New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sathyan S., Raveendran, M.B. Prabhakaran Nair, Abhilash and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & CO 3/2012)

MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 2ND BHADRA, 1943** **MACA NO. 1802 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 780/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR, KOLLAM** **APPELLANT/S:** **THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS,, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM,, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.** **BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 SATHYAN S, VADAKKEKKARA VEEDU, NO.203, WARD NO.1, MARTHANDOMKARA,, KULATHUPUZHA P.O., PIN-691 310.** - **2 RAVEENDRAN, S/O.EACHARAN, KIZHAKKEVILA VEEDU, MURUKKUMON, KURIYODU,, NILAMEL, PIN-691 535.** - **3 M.B.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, MADUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ELAMADU P.O.,, ELAMADU, KOTTARAKKARA-691 539.** **4 ABHILASH, AMBIKA MANDIRAM, ELAMADU, KOTTARAKARA, PIN-691 539.** - ***ADDL. R5 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIC BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM – 691001** **IS IMPLEADED AS THE ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DT.19.06.2012 IN IA NO. 2943/11 IN MACA 1802/2011 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN THIRUVALLA SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN** MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 2 **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2021, ALONG WITH CO.3/2012, MACA 1869/2011 AND 1870/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 2ND BHADRA, 1943** **CO NO. 3 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 780/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR, KOLLAM** ## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.4:** **ABHILASH,AMBIKA MANDIRAM, ELAMADU, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN691539 (PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER DR.PRASANNA KUMARI** **BY ADV SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDANKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER – 682011** **2. SATHYAN S., VADAKKEKKARA VEEDU, NO.203, WARD NO.1, MARTHANDOM KARA, KULATHUPUZHA P.O, PIN- 691 310** **3. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.EACHARAN, KIZHAKKEVILA VEEDU, MURUKKUMON, KURIYODU, MILAMEL, PIN: 691 535** **4. M.B.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, MADUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ELAMADU PO, ELAMADU, KOTTARAKKARA 691539** **5. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIC BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER 691 506** **THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.1802/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 4 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 2ND BHADRA, 1943** ## **MACA NO. 1869 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 737/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR, KOLLAM** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS,, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.** **BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 SATHYAN.S, VADAKKEKKARA VEEDU, NO.203, WARD NO.1, MARTHANDOMKARA,, KULATHUPUZHA P.O., PIN-691 310.** - **2 RAVEENDRAN, S/O.EACHARAN, KIZHAKKEVILA VEEDU, MURUKKUMON, KURIYODU,, NILAMEL, PIN-691 535.** - **3 M.B.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, MADUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ELAMADU P.O.,, ELAMADU, KOTTARAKARA-691 539.** - **4 SYAMALA AMMA @SYAMALAKUMARI AMMA, W/O.LATE UNNIKRISHNAN PILLAI, 148,, VIUJAYAVILASOM, PUTHUR, ELAMADU P.O.,, ELAMADU, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691 539.** - **5 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, LIC BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD,, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001.** **BY ADV SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.1802/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 2ND BHADRA, 1943** **MACA NO. 1870 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 700/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT** **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR, KOLLAM** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM,REP.BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER** **BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**SATHYAN.S, VADAKKEKKARA VEEDU, NO.203.,WARD**| |---|---| ||**NO.1,MARTHANDOMKARA, KULATHUPUZHA P.O.,PIN-691310**| |**2**|**RAAVEENDRAN, S/O.EACHARAN, KIZHAKKEVILA VEEDU,**| ||**MURUKKUMON, KURIYODU, NILAMEL, PIN-691535**| |**3**|**M.B.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, MADUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU**| ||**ELAMADU P.O.,ELAMADU, KOTTARAKKARA -691539**| |**4**|**DELEEP KUMAR, S/O.