Date of filing : 09-02-2010 Date of order : 09- 09-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 34/2010 Dated this, the 9th day of September 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Chandran.P, S/o.Kunhikannan.P, Pettam House, Kallar, } Complainant Po.Malakalle,Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod District (Adv. A.Vidhyadharan Nambiar, Hosdurg) The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, } Opposite party Branch office, Nithyananda Building, Kottachery, Po. Kanhangad. (Adv.C.Damodaran, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The case of complainant in brief is that the opposite party repudiated the own damage claim submitted for the damage caused to the autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-14 D 4583. The reason for the repudiation is that at the time of accident one Subhash was plying the vehicle who had no valid and effective driving licence to drive a passenger autorickshaw on the date of accident. Similarly the fitness certificate of the vehicle also expired before the date of accident. According to complainant one Radhakrishnan who holding an effective driving licence was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. As a result of accident vehicle caused extensive damages. Complainant spent approximately `50,000/- towards the repair charges. But opposite party refused to honor his claim. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the side of opposite party, the complaint is filed. 2. According to opposite party the complainant had no insurable interest at the time of accident. The complainant as per an agreement dt. 19-3-2008 has sold the vehicle to one Subhash. Complainant is claiming on behalf of the purchaser with whom opposite party had no privity of contract. The vehicle at the time of accident was driven by one Subhash who was the real owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. Suppressing all these the insured has submitted the claim form alleging that one Radhakrishnan drove the vehicle at the time of accident. The fitness certificate of the vehicle was expired on 13-09-2007 and the use of a transport vehicle without a valid fitness certificate is repugnant to laws. The repudiation of claim is legal and based on policy conditions. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant produced Exts A1 to A12 in support of his case. On the side of Opposite party Exts B1 to B3 marked. Both sides heard. Documents perused. 4. Ext.A1 is the repudiation letter. Ext.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice and Ext.A3 is the Acknowledgment card. Copy of RC of vehicle bearing Reg.No. KL.14/D 4583 is marked as Ext.A4. Ext.A5 is the copy of Driving licence of Subhash M with badge authorizing him to drive transport vehicle. Ext.A6 is the copy of the valid driving licence with badge of Radhakrishnan. Ext.A7 is the copy of the contract carriage permit. Ext.A8 & A.11 are the bills for the purchase of spare parts and repair charges pertaining to the repair of the vehicle involved in the accident. 5. Ext.B1 is the copy of an agreement pertaining to the sale of vehicle by Chandran, the complainant herein to MP Subhash. Ext.B2 is alleged to be an investigation report prepared by one P.Narayanan, Investigator. Ext.B3 is the survey report relating to the assessment of damages caused to the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/D 4583. 6. The reasons for repudiation of the claim as stated in Ext.A1 are that (1) Subhash who was driving the vehicle had no valid effective driving licence to drive a passenger autorickshaw (2) the vehicle was not having a fitness certificate at the time of accident. 7. Ext.A4 copy of the Registration Certificate produced shows that the fitness certificate was expired on 28-8-2007 and thereafter it is not renewed. So as stated by opposite party to be noted that non-renewal of fitness certificate of vehicle as on the date of accident is in violation of Sec.56 of the Motor Vehicles Act and constitutes breach of condition of policy. But this breach of condition is not so fundamental to reject the claim in toto. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo V Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd reported in II (2010) CPJ 9(SC) has held that in case of violation of policy condition like use of a private vehicle running for hire, the repudiation of claim in toto is unjustified. In such cases the claim should be settled on non standard basis. We think such a stand can be taken in this case also. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co.Lltd V. Narayan Prasad Apprprasad Pathak reported in II (2006)CPJ 144 (NC) while rendering the aforesaid judgment. 8. Another contention of opposite party is that at the material time of accident complainant was not the owner and it was driven by its original owner Subhash. Therefore complainant has no insurable interest on the vehicle at the time of accident. In order to prove this contention Opposite party produced Ext.B1 photostat copy of the sale agreement executed between complainant Chandran & Subhash. The said document shows that the complainant had assigned the vehicle to Subhash and at the time of accident Subhash was the owner of the vehicle. It cannot be disputed that autorickshaw is a movable property. Under the sale of goods Act the sale is complete on payment of the consideration and delivery of the vehicle regardless of the transfer of registration in the name of transferee. This legal position is laid down by the full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Madinani Konadaiah& Ors V. Yaseen Fathima reported in AIR 1986 Andra Pradesh 62, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Complete Insulation (P) Ltd V. India Assurance Co. Ltd has not disapproved the above stated legal position laid down by the full bench of the Andra Pradesh High Court. