The Divisional Manager The New India Ass.Co.Ltd v. Sasikumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:18 /3/2009C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.862 of 2004a n dCivil Miscellaneous Petition No.5187 of 2004The Divisional ManagerThe New India Ass.Co.LtdJawaharlal Nehru StreetPondicherry. ... Appellant/ 2nd RespondentVs1. Sasikumar2. P. Panneer ... Respondents/ Claimant and Ist Respondent Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act againstthe judgment dated 12/9/2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.339 of 2001 on thefile of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge),Cuddalore. For appellant ... M/s.D.Venugopal V.RamakrishnanFor respondents ... Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, S.C for M/s.R.Sunil Kumar for R.1J U D G M E N T The appellant/New India Assurance Company Limited, Pondicherryhas preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, dis-satisfied withthe award dated 12/9/2003 passed in M.C.O.P.No.339 of 2001 by theMotor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal Sub-Judge, Cuddaloreawarding a total compensation of Rs.11,05,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhsand five thousand only) together with interest at 9% p.a., from thedate of filing of the petition till date of payment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The facts of the claim in brief are as follows:-On 11/9/2000, at about 18.00 hours, when the firstrespondent/claimant was standing at Karaikadu bus stop, waiting forthe bus, at that time, the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN31B-3202 came from Cuddalore side to Virudhachalam side in a rash andnegligent manner at a high speed and hit against the firstrespondent/claimant, as a result of the accident, the firstrespondent/claimant sustained a head injury and grievous injuries.Immediately, after the accident, the first respondent/claimant wastaken to Krishna Hospital, Cuddalore and then referred to ApolloSpeciality Hospital, Chennai for further management. The firstrespondent/claimant was admitted as an in-patient from 22/12/2000 to27/12/2000 at Government Hospital, Cuddalore.3. The first respondent/claimant at the time of accident was haleand healthy and was about 23 years of age. He was studying inDr.Ambedkar Law College, Chennai and because of the physicalimpairment and disability arisen out of the accident, he was not ableto do any work and was not able to sit, stand, walk and his life wasdoomed. His parents had incurred an expense of more than Rs.4 lakhstowards his medical treatment and medicine. His education was fullyspoiled. The first respondent/claimant estimated the loss at Rs.15lakhs towards pain and suffering, shock and mental agony, loss ofmedical expenses, to and fro charges, future income and fordevelopment of physical impairment and disability sustained.4. The second respondent/first respondent (owner of the offendingmotorcycle) was vicariously liable and the appellant/secondrespondent Insurance Company being the insurer of the offendingvehicle were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation tothe first respondent/claimant. Hence the first respondent/claimanthad projected the claim praying for passing of an award to an extentof Rs.15 lakhs as compensation together with interest at 18% p.a.,from the date of petition till date of realisation along with costs.5. The appellant/second respondent Insurance Company filed astatement among other things mentioning that the claim petition filedby the first respondent/claimant was vexatious and unsustainable inlaw and denied that the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN31B-3202was insured with it and that the driver had a valid driving licenseon the date of accident and further, denied the firstrespondent/claimant's age, occupation and monthly income, allegedinsurance sustained, the period of treatment and the nature ofdisability and in any event, the compensation claimed was anexaggerated and excessive one. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The appellant/Insurance Company in its additional writtenstatement took a plea that the vehicle belonged to the brother-in-lawof the first respondent/claimant and that the motorcycle was drivenby the first respondent/claimant himself along with his friends asagainst the permitted capacity and because of his rash and negligentdriving, he lost control and fell down and resultantly sustainedinjuries and that the averments in the claim petition and therecitals of the First Information Report were false and made with anulterior motive and the first respondent/claimant being a tort-feasorwas not entitled to get any compensation from the Insurance Company.7. The second respondent/first respondent was set ex parte beforethe trial Court.8. Before the trial Court, on the side of the firstrespondent/claimant witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Ex.P.1 toEx.P.16 were marked. On the side of appellant/Insurance Company andon the side of second respondent/first respondent, owner of thevehicle no witness was examined and no documents were marked.9. After contest, on consideration and appreciation of oral anddocumentary evidence, the trial Court has consequently passed theaward of Rs.11,05,000/- payable by the appellant/second respondentInsurance Company to the first respondent/claimant along withinterest at 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition tilldate of realisation. The Tribunal has determined the lawyer's fee atRs.18,050/-.10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/InsuranceCompany urges before this Court that the First Information Report waslodged only on 27/12/2000, after a delay of 3 months for which thefirst respondent/claimant has assigned a reason that he has beentaking treatment and the same cannot be accepted, in as much as he isnot an illiterate and only a law College student and further that thefinding of the Tribunal in regard to aspect of negligence, againstthe rider of Motorcycle is baseless in law and there has beencollusion between the parties in manipulating the document so as tomake the appellant/Insurance Company liable to pay the compensationand that a fraud has been perpetuated and furthermore, the disabilityof 65% for neurological deficiency by P.W.2 Doctor is an exaggeratedone and the award of Rs.3,05,000/- under various heads is alsoexcessive and the amount of Rs.8 lakhs awarded towards Medical billexpenses will have to be scaled down and therefore, prays forallowing the appeal to promote substantial cause of justice.11. To prove negligence, the first respondent/claimant hasexamined himself as P.W.1. In his evidence, he has deposed that on11/9/2000, at about 6.00 p.m., he was standing at Karaikadu bus stopin order to proceed to Kullanchavadi at that time, a motorbike https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceeding to Vridhachalam from Cuddalore came in a fast speed andnegligently and dashed against him, as a result of which he sufferedinjury on his head and fell down and at that time, his relative Raviwas present and he was immediately taken in an auto to the KrishnaHospital for providing first aid and on refusal, he was admitted intothe Apollo Hospital, Chennai for further treatment and he went toApollo Hospital in an ambulance and he remained as in-patient for 4months and he was treated at the Apollo Hospital for two monthswithout regaining his conscience and after four months, he wasadmitted as in-patient at the Cuddalore Head Quarters hospital, wherehe took treatment for a week and since he stayed at Madras along withhis parents and took treatment for four months, there was a delay inregistering a case by the Police and while he was at CuddaloreGovernment Hospital, a complaint was given and a case was registeredand at the time of accident, he was 23 years old, studying atDr.Ambedkar Law College at Chennai, doing his second year law Courseand because of the accident, he could not continue his studies andthat the driver of the motor cycle admitted the offence as seen fromEx.P.16 judgment of Criminal Court in S.T.C.No.378 of 2003 dated28/3/2003.12. P.W.2 Doctor Chandran in his evidence has stated that he hasnot treated the first respondent/claimant and that he has issued himEx.P.14 disability certificate dated 30/7/2003 whereunder, he hasassessed the permanent disability at 65%.13. In Ex.P.1, xerox copy of First Information Report, the nameof the complainant is mentioned as Sasikumar, who is none other thanthe first respondent/claimant in the case. Moreover, in Ex.P.1 FirstInformation Report, the accused person is described as rider ofmotorcycle bearing Registration No.TN31B-3202. The date of occurrenceis said to be on 11/9/2000 at 18.00 hours. However, a perusal ofEx.P.1 First Information Report shows that the information has beenreceived by the Cuddalore O.T.Police Station on 27/12/2000 @ 14.45hours. As a matter of fact, it is quite evident from Ex.P.1 FirstInformation Report that the Cuddalore O.T. Police have registered acase in Crime No.1348 of 2000 under Sections 279 and 338 of theIndian Penal Code. In fact, in Ex.P.1 First Information Report,P.W.1/first respondent/claimant