mere pleadings are not enough, one has to file affidavit to prove the case. absence of affidavit is fatal=No evidence has been filed before us through this revision petition to rebut the ground on which the appeal came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order. Coming to the merits, so far as the order of the District Forum is concerned, we find that as per the well-established procedure the District Forum has to settle the consumer disputes on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. Since the petitioner failed to prove its submissions through affidavit in evidence, the same could not be accepted by the District Forum. It is seen from the order of the District Forum that after filing its reply containing submissions not supported by any affidavit, the petitioner also chose to remain absent and was proceeded against ex parte. In the circumstances, we do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Forum or dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by the State Commission through the impugned order.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION No. 2864 OF 2011

(From the Order dated 31.05.2011 in FA No 738/2011 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)

Indian Institute of Professional Studies

Through Mr. Anuj Kumar Goyal                                                       Petitioner

Assistant Director

Deep Bhawan, Polytechnic Chauraha

Faizabad Road, Indira Nagar,

Lucknow (U.P.)

Versus

Smt. Rekha Sharma                                                                            Respondent

W/o Sh. Satish Vyas

R/o : 1-2, Dada Bari

Kota– 324009

Rajasthan

 

BEFORE:

            HON’BLE  MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner                             :             Mr. Praveen Singh, Advocate

Pronounced on :  16^th December 2011

ORDER

PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

The facts leading to filing of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the present case are that the opposite party/petitioner had published an advertisement on 5.6.2009 in ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ newspaper wherein it had asked for applications for fresh admission in the M.P.Ed. (Master of Physical Education) course for the calendar year 2009-2010. The respondent/complainant herein sent a demand draft dated 8.6.2009 for Rs.200/- from State Bank of India, Kota asking for application form for admission to the M.P.Ed. course. The demand draft (DD) was sent by speed post on 9.6.2009 which involved a further expenditure of Rs.25/- in addition to Rs.30/- spent by the respondent as DD charges. The opposite party sent a  prospectus to the complainant but in the prospectus no information was given about M.P.Ed. course. Treating  this as an instance of false advertisement and an unfair  business transaction on the part of the OP, the complainant sent a letter on 30.6.2009 through registered post requesting for refund of Rs.275/-. The OP, however, did not refund the money. Aggrieved by this and also alleging that she lost her one (academic) year in the process, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum praying for compensation from the OP. Complainant filed her affidavit in support of her claim along with eight other pieces of  documentaryevidence. The OP contested the complaint and submitted that the M.P.Ed. course in question had been started in that year itself but the new prospectus had been sent for printing and hence the OP had sent old prospectus which also contained information about the M.P.Ed. course. It was claimed by the OP that the complainant either could not see or misplaced the same deliberately. The OP, therefore, after receiving the letter from the complainant sent the new prospectus through post and hence there was no deficiency on the part of the OP and hence the complaint should be dismissed.

2.         While the OP had filed its reply in the matter yet no affidavit in support of the submissions made was filed nor the contents of the reply were verified due to which the same could not be treated as evidence. After appraisal of the issues, evidence adduced by the complainant and supported by documents, the District Forum held that there was deficiency in the matter on the part of the OP. While accepting the complaint, the District Forum passed the following order:-

“The complaint of the complainant is decided ex-parte against the opposite party and ordered that the opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs.280/- for DD amount, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- for litigation expenditure within two months from the date of order. Due to act of the opposite party, complainant lost her one year for which the opposite party shall pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. If the payment is not made in stipulated period then the complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 9% P.A. on the decreed amount.”

3.         Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP filed an appeal against the same before the State Commission. This, however, came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order dated 31.5.2011 because of non-filing of the receipt for the statutorydeposit  by the petitioner. The petitioner has now filed the present revision petition challenging the aforesaid order of the State Commission.