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G. Govindan V. New India Assurance Co.Ltd and Others reported in 1986-1999 Consumer 3358(NS), (1999) 3 SSC 754 has held that registration of the vehicle in the name of transferee is not necessary to pass title in the vehicle and payment of price and delivery of the vehicle makes the transaction complete and title will pass to purchaser. So on the basis of above stated legal positions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court we can hold that the complainant has passed his title in favour of Subhash. 9. Then the further question arises for consideration is whether Chandran can claim compensation for the loss caused to Autorickshaw. 10. On a close perusal of 157(1) and 157(2) of the M.V.Act it is vivid that now there is no requirement of applying to the insurer for transfer of the policy and it gets transferred to the transferee by operation of law. Even though Sec.157(2) of the Act gives 14 days time from the date of transfer to the transferee to make an application to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the effect of transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favor , the liability of the insurer cannot be absolved even if such transfer is not consequently effected by it since Sec.157(2) specifically says that the insurer shall make necessary changes in the certificate and in the policy of insurance with respect to the transfer of insurance when such application is made. Sub section 2 of Sec.157 of the M.V.Act provides only a procedure to intimate fact of transfer of vehicle to the insurer in order to make necessary changes in the certificate of insurance and the policy to bring it in conformity with the deemed transfer as contemplated U/s 157(1) of the Act for the purpose of indemnifying the transferee relating to the risk covered under the policy and that non compliance with this procedure does not automatically invalidate the deemed transfer that had taken place by virtue of the operation of law as contemplated U/s 157(1) of the M.V.Act. 11. Now the moot question that poses is whether the deemed transfer provision under sub section (1) sec.157 can be extended to the damages caused to the vehicle of the insured himself i.e., for own damages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd reported in I (1996) CPJ 1(SC) has held that the transferee is not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer without the insurance policy being transferred in his name since Sec.157 (1) of the Act is applicable in respect of third party only and if the policy of insurance covers other risks as well as damages caused to the vehicle of insured himself that would be a matter falling out side chapter XI of the Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. 12. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rendered the aforesaid judgment by applying the unamended sub section (1) of Sec.157 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988. For a better understanding of the issue, it would be profitable to extract the relevant unamended section. Sec.157(1) Transfer of Certificate of Insurance (1) Where a person in whose favor the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating there to the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favor of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 came in force w.e.f 1/7/1989 has undergone a large number of amendments in the year 1994. 13. Before proceeding further with the matter it will be in the fitness of things if a reference is made to the objects and reasons which were taken into note by the legislature when Amending Act No. 54 of 1994 was introduced and passed by it were as under :- Prefatory Note: - statement of objects and Reasons to Amending Act 54 of 1994- The Motor Vehicles Act 1988(59 of 1988) consolidated and rationalized various laws regulating transport. The act came into force with effect from 1/7/1989 replacing Motor Vehicles Act 1938. 2) After coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Government received a number of representations and suggestions from the state Government, transport operators and members of public regarding the inconvenience faced by them because of the operations of some of the provisions of the Act 1988. A Review Committee was, therefore constituted by the government in March 1990 to examine and review the Act 1988. 