has stated that on 11/9/2000 at about6.00 Clock in the evening, he along with his village friend Raviafter distributing betrothal invitation to his relatives has beenstanding in Karaikadu bus stop along with his friend Ravi in order toproceed to Kullanchavadi and at that time, when they were standing onthe eastern side of Cuddalore – Vridhachalam main road, at that time,a motor cycle coming from Cuddalore route to Vridhachalam route hascome in a fast speed and negligently and dashed against him, as aresult of which he fell down and suffered a serious head injury andimmediately he saw the motor vehicle as Bullet and the number of thevehicle bearing Registration No.TN31B-3202 and that his friend Ravi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the motorcycle rider and the nearby persons lifted and made himto sit and because of the injury sustained, his hands and legs wereshivering etc., and that he was immediately taken to CuddaloreGovernment Hospital in an auto which came that way and since theHospital authorities informed that they cannot treat him and directedhim to go to Apollo Hospital at Chennai, on the same day, he wasadmitted into the Apollo Hospital at Chennai and that he tooktreatment at Chennai on 20/12/2000 and later got discharged and againadmitted himself into the Government Hospital at Cuddalore as in-patient and after discharging himself from the Hospital on27/12/2000, he preferred the complaint.14. In Ex.A.2 Motor Vehicle Inspection report issued by the MotorVehicles Inspector, Cuddalore in respect of the offending MotorcycleBullet TN31B-3202, it is opined that the accident was not due to anymechanical defects of the vehicle.15. As seen from Ex.P.16, judgment passed by the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Cuddalore in S.T.C.No.378 of 2003 dated 28/3/2003it is quite evident that the accused Sivakumar, S/o.PalanivelSinnakatusahai, Cuddalore Taluk has been complained under Sections279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in regard to the causing of hurtby driving or riding on a public way and causing grievous hurt by anact endangering life of personal safety of others and the accused has been found guilty under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Codeand a fine of Rs.300/- has been imposed for the offence under Section279 of the Indian Penal Code with a default sentence of simpleimprisonment for two weeks and a fine of Rs.1,000/- has been imposedfor an offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code with adefault sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and a totalfine of Rs.1,300/- has been imposed and the same has been paid.16. At this juncture, this Court points out that even though theappellant/Insurance Company has taken a plea in the additionalwritten statement filed before the Tribunal to the effect that theoffending motorcycle has been driven by the first respondent/claimanthimself along with his friends as against the permitted capacity andbecause of his rash and negligent driving, he has lost control andhas fallen down and sustained injuries etc. Surprisingly no one hasbeen examined as a witness on behalf of the appellant/InsuranceCompany before the Tribunal to substantiate their case. Per contra,Ex.P.16, the judgment in S.T.C.No.378 of 2003 passed by the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore clearly goes to show that theaccused Sivakumar has been found guilty by the Criminal Court underSections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been imposedwith a total fine of Rs.1,300/- for the above offences under Sections279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and the same has been paid byhim. Suffice it to point out by this Court that theappellant/Insurance Company has not proved its stand that the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent/claimant has driven the motorcycle himself along with hisfriends etc., and that he has been responsible for the rash andnegligent driving. Inasmuch as the appellant/Insurance Company hasnot proved its case in regard to its allegation that the firstrespondent/claimant has driven the motorcycle etc., and in view ofthe fact that Sivakumar the motorcycle driver has been found guiltyby the competent Criminal Court as judgment passed in S.T.C.No.378 of2003 and also bearing in mind an another important fact that the saidaccused has paid a total fine of Rs.1,300/- imposed by the criminalCourt, this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that theoffending motorcycle rider bearing Registration No.TN31B-3202 issolely and squarely