4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by him that first and foremost the respondent is not a consumer since she had only purchased application form including  prospectus but had not been admitted to the course in question. His second contention is that in response to the request of the complainant, a copy of the new prospectus which was earlier under print was sent to the complainant and hence no deficiency could be held on the part of the petitioner/OP. He has, therefore, submitted that order dated 28.4.2010 passed by the District Forum, Kota accepting the complaint of the respondent and upholding thereof by the State Commission by dismissing the appeal of the petitioner are arbitrary, illegal and against the mandatory provisions of law and hence are liable to be set aside.

5.         We have gone through the orders of the Fora below and perused the record before us. It is to be noted that the State Commission has summarily dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for not filing the deposit receipt. No evidence has been filed before us through this revision petition to rebut the ground on which the appeal came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order. Coming to the merits, so far as the order of the District Forum is concerned, we find that as per the well-established procedure the District Forum has to settle the consumer disputes on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. Since the petitioner failed to prove its submissions through affidavit in evidence, the same could not be accepted by the District Forum. It is seen from the order of the District Forum that after filing its reply containing submissions not supported by any affidavit, the petitioner also chose to remain absent and was proceeded against ex parte. In the circumstances, we do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Forum or dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by the State Commission through the impugned order. There is, therefore, no case for our intervention with the orders of the Fora below. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed at the threshold, with no order as to costs.

...........................................

(ANUPAM DASGUPTA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

..........................................

(SURESH CHANDRA)

MEMBER

SS/

insurance claims =the Apex Court which state that the assured is under obligation to make full disclosure of the material fact which may be relevant for the insurer to take into account while deciding whether the proposal should be accepted or not.=the policy had lapsed and was revived on 23.1.2003 but life assured had concealed material facts at the time of revival of the policy and filled up fresh declaration with regard to his health by concealing material fact of his illness although he was suffering from hypertension and heart disease for which he had taken treatment and purchased medicines.=During the course of hearing, it has been brought to our notice that even though the impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner, the same has already been complied with by the petitioner by making payment to the complainant/respondent in terms of the impugned order. In these circumstances, taking into consideration the very small decretal amount involved in the impugned order and the fact that the claim in question pertains to the death of the insured which took place on 20.8.2003, we are of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in lingering on with the present revision petition and the same can be treated to have become infructuous at this belated stage. It would, therefore, be appropriate to treat the same as infructuous and dispose it of accordingly without getting into the merits of the case as such. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that this should not be treated as a precedent for the future cases since the contentions raised by the petitioner in respect of the merits would remain open for consideration in the light of the existing judgements by the Apex Court and other Fora in respect of the reliefs granted by the State Commission vide its impugned order which is under challenge shall remain open. We agree to the submission made by the learned counsel and direct that the decision in this case should not be treated as a precedent in other cases and dispose of the present revision petition with these directions.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.  1882   OF  2007

(From the order dated  12.2.2007  in Appeal No. 391/2005 of  Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)

Life Insurance Corporation of India                                             …..  Petitioner

Mahavir Nagar

Barmer

Rajasthan

Through

Assistant Secretary (L&HPF)

Northern Zonal Office

Jeevan Bharati

Connaught Circus

New Delhi

Vs.

Sh. Hemi Devi                                                                                  ….. Respondent

W/o Late Sagarpuri Caste Goswami

R/o Langera

Barmer (Rajasthan)                                                                        

 

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE MR.SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner                     :  Mr. Ashok Kashyap,  Advocate

                                                        

For the Respondent                :  NEMO

Pronounced on : 16^th December, 2011    

ORDER

PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 12.2.2007 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer DisputesRedressal Commission Circuit Bench Jaipur by which the State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and modified the relief earlier granted by the District Forum, Barmer vide its order dated 28.1.2005 in favour of the complainant, respondent herein.