3) The recommendations of the Review Committee were forwarded to the State Governments for comments and they generally agree with these recommendations. Government also considered a large number of representations received after finalization of the Report of the Review Committee, from the transport operators and public for making amendments in the Act. The draft of the proposals based on the recommendation of the Review Committee and representations from the public were placed before the Transport Development counsel for seeking their views in the matter. The important suggestions made by the Transport Development council relate to are on account of:- (a) The introduction of newer type of vehicles and fast increasing number of both commercial and personal vehicles in the country. (b) Providing adequate compensation to victims of road accidents without going into long drawn procedure, © protecting consumers interests in transport sector: (d) Concerns for road safety standards transport hazardous chemicals and pollution control: (e) Delegation of greater powers to state transport authorities and rationalizing the role of police authorities in certain matters: (f) The simplification of procedures and policy liberalization in the field of transport: (g) Enhancing penalties for the traffic offenders: 4) Therefore the proposed legislators have been prepared in the light of the above background. The Bill, inter alia provides for:- (a) Modification and amplification of certain definitions of new type vehicles: (b) Simplification of procedure for the grant of driving licenses; (c) Putting restrictions on the alteration of vehicles: (d) Certain exemptions for vehicles running on non- polluting fuels: (e) ceilings on individuals or company holdings removed to curb benami holdings: (f) State authorized to appoint one or more State Transport Appellate Tribunals. (g) punitive checks on the use of such components that do not conform to the prescribed standards by manufacturers and also stocking/sale by the traders: (h) increase in the amount of compensation to the victims of hit and run cases: (i) removal of time –limit for filing of application by road accident victims for compensation (j) punishment in case of certain offences made stringent: (k) a new predetermined formula for payment of compensation to road accident victims on the basis of age/income. Which is more liberal and rational. 5. The Law commission in its 119th Report had recommended that every application for a claim be made to the claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, at the option of the claimant. The Bill also makes necessary provision to give effect the said recommendation. 6. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives: 14. Sec.157 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act has also undergone an amendment, may be because of the inconvenience faced during its operation due to the frequent transfer of vehicles and consequential denial of insurance claims by the insurer. This may be also to protect the interest of consumers of transport sector. Therefore an explanatory note was added to Sec.157 (1) by way of amendment. The inserted explanation is reproduced below: Explanation: For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that such deemed transfer shall ‘include’ transfer of ‘rights’ and liabilities’ of the said certificate of insurance and policy of insurance (emphasis supplied). 15. On a plain reading of this explanation added to sub section 1 of Sec.157 of Motor Vehicles Act as per the amendment, itself it is apparent that after the amendment, not only the liabilities mentioned in the certificate of insurance and policy of insurance relating thereto but the ‘rights’ vested with the transferor of the vehicle as per the certificate of insurance and the policy relating there to shall also deemed to have transferred in the name of transferee. 16. If the ‘rights ‘and ‘liabilities’ described in the certificate of insurance and the policy relating there to is deemed to have transferred in the name of transferee, then what is there remaining to be transferred . Therefore, it is necessary to explain the matter a little further. 17. As per the instructions of Tariff Advisory Committee of the insurance sector there are two kind of policies. They are ‘package policies’ and ‘third party policies’. In case of third party policies, the owner of a vehicle has no rights but only liabilities. That is why a third party policy is known as liability only policy. The rights are included only in package or comprehensive policies. So by way of this amendment it is evident that transferee will get the absolute transfer of the certificate of insurance and policy relating there to in his name from the date of transfer of the ownership of the vehicle and not only the liability part or the third party risk portion of the policy alone. 18. Moreover, what is ‘liability’ is defined U/S 145(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. But neither under Sec.145 nor any other sections of Motor Vehicles Act defines ‘rights’. Then what are the rights deemed to have transferred as per the certificate or policy of insurance by way of amending Act shall be gathered from the context of the certificate of Insurance and the policy of insurance. No doubt in package policies alone the insured enjoys rights against his insurer for getting his loses indemnified to the vehicle. 19. Further another aspect to be noted here is that there are no other chapters or sectors of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 deals with the transfer of certificate of insurance. Therefore, naturally the legislature without considering the head note, frame work and limitations of Chapter XI may have introduced the amendment to that section. It is pertinent to note that when the amendment was brought to sub-section (1) of Sec.157 as per amending Act 1994 there were no judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court declaring that Chapter XI of Motor Vehicles Act is confined or limited to third party claims alone. 