The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Saravanan & Ors.

J U D G M E N TPRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.The irresponsibility on the part of owners who allow theirvehicles to be driven by persons who do not possess a valid drivinglicense and the tragic consequences that visit an innocent thirdparty on account of this irresponsibility is the subject of thisappeal.2. The claimant, who is indisputably in a vegetative conditionbecause of the accident, is represented by his next friend, his wife.He was 33 years at the time of the accident, which occurred on26.10.2002. He was a Lecturer in the Physics Department in KaveriPolytechnic. His injuries are of such nature that he has to takecontinuous medical treatment. This misfortune fell on him becausethe second respondent allowed one of his relatives, who did not havea license, to drive his motorcycle. Because of his lack ofexpertise, the driver of the insured vehicle drove the motorcycle atan uncontrollable speed and hit the claimant, who was going to hishouse. After the accident, the claimant was admitted in Sri GokulamHospital, Salem; then to NIMHANS, Bangalore; Manipal Institute forNeurological Disorders, Bangalore; Kamala Hospital, Salem and A.G.Neurological Hospital, Salem. A compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- wasclaimed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.17,24,953/-. The learnedPresiding Officer of the Tribunal saw for himself the claimant'scondition when he was brought to the Court and he has recorded thatthe claimant, Saravanan had his eyes open and he was breathing, buthe was otherwise not conscious of anything that was happening aroundhim. He has also recorded that the claimant was in a vegetativestate.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company mainlydisputed the liability of the insurance company to pay thecompensation since the insured had breached the specific condition ofthe insurance policy, which excludes the driving of the vehicle by aperson who is not duly licensed. On a perusal of the records, it isseen from Ex.B.2 that Murugesan , who was driving the vehicle, hadapplied for a license only on 28.1.2003. His learner's license isdated 11.12.2002 and was valid from 11.12.2002 to 10.6.2003. Ex.B.2also shows that the second respondent has addressed a letter to theMotor Vehicles Inspector, Mettur stating that he has no objection tohis relative's son Thiru. Murugesan to obtain a driver's license.This letter is dated 28.1.2003. The accident,we repeat, occurred on26.10.2002.4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant, on the otherhand, submitted that considering the pathetic case of the claimant, athird party, and the trauma his family members have been goingthrough, this Court must enhance the compensation awarded by theTribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Sections 3, 4 , and 5, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 areextracted hereunder:-"3. Necessity for driving license.– (1) No personshall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless heholds an effective driving license issued to himauthorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shallso drive a transport vehicle other than1[a motor cab ormotor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under anyscheme made under subsection (2) of section 75] unless hisdriving license specifically entitles him so to do.(2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1)shall not apply to a person receiving instructions indriving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribedby the Central Government.4. Age limit in connection with driving of motorvehicles.– (1) No person under the age of eighteen yearsshall drive a motor vehicle in any public place:Provided that1[a motor cycle with enginecapacity not exceeding 50cc] may be driven in a publicplace by a person after attaining the age of sixteenyears.(2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, no personunder the age of twenty years shall drive a transportvehicle in any public place.(3) No learner's license or driving license shall beissued to any person to drive a vehicle of the class towhich he has made an application unless he is eligible todrive that class of vehicle under this section.5. Responsibility of owners of motor vehicles forcontravention of sections 3 and 4.