U.I.Ins. Co.Ltd v. Parkash Kaur & Ors

X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -1-INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANA AToCHANDIGARH 206o FAO-149-2001o(O&M)oand X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 DateoofoDecision:oJulyo22,o2025 UnitedoIndiaoInsuranceoCompanyoLtd. ......Appellant Vs. Smt.oParkashoKauroandoothers ......Respondents CORAM:o HON'BLEoMRS.oJUSTICEoSUDEEPTIoSHARMA Present: Mr.oSumanoJain,oAdvocate forotheoappellant. Ms.oAnamikaoSheoran,oAdvocateofor Mr.oVikasoSingh,oAdvocate fororespondentsoNo.1otoo4. ---- oSUDEEPTIoSHARMAooJ.o(ORAL)o

¶1TheocaseoisolistedobeforeothisoCourtofororeferralotoothe "SpecialoMediationoDrive-Mediationo'ForotheoNation'oList".o

¶2Learnedocounseloforotheopartiesocontendothatotheomatter cannotobeoreferredotooMediationoandoConciliationoCentreoofothisoCourt.

¶3Inoviewoofoabove,owithotheoconsentoofotheopartiesothe appealoasowelloasocross-objectionoareotakenoupoforohearingotodayoitself. Fo AO-149-2001o&oXOBJC-29oo-CII-2002o

¶4Videothisocommonojudgment,othisoCourtoshallodisposeoof theoappealofiledobyotheoInsuranceoCompanyoasowelloasocrossoobjections X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -2-

¶5TheoinstantoappealohasobeenopreferredobyotheoInsurance Companyoforosettingoasideotheoawardodatedo05.12.2000opassedobyothe learnedoMotoroAccidentoClaimsoTribunal,oPatialao(foroshort,o'the Tribunal'),owhereby otheoclaimantsowereoawardedocompensationoof Rs.5,80,000/-oalongwithointeresto@o12%operoannumo andoInsurance companyowasoheldoliableotoopayotheocompensation.oHowever,otheocross objectionsohaveoalsoobeenofiledobyotheoclaimants-crossoobjectorsofor enhancementoofotheoamountoofocompensationoawardedobyotheoTribunal. FACTSoNOToINoDISPUTE

¶6Theobriefofactsoofotheocaseoasomentionedoinotheoclaim petitionoareothatooono21.04.1998oMukhtiaroSinghobeingodriveroofobus bearing o registration o No. o PB-11-E-9658 o started o his o journey o from PatialaotooGurdaspuroandowhileoreturningoatoabouto2:50op.m.owhenothe saidobusoreachedoinotheoareaoofoBatalaonearoPetroloPumpoAchaloSahib Gurudwara,oP.S.oBatalaonearoMisarpuroonoG.T.oRoadoJalandhar,oinothe meantime,oaotruckobearingoregistrationoNo.PJP-5791obeingodrivenoby respondentoNo.1oSewaoSewaoSinghoinoaorashoandonegligentomanner cameothereoandohitoagainstotheobusobeingodrivenobyoMukhtiaroSingh. Dueotooimpactoofotheosaidohit,otheodriverosideoofotheobusobadlyodamaged and o Mukhtiar o Singh o virtually o sandwiched. oThe o other o occupants includingotheoconductoroofotheobusoalsoosustainedoinjuries.

¶7Upon o notice o of o the o claim o petition, o the o respondents appearedoandofiledotheiroseparateowrittenorepliesodenyingotheofactumoof accident/compensation. X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -3-

¶8Fromotheopleadingoofotheoparties,otheoTribunaloframedothe followingoissues:-

1.oWhetherorespondentoNo.1ocausedotheodeathoof Mukhtiar o Singh o byo driving o trucko No.PJF-5791 negligently?oOPP

¶2o Whether o the o petitioners o are o the o legal representativesoofoMukhtiaroSinghodeceased?oOPP

3.oWhetherorespondentoNo.1owasoholdingoaovalid drivingolicenceoatotheotimeoofoaccident.oIfosootoowhat effect?OPP

4.oWhetherotruckoNo.PJF-5791owasonotohavingoany validorouteopermitoandofitnessocertificate.oIfosooto whatoeffecto?OPRo(respondentoNo.3)

5.oHowomuchocompensationotheopetitionersoare entitled o to o recover o and o from o which o of o the respondents?oOPR

6.oRelief.