responsible for the causing of accident and thepoint is answered accordingly.17. Coming next to the quantum of compensation to be awarded, itis to be pointed out that the first respondent/claimant in the claimpetition has made a total claim of Rs.15 lakhs as compensation.However, the Tribunal has granted Rs.8 lakhs towards medical expensesas per Ex.P.13 and it has also awarded a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- towardspain and suffering, injuries, permanent disability, studies beingaffected, transportation expenses, attendant expenses and futuremedical expenses and thus, in all, it has granted a totalcompensation of Rs.11,05,000/- (Eleven lakhs and five thousand only)to the first respondent/claimant payable by the appellant/secondrespondent Insurance Company.18. P.W.1/first respondent/claimant, in his evidence has statedthat at the time of accident, he is aged 23 years and that he hasbeen studying second year law course at Dr.Ambedkar Law College atChennai and because of the accident, he cannot continue his studiesand presently that he is not well, without strength and is not ableto walk and his two hands are shivering and when he reads normallytears flow from his eyes and therefore, he is not able to do any joband further, he is not able to attend to his morning nature's calland he is also not able to walk, take bath, not able to eat his ownfood and therefore, for attending these works, he requires male helpalways and because of the injury sustained on the head, he often getsfainted and that his marriage life and marital relationship areaffected, as informed by the Doctor and that he has studied the firstyear without any arrears and in good manner and if he has not metwith the accident, certainly, he would have become a good Advocate inthe Advocate profession and earned a lot and helped his family andthat he is the only male issue to his parents and that he hasemployed an assistant for attending his work on a day payment ofRs.100/- and that he requires an assistant's help daily and he isvisiting the Apollo Hospital at Chennai every month, incurring anexpense of Rs.2,500/- per trip in a hired car and he takes anassistant with him during the said trip to Madras and that he hasincurred an medical expense of Rs.7,96,063/- and he continues to takemedicines. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. In Ex.P.3, xerox copy of accident register in respect of thefirst respondent/claimant, it is mentioned as follows:-“Old case of RTA, admitted and treated at Apollo Hospital, Chennainow he came here with following complaints c/o. Difficulty in walking, difficulty in using both upper limbs and difficulty in speech. O/E conscious, oriented etc., and further, he has been directedto be admitted in MS ward and duty Doctor has been directed to beinformed and opinion of ortho is to be obtained.20. A perusal of Ex.P.3 (second page) indicates inter alia that“As per the orthopaedician opinion, the injury sustained by thisindividual is grievous in nature.” In Ex.P.4 it is the intimation ofthe Apollo Hospital, Chennai shows that the first respondent/claimanthas been admitted on 12/9/2000 and has been discharged on 22/10/2000.In Ex.P.6 report of the Apollo Specialised Hospital, Chennai it ismentioned that “Haemorrhage in right cerebellar hemisphere withintraventricular extension” and further, the CT scan brain (plain)report indicates that “Haemorrhagic contusion right cerebellum andbleed in the posterior horn of left lateral ventricle and whencompared to the scan dated 12/9/2000, the lesion is resolving.”21. P.W.2 Doctor in his evidence has stated that he examined thefirst respondent/claimant on 30/7/2003 for the purpose of issuing himthe disability certificate and that the first respondent/claimant isnot able to walk properly and even while walking and standing withthe help of assistance, he finds it difficult and that he cannotspeak properly and that his two hands and legs have been shiveringand that he has seen the C.T.Scan report and discharge intimationissued by the Apollo Hospital, Chennai and further, he has seen theAccident Register copy and perused the O.P. chits issued by CuddaloreGovernment Hospital and he sent the first respondent/claimant toNeurologist Dr.Velumani and also seen the report issued by the saidDoctor and that he has assessed the disability sustained by the firstrespondent/claimant at 65% as per Ex.P.14. In the disabilitycertificate Ex.P.14 dated 30/7/2003 issued by P.W.2 Doctor, theclerical findings are as follows:-a. Unsteady (stagerring) ataxic joint with difficulty in standingand walking even with