GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITEDversusASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT & ANR.

A
                         [2014] 11 S.C.R. 16


          GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED
                                   v.
                                                                        •
                ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT & ANR.
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 8072-8073 of 2009)
                        OCTOBER 09, 2014
B
                    [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND
                   ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

        Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
c
         s.2(1)(r) - Unfair trade practice - Complaint against
    appellant - Claiming refund of amount - Courts below found
    that the appellant had committed unfair trade practice -
    National Commission apart from ordering on the claim, also
    imposed punitive damages - Held: Finding of unfair trade
0
    practice affirmed - But order of punitive damages set aside
    because such claim was not made by the complainan.t and
    the appellant had no notice of such claim.

      s.2(1)(r) - Unfair trade practice - Mere proof of unfair
E labour practice not enough for claim or award of relief unless
  causing of loss is established.

      Complaint - Alleging unfair trade practice - Scope of -
  Held: Complaint can cover not only individual but also
F consumers, who are not identifiable conveniently.

        Interpretation of Statutes - Interpretation of Consumer
    Protection Act - The Act being a social legislation, liberal and.
    purposive interpretation has to be placed on the scheme of
    the Act avoiding hyper-technical approach.
G
         Damages - Punitive damages - Award of - Punitive
    damages are awarded against a conscious wrong unrelated
    to the actual loss suffered.

H                                  16
•   GENERAL MOTORS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHOK              17
               RAMNIK LAL TOLAT
        Partly allowing the appeals, the Court                     A

        HELD: 1. The concurrent finding recorded by the
    Courts below to the effect that "unfair trade practice" was
    committed by the appellant is affirmed. [Para 14] [24-H;
    25-A]                                                          B
         2.1. The Consumer Protection Act is a piece of social
    legislation to provide a forum to the consumers against
    any deficiency in service as well as against any loss or
    injury arising out of "unfair trade practice". Scope of a
    complaint can cover not only individual consumer but           C
    also consumers who are not identifiable conveniently.
    However, the complainant has to make an averment and
    make a claim. [Para 18] [26-D-E]

         2.2. Having regard to the laudable object of the social   o
    legislation liberal and purposive interpretation has to be
    placed on the scheme of the Act avoiding hyper-
    technical approach. At the same time, fair procedure is
    hall mark of every legal proceeding and an affected party
    is entitled to be put to notice of the claim. [Para 18] [26-   E
    F-G]

         Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Shakti Coop. House
    Building Society Ltd. 2009 (6) SCR 12 : (2009) 12 SCC 369;
    Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. MRTP Commission 2002
    (4) Suppl. SCR 219: (2003) 1 SCC 129; Godfrey Phillips         F
    India Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar 2008 (5) SCR 937 : (2008) 4 SCC
    504 - relied on.

         2.3. Mere proof of "unfair trade practice" is not
    enough for claim or award of relief, unless causing of loss    G
    is also established, which in the present case has not
    been established. [Para 19] [29-C]
       2.4. There is neither any averment in the complaint
    about the suffering of punitive damages by the other
    consumers nor the appellant was aware that any such            H
     18       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 11 S.C.R. •


A claim is to be met by it. Normally, punitive damages are
  awarded against a conscious wrong doing unrelated to
  the actual loss suffered. Such a claim has to be specially
  pleaded. [Para 20) [29-D-E]
,8     2.5. The National Commission has gone m_uch
  beyond its jurisdiction in awarding the relief which was
  neither sought in the complaint nor before tlie State
  Commission. Therefore, to this extent, the order of the
  National Commission cannot be sustained. [Para 20) [29-
C F-G]
                         Case Law Reference:
          2009 (6) SCR 12             Relied on        Para 19
          2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 219 Relied on            Para 19
D         2008 (5) SCR 937            Relied on        Para 19
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
     8072-8073 of 2009.
      From the Judgment & Order dated 16.12.2008 of the
E National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
  Delhi in Revision Petition No. 3349 of 2006 and 2858 of 2008.
         R.P. Bhatt, Vikram Dhokalia (for Dua Associates) for the
     Appellant.
          Aparan Jha, Braj K. Mishra for the Respondents.
F
          Caveator1in-person.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. These appeals have
G been preferred against the order dated 16th December, 2008
  of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for
  short "the National Commission") in Revision Petition Nos.3349
  of 2006 and 2858 of 2008.
       2. The main question raised in these appeals is whether
H in the absence of any prayer made in the complaint and without
•   GENERAL MOTORS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHOK
     RAMNIK LAL TOLAT [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
    evidence of any loss suffered, the award of punitive damages
                                                                19