¶9Afterotakingointooconsiderationotheopleadingsoandothe evidenceoonorecord,otheolearnedoTribunaloawardedocompensationoof Rs.5,80,000/-oalongwithointeresto@o12%operoannum.oTheorespondentso were o held o jointly o and o severally o liable o to o pay o the o amount o of compensation.oHence,otheoappellant-InsuranceoCompanyofiledothe presentoappealochallengingotheoliabilityofastenedouponoitotoopayothe compensation.

¶10Atotheoveryooutset,oitoisoevidentofromotheoreportoofothe Registryothat,owithorespectotooserviceoofonoticeouponorespondentono.o6, theodriveroofotheooffendingovehicle,oserviceohasobeenoeffectedothrough publicationoinotwoonewspapers,oinoaccordanceowithotheoapplicable rules.oInsofaroasorespondentono.o7,otheoregisteredoowneroofotheMOHD AYUB X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -4-offendingovehicle,oisoconcerned,otheoRegistryoreportoindicatesothatohe hasoleftotheocountry.

¶11InoviewoofotheoaforesaidothisoCourtofindsoitoappropriateoto proceedoexoparteoagainstotheosaidorespondentsoandocontinueowithothe adjudicationoofotheomatteroonomerits. SUBMISSIONSoOFoTHEoCOUNSELSoFORoTHEoPARTIES

12.o Learnedocounseloforotheoappellant-InsuranceoCompany contendsothatotheolearnedoTribunaloheldothatotheorespondentoNo.1-driverowasonotohavingoaovalidodrivingolicenceoatotheotimeoofothe accident,ostillotheoliabilityohasobeenofixedouponotheoInsuranceoCompany toopayotheoamountoofocompensationoandonoorecoveryorightsohaveobeen grantedotooappellant-InsuranceoCompany.oTherefore,oheopraysothatothe presentoappealobeoallowed.

¶13Theolearnedocounseloforotheocrossoobjectors/claimants contendsothatotheolearnedoTribunalohasowronglyoassessedotheoincomeoof theodeceasedoasoRs.9644/-operomonth.oHeofurtherocontendsothatothe deceased-MukhtiaroSinghowasohavingoagriculturalolandofromowhichohe wasoearningoRs.1olacoperoannum.

¶14Heofurtherocontendsothatotheodeceasedowasoagedo53oyears atotheotimeoofoaccidentoandotheolearnedoTribunalohasowronglyoapplied theomultiplieroofo7oinsteadoofo11.oHeofurtherocontendsothatonooamount wasograntedoforolossoofoestateoandofutureoprospectsoandotheoamount grantedoforofuneraloexpenses,olossoofoconsortiumoisoalsooonoloweroside. Therefore,oheopraysothatotheocrossoobjectionsofiledobyotheoclaimantsobe allowedoandocompensationobeoenhancedoasoperolatestolaw. X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -:- $5.o 2ohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandoperused theo3holeorecordoofothisocase.o $6. 'heorelevantopara"raphsoofotheoa3ardodatedo05.$2.2000 areoasounder:& "ISSUE NO.3

¶18Onus of this issue was upon the third respondent.

¶19Photo copy of the driving licence of respondent No.1 Sewa Singh is available on record as Mark-F. This bears number 35842 dated July 27,1988 and claims to have been issued by District Transport Office Amritsar. The respondents, by bringing on record Ex.R1, report from their surveyor and by examining RW2 Surinder Kaur, an official of the office of District Transport Officer, Amristar, have proved that no such licence was issued by District Transport Officer Amritsar. RW2 Surinder Kaur was not cross-examined on this aspect of the matter, on behalf of the petitioners. That being so, it has to be held that respondent Sewa Singh was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. However, the driving licence of respondent No.1 Sewa Singh being not valid cannot be pressed into service to dislodge the claim of the petitioners as the third respondent, the insurer of the truck in question cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners on account of death of Mukhtiar Singh deceased in the accident only because the insured i.e. respondent No.2 has breached a term of the contract of insurance (Ex.R4) because the petitioners were not privy to the contract and the contract as such is not binding upon them. The X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -6-respondentoinsuranceocompanyomay,ohoweveroifoso advised, o take o appropriate o remedy o as o may o be availedotooitoinolawoinothisorespect.

20.oThisoissueoisodecided,oaccordingly.

¶17Aoperusaloofotheoimpugnedoawardorevealsothatotheolearned TribunalohasocategoricallyoreturnedofindingothatorespondentoNo.1, SewaoSinghowasonotoholdingoaovalidodrivingolicenceoatotheotimeoofothe accident.oDespiteothisofinding,otheolearnedoTribunaloproceededotoofasten theoliabilityotoopayocompensationosolelyouponotheoappellant–insurance company,owithoutograntingoinsuranceocompanyotheorightotoorecoverothe amountoofocompensationofromotheoowneroofotheooffendingovehicle (RespondentoNo.2).

