000/-.  Medical
expenses  was  estimated  at  Rs.1,80,000/-.  The  total   compensation   of
Rs.4,38,000/- with an interest at the rate of 7% p.a.  was  awarded  to  the
appellant by the Tribunal as against a claim of Rs.8,80,000/- made by him.

5.  Aggrieved  by  the  award   of   the   Tribunal   regarding   inadequate
compensation, the appellant filed M.A. No. 3414  of  2010  before  the  High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The High Court opined that the income  of
appellant has been taken on the lower side by the  Tribunal  and  determined
the same at Rs.4,000/- per month. The High Court after  re-determination  of
the compensation held that the appellant is entitled to  an  enhancement  of
Rs.1,77,200/-  towards  permanent  disability  and  addition  of  Rs.5,000/-
towards pain and suffering. In addition to that amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/-
 was awarded towards medical expenses. The High Court  has  further  awarded
Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses during  the  pendency  of  the  appeal.
Further, it has awarded interest at the rate of  8%  p.a.  on  the  enhanced
compensation. Being unsatisfied with the enhanced compensation by  the  High
Court, the appellant filed this appeal.

The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant,  Mr.  Parameshwara,  who  is
appointed to assist this Court as  amicus  curiae  has  contended  that  the
compensation awarded by both the Tribunal  and  the  High  Court  is  wholly
inadequate. It is submitted by him that  the  High  Court  has  committed  a
serious error in law in not awarding just  and  reasonable  compensation  in
favour of the appellant by taking various factual aspects such as  permanent
disability suffered by him, medical evidence and keeping in view the law  on
the relevant aspects for quantifying just and reasonable  compensation  both
under the heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. It is further  urged
by him that on the motor vehicle accident caused  by  the  respondent-driver
on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the  appellant  has
become permanently disabled due  to  which  he  will  not  be  able  to  get
suitable employment and  lead  a  normal  life  in  future.  It  is  further
contended by  him  that  the  future  medical  treatment  and  care  of  the
appellant is very much necessary which will also be on the higher  side.  In
cases where the claimant suffering from either total  or  partial  permanent
disablement, the term 'compensation' used under Section  166  of  the  Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988,  would  not  only  include  the  expenses  incurred  for
immediate treatment, but also the  amount  likely  to  be  incurred  by  the
appellant for future medical  treatment/care  and  necessary  assistance  on
account of permanent disablement  caused  to  him  on  account  of  grievous
injury of loss of his right arm in the said accident.  Reliance  was  placed
by the learned amicus curiae on the decision of this Court in  the  case  of
R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Private Limited[1], wherein  it  was
held as under:-
"9.Broadly speaking while fixing an amount  of  compensation  payable  to  a
victim of an accident,  the  damages  have  to  be  assessed  separately  as
pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary  damages  are  those  which
the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of  being  calculated
in terms of  money;  whereas  non-pecuniary  damages  are  those  which  are
incapable of being  assessed  by  arithmetical  calculations.  In  order  to
appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses  incurred  by
the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit  up  to
the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary  damages
are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and  physical  shock,
pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to  be  suffered  in  future;
(ii) damages to compensate for the loss  of  amenities  of  life  which  may
include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may  not
be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss  of  expectation  of
life, i.e., on  account  of  injury  the  normal  longevity  of  the  person
concerned  is   shortened;   (iv)   inconvenience,   hardship,   discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."

