M.A.C.M.A. No.364 of 2010,M.A.C.M.A. No.1020 of 2010

1st February, 2016.

Petitioner Counsel: Sri T. MAHENDER RAO
Respondent Counsel: Sri NISARUDDIN AHMED JEDDY, Sri KOTA SUBBA RAO, Sri E. VENUGOPAL REDDY

Cases Cited:
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Satyavathamma, 2010 (3) ALT 433 [Para 5,8,17]
Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chellu Hanumantha Rao, 1975 ACJ 344 [Para 5,8,17]
Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)=2009 ACJ 1298 [Para 9]
Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shafiya Khatoon & Ors., 1985 ACJ 212 [Para 9]
Montford Brothers of ST.Gabriel & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance & Anr., 2014 ALL SCR 1104=(2014) 3 SCC 394 [Para 10,13,16]
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Poongavanam & Ors., 2013 ACJ 2763 [Para 11]
Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad Vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr., 2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 351=1987 ACJ 561 [Para 12]
Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2007 ALL SCR 1617=2007 ACJ 1279 [Para 12,14,16]
P.S. Somanathan & Ors. Vs. District Insurance Officer & Anr., 2011 ALL SCR 602=2011 ACJ 737 [Para 12]
Megjibhai Khimji Vira Vs. Chaturbhai Taljabhai, AIR 1977 Guj 195 [Para 13]
Kannamma Vs. Deputy General Manager, 1991 ACJ 707 [Para 15]

JUDGMENT

R. Subhash Reddy, J. :- This Bench is constituted to answer the reference made in the above M.A.C.M.As. M.A.C.M.A.No.364 of 2010 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, whereas, M.A.C.M.A.No.1020 of 2010 is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, questioning the very award of compensation itself. For the purpose of this reference, we take the facts as narrated in M.A.C.M.A.No.364 of 2010.

2. The deceased Gangaraju Venkata Sudheer, who is the brother of the claimant, was aged about 22 years and was prosecuting his final year Medicine at BLD Medical College, Beejapur of Karnataka State. The appellant/claimant is working as Assistant Professor in Gynaecology at Government hospital, Guntur. On 29.11.2000, while the claimant, her husband, daughter, mother, maternal aunt and deceased were proceeding in Maruti car bearing No.AP-07-3173 from Tirupati to Guntur, they met with an accident. It was the case of the claimant that the Lorry bearing No.AAN-6579, came on wrong side in the opposite direction at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their Maruti car. Consequently, the brother and the mother of the claimant received grievous injuries and died on the spot and the claimant, her husband and maternal aunt suffered injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by them, a case was registered at P.S.Singarayakonda. By impleading the owner of the lorry as respondent No.1 and the Insurance Company as respondent No.2, claim was made by filing M.V.O.P.No.159 of 2002 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

3. The owner of the Lorry remained exparte and the Insurance Company contested the claim by filing counter affidavit. In the O.P., the Tribunal, by recording a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AAN-6579, has allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.8,75,000/-. It was the specific case of the claimant that for the purpose of tuition fee of the deceased, she obtained loan from A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad and was educating her deceased brother. On behalf of claimant, the certificate issued by the Medical college showing the fee paid for the deceased and also the notices demanding the payment of balance outstanding amount of loan, issued by A.P.Mahesh Co-operative Bank were exhibited.

4. Seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.364 of 2010, whereas, questioning the award of compensation, the Insurance Company has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1020 of 2010. It was the case of the Insurance Company that the claimant was not dependant on the deceased, as such, she is not entitled for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. When the matters have come up before the Division Bench, in view of conflicting opinions rendered earlier by 2 different Division Benches in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P.Satyavathamma, 2010 (3) ALT 433 and in Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chellu Hanumantha Rao, 1975 ACJ 344, the Division Bench has referred the matters to the Full Bench, for answering the following question: Whether non-dependant heir of the deceased who died in a motor accident is entitled to lay claim for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where there is no other dependant legal heir claiming compensation ?"

In view of the general importance of the question referred, this Court has requested learned counsel Sri Kota Subba Rao and Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, to assist this Court as amicus curiae.

6. Heard Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned counsel for claimant and Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned counsel appearing for National Insurance Co. Ltd., and also the learned amicus curiae Sri Kota Subba Rao and Sri E.Venugopal Reddy.

7. Prior to the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, law on the subject was governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and by virtue of provision under Section 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and any law corresponding to that Act, in force in the State, were repealed. We refer to certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are relevant for the purpose of answering this reference. Chapter X of the said Act deals with the cases of liability without fault and Section 140 of the Act imposes liability on the owners of vehicles to pay compensation in certain cases on principle of no fault. The said section reads as under :

"140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault :-

(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty five thousand rupees.

(3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default or the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

(4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force:

Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section or under section 163A."

Section 163A is inserted in the Statute by Amending Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The said provision under Section 163A is a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis as indicated in the II-Schedule of the Act, to the legal heirs or the victim of the accident. The said Section reads as under:

"163A.Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis :

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.

Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section, permanent disability shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicle concerned or of any other person.

(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gaette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule."