                                                                      A
    was permissible. Apart from the said main question, the
    appellant has also called in question the refund ordered and
    other relief granted in favour of the respondent-complainant.
         3. In the complaint, filed .before the District Forum,
                                                                      8
    Ahmedabad (Rural) (for short "the District Forum"), the prayer
    of the respondent-complainant was as follows :

        "The complainant, therefore, most respectfully prays :

          (a)   That this Hon'ble Forum be pleased to hold that       c
                the opposite parties (joint and severally) to have
                practiced unfair trade practice, towards the
                aomplainant and direct them (jointly and
                severally) to remove unfair trade practice,
                practiced by them against the complainant;
                                                                      D
          (b)    This Hon'ble Forum be pleased to direct the
                ·opposite parties (jointly and severally) to remove
                 the deficiencies in their services and negligence
                 towards the complainant.
                                                                      E
          (c)        This Hon'ble Forum be pleased to direct the
                opposite parties (jointly and severally) to refund
                the complainant a sum of Rs. 14, 00, 0001- (Rupees
                Fourteen Lakh) and Rs. 1, 91, 2951- to the
                complainant along with the 18% interest, from the     F
                date of payment to the complainant and the
                Hon'ble Forum be pleased to direct the opposite
                parties to forthwith to take back the said vehicle
                from the complainant, after refunding the
                complainant's money with interest, as prayed;
                                                                      G
          (d)   This Hon'ble Forum be pleased to direct the
                opposite parties (jointly and severally) to pay
                compensation for physical and mental pain,
                shock,    suffering,     agonies,   hardships,
                inconveniences and expenses suffered by the           H
    20          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 11 S.C.R . •


A                 complainant, to the tune of Rs.50,0001- (Rupees
                  Fifty Thousand) or as thought fit in the int19rest of
                 justice, by this Hon'ble Forum;

          (e)         The Hon'ble Forum be pleased to direct the
B                opposite parties (jointly and serverally) to pay
                 Rs.25,0001- to the complainant, as cost of this
                 complaint."

       4. The case of the complainant is that he had passion for
  driving and dream to visit Leh Ladakh, Jammu & Kashmir and
C Nepal by driving a motor car. By surfing the. internet, he read
  advertisement given by the appellant as follows :

         "Introducing a world without borders, an SUV to end all
         SUVs. That's the new Chevrolet Forester. With the Power
o        of 120 horses under its borne unique All-Wheels (AWD},
         it literally puts the four corners of the earth witl1in your
         easy reach. It won't just get you there. But get you there.
         But get you there in unmatched comfort and luxury by-
         road, off-road or no-road."
E          5. Relying upon the same, he visited the agents of the
  appellant and was given a book titled "for a special joumev
  called life". He was assured that the vehicle offered for sale
  will realise his dream. The brochure also assured that "the
  vehicle in question is an SUV to end all SUVs. And
F .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . it will put the four comers of the earth within
  your each an<J ........... it won't just get you their every
  time. But get you're there in unmatched comfort, by road,
  off-road or no road". He was also shown visual presentation
  of the vehicle and was also given a copy of the VCD.
G Accordingly, he purchased the vehicle on 1st May, 2004 for
  Rs.14 Lakhs and got accessories worth Rs.1,91,295/- fitted
  and also got the vehicle insured and registered.