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, MADUVILA PUTHEN**| ||**VEEDU, ELAMADU, KOTTRAKKRA, PIN-691539**| |**5**|**THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIANTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,**| ||**LIC BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, CHINNAKADA**| ||**KOLLAM, 691001**| ## **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR** **ADMISSION ON 24.08.2021, ALONG WITH MACA.1802/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 6 ## **JUDGMENT** As the three appeals and the Cross Objection are filed against the same common award, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred, wherever the context so requires, as per the status in the claim petitions. The concise facts in the three claim petitions, relevant for consideration of the appeals and cross-objection are: ## **- OP(MV) No.780/2003 MACA No.1802/2011** 2. The petitioner in the above claim petition, Abhilash, had averred in the claim petition that: on 23.09.2002, while he was riding pillion on motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-2F/8868, which was ridden by one Vijayakumar (deceased), along with another friend Deleep Kumar, also as the second pillion rider, through the Anchal - Punalur road, when they reached a place named Tholikode, a jeep bearing registration No.KL-02B/3180 came from the opposite direction, driven by the 2[nd] respondent in a rash and negligent manner, and hit on the motor cycle. In the collision MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 7 the rider Vijayakumar sustained fatal injuries and petitioner and Deleep Kumar sustained serious injuries. The petitioner had completed the Health Inspector course and was on the lookout for an employment. He fixed his notional income at Rs.2,500/- per month. According to him, he was treated at the Taluk Hospital, Punalur and, thereafter, at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for a period of 38 days from 24.09.2002 to 02.11.2002. He was in a comatose state and was disoriented. Even after his discharge, he was treated as an out-patient. It was found that the petitioner was having a residual mental illness (Post Traumatic Psychosis). The accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent. The jeep was owned by the 1[st] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. The petitioner also impleaded the owner and insurer of the motor cycle as respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner claimed a total amount of Rs.6,28,350/- from the respondents, which was limited to Rs.5,00,000/-. ## **- OP(MV) No.737/2003 MACA No.1869/2011** MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 8 3. The mother of the deceased rider Vijayakumar had filed the above claim petition on the very same pleadings as in OP(MV) No.780/2003. It was averred that the deceased was an Electrician by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. The petitioner claimed a total amount of Rs.4,36,500/- as compensation from the respondents. ## **- OP(MV) NO.700/2003 MACA No.1870/2011** 4. Deleep Kumar, the other pillion rider on the motor cycle filed the above claim petition adopting the same pleading in OP(MV) No.780/2003. It was his case that he was employed in the Army and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,300/-. He claimed a compensation of Rs.2,97,200/- from the respondents, which was limited to Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. The respondents 1 and 2 (driver and owner of the jeep) and the 4[th] respondent (the owner of the motor cycle) did not contest the proceedings in the above three cases. **Written statement by the 3rd respondent in all three claim petitions:** MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 9 6. The 3[rd] respondent – insurer of the jeep, filed written statements in all the three cases admitting that the jeep had a valid insurance coverage. However, it was contended that as the deceased Vijayakumar had driven the motor cycle with two pillion riders and had no license, the deceased was negligent and responsible for causing the accident. Hence the 3[rd] respondent cannot be mulct with the liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. The 3[rd] respondent also filed additional written statements in the claim petitions based on the decision of this Court in **Pournami vs. Sandhya Sudheer** [2008 (4) KLT 817] that two pillion riders are not permitted in law to ride on a motor cycle. ## **Written statement by the 5th respondent:** 7. The 5[th] respondent filed written statements in all the three claim petitions contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent. Therefore, the 3[rd] respondent, insurer of the jeep, was liable to indemnify the 1[st] respondent of his liability to pay the compensation. As per the records in Crime MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 10 No.454/2002, the driver of the jeep was found negligent and the jeep was the offending vehicle. Hence the 5[th] respondent has to be exonerated of any liability. 8. The Tribunal consolidated and jointly tried all the three original petitions. The petitioner in OP(MV) No.700/2003 was examined as PW1, the petitioner in OP(MV) No.737/2007 was examined as PW2 and the mother and next friend of the petitioner in OP(MV) No.780/2003 was examined as PW3, and Exts.A1 to A30 were marked in evidence. Respondents did not let in any evidence. 