M.Venkatachalapathy v. M/s. United India Insurance -Company Limited

Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution ofIndia praying to issue writs of declaration and mandamus for thereasons stated therein.For petitioner in both WPs: Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior counsel For Mr.M.Sriram For Respondents : Mr.M.B.Gopalan 1 to 3 in WPNo.18519/96 and Respondents in WP No. 18520/96COMMON ORDER:-Among the above two writ petitions filed by the oneand the same petitioner as against the same respondents viz.,The United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by theRegional Office, Divisional Office and the Branch Office as therespondents 1 to 3, and the Tariff Advisory Committee is the 4threspondent. 2. In the first writ petition above filed inW.P.No.18519 of 1996 the petitioner would pray to issue of awrit of declaration declaring that the condition given inSection-1 relating to depreciation and condition No.3 in privateCar 'B' policy are invalid and unenforceable and strike down thesaid conditions as ultra vires of the Constitution as oneopposed to public policy.3. In the second writ petition filed in W.P.No.18520of 1996 the same petitioner would pray in a writ of mandamus tobe issued directing the respondents herein to pay a sum ofRs.2,22,000/- together with interest from the date of claimviz., 16.5.1996 to the date of payment and also for the damagesand loss suffered by him amounting to Rs.49,000/-.4. In the common affidavit filed by the petitioner inboth the writ petitions he would submit that he is the owner ofthe car bearing registration No.PY-01 B 6579 Premier 118 N.E.which he purchased as new vehicle on 15.11.1993 and the vehicleis covered under valid comprehensive insurance with therespondents Insurance Company particularly the third respondentand is valid for the period in between 15.11.1995 and14.11.1996. 5. The petitioner would further submit that thevehicle was involved in a road accident when it met with thehead on collision with a lorry on 10.5.1996 at Palamaner village https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ near Chittoor, Andhra Prfadesh in which the driver was killed onthe spot and the other occupant such as the petitioner's sonsustained grievous injuries and was treated in the hospital;that the vehicle was totally damaged beyond repair; that hebrought the vehicle and his son to Madras and made arrangementsfor inspection of the same by a technician who gave a detailedestimate with reference to the damage caused to the vehicle andintimated the same to the third respondent by telegram dated12.5.1996; that he submitted the claim petition together withthe driver licence of the deceased driver, the RegistrationCertificate, Insurance Policy, estimate etc., to the thirdrespondent; that he lodged a claim with the second respondentwhich was also considered by the first respondent.6. The petitioner would further submit that eventhough the vehicle was valued at Rs.2,22,000/- for which amount,the premium was paid it was demanded on behalf of the respondentNo.3 that he should accept the value of the vehicle wasRs.1,40,000/-; that only thereafter the petitioner's attentionwas drawn to the various clauses printed in the microscopic typein the insurance policy, which are arbitrary, one-sided,unreasonable, unjust, inequitable and illegal; that theseclauses were made known not at the time of receiving the premiumbut afterwards and they are arbitrary and unreasonable; that theinsurance company denies its liability after having accepted thevalue and receiving the premium therefor; that the insured doesnot affix his signature accepting the terms mentioned thereinparticularly drawing his attention to any of the clauses in theinsurance policy; that the respondents are aware of the printedconditions may have no application to a given case. 7. The petitioner would further submit that thequestion as to whether a vehicle involved in an accident is atotal loss or not, vest with the sole discretion of therespondents without any guidelines or instructions todetermine the same; that in the accident the petitioner'svehicle though the repairer has provisionally estimated loss atRs.1,89,453/- subject to further increase which is almost thepolicy amount that is the value of the car; that the respondentsinstead of declaring it as a total loss wants to repair thevehicle spending about Rs.2 lakhs in spite of the fact that thevehicle cannot be repaired, but it could only be reassembledpart by part; that these clauses of the contract of insuranceare liable to be struck down; that the expectation of theSupreme Court reported decisions in AIR 1980 SC 695 and that ofthe Rajasthan High Court in 1986 ACJ 358 are still in paper;that it is the first respondent who directed the petitioner todeliver the vehicle at M/s. Sundaram Motors for the purpose andreassembling the damages even though the technician of the saidmotors had already assembled and given a report on 17.5.1996; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that M/s. Sundaram Motors insisted that he should