Chapter XII of the Act deals with Claims Tribunals and Section 165 obligates the State Government to establish Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. The explanation to Section 165 clarifies that claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles includes claims for compensation under Section 140 and Section 163A. Section 165(1) reads as under :

"165. Claims Tribunals :- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.

Explanation :- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles includes claims for compensation under Section 140 and Section 163A."

Section 166 of the Act provides for making an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165. Section 166(1) reads as under :

"166. Application for compensation:- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made-

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application."

From a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that it provides for making an application for compensation by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased.

8. Coming to the judgments referred to in the order of reference, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that so as to maintain a petition for compensation either under Section 163A or 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a person must, beside showing that he/she is the legal representative of the deceased, must also demonstrate that he/she is dependant on the deceased. In the aforesaid judgment, it is further held that the mere fact that claimants used to live along with the victim of the accident under the same roof, would not be sufficient to lay claim under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the other judgment in the case of Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), which is referred to in the reference order, the question fell for consideration is whether the brother of the deceased is entitled for compensation and the Division Bench of this Court has answered it in the affirmative by recording a finding that the word legal representative is not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act and as such, one has to rely on the expression as defined under the Code of Civil Procedure.

9. Before we answer the reference, we refer to the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that as the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act provides to compensate the dependants of the deceased, the sister of the deceased is not entitled to make any claim under the provisions of the Act for award of compensation. He relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, 2009 ACJ 1298 : [2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)]. In this judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for quantification of compensation and held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants because they will either be independent, earning or married or dependant on the father. He has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Shafiya Khatoon & others, 1985 ACJ 212. In this judgment, this Court has elaborately discussed the method and manner in which assessment of compensation is to be quantified and also held that married sisters not being any longer dependant, are not entitled for compensation and the dependency goes to mother and unmarried sisters.

10. Learned counsel for claimant Sri T.Mahender Rao, while contending that claim can be laid under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by a non-dependant of the deceased, has brought to our notice the judgment in Montford Brothers of ST.Gabriel & another v. United India Insurance & another, (2014) 3 SCC 394 : [2014 ALL SCR 1104]. In this judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has held that in case of death of a person in motor accident, a person claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased, has locus to file claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, either directly or through any agent and the same is subject to result of dispute/objection raised by the opposite party on said issue. The aforesaid adjudication is made by the Honble Supreme Court while extending the definition of legal representative as defined under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Para 12 of the judgment, which is relevant to the case on hand, reads as under :

"12. Para 13 of the Report of Gujarat SRTC case [(1987) 3 SCC 234] reflects the correct philosophy which should guide the courts interpreting the legal provisions of beneficial legislations providing for compensation to those who had suffered loss:

"13. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed under Section 110- A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well- known principles of law. We should remember that in an Indian family, brothers, sisters and brothers children and some times foster children live together and they are dependent upon the breadwinner of the family and if the breadwinner is killed on account of a motor vehicle accident, there is no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 which as we have already held has been substantially modified by the provisions contained in the Act in relation to cases arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We express our approval of the decision in Megjibhai Khimji Vira v. Chaturbhai Taljabhai (AIR 1977 Guj 195) and hold that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 110-A of the Act if he is a legal representative of the deceased.""

In the above judgment, it is clearly held that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident, is entitled to make an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, if he is a legal representative of the deceased.

11. Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, the learned amicus curiae, has referred to a judgment of the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poongavanam & others, 2013 ACJ 2763, wherein, it is held that the term legal representative does not mean dependant only and that the marriage of brother or sister does not take away their right to represent the estate of the deceased.

12. Further, Sri Kota Subba Rao, the learned amicus curiae, has contended that a claim petition can be maintained even by the non- dependants of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. It is contended that from a reading of the provision under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that the claim can be laid by the legal representative of the deceased. It is further contended that whether the compensation is to be awarded or not, is a matter which depends on facts of each case, but at the same time, in view of the language envisaged under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a legal representative can make a claim. The learned amicus curiae has also referred to Rule 2(g) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. He has referred to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & another, 1987 ACJ 561 : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 351], wherein, the Honble Supreme Court has held that the brother of a person who is killed in a motor vehicle accident, is entitled to compensation in the proceedings instituted before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. In the aforesaid judgment, the 85th report of the Law Commission was considered. Learned amicus curiae has further referred to the judgment in Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, 2007 ACJ 1279 : [2007 ALL SCR 1617]. In this judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has considered the question whether a married daughter, not dependant on the deceased, is entitled to file a claim petition for the death of her father and answered the said question in the affirmative. It is held in the said judgment that even though there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he or she is a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation, the quantum of which shall not be less than the liability flowing from Section 140 of the Act. Further, the judgment in P.S.Somanathan & others v. District Insurance Officer & another, 2011 ACJ 737 : [2011 ALL SCR 602], is also brought to our notice, wherein, the Honble Supreme Court has held that the sister of the deceased can lay a claim for compensation under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

13. Before we proceed further, we refer to Rule 2(g) of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The said Rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 28, 38, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138 and 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Rule 2(g) defines the word legal representative as under :