9. The Tribunal by its common award allowed the claim petitions by permitting the petitioner in OP(MV) No.700/2003 to realize an amount of Rs.12,500/- with interest and cost from the 3[rd] respondent, the petitioner in OP(MV) No.737/2003 to realize an amount of Rs.2,46,500/with interest and cost from the 3[rd] respondent and the petitioner in OP(MV) No.780/2003 to realize an amount of Rs.3,44,530/ with interest and cost from the 3[rd] MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 11 respondent. 10. Aggrieved by the common award in the three cases, the 3[rd] respondent, insurer, has preferred the three appeals, and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in OP(MV) No.780/2003, the petitioner has filed C.O.No.3/2012. 11. Heard Sri.VPK Panicker, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the three appeals, Sri.Saneesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent in MACA No.1869/2011 and the 3[rd] respondent in MACA No.1802/2011, Sri.George Cherian, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent in MACA No.1869/2011 and 1870/2011 and Sri.Abdul Jawad, the learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent in MACA No.1802/2011/cross objector in CO No.3/2012. 12. The questions that emerge for consideration in these appeals are : MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 12 1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the 3[rd] respondent was negligent in causing the accident is correct? 2. Whether the cross objector in CO No.3/2012 is entitled for enhancement of compensation? 13. Even though the appellant had filed applications to withdraw the three appeals, in view of the petitioner in OP(MV) No.780/2003 filing CO No.3/2012, the applications were dismissed as not pressed. ## **Question No:I** 14. Ext.A6 final report filed by the Punalur Police in Crime No.454/2002 shows that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent – the driver of the jeep. The petitioners had also produced Ext.A1 FIR, Ext.A2 scene mahazar, Ext.A3 vehicle mahazar and Ext.A5 A.M.V.I. report to substantiate their assertions that it was the 2[nd] respondent who caused the accident. The petitioners got themselves examined as PWs 1 to 3 and proved their MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 13 pleadings and corroborated the materials on record. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in **New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pazhaniammal** : [2011 (3) KLT 648] has succinctly laid down the law that, production of charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Charge sheet can be accepted as evidence of negligence against the accused driver. If any of the parties do not accept such charge sheet, the burden is on such party to adduce oral evidence and discredit the charge sheet; only then charge sheet would fall into a pale of insignificance. 16. Undisputedly, in all the three cases, the respondents have not let in any evidence to discredit Ext.A6 charge sheet. In the light of the law laid down in **Pazhaniammal** (supra), I am of the firm opinion that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the 2[nd] respondent. Undisputedly the 1[st] respondent was the owner and the 3[rd] respondent was the insurer of the jeep. Therefore, it is the 3[rd] respondent, MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 14 who is liable to indemnify the liability of the 1[st] respondent and pay compensation to the petitioners in all the claim petitions. Hence findings of the Tribunal with respect to the negligence on the part of the 3[rd] respondent is confirmed. 17. The next contention of the appellant that, there was negligence on the part of the deceased, as he had riden the motor cycle with two pillion riders, is also no longer resintegra in view of the categoric declaration of law by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Mohammed Siddique vs National Insurance Company Ltd** [AIR (2020) SC 520]. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that if any of the parties has a case that the accident occurred for the reason that the rider of a two wheeler had riden the vehicle with two pillion riders, it is for such party to let in cogent evidence and prove that it was on account of the said act that the accident occurred. 18. In the instant case, the appellant has not let in any evidence to prove that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the deceased as he rode the motor MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 15 cycle with two pillion riders. 19. The other contention of the appellant was that, the deceased did not hold a valid driving license is also inconsequential in view of the law laid down in **Gopakakumar J. and others vs. Kamalamma and others** [2019 (4) KHC 513], wherein this Court has held that the burden is on the insurer to prove that the accident was caused due to the absence of license of the rider/driver of the vehicle. 