The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Vinayaga Moorthi and Others

S. Manikumar, J.—Challenge in these appeals is with regard to liability of the appellant/Insurance Company to compensate the gratuitous

passengers, who travelled in a Trailer bearing Registration No.TNZ5897. Out of 22 persons, who travelled in the Tractor to attend a funeral

ceremony, 18 of them sustained injuries. They made separate claims. As the evidence let in was common, all the claim petitions were jointly tried

and disposed of by a common judgment and decree dated 14.8.2007. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, 18 respondents/claimants

were awarded Rs. 8,000/- each, in respect of four claim petitions, separate awards were made.

Assailing the common impugned judgment, Mr. B. Vijay Karthikeyan, learned Counsel for the appellant, relying on the judgments of the

Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and Others, ; National Insurance Company Limited v. Prema Devi and Ors.

reported in 2008 (1) TN MAC 348; two unreported judgments of the Supreme Court, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7805 of 2002, National

Insurance Company Limited v. Bhukya Tara and Ors., dated 8.5.2008, and National Insurance Company Limited v. Kaushalaya Devi and Ors.

dated 13.5.20008, submitted that as all the passengers travelled in the Tractor cum Trailor, they were gratuitous passengers and therefore the

appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. He further submitted that the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme

Court under Article 136 r/w. Article 142 cannot be exercised by Subordinate Judiciary, viz., the Tribunal and therefore in the absence of such

jurisdiction fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the gratuitous passengers and recover the same from the

owner of the vehicle is in excess of jurisdiction and therefore, needs correction. In these circumstances, he prayed that the awards passed against

the Insurance Company be set aside.

Per contra, Mr. V. Kalyana Sundaram, learned Counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle/third respondent in all the Civil Miscellaneous

Appeals, submitted that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Brig Mohan''s case, the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay the

compensation to the victim. He further submitted that since he was not heard before the Lower Court, the matter may be remitted for fresh

consideration. Though the claimants were served through Court and their names were also shown in the cause list, there is no representation on

their behalf. In these circumstances, this Court has decided to hear the appeals and pass orders. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and

perused the materials available on record.

Admittedly, the vehicle in which the respondents/claimants travelled was not intended for travelling of any kind of passengers. Travelling in

tractor or trailer was against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The issue as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay

compensation to the gratuitous passengers is no longer integra. Most of the decisions quoted hereunder relate to goods carriage vehicles. But the

principles that passengers who travelled in the vehicles unauthorizedly not covered under the policy are not entitled to claim compensation from the

insurance company is applicable to the facts of the present case, for the reasons all the claimants had admittedly travelled in a tractor, which is not

meant for transporting passengers.

Before adverting the facts of the case, this Court deems it fit to extract the relevant provision of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 which deals with

the requirements of policies and limits of liability of insurance companies. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ""the Act"") reads

as follows:

Requirements of policies and limits of liability: (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a

policy which -

(a)

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2)-

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third

party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;

(ii) Provided that a policy shall not be required-

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or

in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the

Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-

(a)

(b)

(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or

(ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of

employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting

from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises....

The said provision underwent an amendment in the year 1994 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which reads as under:

Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a

policy which-

(a)

(b)insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2)-

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his

authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a

public place;

The difference of the classes of vehicles as per the definition in Sections 2(14), 2(35), 2(40) and 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are as

follows:

2(14) ""goods carriage"" any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not to constructed

or adapted when used for the carriage of goods;

2(35) ""public service vehicles"" means any motor vehicles used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and

includes a maxicab a motorcab, contract and stage carriage;

2(40) ""stage carriage"" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for (SIC) or reward

at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey;

2(47) ""transport vehicle"" means a public services vehicle a goods carriage an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle:

The decision rendered in New India Assurance Company Vs. Shri Satpal Singh and Others, has been overruled by the Supreme Court in New

India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 where the Apex Court declared that the Insurance Company is

not liable for payment of any compensation for death of a gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle. The observations of the Supreme

Court in Asha Rani''s case at paragraph No.26 is extracted:

In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words

any person"" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. ""a third party"". Keeping in view the provisions

of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle

insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Asha Rani''s case was followed in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy and

Others etc. etc. and Jogi Subbamma and Others etc. etc., and again, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar and Others, .