      6. Thereafter he realised that the vehicle was not fit for "off-
H road, no road and dirt road" driving as represented and had
.GENERAL MOTORS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHOK                   21
   RAMNIK LAL TOLAT [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
  defects. Accordingly, he approached the appellant and its          A
  dealers who referred to the owner's manual at pages 8-6
  column 1 & 3 printed by the Company to the effect :

      "off-road driving ............ But please keep in mind that
      A WO Chevrolet is a passenger car and is neither a
                                                                     B
      conventional off-road vehicle nor an all terrain vehicle
      ........ If the driving through water such as when crossing
      shallow streams, first check the depth of the water and the
      water stream bed for firmness and ensure that the bed
      of stream is flat ............ the water should be shallow
      enough that it does not reach under carriage."                 c
        Thus he found that the owner's manual was contrary to the
  assurance in the brochure, internet and the book titled "for a
  special journey called life''. He also realised that the vehicle
  was not SUV but a mere passenger car, not fit for "off-road,       D
  no road and dirt road' driving. He could not realise his dream
  to drive it to Leh Ladakh, Jammu & Kashmir and Nepal. The
  action of the appellant was thus, "unfair trade practice". He
  sought permission to remove "unfair trade practice" and
  deficiencies in service and also to refund a sum of Rs.14 Lakhs    E
  the price of the vehicle and Rs.1,91,295/- the price of
  accessories with 18% interest from the date of purchase till the
  date of payment and also to pay compensation for physical and
  mental pain shock, suffering, agonies, hardships, inconvenience
  and expenses suffered by the complainant, to the tune of
                                                                     F
  Rs.50,000/- or as thought fit in the interest of justice and the
  costs. The District Forum directed refund of Rs.14 Lakhs plus
  Rs.1,91,295/- -towards cost of accessories with interest @ 9%
  per annum from the date of complaint to the date of payment
  subject to the return of the vehicle, apart from compensation of   G
  Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs of
  litigation.

      7. The said order of the District Forum was challenged by
  the appellant before the Consumer Disputes Redressal
  Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad (for short "the State         H
A
    22       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 11 S.C.R.


  Commission"). The State Commission held that the vehicle had
                                                                       •
  no mechanical or manufacturing defect but the advertisement
  that car was SUV amounted to "unfair trade practice".
  Accordingly, in substitution of the order of the District Forum,
  the complainant was held entitled to Rs.50,000/- as
B compensation which included costs of litigation. But at the same
  time, the complainant was required to pay Rs.5,000/- towards·
  costs for undeserving claim. The appellant was ~irected not to
  describe the vehicle in question as SUV in any form of
  advertisement, website, literature etc. and to make the
c correction that it is a passenger car as mentioned in the manual.

         8. Accordingly, the appellant complied with the~ said
    direction by issuing a disclaimer.

       9. The respondent preferred a revision petition against the
D Order of the State Commission while the appellant filed a cross
  revision petition.

       10. The National Commission held that the appellant could
  not be allowed to contest the finding of committing "unfair trade
E practice" in view of its conduct in voluntarily complying with the
  order of the State Commission and filing cross revision without
  any justification and belatedly. Referring to the material on
  record, particularly, the undisputed correspondence, the said
  finding was also affirmed on merits. After referring to the
  definition of "unfair trade practice" under Section 2(1) (r) of
F the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), it was
  concluded:

         "Keeping in view the above definition of unfair trade
         practice and the material obtaining on record more
G        particularly the representations made and held out by the
         respondent in their brochures relating to the vehicle in
         question, the owner's manual as a/so the clarification
         rendered by the manufacturer of the vehicle, there can
         be hardly any doubt that the motor vehicle Ch1~vrolet
H        forester A WO model was not a vehicle of the said
                                                               -·~··
•   GENERAL MOTORS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHOK                    23
     RAMNIK LAL TOLAT [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
        description in as much as it was not a SUV vehicle.               A
        Therefore, the petitioner must have been misled on that
        score to believe that the vehicle of!)red for sale was a
        SUV. This act of the respondent would clearly fall within
        the mischief of unfair trade practice as envisaged in
        section 2(r) (supra). We therefore, affirm the findings of        B
        the State Commission in this behalf"