pay a sum ofRs.5000/-towards garage rent/demurrage and the same is stilllying; that the respondents are not interested in settling theissue; that the respondents being a statutory corporation andthe Public Sector undertaking and an instrumentality of theState is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court and theycannot refrain from paying the insured amount; that theindifference showed by the respondents is callousness andrequires to be reprimanded; that the petitioner has been put tomuch hardship and inconvenience.8. Further stating that the respondents cannot haveone value for the purpose of premium and another value forpayment of compensation namely 'market value'; that therespondents have no other 'market value' at the time that thevehicle is insured and therefore it is established fromcontending otherwise; that if the value mentioned in the policyis not the 'market value' what sort of value is it? That thisamount wilful misrepresentation, fraudulent practice, deceitfuland exploitation of bona fide customers; that the clauses whichare meant un-qualified powers without any guidelines are ex-facie illegal and requires to be declared as unconstitutionaland violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indiabesides being unjust and opposed to public policy; that fairplay is the hall mark of good Government and exploitation by theState is Anathema to 'justice and equity'; that after 6 monthsthe respondents sent a receipt for Rs.1,40,000/- as a full andfinal settlement to be signed by the petitioner as conditionprecedent to receive the said amount, which the respondents arenot entitled to and it is nothing but a fraudulent, coercion,the petitioner in order to restrain him from recourse to thelegal remedies; that the respondents are bound to pay the sum ofRs.2,22,000/- being the value fixed as such the vehicle met witha total loss; that only to wriggle out of the requirement underthe policy the respondents are trying to cling on to onerous,one sided unilateral clauses in the policy, which is the subjectmatter of the second writ petition wherein the writ ofdeclaration is prayed for, on such allegations the petitionerwould pray the relief extracted supra.9. During argument the learned senior counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that theinsurance policy is valid from 15.11.1995 to 14.11.1996 and theaccident took place on 10.02.1996, i.e. six months from the dateof policy. In Private Car B Policy, depreciation clause isapplicable only up to 50% but in this case, it is not applicablesince there is a total damage. He has also submitted a copy ofthe India Motor Tariffs effective from 01.04.1990, where it isstated as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "The Tariff Advisory Committee(hereinafter called 'The AdvisoryCommittee') have laid down rules,regulations, rates, advantages, terms andconditions as contained herein fortransaction of motor insurance business inIndia in accordance with the provisions ofPart II B of The Insurance Act, 1938.This tariff supersedes India MotorTariffs in force from 01.02.1982. The tariffis effective from 01.08.1989 in respect ofall new business/renewals falling due on orafter that date.The tariff is binding on all insurersand any breach of the tariff shall be abreach of the Insurance Act, vide provisionsof Sections 64 UC (4) and (5) of TheInsurance Act, 1938."10. He has also pointed out Clause 4 of the tariffwhich reads as follows:"Valued Policies: It is not permissibleto issue "Agreed Value Policies" except forvintage cars.An 'Agreed Value Policy' is a policywhich undertakes in the case of a total lossto pay a specified sum as the value of thevehicle insured and which does not take intoaccount the current market value of suchvehicle."11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitsthat the above tariff is a private and confidential one and therespondents ought not have produced the same before the Court.It is submitted that there is no basis for the valuation of thevehicle by the respondents. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthe effective remedy is available under Article 226 of TheConstitution of India. The respondents being a statutorycorporation and public sector undertaking and an instrumentalityof the State are amenable to the jurisdiction of this Courtunder Article 226 of The Constitution of India. It is furtherstated that the terms and conditions of the policy was not givento the petitioner and he has not signed the same and theconditions are illegible and unreadable, which cannot be put https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ against him. Having accepted the premium paid by thepetitioner, the respondents want to verify whether the value iscorrect or not. They are entitled to revalue the vehicle at thetime of damage. 