support.b. Difficulty in speaking (slurring speech) – cerebellardysarthia https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ c. Tremors of both upper and lower limbs with weakness,diminished power and incoordinated movements. In short, P.W.2 Doctorhas opined that the disability sustained by the firstrespondent/claimant is permanent in nature and the extent of physicalimpairment is 65% (Sixty-five percent).22. The learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant citesthe decision B.ANANDHI VS. R.LATHA AND ANOTHER (2002 ACJ – 233) atpage 234, wherein this Court has inter alia upheld the Tribunalsassessment of loss of income at Rs.10,000/- p.m., adopting amultiplier of 18 and arriving at a figure of Rs.21,60,000/- towardsloss of earning capacity + Rs.15,000/- for transportation charges,Rs.20,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs.20,000/- for attendant,Rs.1,50,000/- for future attendants, Rs.5 lakhs for pain andsuffering and permanent disability, Rs.1 lakh towards loss ofmatrimonial life and Rs.1 lakh for future medical expenses in anappeal.23. He further, relies on the decision REGIONAL DIRECTOR,E.S.I.CORPORATION, TRICHUR Vs. VEERAN KUTTY A.V. (2002-II-L.L.J) atpage 762, wherein, under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948,Sections 2 (15-B), 19, 51 and 52 – A, a permanent total disablementdue to occupational disease, the beneficial interpretation socialsecurity legislation has been stressed.24. Added further, the learned counsel for the firstrespondent/claimant brings to the notice of this Court to thedecision NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. UJJWALA AND OTHERS 2006 ACJat page 2129, wherein in regard to the death of a deceased boy aged19, passed in XII class examination, the Tribunals award of Rs.5lakhs has been up held in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company.He also presses into service the decision UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. VELUCHAMY AND ANOTHER of this Court 2005 ACJ – 1483, whereinthe appellate Courts assessment of compensation at Rs.7 lakhs hasbeen upheld in an appeal projected by the Insurance Company.25. Further, the learned counsel for the firstrespondent/claimant relies on the decision PRATAP NARAIN SINGH DEOVs. SHRINIVAS SABATA AND ANOTHER AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT – 222,wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has interalia observed 'that inrespect of an amputation of left hand above elbow of a carpenter, thedisablement is total and not partial etc.'26. He also cites the decision of Supreme Court in S.C.MITTAL ANDOTHERS Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS(2006 ACJ 875), wherein the award of Rs.90,000/- granted by theTribunal has been enhanced to Rs.2,25,000/-. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

27. It is not out of place to make a significant mention thatSALMON L.J. in (1968) 1 ALL ER – 726 has observed 'that the damagesawarded should be such that the ordinary sensible man would notinstinctively regard them as either mean or extravagant, but wouldconsider them to be sensible and fair.28. No wonder it is the manifest duty of a Tribunal/a Court oflaw to award as perfect a sum as was within its power, in theconsidered opinion of this Court. Continuing further for mental andphysical shock, pain and suffering - suffered and actually to suffer,for loss of amenities in life, for loss of expenditure in life onecan award special damages.29. As far as the present case is concerned, the firstrespondent/claimant has suffered a permanent physical disability tothe extent of 65% physical impairment which cannot be denied anddisputed in the considered opinion of this Court. Admittedly, thefirst respondent/claimant has been admitted as an in-patient at theApollo Hospital, Chennai for nearly two months etc. As per Ex.P.13Medical bills produced on the side of the first respondent/claimant,the amount comes to Rs.8,16,777/-. Out of Rs.8,16,777/-, a sum ofRs.77,669.60, Rs.30,929.35/-, Rs.26,844/-, Rs.15,269.95,Rs.18,650.80, amounting to Rs.1,69,363.70 N.P., rounded off toRs.1,69,364/- represent double entry and further, an expenditurestatement of Rs.1,72,844 also represents the double entry in Ex.P.13.Moreover, the first respondent/claimant has made a sum ofRs.1,47,825.00 towards deposit (inclusive of Rs.1,825/- towardsreturn of medicines) in regard to the medical expenses before themedical expenses before the hospital authorities.30. Continuing further, there is also a double entry in regard toa sum of Rs.1,461/- towards patient material bill. Thus, in all, thedouble entry amounts and the deposit amount so made comes toRs.4,91,494/- (Rs.1,69,364 + Rs.1,47,825/- + 1,72,844 + 1,461). Ifthe aforesaid sum of Rs.4,91,494/- is deducted from and out of a sumof Rs.8,16,777/-, the balance comes to Rs.3,25,283/-. Therefore, thefirst respondent/claimant is entitled to get the sum of Rs.3,25,283/-towards medical expenses in accordance with Ex.P.13 medical Bills. 