20. Again, as there was no contra evidence to prove that the accident was caused due to absence of license of the deceased, I hold that the said contention is also untenable in law. Therefore, I hold that the appeals filed by the appellant/insurer are meritless in view of the declaration of law in the afore-cited decisions. Accordingly, I hold that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the 2[nd] respondent/driver of the jeep and the 1[st] respondent is vicariously liable and the 3[rd] respondent/appellant insurer is liable to indemnify the liability of the 1[st] respondent to pay MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 16 compensation to the petitioners in all the three claim petitions as rightly held by the Tribunal. ## **Question No.II** 21. Now coming to the question whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in O.P(M.V) No.780/2003 is reasonable and just. 22. It was a specific case of the petitioner in OP(MV) No.780/2003/cross objector that he had completed the Health Inspector course, but was unemployed. He fixed his notional income at Rs.2,500/- per month. However the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the cross-objector at Rs.2,000/-. 23. In **Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [(2011) 13 SCC 236] the Honourable Supreme Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month. 24. Following the ratio in the afore-cited decision and taking into account the fact that the accident occurred in the MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 17 year 2002, I refix the notional income of the cross objector at Rs.3,500/- per month. ## **Loss of earnings** 25. The cross-objector had claimed that he was indisposed due to the injuries that he sustained in the accident for a period of 12 months. In the light of the injuries that are reflected in Ext.A-30 disability certificate, I confirm the finding of the Tribunal that the cross-objector was indisposed for a period of 12 months. In view of the re-fixation of the notional income of the cross-objector at Rs.3,500/- per month, I re-fix his loss of earnings at Rs.42,000/-, instead of Rs.24,000/- fixed by the Tribunal. ## **Loss due to disability** 26. As per Ext.A30 disability certificate issued by a seven member Medical Board of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, the cross-objector's permanent disability, due to 'organic personality disorder', is assessed at 50%. In the light of the fact that there is no MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 18 contra evidence on the said aspect, I accept the assessment made by the Medical Board at 50% in Ext.A30. 27. The cross objector was aged 22 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the relevant multiplier is '18'. ## 28. In **Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and** **others [** 2020 (5) KLT 1108] the Honourable Supreme Court has held that if the permanent disability of an injured is on the higher side, certainly he is entitled for future prospects on the compensation for loss due to disability. As the cross objector was a self employed person and the multiplier being '18', he is entitled to future prospects at 40%. 29. Taking into account the above mentioned parameters, namely the age of the Cross Objector at 22, his notional income at Rs.3,500/-, his disability at 50%, the relevant multiplier at '18' and future prospectus at 40% I refix the loss due to disability at 'Rs.5,29,200/-' instead of Rs.2,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 30. With respect to the other heads of compensation, I MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 19 find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation. In the result the cross objection is allowed by enhancing the compensation as modified and recalculated above and given in the table below for easy reference: |SI.<br>No|Head of claim|Amount<br>awarded by<br>the Tribunal<br>(in rupees)|Amounts<br>modified and<br>recalculated<br>by this Court| |---|---|---|---| |1|Loss of earnings|24,000|42,000| |2|Transportation<br>to<br>hospital and back|2,500|2,500| |3|Extra nourishment|4,850|4,850| |4|Damage to clothing and<br>other articles|500|500| |5|Bystanders expenses|7,275|7,275| |6|Medical expenses|69,402|69,402| |7|Compensation for pain<br>and sufferings|20,000|20,000| |8|Loss due to disability|2,16,000|5,29,200| ||**Total**|**3,44,530**|**6,75,727**| MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 20 31. Even though the Cross Objector had only claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, in view of the law laid down in **Pappu Deo Yadav** (supra) that an injured is also entitled for future prospects, the compensation has been refixed, which is higher than the amount that is claimed in the claim petition. The said course is permissible in the light of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in **Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh 2003** (1) KLT 115 (SC) and **Rajesh vs. Rajbir Sing** : 2013 (3) KLT 89 (SC). In the result, the appeals are dismissed and the cross objection is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.3,31,197/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and a cost of Rs.2,500/-. The 1[st] respondent in the cross objection/ insurer/ 3[rd] respondent before the Tribunal shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest and cost before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall forthwith disburse the entire compensation MACA Nos.1802/2011, 1869/2011, 1870/2011 & C.O. No.3/2012 21 amount to the cross objector, in accordance with law, taking into account the fact that he needs further medical treatment, after deducting the liability of the cross-objector, if any, towards court fee. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** rkc