         11. After recording the above finding the National
    Commission proceeded to consider the relief to be given. It was
    held that the State Commission was not justified in reversing         C
    the direction of the District Forum once the commission of
    "unfair trade practice" was established, even as per finding
    of the State Commission. Accordingly, the National
    Commission restored the relief given by the District Forum with
    slight modification as follows :
                                                                          D
        "Once it is found that respondent has indulged in unfair
        trade practice which had misled the petitioner to purchase
        the vehicle in question, in our view, the most appropriate
        relief to the petitioner would be to reinstate the petitioner
        to his original position before the purchase of the vehicle       E
        viz., refund of the price of the vehicle along with some
        compensation in that behalf Keeping in view that the
        vehicle was used by the petitioner for a period of about
        one year and it has run approximately 14,000 kms, we
        consider it appropriate that the respondent should refund         F
        a sum of Rs.12,50,000 (Rupees twelve lacs fifty thousand
        only) to the petitioner subject to the condition that the
        vehicle in question, without the accessories, which the
        petitioner got fixed at a cost of Rs. 1, 91, 2951-, is returned
        to the respondent."
                                                                          G
         12. The above was not the end of the journey, though the
    above relief met the claim of the complainant in his complaint.
    The National Commission proceeded to consider the issue of
    punitive damages for "unfair trade practice" in selling the said
    vehicles to about 260 consumers. It was held that though the          H
A
    24       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 11 S.C.R.


  consumers had not approached the National Commission and
                                                                        •
  a period of four years had passed, the appellant should pay
  punitive damages of Rs.25 lakhs and out of the said amount,
  a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs be paid to the complainant while tile rest
  be deposited in the "Consumer Welfare Fund" of the Central
B Government to be utilized for the benefit and protection of the
  interests of the consumers generally. Final operative order
  passed by the National Commission is as follows :

         "The respondents are hereby directed to pay a sum of
         Rs. 12, 50, 0001- (Rupees Twelve Lacs Fifty Thousand
c        only) to the petitioner towards price of the vehicle subject
         to the petitioner returning the vehicle in question without
         accessories to the respondents. The respondents are
         hereby called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lacs
         (Rupess Twenty Five Lacs) as punitive cfamages with this
D        Commission. Out of the said deposited amount, a sum
         of Rs. 5 lacs (rupees five lacs) shall be paid to the
         petitioner-complainant and rest of the amount shall be
         credited to the "Consumer Welfare Fund" of the Central
         Government to be utilized for the benefit and protection
E        of the interests of the consumers generally. We also
         award a sum of Rs.50,0001- (rupees fifty thousand) in
         favour of the complainant to meet his cost of litigation
         before the three consumer fora. The liability to pay and
         deposit the amounts shall be joint and several on the
F        respondents. We grant six weeks to the respondents to ·
         comply with the directions given herein above. "

       13. \Ve have heard learned counsel for the appellant anct
  the respondent No.1-complainant in-person and perused the
G record.

         14. The concurrent finding recorded by the District Forum,
    the Stale Commission and the National Commission to the
    effect that "unfair trade practice" was committed by the
    appellant which is based on adequate material on record, does
H
.GENERAL MOTORS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHOK                      25
   RAMNIK LAL TOLAT [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

  not call for any interference by this Court and the same is           A
  affirmed .

      15. What survives for consideration is the submission of
 learned senior counsel for the appellant, that there was no
 claim before the National Commission for the punitive                  B
 damages nor the appellant had an opportunity to meet such
 claim and that part of the order needs to be set aside.