Legal representative shall have the meaning assigned to it under Clause (11) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) From a reading of the provisions under Sections 140, 163A and 166 of the Act, it is clear that the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is a beneficial legislation to the victims of motor vehicle accidents, imposes liability on the owner of the vehicle, under Section 140 of the Act, to pay compensation on the principle of no fault. Fixed amounts are prescribed in the aforesaid Section for payment of such compensation even without any necessity of proving the fault. Similarly, Section 163A of the Act provides for payment of compensation on structured formula basis to the legal heirs or the victims of the motor vehicle accidents. Under Section 165 of the Act, State Government is under obligation to constitute Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in such areas as may be notified, for adjudication of claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death or fatal injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. From explanation to Section 165 of the Act, which has got some bearing on the reference made, it is clear that claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, include claims for compensation under Section 140 and Section 163A. Section 166 of the Act provides for making an application for award of compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified under Section 165(1). The provision under Section 166(1) expressly provides for making such application by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Section 166(1) further makes it clear that if all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. From a perusal of the said provision, it is clear that application for compensation can be made not only by dependant but by any legal representative of the deceased. Further, the word legal representative is defined in the Rules by adopting the same meaning of legal representative as defined under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the judgment in Megjibhai Khimjis case (supra), a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has clearly held that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident, is entitled to maintain claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, if he is a legal representative of the deceased. Such view is approved by the Honble Supreme Court also in Montford Brothers case, [2014 ALL SCR 1104] (supra).

14. In view of the plain language under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is a substantive provision for making application for compensation, it is clear that either the injured person or the legal representative of the deceased are entitled to make an application for award of compensation. Dependency is a matter, which will have a bearing on the issue with regard to fixation of compensation and apportionment of compensation if there are more than one claimant, but at the same time, in view of the plain and unambiguous language used under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the term legal representative does not mean dependant only. It is fairly well settled that the legal representative is one who can represent the estate of the deceased. Further, in the judgment in Manjuri Beras case, [2007 ALL SCR 1617] (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the no fault liability envisaged under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is distinguishable from the rule of strict liability. In the aforesaid judgment, it is further held that right to make an application has to be considered in the background of right to entitlement. It is further held that while assessing the quantum of compensation, the multiplier system is applied because of deprivation of dependency. In the same judgment, it is also held that since the amount to be awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a fixed/crystalised amount, the same is to be considered as a part of the estate of the deceased. Apart from the same, there can be a claim for compensation under other conventional heads which are to be necessarily incurred in the case of deaths.

15. Further, in the judgment in the case of Kannamma v. Deputy General Manager, 1991 ACJ 707, a Full Bench of Karnataka High Court has considered the right of legal representatives to come on record and continue the proceedings initiated by the deceased claimant. In the aforesaid judgment, the Full Bench, while considering the provision under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 read with the provision under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, has held that if the death is due to the injuries suffered in the accident, legal representatives can prosecute the petition only relating to the loss to the estate of the deceased.

16. In view of the clear and unambiguous language under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that application can be made either by the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased. Though legal representative is not defined under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, from Rule 2(g) of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is clear that the definition of legal representative is given same meaning as defined under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Manjuri Beras case, [2007 ALL SCR 1617] (supra), it is clear that the compensation which is payable on account of no fault liability will form part of the estate of deceased. In that view of the matter, there is no basis for contending that the application is to be filed only by the dependants. As we have held that dependency is a matter to be taken into consideration for award of compensation and merely because one is not dependant, that by itself, is no ground for not entertaining any claim made for grant of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the clear language under Section 166 of the Act and in view of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Manjuri Beras case, [2007 ALL SCR 1617] (supra), wherein, it is held that the compensation to be awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act will form part of the estate of deceased, and further, as the Act also provides for compensation on other conventional heads, we are of the view that the non-dependant also can lay a claim by filing application under Section 166 of the Act. It is also to be noticed that the situations may arise, where, one may have suffered injuries initially but ultimately after filing a claim, may have succumbed to such injuries also. In such an event, lot of amount would be spent towards hospitalisation etc., and as already discussed in the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Montford Brothers case, [2014 ALL SCR 1104] (supra), it is common in the Indian society, where, the members of the family who are not even dependant also can extend their support monetarily and otherwise to the victims of accidents to meet the immediate expenditure for hospitalization etc., in such cases, unless the legal representatives are allowed to continue the proceedings initiated by the person who succumbs to injuries subsequently, such claims will be defeated and that will also defeat the very object and intentment of the Act. Any such measure would be wholly unequitable and unjust. Plainly, that would never be intent of any piece of legislation. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the language under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w. Rule 2(g) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, we are of the view that even the legal representatives who are non-dependants can also lay a claim for payment of compensation by making application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

17. Accordingly, we answer the reference, holding that a non-dependant heir of the deceased who died in a motor accident is entitled to lay a claim for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where there is no other dependant legal heir for claiming compensation. Thus, we approve the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltds case (supra) and hold that the view taken by the Division Bench in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltds case (supra), is not correct.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Registry shall post these matters before appropriate Bench, as per roster.

We place on record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Sri Kota Subba Rao and Sri E.Venugopal Reddy as amicus curiae.

Ordered accordingly.