20. That apart, if the said amendment added by way of explanation for the removal of doubts does not donate anything to the applicability of the section then it has to be regarded that the legislature has done a futile exercise by this amendment. That would never have been the intention of the legislature. The legislation is activated either to curb some public evil or to effectuate some public benefit. Hence on analyzing the amendment to sub section 1 of Sec.157 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the back ground of its objects purposes and reasons it is clear that what is intended by the legislature was the absolute transfer of the certificate of insurance and policy relating there to and therefore the court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1988 (SC1883)it has held:
"During the last several years, the 'golden rule' has been given a go by. We now look for the 'intention' of the legislature or the 'purpose' of the statute. First we examine the words of the statute. If the words are precise and cover the situation on hand, we do not go further. We expound those words in the natural and ordinary sense of the words. But if the words are ambiguous, uncertain or any doubt arises as to the terms employed, we deem it as our paramount duty to put upon the language of the legislature rational meaning. We then examine every word, every section and every provision. We examine the Act as a whole. We examine the necessity which gave rise to the Act. We look at the mischief’s which the legislature intended to redress. We look at the whole situation and not just one-to-one relation. We will not consider any provision out of the framework of the statute. We will not view the provisions as abstract principles separated from the motive force behind. We will consider the provisions in the circumstances to which they owe their origin. We will consider the provisions to ensure coherence and consistency within the law as a whole and to avoid undesirable consequences". 22. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut reported in 2007 CTJ 445 (SC) has held as below. A statute is an edict of the Legislature and in construing a statute, it is necessary to seek the intention of its maker. A statute has to be construed according to the intent of those who make it and the duty of the court is to act upon the true intention of the Legislature. If a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation the Court has to choose that interpretation which represents the true intention of the Legislature. This task very often raises difficulties because of various reasons, inasmuch as the words used may not be scientific symbols having any precise or definite meaning and the language may be an imperfect medium to convey one's thought or that the assembly of Legislatures consisting of persons of various shades of opinion purport to convey a meaning which may be obscure. It is impossible even for the most imaginative Legislature to foresee all situations exhaustively and circumstances that may emerge after enacting a statute where its application may be called for. Nonetheless, the function of the Courts is only to expound and not to legislate. Legislation in a modern State is actuated with some policy to curb some public evil or to effectuate some public benefit. The legislation is primarily directed to the problems before the Legislature based on information derived from past and present experience. It may also be designed by use of general words to cover similar problems arising in future. But, from the very nature of things, it is impossible to anticipate fully the varied situations arising in future in which the application of the legislation in hand may be called for, and, words chosen to communicate such indefinite referents are bound to be in many cases lacking in clarity and precision and thus giving rise to controversial questions of construction. The process of construction combines both literal and purposive approaches. In other words the legislative intention i.e. the true or legal meaning of an enactment is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the enactment in the light of any discernible purpose or object which comprehends the mischief and its remedy to which the enactment is directed. 23. Therefore applying the principles enunciated in the above judgments and also looking into the objects and reasons of the amendment brought to sub section 1 of Sec 157 it is crystal clear that during transfer of ownership of the vehicle the transferee will get absolute transfer of the certificate of insurance and policy relating there to and not only the liability portion alone and therefore the transferee of a vehicle is entitled to get his own damage claim indemnified even if he has not complied the procedure laid down in sub section (2) of Sec.157. 