       16. We find merit in this submission. Vide interim order
  of this Court dated 17th July, 2009, the operation of the
  impugned order awarding punitive damages was stayed.                  C
  Learned counsel for the appellant undertook to deposit the
  amount awarded in favour of the respondent-complainant
  towards his claim. The said order was allowed to continue, vide
  order dated 20.11.2009, with the following modifications :
                                                                        D
         "(i)    Respondent No. 1 shall return the vehicle to the
                 appellant within a period of four weeks from today.
                 The latter shall arrange for accepting delivery of
                 the vehicle at Ahmedabad.
     ,   (ii)    After return of the vehicle to the appellant,          E
                 respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to withdraw the
                 amount of Rs.12,50,0001- together with litigation
                 cost deposited by the appellant before the District
                 Forum in terms of order of this Court dated 17th
                 July, 2009 subject to his furnishing security to the   F
                 satisfaction of the District Forum.

         (iii)   It will be open to the appellant to sell the vehicle
                 and keep the sale proceeds in a separate interest
                 bearing account. Respondent No. 1 shall                G
                 cooperate with the appellant by signing the
                 documents necessary for selling the vehicle."
                                 '
        17. We proceed to deal with the issue of correctness of
  finding recorded by National Commission for awarding punitive
  damages. Before doing so, we may notice that the respondent-          H
A
    26       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 11 S.C.R.


    complainant appearing in-person, in his written submissions
                                                                    •
    has raised various questions, including the question that the
    appellant should be asked to account for the proceeds of the
    vehicles sold by it. Admittedly, the vehicle in question has been
    ordered to be handed back to the appellant against which
B   respondent-complainant has no claim. Thus, the plea raised is
    without any merit. The other issue raised for further punitive
    damages of Rs.100 crores and also damages for dragging him
    in this Court, merits no consideration being beyond the claim
    of the complainant in the complaint filed by him. Moreover, no
c   litigant can be punished by way of punitive damages for merely
    approaching this Court, unless its case is found to be frivolous.

       18. The Act is a piece of social legislation to provide a
  forum to the consumers who are taken for a ride by suppliers
  of goods and services. The redress is provided to a consumer
D against any deficiency in service as well as against any loss
  or injury arising out of "unfair trade practice". By later
  amendment, scope of a complaint can cover not only individual
  consumer but also consumers who are not identifiable
  conveniently. However, the complainant has to make an
E averment and make a claim. Section 12 of the Act permits not
  only a complaint by a consumer to whom goods are 'sold or
  delivered but also any recognised consumer association or one
  or more consumers on behalf of and for the benefit of all
  consumers but still, a case has to be made out and the affected
F party heard on such issue. We are conscious that having regard
  to the laudable object of the social legislation to protect the
  interest of consumers, liberal and purposive interpretation has
  to be placed on the scheme of the Act avoiding hyper technical
  approach. At the same time, fair procedure is hall mark of every
G legal proceeding and an affected party is entitled to be put to
  notice of the claim with such affected party has to meet.

         19. We may at this stage refer to the scheme of the Act
    with regard to claim against "unfair trade practice". The
H   background and scope of the provision was dealt with if
•   GENERAL MOTORS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHOK
     RAMNIK LAL TOLAT [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

    Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Sha.kti Coop. House A
                                                                 27



    Building Society Ltd'. as follows :

         "18. Prior tO the substitution of clause (r) in sub-section
         (1) of Section 2 of he Act with retrospective effect from
         18-6-1993, there was no separate definition of the term B
         "unfair trade practice" and the said term was given the
         same meaning as in Section 36-A of the Monopolies and
         Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short "the
         MRTP Act'). But now after the said amendment, the
         definition of the term has been specifically provided in c
         Section 2(1)(r), although the definition is practically a
         verbatim reproduction of the definition in Section 36-A of
         the MRTP Act.