2.         Briefly stated, the complainant/respondent, who is wife of the deceased life assured, filed a complaint before the District Forum, Barmer claiming that her husband took a policy for Rs.25,000/- with back date of commencement from 28.12.1993 at a yearly premium of Rs.3110/- under Jeevan Surabhi with accident benefit and since her husband had died on 20.8.2003, she had raised a claim under this policy which had been declined by the petitioner on the ground that the policy had lapsed and was revived on 23.1.2003 but life assured had concealed material facts at the time of revival of the policy and filled up fresh declaration with regard to his health by concealing material fact of his illness although  he was suffering from hypertension and heart disease for which he had taken treatment and purchased medicines. Aggrieved by the rejection of her claim, the complainant/respondent challenged the same before the District Forum,  Barmer by filing a consumer complaint which was accepted by the District Forum which ordered that the complainant could recover the amount of insurance policy for Rs.25,000/- along with accrued bonus as per rules. The complainant was also held entitled to receive interest @ 9%  p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim, i.e., 26.2.2004 along with cost of Rs.1,000/- from the petitioner company.

3.         The petitioner company which was opposite party before the District Forum, challenged this order of the District Forum in appeal before the State Commission which allowed the appeal vide its impugned order dated 12.2.2007 in terms of the following directions:-

“For the reasons stated above the appeal of the appellant is allowed in the manner that the complainant would be entitled to receive the whole amount deposited towards premium with bonus and in addition to this she will receive interest on the above amount @ 9% p.a. from 26.2.2004. The impugned order may be treated amended as per above. The cost of the complaint in the impugned order is confirmed.”

4.         Not feeling satisfied with the impugned order of the State Commission, the petitioner  has challenged the same through the present revision petition.

5.         Contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner  to the effect that there are several pronouncements of the Apex Court which state that the assured is under obligation to make full disclosure of the material fact which may be relevant for the insurer to take into account while deciding whether the proposal should be accepted or not. According to the petitioner, since the life assured had failed to make full disclosure regarding his health at the time of the revival of the policy in question which amounted to concealment of material information which rendered the contract null and void and hence when the State Commission vide its impugned order had found that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner but yet had erroneously exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in it while directing the petitioner company to return the premium paid with bonus and interest @ 9% w.e.f. 26.2.2004. Thus the State Commission had also committed grave error and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6.         We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent had never appeared and hence was proceeded ex parte but the written submissions filed by the respondent are placed on record and have been perused. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to our notice that even though the impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner, the same has already been complied with by the petitioner by making payment to the complainant/respondent in terms of the impugned order. In these circumstances, taking into consideration the very smalldecretal amount involved in the impugned order and the fact that the claim in question pertains to the death of the insured which took place on 20.8.2003, we are of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in lingering on with the present revision petition and the same can be treated to have become infructuous at this belated stage. It would, therefore, be appropriate to treat the same as infructuous and dispose it of accordingly without getting into the merits of the case as such. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that this should not be treated as a precedent for the future cases since the contentions raised by the petitioner  in respect of the merits would remain open for consideration in the light of the existing judgements by the Apex Court and other Fora in respect of the reliefs granted by the State Commission vide its impugned order which is under challenge shall remain open. We agree to the submission made by the learned counsel and direct that the decision in this case should not be treated as a precedent in other cases and dispose of the present revision petition with these directions.

………………………………

(ANUPAM DASGUPTA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

………………………………

(SURESH CHANDRA)

MEMBER

SS/

even though the mother is nominee, he mtother and widowed wife are equally entitled to equal share in the assets of deceased son= the 1st respondent and the appellant, being the wife and the mother of the deceased respectively, come within the meaning of Class I heirs as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, and therefore, the 1st respondent along with the appellant is entitled to a share in the amounts shown in the petition schedule as also the amount claimed by the appellant as counter-claim and also the death benefits payable by the employer of the deceased. =nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee and the amounts so received by the nominee are to be distributed according to Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.941 of 2010

JUDGMENT:   (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana)

          This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 30.08.2010 passed in O.P. No. 1634 of 2007 by the learned IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal.

          Brief facts of the case are that the 1^st respondent herein is the widow of late G. Sharath Chandra, who is no other than the son of the appellant herein and who died intestate in a motor accident. The
1^st respondent stating that her husband G. Sharath Chandra died in a motor accident and that she being his legally wedded wife, is entitled to the amounts under the insurance policies obtained by him during his lifetime as also the death benefits payable by his employer, and that as the appellant herein is trying to withdraw all those amounts, taking advantage of the fact that she was shown as nominee in some of the insurance policies, obtained by the deceased, filed the present O.P. before the Court below, praying to issue her Succession Certificate, as per the provisions of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. 