13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitsthat when the respondents are raising dispute, they should issuenotice to the petitioner invoking arbitration clause and withoutinvoking the same, they cannot say that arbitration clause isthere and the petitioner cannot file a writ petition. Even afterfiling this writ petition, the respondents have not issued anynotice. He has relied on Section 8 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act and submits that the person who disputes shouldgo for an arbitration and the respondents cannot go for the sameand now, they cannot put the arbitration clause against thepetitioner. Even though the petitioner has sent a letter on21.11.1996 expressing his willingness to receive the amount ofRs.1,40,000/- as demanded by the respondents, there was no replyfrom them. Therefore, the arbitration clause will not preventthe petitioner from further prosecuting the writ petition. 14. There will be an arbitration clause accepted byboth the parties. Even assuming that this is a bindingcondition, the party who is disputing should apply to the courtto refer the matter to the civil court. But the respondents havenot done so. 15. Learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner relied on 1985 ACJ 734 (New India Assurance CompanyLtd. Vs. Gauri Shanker Sharma), wherein it is held as follows;"It would be a fraud on the insured ifthe insurance company first insures theinsured for a heavy amount by taking premiumto that extent and, when the contingency ofdeath or injury or damage to propertyhappens, then comes with the jugglery ortrickery of taking defence that though theyhave taken the premium of more amount oraccepted the amount but the legislature hasprovided the limit of the liability and tocommit this sort of trickery not to pay thecompensation for which they have taken thepremium. The legislature can never intend norencourage much less protect and in no caseprovide shelter or limit to play such atactics and trickery. In fact, the insurancecompany should not try to take such defenceof jurisdiction before the Tribunal and theyshould volunteer to make payment by which a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ situation is created where insured personsget the amount of insurance sitting at theirhomes without being compelled or dragged tofile claim petitions in the Tribunal and thenundergo the ordeal for litigation for decadesand decades, together. It would only addinsult to injury to an injured person or aperson or persons who have lost either hisparents or whose property has been damaged,to enter into this litigation for long periodand stand in the queue for knowing their fateof the trickery and jugglery after waitingdecades together, when the price and value ofthe money goes too down and the spiral of theprice index goes high making it virtually ofno use."16. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the interimorder came to be passed on 18.02.1997 and the order reads thus:"The petitioner is seeking for adirection to the respondents to pay theadmitted amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to thepetitioner with interest from 12.05.1996.Learned counsel for the respondents has noobjection to deposit what has been determinedas market value by the surveyor which comesto Rs.1,40,000/- but not the interest portionof it. His submission placed on record. Therespondents – M/s. United India InsuranceCompany Limited is directed to pay theadmitted amount of Rs.1,40,000/- withoutinterest, within two weeks from today(18.02.1997). Post after three weeks."17. Reading of the above order, the learned seniorcounsel would submit that without prejudice to the parties, theinterim order was passed, that at that time, the the other sidehave not stated anything about the arbitration clause. Thedispute is only for the remaining amount. He has also relied onOomor Sait H.G. Vs. O.Aslam Sait (2001 (3) CTC 269)wherein it isheld that "...mere existence of arbitration clause doesnot create an embargo on civil court tocontinue proceeding pending before suchCourt. Civil Court is not prevented fromproceeding with suit despite an arbitrationclause if dispute involves serious questionsof law or complicated questions of factadjudication of which would depend upon https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detailed oral and documentary evidence. 1996Act does not deviate from position in 1940Act regarding discretion of Civil Court torefer or not to refer dispute toarbitration."18. Article 226 of The Constitution of India cannot betaken over by arbitration clause since the same is aconstitutional remedy and arbitration is legislatory exercise. 