 It is further contended by him that the monthly  income  of  the  appellant
has been erroneously taken as Rs.3,000/- by the Tribunal and  Rs.4,000/-  by
the High Court when he was  actually  earning  Rs.4,500/-  per  month  while
working as the driver. The learned amicus curiae placed  reliance  upon  the
case of Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v.  Prasanth  S.  Dhananka[2],
wherein, the three-Judge Bench of this  Court  while  dealing  with  a  case
arising out of the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act,  1986,
enhanced  the  compensation  awarded  by  the  National  Consumer   Disputes
Redressal Commission from Rs.1.5 lacs to Rs.1 crore. The  observations  made
by the Bench at para 39 can appropriately be applied to the  case  on  hand,
wherein it is stated as under:-
"88. We must emphasize that the Court has to strike a  balance  between  the
inflated and unreasonable demands of a  victim  and  the  equally  untenable
claim of the opposite party saying that nothing  is  payable.  Sympathy  for
the victim does not, and should not, come in the way  of  making  a  correct
assessment, but if a case is made out,  the  Court  must  not  be  chary  of
awarding adequate compensation. The "adequate compensation"  that  we  speak
of, must to some extent, be a rule of the thumb measure, and  as  a  balance
has to be  struck,  it  would  be  difficult  to  satisfy  all  the  parties

89.It must also be borne in mind that life  has  its  pitfalls  and  is  not
smooth sailing all along the way (as a claimant would have  us  believe)  as
the hiccups that invariably come about cannot  be  visualized.  Life  it  is
said is akin to a ride on a roller coaster where a meteoric  rise  is  often
followed by an equally spectacular fall, and the distance  between  the  two
(as in this very case) is a minute or a yard.

90.At the same time we often find that  a  person  injured  in  an  accident
leaves his family in greater distress, vis- `-vis a  family  in  a  case  of
death. In the latter case, the initial shock  gives  way  to  a  feeling  of
resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on.  The
case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more  pitiable  and  the
feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often  destitution  enures  every
day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped  person  comes  at
an enormous price, physical,  financial  and  emotional,  not  only  on  the
victim but even more so on his family and attendants  and  the  stress  saps
their energy and destroys their equanimity."
                                               (emphasis laid by this Court)
Further, with regard to award just and reasonable  compensation  both  under
pecuniary  and  non-pecuniary  damages  to  the  victims  of   motor-vehicle
accidents, the learned counsel has placed  reliance  upon  the  decision  of
this Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar &  Anr.  [3],  wherein  it
was held as under:-
"5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act'  for  short)  makes
it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation  should,
to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore  the  claimant  to  the
position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages  is  to  make
good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do  so,
in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.  The  court  or  tribunal  shall
have to assess the damages objectively and exclude  from  consideration  any
speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference  to  the  nature
of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not  only  to
be compensated for the physical injury, but  also  for  the  loss  which  he
suffered as  a  result  of  such  injury.  This  means  that  he  is  to  be
compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his  inability  to  enjoy
those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed  but  for  the  injuries,
and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned."
                                               (emphasis laid by this Court)

It is further contended by the learned Amicus Curiae that the appellant  was
working as a driver and getting salary of  Rs.4,500/-  per  month.  However,
the Tribunal proceeded to determine his  income  at  Rs.36,000/-  per  annum
solely on the basis that there was no evidence on record to prove the  claim
of the appellant that he was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month as  a  driver  of
the motor vehicle. Therefore, in the absence of  any  cogent  evidence,  the
Tribunal and the High Court ought  to  have  taken  the  appellant's  annual
income at Rs.54,000/- as he was working as a driver  of  the  motor  vehicle
till the accident occurred for the purpose of determination of  compensation
towards the loss of future earnings  of  the  appellant,  as  he  had   100%
permanent disablement having regard to the nature of work he  was  doing  at
the time of the accident. Accordingly,  it  should  be  at  Rs.54,000/-  per
annum for proper quantification  of  future  loss  of  earnings  as  he  had
suffered 100% functional disability.

It is further contended by him that the award passed  by  the  Tribunal  for
future medical expenses was wholly inadequate. Reliance was  placed  on  the
decision of this Court  in  the  case  of  Nagappa  v.  Gurudayal  Singh[4],
wherein this Court held that in a case where injury  to  a  victim  requires
periodical medical expenses, it is not possible for  a  fresh  award  to  be
passed or to review a previous award when the medical expenses are  incurred
after finalisation of the compensation  proceedings.  It  was  further  held
that the only alternative is that at  the  time  of  passing  of  the  final
award, the Tribunal/Court should  consider  such  eventuality  and  fix  the
compensation under  the  above  said  head  accordingly.  Therefore,  it  is
submitted by him that it will be just  and  reasonable  for  this  Court  to
award a further sum  of  Rs.2,00,000/-  to  the  appellant  for  his  future
treatment. If the said amount is deposited in fixed  deposit,  the  interest
accruing on it  will  take  care  of  future  medical  treatment  and  other
ancillary expenses.