          The appellant herein resisted the petition by filing counter, inter alia, stating that the 1^st respondent did not look after the deceased while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, that she being being a Hindu wife, did not attend his funeral ceremony and last rites, and as such, she cannot be treated as wife to succeed the properties of the deceased and is not entitled to claim any share in his properties.  She further stated that the 1^st respondent suppressed about one other insurance policy obtained by the deceased, for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, with a mala fide intention to appropriate the entire amount under the said policy for her benefit, by excluding the appellant, and as such claimed share in the said amount, as a counter-claim. 

          The Court below, having considered the rival contentions of the parties and the material on record, held that the 1^st respondent and the appellant, being the wife and the mother of the deceased respectively, come within the meaning of Class I heirs as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, and therefore, the 1^st respondent along with the appellant is entitled to a share in the amounts shown in the petition schedule as also the amount claimed by the appellant as counter-claim and also the death benefits payable by the employer of the deceased.  

So far as the contention of the appellant that since she is shown as nominee in the insurance policies, she alone is entitled to the amounts under those polices and the 1^st respondent is not entitled to any share in it, is concerned, the Court below, relying on the judgments of the apex Court as regards the powers of nominee, rejected the said contention of the appellant and held that merely because the appellant is shown as nominee in most of the insurance policies, she will not get any exclusive right in the amounts insured and the 1^strespondent is entitled to a share in the said amounts.  Having held so, the Court below allowed the petition filed by the 1^st respondent herein, holding that she is entitled to half share in the amounts claimed in the petition schedule as also the other amounts payable by the 6^th respondent-employer as detailed in paragraph 4 of its counter, and in the amount claimed as counter-claim by the appellant, and the appellant is entitled to the remaining half share.  Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-mother preferred the present appeal.

          Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and perused the order under appeal and other material available on record.

          Admittedly, the appellant is the mother and the 1^st respondent is the wife of the deceased namely G. Sharath Chandra, who died in a motor accident. 

Though the appellant contends that the 1^st respondent did not attend on the deceased while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, and that she did not attend the funeral and last rites of the deceased, and therefore, she cannot be treated as wife and successor of the deceased and cannot claim any share in the amounts in question, the fact remains, the mother and widow of a Hindu male died intestate, come within the meaning of Class I heirs as specified in the schedule of the Act, as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, and the property of the deceased firstly devolve upon them, along with other heirs as specified in the schedule.  Thus, the 1^st respondent, being the widow of the deceased, as one of the class I heirs of the deceased, is entitled to a share in the property of the deceased, along with the appellant, and accordingly, we hold so. 

So far as the other contention raised by the appellant that since she is shown as nominee in most of the insurance policies obtained by the deceased, she alone is entitled to receive the amounts under those polices, is concerned, it is to be noted that the apex Court in its decision in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi[1], has categorically held that a mere nomination does not have the effect of conferring to the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy, on the death of the assured, the nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy, and the amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession.  Following these principles, the apex Court in Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta[2], held that nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee and the amounts so received by the nominee are to be distributed according to Hindu Succession Act, 1956.   The trial Court, in view of this settled legal position, held that merely because the appellant is shown as nominee in most of the insurance policies, the appellant will not get any exclusive right in the amounts insured and the 1^st respondent is equally entitled to a share in the said amounts, and accordingly passed the order under appeal, holding the 1^st respondent and the appellant equally entitled to the amounts in question, and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the said finding recorded by the Court below, by exercising the appellate jurisdiction.

          The civil miscellaneous appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

_____________

N.V. RAMANA, J

__________________

B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J

7^th December, 2010

IBL

---

[1] (1984) 1 SCC 424

[2]  (2009) 10 SCC 680

accident compensation =Respondents/applicants are the wife, son and three daughters of the deceased. On 13.08.2001, when the deceased was travelling by train No.7405 Krishna Express from Chirala to Vijayawada, while standing near the door on account of heavy crowd, due to the jerks of the train, he slipped, fell down and died. The ticket was missing in that incident.