19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents would submit that at the time of proposal forinsurance of a motor vehicle, the proposer is required to statehis estimated value of the vehicle; that when the insured seeksinsurance by an indemnity policy for the value which isestimated to be the value of the goods/property sought to beinsured, the insurer has no say in the matter since theliability is only to indemnify the actual loss on the basis ofthe value on the date of loss during the period of insurancesubject to a maximum of the sum insured represented by theInsured's Estimated Value.20. The learned counsel would further submit that inthe present case, it was found that the cost of repairs wouldexceed the market value of the vehicle if treated as a totalloss, the petitioner was offered settlement on total loss basisas is the method adopted in settlement of all claims.21. The Insured's estimated value is Rs.2,20,000/-being a contract of indemnity, the insurer is liable to pay onlythe market value not exceeding the sum insured. The fixation ofmarket value will be done only with the guidance of thequalified surveyor in accordance with the provisions of theInsurance as a part of loss assessment exercise. The amountoffered by the United Insurance represents the market value ofthe vehicle covered by the policy.22. The learned counsel for the respondents refersto condition No. 3 of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,(Private Car 'B' Policy, which reads as follows:-"3. The Company may at its own optionrepair reinstate or replace the Motorcar orany part thereof and/or its accessories or maypay in cash the amount of the loss or damageand the liability of the company shall notexceed the actual value of the parts damagedor lost less depreciation plus the reasonablecost of fitting and shall in no case exceedthe insured's estimate of the value of theMotor Car (including accessories thereon) as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ specified in the Schedule or the value of theMotor Car (including accessories thereon) atthe time of the loss or damage whichever isthe less."23. The learned counsel for the respondents wouldcite a judgment reported in THE GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD.,Vs. CHANDMULL JAIN AND ANOTHER (1966 A.C.J 267), wherein it isheld as follows:-"It was, however, contended that thepolicy itself never came into existencebecause it was cancelled before it was issuedand the endorsement of cancellation wasengrossed and incorporated with the making ofthe policy. It was argued that condition 10would not come into operation at all, becausethe policy itself was cancelled before it wasengrossed. In other words, the contention isthat condition 10 could not operate betweenthe parties till the policy was signed anddelivered to the assured and as this neverhappened the cancellation was improper. Thisargument is scarcely open, because, theassured is obviously basis his suit on thepolicy. In his plaint he invoked the policy.The assured cannot sustain the suit except bybasing it upon the policy, because unless onereads the policy and the terms on which it waseffective, mere reading of the proposals andthe letters of acceptance would not give anyterms. Further when a contract of insuringproperty is complete, it is immaterial whetherthe policy is delivered or not for the rightsof the parties are regulated by the policywhich ought to be delivered. In this way alsothe terms and conditions of the standard fire-policy would apply even though the policy wasnot issued.24. The learned counsel for the respondents wouldalso cite a judgment reported in 2004 4 LPJ - 49 = 2004 1 JT -1092, wherein it is held: "18. In this connection, areference may be made to series of decisionsof this Court wherein it has been held thatduty of the Court to interpret the document ofcontract as was understood between theparties. In the case of GENERAL ASSURANCESOCIETY LTD., Vs. CHANDMULL JAIN REPORTED IN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1966 (3) SCR 400 - 509 AND 510, it wasobserved as under:"In interpreting documents relating toa contract of insurance, the duty of theCourt is to interpret the words in which thecontract is expressed by the parties,because it is not for the Court to make anew contract, however, reasonable if theparties have not made it themselves".Similarly, in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs.SAMAYANALLUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP BANK, reported in IX(1999) SLT 594 = (1999) 8 SCC 543 - PARA 3 (546- f, it isobserved as under:"The insurance policy has to be construedhaving reference only to the stipulationscontained in it and no artificial far-fetchedmeaning could be given to the words appearingin it".25. In consideration of the facts pleaded and uponhearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and thelearned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents whatcould be assessed by this Court in both the above writ petitionsis that in the first writ petition above, the petitioner hasprayed for a declaration declaring that the condition given inSection-1 relating to depreciation and condition No.3 inPrivate Car 'B' policy are invalid and unenforceable andstrike down the said condition as ultra vires of theConstitution and one opposed to public policy. In the secondwrit petition in W.P.No.18520 of 1996 the same petitioner wouldpray for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay asum of Rs.2,22,000/- together with interest from the date ofclaim viz., 16.5.1996 to the date of payment and also for thedamages and loss to Rs.49,000/-.26. The case of the petitioner is that his new carbearing registration No.PY-01 B 6579 Premier N.E. was