With regard to the pain, suffering and trauma which have been caused to  the
appellant due to his crushed hand, it is  contended  that  the  compensation
awarded by the Tribunal was meagre and insufficient. It is  not  in  dispute
that the appellant had remained in the hospital for a period of  over  three
months. It is not possible for the courts to make a  precise  assessment  of
the pain and trauma suffered by a person  whose  arm  got  crushed  and  has
suffered permanent  disability  due  to  the  accident  that  occurred.  The
appellant will have to struggle  and  face  different  challenges  as  being
handicapped permanently. Therefore, in all such  cases,  the  Tribunals  and
the courts should make a broad estimate for the purpose of  determining  the
amount  of  just  and  reasonable   compensation   under   pecuniary   loss.
Admittedly, at the time of accident, the appellant was a  young  man  of  33
years. For the rest of his life, the appellant will suffer from  the  trauma
of not being able to do his normal work of his job as a  driver.  Therefore,
it is submitted that to meet the ends  of  justice  it  would  be  just  and
proper to award him a sum  of  Rs.1,50,000/-  towards  pain,  suffering  and
trauma caused to him and a further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the  loss  of
amenities and enjoyment of life.

On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Meera  Agarwal,  the  learned  counsel  for  the
respondent no.3 - The New India Assurance Company Ltd herein contended  that
this Court has held in a catena of cases that  the  percentage  of  loss  of
earning  capacity  should  correspond  to  the   percentage   of   loss   of
functional/physical disability, if the  loss  of  functional  disability  is
55%, the loss of earning capacity should also be 55% of the  income  of  the
injured/claimant. In support of the above contentions, reliance  was  placed
by her on the decision of this Court  in  the  case  of  National  Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed[5].

It is further contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that  the  amount
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and reasonable,  still  the
High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has  erroneously  taken
a generous view and enhanced the amount of compensation and therefore,  does
not warrant interference for enhancement of compensation as claimed  by  the

We have carefully examined the facts of the case and  material  evidence  on
record in the light of the rival legal contentions urged before us  by  both
the learned counsel on behalf of the parties to find out as to  whether  the
appellant is entitled for further  enhancement  of  compensation?   We  have
perused the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and the  award  of
the Tribunal. After careful examination of the facts and legal  evidence  on
record, it is not in dispute that the appellant was working as a  driver  at
the time of the accident and no doubt, he could be  earning  Rs.4,500/-  per
month. As per the notification issued by  the  State  Government  of  Madhya
Pradesh under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,  a  person  employed
as a driver earns Rs.128/- per  day,  however  the  wage  rate  as  per  the
minimum wage notification is only a yardstick and not an absolute factor  to
be taken to determine the compensation under  the  future  loss  of  income.
Minimum wage, as per State Government Notification alone  may at  times fail
to meet the requirements that are needed to maintain the  basic  quality  of
life since it  is  not  inclusive  of  factors  of  cost  of  living  index.
Therefore, we are of the view that  it  would  be  just  and  reasonable  to
consider the appellant's daily wage at  Rs.150/-  per  day  (Rs.4,500/-  per
month i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum) as he was a driver of  the  motor  vehicle
which is a skilled job. Further, the Tribunal  has  wrongly  determined  the
loss of income during the course of  his  treatment  at  Rs.51,000/-  for  a
period of one year  and  five  months.  We  have  to  enhance  the  same  to
Rs.76,500/- (Rs.4,500 X 17 months).