The issue as to whether the Insurance Companies are liable to pay compensation for the death or injury of a gratuitous passengers travelling in a

goods vehicle came up for consideration before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Others,

. Upon considering the effect of the amendment to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994,

the Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.17 to 20 observed as follows:

By reason of the 1994 amendment what was added is ''including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle''.

The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the

goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of Parliament, therefore, could not have been

that the words ''any person'' occurring in Section 147 would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever.

If such was the intention, there was no necessity of Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as the expression ''any person'' contained in

sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 would have included the owner of the goods or his authorised representative besides

the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise.

The observations made in this connection by the Court in Asha Rani Case to which one of us, Sinha, J., was a party, however, bear repetition:

(SCC p.235, para 26)

""In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words

any person"" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. ""a third party"". Keeping in view the provisions

of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle

insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor.

In Asha Rani it has been noticed that sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the 1988 Act speaks of liability which

may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused

by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Furthermore, an owner of a passenger carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering

the risks of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. The premium in view of the 1994 amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner

of the goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise.

It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons

other than the owner of the goods or his authorised representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorised

representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide

for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of

insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.

The same view was reiterated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Others, ; Sri Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Another

Vs. Smt. Mushtari Begum and Others, , National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others, ; National Insurance Company Limited v.

Swaroopa and Ors. reported in (2005) 11 SCC 419; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others, ;

In New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vedwati and Ors. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 486 : 2007 1 TN MAC 205, the Supreme Court

tested the correctness of an order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, dismissing the appeal preferred by the New India

Assurance Company Limited, wherein, it was held that the respondent/claimant gratuitous passengers, were entitled to compensation to be paid by

the insurer. Short facts of the case in the reported judgment is as follows:

The deceased was returning from his village Gokhia from Atarra in a tractor after delivering certain goods there. The tractor overturned due to rash

and negligent of the driver, resulting in his death. Legal representatives claimed compensation. Adjudicating the claim petition, the Tribunal did not

accept the plea of the insurer that there was violation of terms of the policy issued to the insured. It was contended by the company that the

Tractor could only be used for agricultural work. Since the same was used for carrying passenger, the insurer was not responsible to indemnify any

award and to pay the same to the claimants. The Tribunal rejected the plea and following New India Assurance Company Vs. Shri Satpal Singh

and Others, , held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. On appeal, the decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Hence, the said decision was challenged before the Supreme Court. Referring to the provisions

dealing with the liability of the Insurance Company and various decisions of the Supreme Court, at paragraph No.9 and 10 (in SCC), the Apex

Court held as follows:

The difference in the language of ''goods vehicle'' as appearing in the old Act and ""goods carriage"" in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of

the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression,

in addition to passengers"" as contained in the definition of ""goods vehicle"" in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the

expression used is ""goods carriage"" is solely for the carriage of goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act.

There is no provision similar to clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even

Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of public service vehicle. The provision

makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods

vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, the WC Act). There is no reference to any passenger

in ""goods carriage"".

The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle

insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor.

In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and Others, relied on by the Tribunal for issuing a direction to the appellant/Insurance

Company to pay compensation and recover from the insurer, the claimant was a labourer. He was travelling in a trolley attached to a tractor. There

was a dispute as to whether both the tractor and the trolley were insured or not. The earth dug was loaded on the trolley attached to the tractor.

The claimant and other workers were returning to the brick kiln. He was sitting on the earth dug loaded on the trolley. The tractor was allegedly

driven rashly and negligently resulting in the accident. The claimant, who sustained injuries in the gall bladder and left thigh, claimed compensation.