– No owner or person incharge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any personwho does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or section4 to drive the vehicle."6. Insurance is really about spreading of risk. In the book"Principles of Insurance Law", we find the following quotation fromPorter's Law of Insurance (page 3) : "All the insured persons who pay their motor insurancepremia without facing an accident even once in their lives https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ provide the funds, with which the insurer indemnifies thefew against whom claims are made. So, this is theinsurance business; the insurers make a profit from theformer class of persons and indemnify the losses of thesecond group. The hazards of road travel are well known,without the quoting of statistics, and it is to protect theinnocent third party from the loss caused by death ordisability that third party insurance had been madecompulsory. Indeed the world over, this insurance cover hasbeen made mandatory, and placing an uninsured motor vehicleon the road is an offence, as also the placing of a vehiclein the hands of a person who does not have a valid licence.It could be a person having a fake / forged licence, or anexpired licence or no, licence at all. It amounts to thesame, namely non-possession of a valid licence as mandatedby Section 3 of the Act." 7. To decide the third party claim, we have to go to OrientalInsurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 A.C.J. 1. But before that,we might take a look at United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lehru,(2003) 3 S.C.C. 338, and also the insightful comments in New IndiaAssurance Co. vs. Kamla, (2001) 4 S.C.C. 342.8. In Kamla's case (supra), the insurance company contended thatit is exonerated of its liability on proof of breach of theconditions of the insurance policy. The Supreme Court looked at theffect of all the provions under Chapter IX of the Motor Vehicles Act,in particular, the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 147 and sub-section (5) and then said that :"21. A reading of the proviso to sub-section (4) aswell as the language employed in sub-section (5) wouldindicate that they are intended to safeguard the interestof an insurer who otherwise has no liability to pay anyamount to the insured but for the provisions contained inChapter XI of the Act. This means, the insurer has to payto the third parties only on account of the fact that apolicy of insurance has been issued in respect of thevehicle, but the insurer is entitled to recover any suchsum from the insured if the insurer were not otherwiseliable to pay such sum to the insured by virtue of theconditions of the contract of insurance indicated by thepolicy.22. To repeat, the effect of the above provisions isthis: When a valid insurance policy has been issued inrespect of a vehicle as evidenced by a certificate ofinsurance the burden is on the insurer to pay to third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ parties, whether or not there has been any breach orviolation of the policy conditions. But the amount so paidby the insurer to third parties can be allowed to berecovered from the insured if as per the policy conditionsthe insurer had no liability to pay such sum to theinsured."Then they summed up the position thus :"The insurer and insured are bound by the conditionsenumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable tothe insured if there is violation of any policy condition.But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to paycompensation to third parties on account of the certificateof insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from theinsured the amount paid to the third parties, if there wasany breach of policy conditions on account of the vehiclebeing driven without a valid driving licence...".9. In Lehru's case (supra), the insurance company attempted toavoid its liability on the ground that the driver of the insuredvehicle had a fake licence. The Supreme Court traced the history ofdecided law from 1960. The following extract from A.I.R. 1959 S.C.1331 was reproduced :"We are furthermore not convinced that the statutecauses any hardship. First, the insurer has the right,provided be his reserved it by the policy, to defend theaction in the name of the assured and if he does so, alldefences open to the assured can then be urged by him andthere is no other defence that he claims to be entitled tourge. He can thus avoid all hardship, if any, by providingfor a right to defence the action in the name of theassured and this he has full liberty to do. Secondly, if hehas been made to pay something which on the contract of thepolicy he was not bound to pay, he can under the proviso toSub-section (3) and under Sub-section (4) recover it fromthe assured. It was said that the assured might be a man ofstraw and the insurer might not be able to recover anythingfrom him. But the answer to that is that it is theinsurer's bad luck. In such circumstances the injuredperson also would not have been able to recover the damagessuffered by him from the assured, the person causing theinjuries. The loss had to fall on some one and the statutehas thought fit that it shall be borne by the insurer. Thatalso seems to us to be equitable for the loss falls on theinsurer in the course of his carrying on his business, abusiness out of which he makes profit, and he could soarrange his business that in the net result he would neversuffer a loss. On the other hand, if the loss fell on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ injured person, it would be due to no fault of his, itwould have been a loss suffered by him arising out of anincident in the happening of which he had no hand at