Further,  with  respect  to  the  permanent  disablement  suffered  by   the
appellant, Mr. K.  Parameshwar,  the  learned  amicus  curiae,  has  rightly
submitted that the appellant was examined by Dr. P.K. Upadhyay in  order  to
prove his medical condition and the percentage of permanent disability.  The
doctor who has treated him stated that the appellant  has  one  long  injury
from his arm up to the wrist. Due to this  injury,  the  doctor  has  stated
that the appellant had great difficulty to  move  his  shoulder,  wrist  and
elbow and pus was coming  out  of  the  injury  even  two  years  after  the
accident and the treatment taken by him. The doctor further  stated  in  his
evidence that the appellant got delayed joined fracture in the humerus  bone
of his right hand with wiring and nailing  and  that  he  had  suffered  55%
disability and cannot drive any motor vehicle in future due to the same.  He
was once again operated upon during the pendency of the  appeal  before  the
High Court and he was hospitalised for 10 days. The  appellant  was  present
in person in the High Court and it was observed  and  noticed  by  the  High
Court that the right hand  of  the  appellant  was  completely  crushed  and
deformed. In view of the doctor's evidence in this case,  the  Tribunal  and
the High Court have erroneously taken the extent of permanent disability  at
30% and 55% respectively for the calculation of amount towards the  loss  of
future earning capacity. No doubt, the doctor  has  assessed  the  permanent
disability of the appellant at 55%. However, it  is  important  to  consider
the relevant fact namely that the appellant is  a  driver  and  driving  the
motor vehicle is the only means of livelihood for himself  as  well  as  the
members of his family. Further, it is very crucial to  note  that  the  High
Court has clearly observed that his right hand was  completely  crushed  and
deformed. In the case of  Raj  Kumar  v.  Ajay  Kumar  (supra),  this  Court
specifically  gave  the  illustration  of  a  driver   who   has   permanent
disablement of hand and stated that the loss  of  future  earnings  capacity
would be virtually 100%.  Therefore,  clearly  when  it  comes  to  loss  of
earning due to permanent disability, the same may be treated  as  100%  loss
caused to the appellant since he will never be able  to  work  as  a  driver
again.  The  contention  of  the  respondent  Insurance  Company  that   the
appellant  could  take  up  any   other   alternative   employment   is   no
justification to  avoid  their  vicarious  liability.  Hence,  the  loss  of
earning is determined by us at Rs.54,000/- per annum. Thus, by applying  the
appropriate multiplier as per the principles laid down by this Court in  the
case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport  Corporation  &  Anr.[6],  the
total loss of future earnings of the appellant will be at Rs.54,000 X  16  =

From the facts, circumstances and evidence on record  it  is  clear  that  a
cost  of  Rs.2,00,000/-  was  incurred  during  medical  treatment  of   the
appellant. Keeping in mind his medical condition and  future  medical  needs
and requirements, we further  award  Rs.2,00,000/-  towards  future  medical
treatment & incidental expenses in favour of the appellant by  applying  the
legal principles laid  down  by  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Nagappa  v.
Gurudayal Singh (supra).

Further, we refer to the case of Rekha Jain &  Anr.  v.  National  Insurance
Co. Ltd.[7], wherein this Court examined catena of cases and  principles  to
be borne in mind while granting compensation under the heads  of  (i)  pain,
suffering and (ii) loss of amenities  and  so  on.  Therefore,  as  per  the
principles laid  down  in  the  case  of  Rekha  Jain  &  Anr.  (supra)  and
considering the suffering undergone by the appellant  herein,  and  it  will
persist in  future  also  and  therefore,  we  are  of  the  view  to  grant
Rs.1,50,000/-  towards  the  pain,  suffering  and  trauma  which  will   be
undergone by the appellant throughout his life. Further, as he is not  in  a
position to move freely, we additionally award  Rs.1,50,000/-  towards  loss
of amenities & enjoyment of life and happiness.

We further award an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards special diet,  Rs.40,000/-
towards attendant expenses during the period of  treatment  and  Rs.20,000/-
towards transportation.