The defences raised before the Tribunal by the Insurance Company inter alia were (i) The trolley was not insured and only the tractor was

insured, (ii) as the tractor was not being used for agricultural work, the claim petition was not maintainable. (iii) the insurance of premium was paid

only for one person viz., the driver of the tractor and therefore no award can be passed against the insurer. On evaluation of pleadings and

evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was dismissed by the High Court. Hence,

challenge before the Supreme Court. Following earlier the decisions, on the issue of liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation for the

death or injury, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, ;

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Meena Variyal and Others, and other cases, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal position that the

insurer is not liable to pay compensation for the death or injury of gratuitous passengers.

The operative portion of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others, as extracted at paragraph No.9 in Brig

Mohan''s case is as follows:

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma this Court held: (SCC pp.701-02, paras 14-16)

An insurance for an owner of the goods or his authorised representative travelling in a vehicle became compulsory only with effect from

14.11.1994 i.e. from the date of coming into force of amending Act 54 of 1994.

Furthermore, a tractor is not even a goods carriage. The expression ''goods carriage'' has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean ''any motor

vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the

carriage of goods''

whereas ''tractor'' has been defined in Section 2(44) to mean

''a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road

roller''.

''Trailer'' has been defined in Section 2(46) to mean

''any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a sidecar, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.''

A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for

agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being

agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be

construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a

businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to the market for the purpose of sale

thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be

assumed that the trailer would answer the description of ''goods carriage'' as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would

be covered by the decision of this Court in Asha Rani and other decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24.11.1991 i.e.

much prior to coming into force of the 1994 amendment.

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and Others, , the Supreme Court has discussed the issue threadbare and held as

follows:

The act does not contemplate that a goods carriage shall carry a large number of passengers with small percentage of goods as considerably the

insurance policy covers the death or injuries either of the owner of the goods or his authorised representative. The provisions thereof do not enjoin

any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, and the insures would not

be liable therefor. The words ""injury to any person "" in Section 147(1)(b) would only mean a third party and not a passenger travelling in a goods

carriage whether gratuitous or otherwise.

In Smt. Thokchom Ongbi Sangeeta alias Sangi Devi and Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Ors. reported in (2008) 1 TN

MAC 59, two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur. On consideration of pleadings and evidence the

Tribunal awarded compensation. The Insurance Company assailed the common judgment on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident

was a Tata Truck which is a goods vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The High Court accepted the

plea and held that the Insurer was not liable to pay the compensation. The appellant before the Supreme Court contended that the High Court

ought to have directed the Insurer to pay and recover the amount from the insured. Rejecting the said contention, the Supreme Court uphold that

the Insurer was not liable to pay compensation. However, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court for the limited purpose of

fixing the responsibility of the person, who has to satisfy the award made by the Tribunal.

The judgment rendered in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vedwati and Ors., and other cases referred to in the forgoing

paragraphs were followed by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Prema Devi and Ors. reported in 2008 1 TN MAC

In the reported case, the claimants was travelling in a goods carriage, as a gratuitous passenger. She was not travelling in the goods carriage

in the capacity of the owner of goods or as a representative of the owner of goods. This aspect was also accepted by the claimant in the claim

petition. However, the direction of the Tribunal to the Insurance Company to pay compensation and to indemnify the order was affirmed by the

Allahabad High Court. Setting aside the judgment, the Supreme Court observed that it is open to the claimant to recover the amount awarded from

the owners of the offending vehicles.

In an unreported judgment, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7805 of 2002, National Insurance Company Limited v. Bhukya Tara and Ors.

relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the facts of the case are that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle. The Insurance

Company was held liable to pay compensation by the Tribunal and the award was affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court in

its order dated 8.5.2008, set aside the orders of the Tribunal and of the High Court.