all." Then, they quoted from Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. KokilabenChandravadan, (1987) 2 S.C.C. 654 the following paragraph :"To construe the provision differently would be torewrite the provision by engrafting a rider to the effectthat in the event of the motor vehicle happening to bedriven by an unlicensed person, regardless of thecircumstances in which such a contingency occurs, theinsured will not be liable under the contract of insurance.It needs to be emphasised that it is not the contract ofinsurance which is being interpreted. It is the statutoryprovision defining the conditions of exemption which isbeing interpreted. These must therefore be interpreted inthe spirit in which the same have been enacted accompaniedby an anxiety to ensure that the protection is notnullified by the backward looking interpretation whichserves to defeat the provision rather than to fulfill itslife-aim. To do otherwise would amount to nullifying thebenevolent provision by reading it with a non-benevolenteye and with a mind not turned to the purpose andphilosophy of the legislation without being informed of thetrue goals sought to be achieved. What the legislature hasgiven, the Court cannot deprive of by way of an exercise ininterpretation when the view which renders the provisionpotent is equally plausible as the one which renders theprovision important. In fact it appears that the formerview is more plausible apart from the fact that it is moredesirable. When the option is between opting for a viewwhich will relieve the distress and misery of the victimsof accidents or their dependants on the one hand and theequally plausible view which will reduce the profitabilityof the insurer in regard to the occupational hazardundertaken by him by way of business activity, there ishardly any choice. The Court cannot but opt for the formerview. Even if one were to make a strictly doctrinaireapproach, the very same conclusion would emerge inobeisance to the doctrine of 'reading down' the exclusionclause in the light of the 'main purpose' of the provisionso that the 'exclusion clause' does not cross swords withthe 'main purpose' highlighted earlier. The effort must be to harmonize the two instead of allowing the exclusionclause to snipe successfully at the main purpose."Then, Sohan Lal Passi vs. P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 21 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was referred to and the following paragraph was quotedtherefrom :"It need not be pointed out that the whole concept ofgetting the vehicle insured by an insurance company is toprovide an easy mode of getting compensation by theclaimants, otherwise in normal course they had to pursuetheir claim against the owner from one forum to the otherand ultimately to execute the order of the Accident ClaimsTribunal for realisation of such amount by sale ofproperties of the owner of the vehicle. The procedure andresult of the execution of the decree is well known."The Supreme Court in Lehru's case, rejected the submission thatKamla's case was not correctly decided. In the judgment in Lehru'scase, it was further declared thus :"... It shows that the Insurance Company has to pay tothird parties but it may recover from the person who wasprimarily liable to pay. The liability of the InsuranceCompany to pay is further emphasised by Sub-section (5).This also shows that the Insurance Company must first pay,then it can recover..."."... The injured or relatives of person killed in theaccident may find that the decree obtained by them is onlya paper decree as the owner is a man of straw. The ownerhimself would be an innocent sufferer. It is for thisreason that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has madeinsurance, at least third party insurance, compulsory. Theaim and purpose being that an Insurance Company would beavailable to pay. The business of the Company is toinsurance. In all businesses there is an element of risk.All persons carrying on business must take risks associatedwith that business. Thus it is equitable that the businesswhich is run for making profits also bears the riskassociated with it. At the same time innocent parties mustnot be made to suffer or loss. These provisions meet theserequirements...".The Supreme Court also held that if it was proved that theinsured/owner was aware that the licence was fake, "even in such a case the Insurance Company wouldremain liable to the innocent third party, but it may beable to recover from the insured."10. Now we come to Swaran Singh's case (supra). Paragraph 4 isrelevant and is extracted hereunder : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "4. Defences raised by the Petitioner Company in theclaim petitions purported to be in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafterreferred to as 'the Act') were : (a) driving licenceproduced by the driver or owner of the vehicle was a fakeone; (b) driver did not have any licence whatsoever, (c)licence, although was granted to the concerned driver buton expiry there of, the same had not been renewed; (d)licence