¶18Itoisoaosettledopositionoinolaw,oasoreiteratedobyotheoHon'ble SupremeoCourtoinoPappuo&oOrs.ov.oVinodoKumaroLambao&oAnr.,

(2018)o3oSCCo208,othatowhereotheodriveroofotheooffendingovehicleois foundonototoopossessoaovalidodrivingolicence,otheoinsureromayostillobe directedotoopayotheocompensationotootheothird-party/claimantoinothe firstoinstanceoinoorderotooprotectotheorightsoofotheovictim.oHowever,oin suchocases,otheoinsuranceocompanyoisoentitledotoobeograntedorecovery rightsoagainstotheoinsured/owneroofotheovehicleoforobreachoofopolicy conditions.

¶19Inotheopresentocase,otheolearnedoTribunal,ohavingorecorded aoclearofindingothatotheodriverodidonotopossessovalidodrivingolicenceoat theotimeoofoaccident,oerredoinonotograntingorecoveryorightsotoothe X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -7-

¶20Consequently,o theofailureo ofo theo learned oTribunal oin grantingorecoveryorightsotootheoappellant/InsuranceoCompany,odespite recordingoaofindingoofoabsenceoofoaovalidodrivingolicence,oisotherefore, legallyounsustainableoinotheoeyesoofolawoandowarrantsointerferenceoof thisoCourt.

¶21Accordingly,otheofindingoofotheolearnedoTribunalofastening liability o solely o upon o the o insurance o company o to o pay o amount o of compensationoisosetoasideotoothatoextentoonly.oWhileotheoInsurance companyoshalloremainoliableotoosatisfyotheoawardoamountoinofavouroof theoclaimantsoinotheofirstoinstance,oitoshallobeoentitledotoorecoverothe sameofromorespondentoNo.7,otheoowneroofotheooffendingovehicle,oin accordanceowitholaw.

¶22Nowocomingotootheocross-objections,oao perusaloofothe awardofurtheroshowsothatodeceased-MukhtiaroSinghowaso53oyearsoold atotheotimeoofoaccidentoandowasoemployedoasoaodriverowithoPepsuoRoad TransportoCorporation,oPatiala.oHeowasogettingoaosalaryoofoRs.9,644/- peromonth,owhichoisoevidentofromorecordo(Ex.P2)oprovedobyoPW2 clerk-RaghbiroSingh.oConsequently,oLd.oTribunalohasorightlyoassessed theoincomeoofotheodeceasedotootheotuneoofoRs.9644/-operomonthoby takingointooaccountohisosalaryocertificateoEx.P-2.

¶23Itoisotranspiredofromotheorecordothat onooamountowas grantedoforolossoofoestateoandofutureoprospectsoandotheoamountogranted forofuneraloexpenses,olossoofoconsortiumoisoonoloweroside.ooTherefore,oit X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -=- 4!TT1!)o1A>oONoCOM%!N4ATION 2%. =on.(leoSupremeo)ourtoinotheocaseoofoSarla Verma Vs. D elhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121,olaidodo3notheola3oonoassessmentoofocompensationoandothe relevantoparasoofotheosameoareoasounder:& *30. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardised deductions. Having a considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.

¶31Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either beMOHD AYUB X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -9-independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. o32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only d the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. * * * * *

¶42We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas³, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

¶25=on.(le o Supreme o )ourt o in o the o case o of o oNational Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. ?(201<)o1;o4CC ;=0@ohasoclarifiedotheola3ounderoSectionso$66,o$61&Aoando$69oofothe Motoro!ehiclesoAct,o$>99,oonotheofollo3in"oaspects:& X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -10-5A7 +eduction o of o personal o and o livin" o eDpenses o to determineomultiplicandH 5?7 Selection o of o multiplier o dependin" o on o a"e o of deceasedH 5)7 A"eoofodeceasedoono(asisoforoapplyin"omultiplierH 5+7 8easona(leofi"uresoonoconventionaloheads,onamely, lossoofoestate,olossoofoconsortiumoandofuneraloeDpenses, 3ithoescalationH 5@7 -utureoprospectsoforoallocate"oriesoofopersonsoand forodifferentoa"es:o3ithopermanento4o(Hoself&employedoor fiDedosalary.o

¶26'heorelevantoportionoofotheo4ud"mentoisoreproducedoas under:& *52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh². It has granted Rs.25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs 1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination of the same andMOHD AYUB X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -11-unless the thumb rule is applied, there will be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads. * * * * o59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed (or) on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. AnMOHD AYUB X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -12-addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

59.5. For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma⁴ which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma¹ read with para 42 of that judgment.