31. As per Ex.P.12 Medical Bills, the actual amount comes toRs.1,501/- and therefore, the first respondent/claimant is entitledto get the same. Though the first respondent/claimant has claimed asum of Rs.318/- in Ex.P.12 document, there is no receipt for the sameand hence, this Court has not awarded that amount to the claimant.Inasmuch as the first respondent/claimant has suffered a permanentdisability and physical impairment to an extent of 65% and because of the fact his life has been very badly affected, resulting in futureloss of income, this Court awards a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- in thisregard. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32. Towards pain and suffering, this Court awards a sum ofRs.75,000/-. If the first respondent/claimant has not met with theaccident, then certainly in the normal course of things, he will becompleting his Law Course and coming out successfully to get himselfenrolled as a Lawyer and to practice as an Advocate and to earnmonthly income for himself and for his family in the future. 33. Towards attendant assistance, this Court awards a sum ofRs.50,000/- to the first respondent/claimant. Since firstrespondent/claimant at the time of accident, has been 23 years of ageand since his marriage prospects have been affected because of theaccident, this Court grants a sum of Rs.20,000/- in this regard. 34. Bearing in mind towards transport expenses, the firstrespondent/claimant has incurred a sum of Rs.5,000/- for two monthsfor his visiting to Apollo Hospital, Chennai and also taking note ofthe future, this Court awards a sum of Rs.25,000/- in this regard.Towards future medical expenses and also as a global compensation(inclusive of the nourishment expenses), this Court awards a sum ofRs.50,000/- as an equitable sum to meet the ends of justice. 35. Towards loss of amenities of life, frustration, discomfortetc., this Court awards a consolidated sum of Rs.25,000/- to thefirst respondent/claimant.36. Thus, in all, the first respondent/claimant is entitled toreceive a total compensation of Rs.10,51,784/- (Rupees ten lakhsfifty one thousand seven hundred and eighty four only) {Rs.3,25,283/-+ Rs.1,501/- + Rs.4,80,000/- + Rs.75,000/- + Rs.50,000 + Rs.20,000/-+ Rs.25,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.25,000/-} together with interest at9% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till date of paymentpayable by the appellant/Insurance Company. This Court opines that nocase is made out for reducing the rate of interest from 9% p.a. TheLawyer's fee is fixed at Rs.17,518/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand fivehundred and eighteen only). Resultantly, the award of Rs.11,05,000/-(Rupees Eleven lakhs and five thousand only) granted by the Tribunalis marginally on the higher side and the point is answeredaccordingly.37. Earlier, this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.5187of 2004 dated 30/3/2004 has permitted the first respondent/claimantto withdraw a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from the amount deposited as aninterim measure.38. The first respondent/claimant is given the liberty to receivethe balance amount to which he is entitled to in M.C.O.P.No.339 of2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – PrincipalSub-Judge, Cuddalore by filing necessary payment out application as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ per Civil Rules of Practice. Likewise, the appellant/InsuranceCompany is also entitled to receive its share/balance amount byprojecting necessary payment out application as per Civil Rules ofPractice.39. For the reasons mentioned supra, this Court allows CivilMiscellaneous Appeal in part and consequently, the award passed inM.C.O.P.No.339 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal – Principal Sub-Judge, Cuddalore stands modified. Thereshall be no order as to costs, bearing in mind the facts andcircumstances of the case.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore. 2. The Section OfficerVR Section,High Court, Madras1 cc to Mr.D. Venugopal, Advocate, SR. 85621 cc to Mr.R. YAshod Vardhan, Advocate, SR. 8578CMA No.862 of 2004SSR (CO)kk 17/4