granted to the drivers being for one class ordescription of vehicle but the vehicle involved in theaccident was of different class or description; and (e) thevehicle in question was driven by a person having alearner's licence."It was contended thus :"15. The decisions of this Court in New IndiaAssurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla, (2001) 4 SCC 342 and UnitedIndia Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC 338,wherein it has been held that the court is entitled toissue a direction upon the insurer to satisfy the award andthereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicledo not lay down the correct law and should be overruled."The Supreme Court held, on hearing the rival submissions and the caselaw, thus :"72. A beneficent statute, as is well known, mustreceive a liberal interpretation [See Bangalore WaterSupply & Sewerage Board etc. v. A. Rajappa and Ors. Etc.,(1978) 2 SCC 213, Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v.National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 1,ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Punjab Communications Network Ltd.,(2002) 5 SCC 510, Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Ors. v. KashinathJanardhan Trade and Anr., (1983) 3 SCC 437 and Kunal Singhv. Union of India and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 524].73. The liability of the insurer is a statutory one.The liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree passedin favour of a third party is also statutory."As far as possession of a valid licence is concerned, the SupremeCourt distingushed four different scenarios – a) where there was no licence, b) where the licence is forged/fake, c) where the licence is for a different class of vehicle fromthe offending vehicle, and d) where the licence is for a learner. It then made the following primary conclusion :"104. It is, therefore, evident from the discussionsmade hereinbefore that the liability of the insurancecompany to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereofhas been holding the field for a long time.104. Apart from the reasons stated hereinbefore thedoctrine of stare decisis persuades us not to deviate fromthe said principle."And for us, in this case, the following is important :"110.(xi). The provisions contained in Sub-section (4)with proviso thereunder and Sub-section (5) which areintended to cover specified contingencies mentioned thereinto enable the insurer to recover amount paid under thecontract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be takenrecourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims anddefences of insurer against insured by, relegating them tothe remedy before, regular court in cases where on givenfacts and circumstances adjudication of their claims interse might delay the adjudication of the claims of thevictims."11. This then is the law, that if the breach of a conditionunder an insurance policy is proved, then the insurance company mustpay and may recover. All the subsequent cases are guided by SwaranSingh's case. When the insurance company is exonerated of itsliability for breach of policy conditions, it must be understood thatthe Court/Tribunal may direct in its discretion, the insurer to payfirst and decide whether to recover.12. In 2008 A.C.J. 776 [Prem Kumari vs. Prahlad Dev], thedriving license was a fake one. The Tribunal held that the driver,who is the brother of the insured, did not possess a valid andeffective license on the date of the accident and exonerated theinsurance company from liability. 13. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, 2007A.C.J. 721 (SC), The following conclusions in para 41 are relevant :-"41. In view of the above analysis the following situationsemerge :(1) The decision in Swaran Singh case has no application tocases other than third-party risks. (2) Where originally the license was a fake one,renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. (3) In case of third-party risks the insurer has toindemnify the amount, and if so advised, to recover thesame from the insured. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (4) The concept of purposive interpretation has noapplication to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act."14. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai,2006 ACJ 1336 (SC), the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was,therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle wasrequired to hold an appropriate license therefore. Ram Lal, whoallegedly was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, washolder of a license to drive light motor vehicle only. He did notpossess any license to drive a commercial vehicle. Therefore, therewas a breach of condition of the contract of insurance. In suchcircumstances, the Court observed that the appellant-NationalInsurance Co. Ltd., therefore, could raise the said defence whileconsidering the stand of the Insurance Company. This Court, pointingout the law laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) concluded