purchasedon 15.11.1993 and insured for comprehensive insurance with thethird respondent for one year period from 15.11.1995 to14.11.1996; that the said car met with a major accident on10.5.1996 at Chittoor in which the vehicle was totally damagedand on submitting a claim petition together with all necessarydocuments to the third respondent the grievance of thepetitioner is that even though the vehicle was insured with thethird respondent for the value of Rs.2,22,000/- for which amountthe premium was paid the third respondent compelled thepetitioner to accept a far less amount of Rs.1,40,000/- citingvarious clauses in the policy thus denying its liability havingaccepted the value and on receipt of the premium and hence the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner has come forward to file both the above writpetitions, the first one challenging a particular clauserelating to depreciation and praying to declare the sameunenforceable and ultra vires of the constitution as oneopposed to public policy and in the second writ petition thewrit petitioner seeking a direction to pay a sum ofRs.2,22,000/- together with interest and for damages. The mainarguments advanced on the part of the learned senior counselappearing for the petitioner is that regarding assessment ofthe value or damage caused to the vehicle there is no properguidelines and instead of declaring it as a total loss and paythe amount for which the premium was paid advancing a differenttheory of market value a far less compensation is offered to bepaid thus adopting double standards which according to thelearned senior counsel is a fraudulent practice, deceitful actand exploitation of bona fide customers and those clauses giveunqualified powers and since exfacie illegal and violative ofArticles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides beingopposed to public policy, they are liable to be struck down.Further the strong case of the petitioner is that therespondents are bound to pay a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- for whichthey paid premium citing a Division Bench judgment of theRajasthan High Court reported in (supra) 1985 ACJ 734 wherein itis strongly held that it would be a fraud on the insured if theinsurance company first insures insured for a heavy amount bytaking premium to that extent and, when the contingency arisescoming with the jugglery or trickery of taking defence not topay compensation for which they have taken the premium. It isfurther held therein that in fact, the Insurance company shouldnot try to take such defence of jurisdiction before theTribunal and they should volunteer to make payment and see thatthe insured persons get the amount of insurance without beingcompelled or dragged to file claim petitions in the Tribunal andundergo the ordeal for litigation for decades and decadestogether. It would only add insult to injury to an insuredperson.27. It is a case in which the admitted amount of Rs.1,40,000/- without interest has been ordered to be paid to thepetitioner by means of an interim order made by this Court on18.2.1997, subject to the outcome of the above writ petitions.28. On the part of the respondents the learned counselappearing on their behalf would exhort that the insurer has nosay in the matter of the proposal made or in stating theestimated value of the vehicle and the liability of therespondents is only to indemnify the actual loss on the basisof the value on the date of loss during the period of insurance,subject to the maximum; that in the case in hand it was foundthat the cost of repair would exceed the market value if treated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as a total loss; that the insurer is liable to pay only themarket value and the fixation of the market value will be doneby a certificate as a part of loss assessment exercise.29. The learned counsel would also cite somedecisions mentioned supra wherein it is held that the loss ordamage shall in no case exceed the insured estimate of the valueof the Motor Car or it should be held that the duty of the courtto interpret the document of contract as was understood betweenthe parties. In another case it would be held that the insurancepolicy has to be construed having reference only to thestipulations contained in it and no artificial order with farfetched meaning could be given to the words appearing in it. Ananalytical approach of the facts and circumstances of the casein hand would only show that though on the part of thepetitioner in the first writ petition has come forward to allegethat either the conditions stipulated relating to depreciationand such other conditions in the policy or not worth beingimposed nor have they be exploited or explained at the time oftaking the policy of insurance and having imposed suchconditions the respondents insurance company has only committedfraud on the insured having first accepted and assured for aheavy amount for taking the premium and having collected suchpremium for such amount in cases of total damage of the vehicledragging to the effect that the insurance company is not boundto pay the amount of value of the vehicle for which the premiumwas collected but it can have its own estimated value by suchmeans a second value assessed on the vehicle of the said amountpaid which is accepted by the insured is unacceptable either inlaw or in equity. 