Since, the claim of the appellant has been pending for several years  before
the courts, we are of the view to award a sum of Rs.40,000/-  towards  costs
incurred during pendency of the appeal.
As regards the rate of interest to be awarded on  the  compensation  awarded
in this appeal, we are of the view that the  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court
have  erred  in  granting  interest  rate  at  only  7%  p.a.  and  8%  p.a.
respectively on  the  total  compensation  amount  instead  of  9%  p.a.  by
applying the decision of this Court in Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi  v.
Association of Victims of  Uphaar  Tragedy[8].  Accordingly,  we  award  the
interest @9% p.a. on the compensation determined in the present appeal.

In the result, the appellant shall be entitled to the  compensation  figured
out in the following table under different heads:

|SL.No    |Particulars                |Amount of compensation |
|1.       |Loss of future income due  | Rs.8,64,000/-         |
|         |to disability              |                       |
|2.       |Loss of income during      | Rs.76,500/-           |
|         |period of treatment        |                       |
|3.       |Pain and suffering         | Rs.1,50,000/-         |
|4.       |Medical Expenses           | Rs.2,00,000/-         |
|5.       |Attendant charges during   | Rs.40,000/-           |
|         |the period of treatment for|                       |
|         |17 months                  |                       |
|6.       |Transportation charges     | Rs.20,000/-           |
|         |during the period of       |                       |
|         |treatment                  |                       |
|7.       |Special diet and nutrition | Rs.20,000/-           |
|         |as advised by the doctor   |                       |
|         |during the period of       |                       |
|         |treatment                  |                       |
|8.       |Permanent Disability/      |Rs.1,50,000/-          |
|         |loss of amenities,         |                       |
|         |happiness and enjoyment of |                       |
|         |life                       |                       |
|9.       |Future medical expenses    |Rs.2,00,000/-          |
|10.      |Expenses during pendency of|Rs.40,000/-            |
|         |appeal                     |                       |
|         |TOTAL                      |Rs.17,60,500/-         |

Thus, the total compensation payable to  the  appellant  by  the  respondent
Insurance Company will be  Rs.17,60,500/-  as  per  amount  awarded  against
different heads mentioned above in the table with interest @ 9% p.a. on  the
compensation awarded by this Court from the date  of  filing  of  the  claim
petition till the date of payment.

22.  Since the claim petition has been pending in the courts for the last  6
years, we direct the  Insurance  Company  to  either  pay  the  compensation
awarded in this appeal by way of demand draft or  deposit  the  same  before
the concerned MACT within four weeks from the date of receipt  of  the  copy
of this Judgment and submit the compliance report for the  perusal  of  this

23.  When this matter was listed, neither the  counsel  on  record  nor  the
arguing counsel on behalf of the appellant was present on a number of  dates
of  hearing  despite  granting  several  opportunities  to  him.  Therefore,
keeping in view Article 39A of the Constitution of India,  this  Court  vide
order dated 19.01.2015 appointed Mr. K. Parameshwara, as  amicus  curiae  on
behalf of the appellant to  assist  us  to  determine  just  and  reasonable
compensation. In pursuant to the same, the learned amicus curiae  has  given
his valuable assistance to  this  Court  by  addressing  the  arguments  and
submitting the written submissions. Therefore, it is  just  and  proper  for
this Court to direct the Legal Services Authority, State of  Madhya  Pradesh
to pay a nominal fee of Rs.10,000/- to him by sending a demand draft in  the
name of 'K. Parameshwar' within four weeks from the date of receipt  of  the
copy of this Judgment. The Registry is directed  to  send  a  copy  of  this
judgment to the Legal Services Authority, State of Madhya Pradesh to  comply
with our order.

  The appeal is allowed in the above said terms.

                                   [V.GOPALA GOWDA]

                                   [R. BANUMATHI]

New Delhi,
February 18, 2015
[1]    (1995) 1 SCC 551
[2]    (2009) 6 SCC 1
[3]    (2011)1 SCC 343
[4]    (2003) 2 SCC 274
[5]    (2007) 2 SCC 349
[6]    (2009) 6 SCC 121
[7]    (2013) 8 SCC 389
[8]    (2011)14 SCC 481

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.