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

                        PRESENT

                        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

C.M.A.No.363 of 2010.

           Date:23.08.2011

Between:-

The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

      ..Appellant/Respondent

And

P.Lakshmi Sarojini and others

     .. Respondents/Applicants

 

JUDGMENT:-

         

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 20.01.2010, in O.A.A.No.60 of 2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the respondents/applicants under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act read with Section 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of Polisetty Venkateswarlu (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a railway accident that took place on 13.08.2001 was allowed. 

2.       The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows:

          Respondents/applicants are the wife, son and three daughters of the deceased.  On 13.08.2001, when the deceased was travelling by train No.7405 Krishna Express from Chirala to Vijayawada, while standing near the door on account of heavy crowd, due to the jerks of the train, he slipped, fell down and died.  The ticket was missing in that incident.

3.       The appellant/Railways denied the averments made in the application and pointed out that the applicants have not mentioned the site of the incident, but stated that as per the copy of the First Information Report filed by them, on 13.08.2001, the Keyman reported to the Station Master, Chirala that a person was run over by train No.7405 at Km.340/12-16 and that this did not suggest a fall from the train, and called for proof from the applicants regarding the averments made in the application and stated that the deceased was own responsible for his death.

4.          Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:-

1.     Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased?

2.     Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger of the train No.7405 Krishna Express travelling from Chirala to Vijayawada on 13.08.2001?

3.     Whether the deceased died as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train?

4.     To what relief?

5.         On behalf of the applicants, A.W.1 was examined and   Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked.  On behalf of the railways, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.R-1 and R-2.

6.         The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and died on account of a fall from the train, and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.  Challenging the same, Railways filed this appeal.

7.       Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal?

8.          Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Railways contended that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was a bona fide passenger travelling in a passenger train; that due to the own negligence of the deceased, the incident has taken place and therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

9.       On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants contended that the evidence of A.W.1 would clearly go to show that he saw his father purchasing a ticket and that evidence has remained unchallenged; that the Key Man found the dead body of the deceased by the side of the track; that R.W.1, who is the Station Master, received a message from the Keyman that a body was lying by the side of the track; that therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

10.     There cannot be any dispute that in order to claim compensation under Section 124-A of the Act, two conditions are to be proved.  The first condition precedent to be proved by the claimants is that there is an untoward incident happened and in that incident, the deceased died; and the second condition is that such a person must be a bona fide passenger travelling in the passenger train. If these two requirements are proved, then, the burden shifts to the Railway administration to establish that the case falls under anyone of the exceptions provided under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.

11.     With regard to the aspect of whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not is concerned, the evidence of A.W.1 is very clear that he went to the railway station for the purpose of dropping his father and his father purchased a ticket to go to Vijayawada from Chirala and boarded the train and as the train started, he left the station.  Practically, the evidence of A.W.1 remained unchallenged.  The statement of A.W.1 that his father purchased a ticket to travel in a passenger train remained unchallenged.  There is no contrary evidence adduced by the railway administration to show that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Perhaps, that is the reason why the Tribunal rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of A.W.1.  After taking into consideration the evidence of A.W.1., it can be said that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

12.     With regard to the aspect of untoward incident, the Station Master, after receipt of message from the Keyman, informed the police.  The police registered a case and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased.  During the inquest, the police also examined A.W.1. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died by falling from a running train.  Similarly, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination.  The Doctor, who conducted the post mortem, categorically stated that the deceased sustained injuries as a result of falling from the train.  There is no contra evidence adduced by the Railways to show that the case of the railway administration fall under anyone of the exceptions as mentioned under proviso to Section 124-A of the Act.  Further, the police, after completion of investigation, filed a final report stating that there was no foul play or suspicious circumstances resulting in the death of the deceased.  Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

13.          Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

_­­­_____________________

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

23^rd August, 2011

AMD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

C.M.A.No.363 of 2010.

Date:23.08.2011

AMD