30. However the conditions particularly regarding thedepreciation are borne by the policy and it is relevant toconsider whether the insurance company is entitled to have suchconditions promulgated in the policy which depends on thereasonableness of the conditions imposed and since only agreeingthem the petitioner has entered into the agreement with theinsurance company and therefore on such flimsy grounds thateither they are not clearly visible nor permanently made knownthey could be sought to be declared ultra vires and thereforethe conditions need not be compared with the outcome thusbecoming liable only to be struck down is not acceptable in thesense that it is only to the choice of the petitioner that heentered into the agreement with the respondent InsuranceCompany and since there is no compulsion for having acceptedthe policy based on the conditions imposed, it is difficult tojustify the claim of the petitioner and therefore the prayer ofthe petitioner in the first writ petition to declare theconditions in the policy relating to depreciation as indicatedin the prayer column as unenforceable, invalid and ultra vires https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Constitution cannot sustain and hence it is onlydesirable to conclude that the petitioner being a party to thecontract application of the terms and conditions cannot benormally questioned and hence he is not entitled to the reliefof declaration as sought for in the W.P.No.18519 of 1996. 31. However so far as the prayer in the second writpetition in W.P.No.18520 of 1996 relating to the relief ofmandamus to pay a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- together with interestand for damages at Rs.49,000/- is concerned, this Court is ofthe opinion that the petitioner has justifiable reasons to offerthat since the respondents are agreeing parties for the paymentof premium of a fixed sum and simply stating that at the time oftaking the policy the value is voluntarily mentioned by theinsured for which they volunteer to pay the premium and it isnot the market value and hence they would assess the marketvalue in their own way and would pay the compensation only inaccordance with such assessment and not the amount for which thepremium was paid by the insured is quite unreasonable in thesense that as though for the amount of policy taken on thevehicle or for the premium paid, the respondents are notresponsible nor have they got control over the said fixation ofthe value of the vehicle are totally a deceitful defence putup on the part of the respondents, which cannot be accepted.32. The respondents, once having accepted the valueof the vehicle for the purpose of payment of premium and furtheraccepting the very payment of premium itself for certain months,are estopped from denying the same and they have to honour theircommitments and hence so far as the claim of the petitioner fora sum of Rs.2,22,000/- based on the policy taken and the premiumpaid are concerned and since there is no much controversyregarading the total damage caused to the vehicle, it shouldbe decided that the petitioner is entitled to the relief soughtfor in the second writ petition and the same is orderedaccordingly.In result, (i) W.P.No.18519 of 1996 does not meritacceptance and the same is liable to bedismissed and is dismissed accordingly.(ii) W.P.No.18520 of 1996 succeeds and isallowed. The respondents particularly thethird respondent is directed to pay the sum ofRs.2,22,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and Twenty twothousand only) together with simple interestat 6 per cent per annum from the date offiling of the writ petition till the date ofpayment coupled with a sum of Rs.49,000/-towards damages and loss suffered by thepetitioner minus Rs.1,40,000/- which had been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ already paid to the petitioner.(iii) It is further directed that thepayments indicated above shall be made withina period of two months from the date ofreceipt of the copy of this order.(iv) There shall be no order in both thewrit petitions as to costs.ksSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarCopies to the:- 1.M/s. United India Insurance -Company Limited, Regional Office, 40-42, Greams Road, Madras–6.2.M/s. United India Insurance -Company Limited, Divisional Office, 123, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Madras–17.3.M/s. United India Insurance -Company Limited, Branch Office, 46,Nehru Street, P.B.No.25, Pondicherry – 605 001.4. Tariff Advisory Committee, (General Insurance), Central Office, "ADOR" House, 1st Floor, 6K, Dubsash Marg, Bombay-400 0023.+ 2 ccs to Mr.M.B.Gopalan, Advocate SR No. 9732 and 9733+ 1 cc to Mr.M.Sriram, Advocate SR No. 9359 common order inW.P.Nos.18519 & 18520/96JRG(CO)SR/14.5.2005