K. M. Mahin v Subair; Aliyar; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 27TH POUSHA, 1939** **MACA.No. 361 of 2010** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 19-12-2009 IN OPMV 189/2005 of M.A.C.T.,PERUMBAVOOR** ## **APPELLANT:** **----------** **K.M.MAHIN, S/O.MOHAMMED, KUNNAMKULATH HOUSE, NEDUMTHODE, MUDICKAL P.O.,PERUMBAVOOR.** **BY ADV.SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF** ## **RESPONDENTS:** ## **------------** **1. SUBAIR,S/O.ABOOBACKER, CHERUPULLY HOUSE, PANIPRA P.O. KUTTILANJI PIN-686692.** **2. ALIYAR S/O.MAKKAR, CHETTIKUDY HOUSE,** - **ERAMALLOOR, KUTTILANJI.** **3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.50, ELENGICAL PLAZA, CHURCH VIEW JUNCTION, KOTHAMANGALAM.** **R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW** **SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-01-2018, ALONG WITH MACA.No. 872 of 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **DST** ## **K. HARILAL, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** _Dated this the 17[th] day of January, 2018_ ## **J U D G M E N T** Since both the above appeals arose from a common award, they are considered together and disposed of accordingly. ## **M.A.C.A.No.361 of 2010** M.A.C.A.No.361 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 and M.A.C.A. No.872 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.202 of 2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, _(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'),_ Perumbavoor. The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 was filed by the rider of a motorcycle and the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.202 of 2005 was a pillion rider of the said motorcycle. Brief facts of the case is as follows: On 01.10.2004, at 5.15 pm, the petitioner in ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 2 :-** O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 17/A8858 with the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.202 of 2005 on pillion seat, along Aluva-Munnar road from south to north and when they reached at Nedumthodu at Vengola, the offending tipper lorry bearing Registration No.KL-7/N-2716 driven by the 2[nd] respondent, owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent came from opposite direction and hit at the motorcycle and both the petitioners fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. According to them, the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry by the 2[nd] respondent. Since the 1[st] respondent is the owner of the lorry and the ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 3 :-** 3[rd] respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 2. The 2[nd] respondent remained _ex parte_ and the 1[st] respondent filed written statement disputing the negligence attributed against the 2[nd] respondent. According to him, the 2[nd] respondent was having valid driving licence and badge at the time of accident. He disputed the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads of claim. 3. The 3[rd] respondent filed written statement in both the petitions denying the allegation of rash and negligence attributed against the 2[nd] respondent. According to the 3[rd] respondent, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 4 :-** 2005 and he was riding the motorcycle without holding a driving licence and without wearing a protective headwear, as required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So, he also contributed to the cause of accident and thereby the principles of composite negligence would come into play, in the instant case. The 3[rd] respondent also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads of claim. Violation of policy condition was also alleged. 4. On the aforesaid rival pleadings, petitioners in both the petitions adduced evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW.1 and Exts.A1 to A15(b) and the 3[rd] respondent produced Exts.B1 to B3. 5. After considering the aforesaid evidence on record, in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005, the Tribunal ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 5 :-** passed the impugned award granting Rs.2,85,011/- and the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.202 of 2005 was granted with an award granting Rs.84,277/- with a finding that the rashness and negligence from the part of the petitioners in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 also contributed to the cause of accident and thereby 40% of the negligence can be apportioned towards both the petitioners. Thus, each petitioner is entitled get 60% of the amount arrived at. 6. These appeals are filed challenging the legality and correctness of the finding that the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 has contributed to the cause of accident and thereby 40% of the negligence is apportioned towards both the petitioners and contending that the quantum of compensation granted under various heads of claim in both the petitions are inadequate and ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 6 :-** disproportionate with the grievous nature of the injury and damage suffered by them therefrom. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants advanced arguments exhaustively challenging the application of principles of contributory negligence towards the petitioners in both the petitions. According to him, the Tribunal went wrong in finding the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 has also contributed to the cause of accident. The learned counsel drew my attention to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned common order and contended that the width of the road and spot of accident would prove the facts that the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 was not negligent in riding the motorcycle. ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 7 :-** 9. The learned counsel further contended that the total width of the road was 6.50 metres and the place of accident was 03 metres east from the western tarred end and it would show that the offending tipper lorry has crossed 50 cms towards west from the middle point of the road. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have found that the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 was riding the motorcycle through western half of the road and the tipper lorry crossed the middle point and hit the motorcycle, which was keeping the western half of the road. Since the tipper lorry has crossed the middle portion and hit against the motorcycle, the driver of the tipper lorry alone is negligent in keeping his side and no kind of negligence can be attributed against the rider of the motorcycle. It was also contended that the Tribunal has placed ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 8 :-** reliance on the fact that the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.189 of 2005 was not having a driving licence to support the contributory negligence on the basis of the road width and the spot of accident. So also, it was contended that the quantum of compensation granted under various heads of claim are inadequate and disproportionate with the injuries. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company advanced arguments to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No.189 of 2005 has also contributed to the cause of accident, as he was rash and negligent in riding the vehicle. It is also contended that the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 was a person aged 19 years and not having driving licence. Further, it is contended that while considering the cause of accident on the basis of negligence, the ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 9 :-** width of the vehicles also requires to be considered, in view of the width of the road and the spot of accident. According to the learned counsel, when considering the width of the motorcycle and the width of the road together and the place of accident, the Tribunal is justified in applying the principles of composite negligence in the instant case. 11. In view of the arguments at the Bar, the prime question to be considered is, whether the Tribunal justified in applying the principles of contributory negligence at 40% towards the petitioners in both the petitions? The road lies on north south direction and the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 was riding the vehicle from south to north and the offending tipper lorry was coming from the opposite side, from north to south. The total ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 10 :-** width of tarred portion is 6.50 metres and the eastern road margin has a width of 17 cms and western margin has a width of 1.50 metres. The spot of accident is 03 metres east from western tarred end. The road is straight for about 100 metres from southwards and northwards. Negligence has to be determined on the basis of the aforesaid factors and the Tribunal has done so. 12. Going by the impugned order, it could be seen that the Tribunal has applied the principles of contributory negligence in fixing the quantum of compensation at 40% on the petitioners in the Original Petitions and 60% on the driver of the tipper lorry, mainly on the finding that when considering the width of the tipper lorry and motorcycle and the total width of the road portion and the spot of accident, it would appear that there **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 11 :-** was negligence from the side of the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005. The reason for negligence on his part is that he was not holding a driving licence. The fact that he was not holding a driving licence at the time of accident was not taken as a ground for finding negligence; but it was taken as a reason for negligence only. Negligence was determined on the basis of the width of road, width of the vehicles, the place of accident and the width of the road margin only. 13. The sum and substance of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tipper lorry crossed the middle portion at a distance of 50 cms and hit the motorcycle which was going through the western half of the road. Therefore, no kind of negligence or rashness can be ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 12 :-** attributed towards the rider of the motorcycle, who was keeping his side. Admittedly, the width of the road is 6.50 metres and the spot of accident is 03 metres towards east from the western tarred end and the western road margin is having a width of 1.5 metres. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and found by the Tribunal, the width of the vehicle is also decisive and determinant factor in fixing the liability for the cause of accident in the case of a collision of two vehicles coming from opposite sides. This Court is of the opinion that in case of accident by collision, it cannot be said that the entire width of the road was divided into two and half of the road was given to one vehicle and the remaining half to the other vehicle, so as to drive or ride the vehicle as they like. It is obligatory **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 13 :-** on the part of the driver of a vehicle, to keep his vehicle at the extreme left of his side near the tarred end, when there is sufficient road margin on both sides. Further it is incumbent upon him to drive the vehicle, in such a way, so as to avoid collision with the vehicle coming from opposite side. So, in the determination of cause of accident in a case of collision of two vehicles from the opposite sides, the question is whether the driver could have driven the vehicle in such a way to avoid collision with the other vehicle, had he been cautious and careful in driving the vehicle? In this analysis, the width of the vehicle is very important. The motorcycle is having a width of average one feet, whereas a tipper lorry has a width of average five to six feets. In the instant case, the road is having six feet width and the place of ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 14 :-** accident is 03 metres away from the western tarred end. It means that at the time of accident 2.50 metres width of the road was left unoccupied by any other vehicles. So, had the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 ridden the motorcycle keeping the unoccupied western tarred portion of the road, the accident could have been avoided. The accident occurred almost at the middle portion of the road. A motorcyclist is not expected to ride the vehicle almost at the middle of the road, even though it comes within half of the road on his side. In the instant case, the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 was riding the vehicle at a distance of 0.50 meter towards west from the middle point of the road. That apart, the petitioners have no case that the rider of the motorcycle was prevented from keeping the extreme left side of the tarred portion **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 15 :-** by any other reason or the accident has occurred, while he was overtaking another vehicle. It is pertinent to note that the western road margin is having a width of 1.50 meters. So, he should not have ridden the vehicle at 03 meters towards east from the western tarred end. Therefore, this Court also has no doubt that the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 was riding the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, though he was not having a valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle and his rashness and negligence in the riding of the motorcycle contributed to the cause of accident. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal as regards the application of contributory negligence in the instant case and the Tribunal is justified in applying the principles of contributory negligence ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 16 :-** at 40% and 60% respectively. 14. The next question to be considered is, is the Tribunal justified in determining the compensation under various heads of claim. Let us consider the determination of the quantum of compensation in O.P.(MV) 189/2005 at first. Admittedly, at the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 19 years and he sustained grievous injuries on different parts of his body. It has come out in evidence that he was treated as an inpatient altogether for a period of 81 days; from 1.10.2014 to 3.11.2014, 22.11.2014 to 29.12.2014 and 6.5.2015 to 11.5.2015 and the same is evidenced by Exts.A6, 7 and 8. According to him, he was a coolie worker. But, no evidence was adduced to prove his daily wages or monthly average income from the coolie work. In the absence of an reliable evidence to ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 17 :-** prove the income, the Tribunal has taken Rs.2,000/as monthly income. In _**Ramachandrappra v. Manager, Royal Sundaram AllianceInsurance Co.Ltd.**_ **[2011 (13) SCC 236],** the Supreme Court in paragraph 15, held as follows: _“In the instant case, the appellant was working as a coolie and in and around the date of the accident, the wage of a labourer was between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day or Rs.4,500/- per month, in our view, the claim was honest and bona fide and therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the monthly earning of the appellant from Rs.4,500/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. We, therefore, accept the statement that his monthly earning was Rs.4,500/-.”_ 15. In the above view, this court finds that the income fixed as monthly notional income is inadequate and the monthly notional income of the petitioner would stand enhanced and modified to Rs. 3,500/- per month. The Tribunal has determined loss of earnings for six months only. Having regard to ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 18 :-** the long period of 81 days under which he had undergone treatment as an inpatient at different spells from 1.10.2004 to 11.5.2005, the loss of earnings has to be calculated for ten months. Therefore, the petitioner is given Rs.35,000/(3,500 x 10) towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/- for pain and sufferings. Having regard to the duration of treatment as an inpatient and the nature of treatment, including the surgeries and bone grafting for which he had undergone, the said amount is also inadequate and the compensation for pain and sufferings would stand enhanced and modified to Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner was given Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of amenities'. Ext.A9 is the disability certificate which shows the infirmities resulted from the accident. There is a shortening of 1.5cm periostial thickening. ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 19 :-** Certainly, the same would affect his future life. Therefore, the quantum of compensation for loss of amenities would stand enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The petitioner was given Rs.500/- only for transportation expenses. Exts.A6 to A8 would show that he was admitted for treatment as an inpatient seven times in hospital at Ernakulam, by name, Medical Trust Hospital. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing at Perumbavoor. It follows that he has travelled towards Ernakulam for treatment and returned four times. Considering the distance between Perumbavoor and Ernakulam, this court is of the view that at least Rs.1,250/- is required for each journey. Therefore, the quantum of compensation for transportation would stand enhanced and modified to Rs.10,000/-. Similarly, Rs.1,200/- given as bystander expenses is also inadequate when considering ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 20 :-** the long duration of treatment as an inpatient. This court is of the opinion that at least Rs.200/is required for the expenses of a by-stander of a patient who is undergoing treatment in a city like Cochin. Therefore, the by-stander expenses would stand enhanced and modified to Rs.16,200/-from Rs.1,200/-. 16. Coming to permanent disability, it is seen that the petitioner has produced Ext.A9 disability certificate which would show that he has suffered 18% permanent disability. But the Tribunal has reduced the same to 12%. Going by paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment, it could be seen that the percentage of permanent disability was reduced from 18% to 12%, mainly on the reason that there is nothing on medical records to show the amputation of big toe of the right leg. But Ext.A9 disability **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 21 :-** certificate and A6 discharge summary would show that big toe of right leg was removed. The Tribunal has lost sight of the entries in Exts.A6 and A9. That apart, when P.W.1, the Civil Surgeon, who issued Ext.A9 was examined, no question was put to him doubting the removal of big toe of right leg. Besides, this court finds that Ext.A9 disability certificate is issued by civil surgeon employed in Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha and he is a public servant having responsibility in issuing discharge summary. Though he was examined as PW1, nothing was brought out in evidence to discredit his testimony and the Tribunal also relied on his evidence. Therefore, this court does not find any reason to reduce the percentage of disability from 18% to 12%. There is no sufficient reasoning for the same in the impugned award. Therefore, the ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 22 :-** petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,36,080/- [3,500 x 12 x 18 x 18/100] as compensation for permanent disability. Rs.5,000/is given by the Tribunal for disfiguration. Having regard to the disabilities noted in Ext.A9 disability certificate, including the loss of big toe on the right leg and shortening, this court finds that Rs.5,000/- is inadequate for and the same would stand enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 17. Thus, the total amount of compensation is Rs.2,87,280/-[ 35,000 + 40,000 + 30,000 + 10,000 + 16,200 + 1,36,080 + 20,000]. The petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1,72,368/- as 60% of the said amount, as compensation. The remaining portion of the findings in the impugned judgment would stand undisturbed and operative. Needless to say, the said amount would carry interest as stipulated by the **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 23 :-** Tribunal. ## **M.A.C.A.No.872 of 2010** 18. According to the petitioner, in O.P.(MV) No.202 of 2005, at the time of accident he was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor vehicle which was ridden by the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005. Therefore, even if the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 was rash and negligent in riding the vehicle and contributed to the cause of accident, no kind of negligence or rashness in riding the vehicle, in a way causing the accident, can be attributed against the petitioner, as he was a pillion rider only in the said vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the negligence fixed at 40% on the petitioner also is liable to be set aside. The petitioner was aged 19 years of old and working as a coolie worker at the time of accident and he ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 24 :-** was earning Rs.6,000/- monthly from the coolie work. But the Tribunal went wrong by fixing Rs.2,000/- as his monthly income. Similarly, he had suffered severe injuries and undergone treatment for 16 days as an inpatient in hospital and he could not work for more than 10 months; but the Tribunal granted compensation under the head 'loss of earnings' for three months only. It is also contended that the quantum of compensation granted under the heads 'pain and sufferings', 'loss of amenities', 'transportation expenses', 'attendant's charges' and 'disability' is also inadequate and disproportionate with the grievous nature of the sufferings and consequential loss. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced arguments to substantiate the aforesaid grounds. 19. Per contra, the counsel for the 3[rd] ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 25 :-** respondent Insurance Company advanced arguments highlighting the adequacy of the quantum of compensation granted under various heads and to justify the application of the principles of contributory negligence and fixation of negligence at 40% on the petitioner also. 20. In view of the arguments at the Bar, the first point to be considered is, is the Tribunal justified in attributing rash and negligence in riding the motorcycle on the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.202 of 2005? It is not disputed that the petitioner was a pillion rider in the motorcycle, which was ridden by the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.189 of 2005 at the time of accident. A pillion rider travelling in motorcycle ridden by another person has no role or participation in the riding of the vehicle. It is a matter beyond dispute that **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** **-: 26 :-** negligence can be attributed against the person, who rides the vehicle only and it cannot be attributed to the person, who was seated in the pillion at the time of accident. Surprisingly the Tribunal without distinguishing the role of rider and pillion rider attributed negligence towards both and thereby it was erroneously found that the petitioner herein also contributed negligence at 40% to the cause of accident. The aforesaid finding is liable to be set aside and I do so. It is held that the petitioner has not contributed to the cause of accident and thereby he is not liable for the cause of accident also. 21. Coming to the quantum of compensation determined under various heads, the Tribunal has notionally fixed monthly income as Rs.2,000/- only, as I referred above in view of the notional income **-: 27 :-** ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in _**Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited**_ [(2011) 13 SC 236] Rs.2,000/- is inadequate and the same would stand enhanced and modified to Rs.3,500/- per month. Consequently, the quantum of compensation granted for 'loss of earnings' would stand enhanced and modified to Rs.21,500/-(Rs.3,500x6). 22. The Tribunal has granted Rs.18,000/- only for 'pain and sufferings'. When considering the treatment as an inpatient and the grievous nature of injury which he suffered, the said amount is also inadequate and the same will stand enhanced and modified to Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner is given Rs.12,000/- only towards 'loss of amenities'. But the disability certificate shows that there was a limping while walking. But the Tribunal discarded **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 28 :-** the disability in walking to which he is exposed always on a mere reason that, if there was a limping he would have been advised to have a crutch walking. I am unable to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal which stand based on a mere assumption without any material. Therefore, Rs.12,000/- granted under the head 'loss of amenities' would stand enhanced to Rs.20,000/- 23. Coming to the compensation for permanent disability, it could be seen that the petitioner has produced Ext.A13 disability certificate issued by PW1 to prove the nature of disability and as per the said disability certificate, the disability is 16%. But, the Tribunal without any sufficient reasoning reduced the same to 8% and the said reduction in percentage of disability can never be justified in the absence of sufficient reasoning or contra **-: 29 :-** ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** evidence. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1,20,960(Rs.3,500x12x18x16/100) as compensation towards 'permanent disability'. Rs.500/- is granted under the head 'transportation expenses'. Admittedly, after the accident, he was undergoing treatment in the hospital at Ernakulam and he was coming to Ernakulam for treatment for more than four times. This Court is of the view that at least Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,200/- shall be given for each journey, as expenses. Consequently, the compensation under the head of 'transportation expenses' will stand enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. Similarly, the Tribunal has granted Rs.1,000/- only for attendant's charge, since he was hospitalised and treated as an inpatient for 16 days. The said amount is also inadequate. This Court is of the opinion that at least Rs.200/- is required as living cost for each ## **M.A.C.A.Nos.361 & 872 of 2010** ## **-: 30 :-** day. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.3,200/- under the head 'attendant's charge'. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.1,95,660/- [21,500 + 25,000 + 20,000 + 1,20,960 + 5,000 + 3,200] The remaining portion of the impugned award would stand undisturbed and operative. It is needless to say the said amount would carry interest as stipulated by the Tribunal. These Motor Accident Claims Appeals are allowed accordingly to the above extent. Sd/- **K. HARILAL** **JUDGE** DST/Sl //True copy// P.A. To Judge