In yet another case, in National Insurance Company Limited v. Kaushalaya Devi and Ors., the deceased was travelling as an unauthorised

passenger in a truck, which was a goods carriage. The award of the Tribunal holding that the Insurance Company as liable to pay compensation

was upheld by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, learned Counsel on behalf of the Insurance company contended that as the deceased

travelled as a gratuitous passenger and as the driver of the vehicle did not possess an effective driving licence, the High Court should not have

passed the award. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle contended that the deceased was a

vegetable vendor and he had been travelling in the truck for collecting empty boxes and, thus, he was not a gratuitous passenger. It was further

submitted that as the Insurance Company had already deposited the amount of compensation, the right to recover the amount from the owner of

the vehicle need not have been granted. While accepting the plea of the insurance Company, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court by their

judgment dated 13.5.2008, allowed the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and further held that if the amount deposited by the Insurance

Company has since been withdrawn by the first respondent, it would be open to the insurance company to recover the same in the manner

specified by the High Court. But if the same has not been withdrawn the deposited amount, it may be refunded to the Insurance Company and the

proceedings for realization of the amount may be initiated against the owner of the vehicle.

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kottam reported in 2003 2 TAC 849, Kerala, the deceased travelled as a passenger. Legal

representative/dependent preferred a claim. As the terms of the contract did not cover a passenger, the Kerala High Court held that insurer is not

liable to pay compensate the passenger in a tractor and further held that the claimant can realise the amount awarded from the owner of the vehicle

and driver of the offending vehicle.

In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.Krishabai reported in 2005 2 TAC 144, the deceased travelled as a passenger in a tractor -trolley

due to overturning of tractor, he fell down and died on account of injuries. On the question of liability, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed

the decision of the Tribunal and held that there is no justification in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation and that

the company is not liable to indemny the injured.

The decisions of the Supreme Court cited supra and other decisions, leaves no doubt that the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay

compensation for the death or injury to any gratuitous passengers. It is not in dispute that all the 22 persons, who met with the accident on the

fateful day, were gratuitous passengers and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

The other question to be considered in these appeals is whether the Tribunal is right in construing the directions granted by the Supreme Court,

in a particular case under Article 142 of the Constitution as a precedent to be followed.

Article 142 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.- (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its

jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any

decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law

made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India,

have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any

documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.

The plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, is a residuary power, supplementary and complementary

to the powers specifically conferred on the Court by various statutes, exercisable to do complete justice between the parties, wherever it is just

and equitable to do so.

In this regard, it would be useful to extract the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Bank Vs. ABS Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., , at

paragraph No.26, the Court observed as follows:

26.One word before parting. Many a time, after declaring the law, this Court in the operative part of the judgment, gives some directions which

may either relax the application of law or exempt the case on hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts or in view of the

uncertainty of law till then, to do complete justice. While doing so, normally it is not stated that such direction/order is in exercise of power under

Article 142. It is not uncommon to find that courts have followed not the law declared, but the exemption/relaxation made while moulding the relief

in exercise of power under Article 142. When the High Courts repeatedly follow a direction issued under Article 142, by treating it as the law

declared by this Court, incongruously the exemption/relaxation granted under Article 142 becomes the law, though at variance with the law

declared by this Court. The courts should therefore be careful to ascertain and follow the ratio decidendi, and not the relief given on the special

facts, exercising power under Article 142. One solution to avoid such a situation is for this Court to clarify that a particular direction or portion of

the order is in exercise of power under Article 142. Be that as it may.

Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, confers an extra ordinary jurisdiction on the highest Court of the country to issue

any direction and exercise their power to do complete justice and Tribunals do not have the power, similar to that conferred under Article 142 and

any attempt to follow the exercise of such power will lead to incongruous and disastrous results.

Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal to follow a direction issued by the Supreme Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under

Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to the present claim petitions is not in accordance with law, and therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that

there is an excess of jurisdiction. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue, the finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on

the appellant, insurance Company to pay compensation to all the victims and to recover the same from the owner is liable to be set aside and

accordingly set aside. The insured, third respondent is liable to compensate each of the victims. It is for the respondents/claimants to take up

appropriate proceedings before the Tribunal to recover the compensation from the insured. The amount deposited by the appellant insurance

Company in respect of each of the claim petitions shall be refunded to them to the Company, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this

order. The common judgment and decree of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 277/2003 etc., dated 14.8.2007 are set aside. The Civil Miscellaneous

Appeals are allowed. No costs.