that theowner of the vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability toverify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed avalid license or not. However, taking note of the fact that the ownerhas not appeared, the victim was aged only 12 years, the claimantsare from a poor background and to avoid another round of litigationapplying the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan,2004 A.C.J. 721 (SC) and finding that though the appellant-InsuranceCompany was not liable to pay the claimed amount as the driver wasnot possessing a valid license and the High Court committed an errorin holding otherwise, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of thecase and in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of theConstitution declined to interfere with the impugned judgment thereinand permitted the appellant-Insurance Company to recover the amountfrom the owner of the vehicle. 15. In 2008 A.C.J. 2860 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.Vidhyadhar Mahariwala], the date of accident was 11.6.2004. Thedriver's license was initially valid for the period from 15.12.1997to 14.12.2000 and thereafter from 29.12.2000 to 14.12.2003. TheSupreme Court, referring to National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. SwaranSingh, 2004 (3) S.C.C. 297, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. KusumRai, 2006 (4) S.C.C. 250 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.Nanjappan, 2004 (13) S.C.C. 224, held that the insurance company hasno liability in a case of this nature and the claimant may recoverthe amount from the owner. 16. In 1994 (1) L.W. 567 [M/s. National Insurance CompanyLimited, Gobichettipalayam vs. Thulasi], the application for drivinglicense was made by the driver involved in an accident five daysafter the accident. The defence of the insurance company of non-liability was upheld and accepted. 17. In J.T. 2009 (3) S.C. 333 [Bhuvan Singh vs. M/s. OrientalInsurance Company Ltd.], the driver of the offending vehicle washolding a learner's license. It expired on 22.12.2000. The accident https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ occurred on 5.1.2001. He applied for a regular license only on22.1.2001. The Supreme Court referred to various provisions of theMotor Vehicles Act and also referred to the fact that while Section 3of the Act uses the words 'effective license' and Section 149(2) usesthe words "duly licensed". The Supreme Court held that since thedriver had applied for grant of license after the accident, theinsurance company was not liable. 18. In 2008 (2) Supreme 451 [Sardari vs. Sushil Kumar], theSupreme Court held that where the breach of conditions of contract isex facie apparent from the records, the Court will not fasten theliability on the insurance company and that sometimes, the Court maywhile fastening the liability on the owner, direct the insurancecompany to pay and recover the same from the owners.19. In 2008 A.C.J. 1928 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.Zaharulnisha], the driver had license to drive a heavy motor vehicle,but he was driving a two wheeler when the accident occurred. TheSupreme Court held that since the driver had a license for a totallydifferent class of vehicle than the one he was driving, it was inviolation of Section 10(2) of the Act. In that case, the SupremeCourt held that the insurance company was not liable, but ordered theinsurance company to pay and recover the same from the owner of thevehicle. 20. In 2008 A.C.J. 2654 [Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United IndiaInsurance Co. Ltd.], the accident took place on 27.1.1996 and thedriver did not possess a valid license. Therefore, the Supreme Courtdismissed the appeal against the insurance company. 21. In 2008 (2) T.N. M.A.C. 508 (SC) [United India Insurance Co.Ltd.], the vehicle involved in the accident was driven by a minoraged 15. The appeal filed by the insurance company was allowed andthe Supreme Court directed the appellant-Insurance Company therein torecover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. In the presentcase, it is clear that the person who was driving the motorcycle hadno license on the date of the accident. In fact, even the learner'slicense was obtained only after the accident occurred. Therefore,there was clearly a breach of the policy conditions. 