59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years." 2B.o =on.(leoSupremeo)ourtoinotheocaseoofoMaA.ao"ene-a2 Ins,-anceoCo./antio1i.itedo3s.oNan,o$a.oa2iasoC6,6-,o$a.o& Ot6e-so?201=(1=)o4CCo190@oafteroconsiderin"oo4a-2ao3e-.ao(s,/-a) ando%-anatio4et6io(4,/-a)ohasosettledotheola3ore"ardin"oconsortium. 8elevantoparasoofotheosameoareoreproducedoasounder:& "21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi² dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -19-parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses "spousal consortium", "parental consortium", and "filial consortium". The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.

21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation".

21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training".

21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

¶22Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -14-to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

¶23The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.

¶24The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.

¶292novie3oofotheoa(ove,otheopresentoappealois oallowed. Moreover,otheocross&o(4ectionso(earin"o#o.IJ?J)&2>&)22&2002ofiled (yotheoclaimantsoareoallowed.oAccordin"ly,oasoperotheosettledoprinciples ofola3oasolaidodo3no(yo=on.(leoSupremeo)ourtoasomentionedoa(ove, theocrossoo(4ectorsoareoheldoentitledotootheoenhancedoamountoof compensationoasocalculatedo(elo3:&MOHD AYUB X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -15-Sr. Heads CompensationoAwarded No. 1 MonthlyoIncome Rs.9644/- 2 Futureoprospectso@o10% Rs.964/-o(10%oofo9644) 3 Deduction o towards o personal Rs.2652/-o(¼oofo10608) expenditureo¼oo (9644+964)

¶4TotaloIncomeo Rs.7956/-(10608-2652) 4 Multiplier 11 5 AnnualoDependency Rs.1,050,192/-(o7956oXo12oXo11) 6 LossoofoEstate Rs.18,000/-7 FuneraloExpenses Rs.18,000/-8 LossoofoConsortium Rs.2,40,000/-Parentaloo:ooo48,000/-xoo4 Spousaloo:oooo48,000/-oxo1 Filialooo:oRs.o48,000/-o-----o TotaloCompensation Rs.13,26,192/-AmountoAwardedobyotheo Rs.5,80,000/-Tribunal Enhancedoamount Rs.7,46,192/-

¶29Soofaroasotheointerestopartoisoconcerned,oasoheldoby Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinoDaraoSingho@oDharaoBanjaraoVs.oShyam SinghoVarma o2019oACJo3176o and oR.VallioandoOthersoVS.oTamil NanduoStateoTransportoCorporationoo(2022)o5oSupremeoCourtoCases 107,ootheoamountosoocalculatedoshallocarryoanointeresto@o9%operoannum fromotheodateoofofilingoofotheoclaimopetition,otillotheodateooforealization.

¶30The o Insurance o Company o is o directed o to o deposit o the enhanced o amount o of o compensation o alongwith o interest o with o the Tribunalowithinoaoperiodoofotwoomonthsofromotheodateooforeceiptoof X-ObjectionsoNo.29-CII-2002 -16-copyoofothisojudgment.oTheoTribunaloisodirectedotoodisburseotheosameoto theocrossoobjectors/claimantsoinotheirobankoaccountoasoperoratioosettled inotheoawardodatedo05.12.2000.oTheoCrossoObjectors/claimantsoare directedotoofurnishotheirobankoaccountsodetailotootheoTribunal.

¶31Respondent o No.3-Insurance o Company o is o entitled o to recoverotheoenhancedoamountoofocompensationofromoowneroofothe offendingovehicle.

¶32TheoInsuranceoCompanyoisoherebyodirectedotoodisburse theocurrentoscheduledofeeotooMr.oSumanoJain,oAdvocate,owithinoa periodoofo20odaysofromotheodateooforeceiptoofotheocopyoofothis judgment, o in o view o of o the o order o dated o 18.07.2024, o passed o in FAO-1682-2007,obyothisoCourt.

¶33Pendingoapplication(s),oifoany,oalsoostandodisposedoof. oo ooooooo(SUDEEPTIoSHARMA) oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooJUDGE Julyo22,o2025 soniaoarora/Ayub Whetherospeaking/reasoned: Yesoo/oNo Whetheroreportable: Yeso/ooNo