          19. The basic ingredients of "unfair trade practice" are:
                                                                        D
           (i)     it must be a trade practice;

           (ii)    the trade practice must be employed for the
                   purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of
                   any goods or for the provision of any service; and
                                                                        E
           (iii)   the trade practice adopts any unfair method or
                   unfair or deceptive practice including any of the
                   practices enumerated in clauses (1) to (6) of
                   Section 2(1 )(r) of the Act.
                                                                        F
                   Therefore, any trade practice which is adopted for
                   the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply
                   of any goods or for the provision of any service,
                   by adopting any unfair method or unfair or
                   deceptive practice has to be treated as "unfair G
                   trade practice" for which an action under the
                   provisions of the Act would lie, provided, the
                   complainant is able to establish that he is a


    1.   (2009) 12 sec 369.                                             H
A
    28          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] ·11 S.C.R.


                  consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of
                                                                           •
                  the Act."

          In Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. MRTP
    Commission2 this Court laid down five ingredients which have
8   to be established before a trade practice can be said to be an
    "unfair trade practice". The Court laid the ingredients in the
    following manner:
                                     J
          "16. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would
          clearly indicate that the following five ingredients are
C         necessary to constitute an unfair trade practice:

           1.     There must be a trade prac1fe {within the meaning
                  of Section 2(u) of the Monopolies and Restrictive
                  Trade Practices Act].
D
           2.     The trade practice must be employed for the
                  purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of
                  any goods or the provision of any services.

           3.     The trade practice should fall within the ambit of
E                 one or more of the categories enumerated in
                  clauses ( 1) to (5) of Section 36-A.

           4.     The trade practice should cause loss or injury to
                  the consumers of goods or services.
F          5.     The trade practice under clause ( 1) should involve
                  making a 'statement' whether orally or in writing or
                  by visible representation."

      Again in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, it
G was observed :

          "18. So far as Direction (iii) is concerned, it is to be noted
          that there was no prayer for any compensation. There
    2    (2003) 1 sec 129.
H   3.   (2ooa) 4 sec 504.
•         GENERAL MOTORS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHOK                 29
           RAMNIK LAL TOLAT [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

             was no allegation that the complainant had suffered any A
             loss. Compensation can be granted only in terms of
             Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. Clause (d) contemplates
             award of compensation to the consumer for any loss or
             injury suffered due to negligence of the opposite party.
             In the present case· there was no allegation or material B
             placed on record to show negligence."

              Thus, mere proof of "unfair trade practice" is not enough
         for claim or award of relief unless causing of loss is also
         established which in the present case has not been C
         established.

              20. We have already set out the relief sought in the
         complaint. Neither there is any averment in the complaint about
         the suffering of punitive damages by the other consumers nor
    •$   the appellant was aware that any such claim is to be met by it. D
         Normally, punitive damages are awarded against a conscious
         wrong doing unrelated to the actual loss suffered. Such a claim
         has to be specially pleaded. The respondent complainant was
         satisfied with the order of the District Forum and did not
         approach the State Commission. He only approached the E
         National Commission after the State Commission set aside the
         relief granted by the District Forum. The National Commission
         in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was only concerned about
         the correctness or otherwise of the order of the State
         Commission setting aside the relief given by the District Forum F
         and to pass such order as the State Commission ought to have
         passed. However, the National Commission has gone much
         beyond its jurisdiction in awarding the relief which was neither
         sought in the complaint nor before the State Commission. We
         are thus, of the view that to this extent the order of the National G
         Commission cannot be sustained. We make it clear that we
         have not gone into the merits of the direction but the aspect that
         in absence of such a claim being before the National
         Commission and the appellant having no notice of such a claim,
         the said order is contrary to principles of fair procedure and H
A
    30        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2014] 11 S.C.R.


    natural justice. We also make it clear that this order will not stand
                                                                             •
    in the way of any aggrieved party raising a claim before an
    appropriate forum in accordance with law.

         21. Accordingly we allow these appeals and set aside the
8   order of the National Commission to the extent of award of
    punitive damages.

    Kalpana K. Tripathy                            Appeals partly allowed.