22. Considerring the above decisions and the facts as seen fromthe records, the owner has breached the policy condition. At the sametime, as far as the third party risk is concerned, the consistentview has been, as can be seen from the above, that the insurer mustpay the third party and then take a decision whether to proceedagainst the owner. This is in consonance with the spirit of the Act.It would be the only just and reasonable course since the claimant,an intelligent young man, has been reduced to nothing in one momentof negligence. The continuous care and support he needs must be takennote of. It is virtually a life sentence that has been imposed onthe claimant and his wife and his children too – a sentence of living https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ death on the claimant, and a life sentence on the wife, to care andnurture for 24 hours a dear husband, who is no more than a vegetablenow. And, to require them to proceed against the owner would berubbing salt in their raw wounds. We, therefore, feel that we mustask the appellant-insurance company to pay the compensation to theclaimant and recover it from the owner for his breach of the policyconditions.23. As regards the cross appeal filed by the claimant forenhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the maingrounds raised by the cross-appellant is with regard to the amountgranted by the Tribunal towards future medical expenditure that wouldbe incurred for treatment of the claimant. As regards the pecuniaryloss, the disability of the claimant is assessed at 100% and we findthat the documents filed by the claimant as well as the evidence ofthree experts show that the claimant is only in a vegetative state.Therefore, the percentage of disability deserves to be confirmed.The claimant was young, was only 33 years old at the time of theaccident and was earning Rs.5,900/- per month. P.W.2 had givenevidence that had he continued in service, the claimant could haveearned upto Rs.15,000/-. We think it will not be inappropriate totake the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/- in view of thefact that he had at least 25 years of service. The Tribunal haddeducted one-thirds of this amount towards his personal expenses.When the claimant is the injured himself, we cannot deduct any amountunder this head. The question of deduction will arise only when theclaimants are the legal representatives of the deceased. 24. Therefore, if we take Rs.10,000/- as the claimant's monthlyincome, then his annual income would have been Rs.1,20,000/-. Themultiplier to be adopted in this case will be 17 and thuscalculating, the pecuniary loss to the family would be to the tune ofRs.20,40,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towardstransport expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- for extra nourishment. We donot see how the Tribunal had arrived at these amounts. However, inview of the finding that the claimant is in a vegetative state,extra expenditure is bound to be incurred by the wife to sustain herinjured husband and in these circumstances, though there is noevidence for the claim towards transport expenses and extranourishment, we confirm the same. The Tribunal has awarded onlyRs.1,00,000/- for future medical expenses. The copies of medicalbills have been enclosed in the typed set of papers, which give anindication of the huge expenditure that has been incurred on behalfof the claimant. Since for past expenses a sum of 5,22,553/- has beenspent, we do no think we would be erring if we award a sum ofRs.5,00,000/- for future medical expenses. The award of Rs.5,22,553/-for medical expenses as per Ex.P.22 is, therefore, not disturbed. Theaward of Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering is also not disturbed.All these amounts add upto a sum of Rs.33,62,553/-. We round it offto Rs.35,00,000/-. We think it is only just and reasonable that we https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have awarded more than what was claimed, taking into account thecondition of the claimant and the bills produced.25. For the reasons stated above and in view of the decisions inKamla, Lehru, Skandia Insurance, Sohanlal Passy and Swaran Singh'scases, and also as reiterated in Lakshmi Narayan Dhut's case, we areof the firm opinion that the insurer must pay the amount as far asthird party risks are concerned and then recover the same from theinsured, if so advised. The C.M.A. is, therefore, dismissed and thecross appeal is allowed. The insurance company is given a time ofeight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment todeposit the entire amount of compensation as awarded by this Court.The claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% for theenhanced amount from the date of the petition till today for theclaim amount, i.e., Rs.25,00,000/- and from today for the amountawarded that is in excess of what was claimed. The cross-appellantis given four weeks' time to pay the additional court fee for theamount over and above the claim made originally.Sd/Asst.Registrar25.6.2009*Corrected to gosd/-Assistant Registrar14.10.2009/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar abTo1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER To be substituted MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNALfor the order ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT order already FAST TRACK COURT NO.I SALEM despatched on 09.07.20092. THE SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRARA.E.SECTION,HIGH COURT,MADRAS3. THE SECTION OFFICERV.R.SECTION,HIGH COURT,MADRAS1 cc To Mr.M.B.Gopalan, Advocate, SR.227911 cc To M/s.P.Tamilvel, Advocate, SR.23249 C.M.A. No.3363 of 2008 andCross Appeal No.24 of 2009 MBS(CO)SRA(2/7/2009)SRA(14/10/2009)