24. It is true that Sec.157 of the Motor Vehicles Act coming under Chapter XI which bears the head note ‘ Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks’. But it has to be taken note that even before the interpretation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Complete Insulations(P) Ltd vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd that Chapter XI of Motor Vehicles Act is applicable to third party claims only the amending Act 50 of 1994 was come in to force. and the Hon’ble Apex Court has rendered the said judgment without looking to that amendment. But only because of the fact that Sec.157 comes under Chapter XI of the Act which bears the head note ‘liability of insurer against third party risks’ a blanket ignorance of the application of the amended section by adhering on the words of the head note would amounts to denial of a legitimate right guaranteed by the statute. The head note shall not be allowed to control the operation of law laid down by the legislature 25. In this regard it is worth look in to the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Varghese vs. The Income Tax Officer reported in 1981 AIR 1922 (SC) 1982 SCR (1) 629 has held: “It is undoubtedly true that the marginal note to a section cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the section but it can certainly be relied upon as indicating the drift of the section or to use the words of Collins M.R in Bushel v Hemmond to show what the section is dealing with. It cannot control the interpretation of the words of a section particularly when the language of the section is clear and unambiguous but being part of the statute, it prima facie furnished some clue as to the meaning and purpose of the section”. 26. The Hon’ble Apex court has rendered the judgment in the case of Complete Insulations(P) Ltd vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd reported in 1996 CTJ 383 (SC) ( P) (1996) CPJ 1(SC) on 21/11/1995 that is more than one year after the amendment of Motor Vehicles Act in 1994 that came into force on 14/11/1994. But the Hon’ble Apex Court has applied the unamended sub section(1) of Sec.157 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 while considering the above case since the matter related to that case was occurred immediately after coming into force of the M.V.Act 1988 in place of M.V.Act 1939. As a result what happened is that the said amended piece of beneficial legislation was subject to a precedential tyranny even without a whisper against it in the aforementioned judgment. 27. Another important and interesting aspect is that even the General Insurance Co. has conceived the legislative intention of the amendment to sub section(1) of Sec.157. Therefore, in 1994 itself a circular has been issued by the General Insurance Co. with regard to the transfer of vehicles and the transfer of insurance benefits automatically in favour of the transferee. The same was in tune with the amendment brought to sub section(1) of Sec157The said regulation is part of the Indian Motor Tariff Regulation reads as under: Transfers: On transfer of a vehicle, the benefits under the policy in force will automatically accrue to the new owner. The bonus/malus already applicable for the policy would continue until expiry of the policy. On expiry or cancellation of the policy, bonus/malus will apply as per the new owner’s entitlement. If the transferee wants to change the policy in his name, it may be done on getting evidence of sale and a proposal form duly completed. The old certificate of insurance must be surrendered to the insurance company and a new certificate of insurance can be issued by collecting a fee of `15/-. If the old certificate is not surrendered, a declaration is to be taken from the new owner before issuing a new certificate. 28. But the matters went upside down when the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Complete Insulations’s case without looking into the amendment held that Sec.157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is applicable to third party claims only and if the policy of insurance covers other risks as well like the damages caused to the vehicle of insured himself that would be a matter falling out side the chapter XI and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and transferee the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. Therefore the Insurance companies also take a somersault and accordingly in the present India Motor Tariff which came into effect on 01/07/2002 the new regulation No.17 is inserted that is as follows : GR.17 Transfers: “ …….. In case of Package policies, transfer of the Own Damage section of the policy in favor of the transferee, shall be made by the insurer only on receipt of a specific request from the transferee along with consent of the transferor. If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the No Claim Bonus (NCB) shown on the policy or is entitled to a lesser percentage of NCB than that existing in the policy recovery of the difference between transferee’s entitlement, if any, shown on the policy shall is made before effecting the transfer. A fresh proposal Form duly completed is to be obtained from the transferee in respect of both Liability Only and Package Policies. Transfer of Package Policy in the name of the transferee can be done only on getting acceptable evidence of sale and fresh proposal from duly filled and signed the old certificate of insurance for the vehicle, is required to be surrendered and a fee of ` 50/- is to be collected for issue of fresh Certificate in the name of the transferee. It for any reason the old certificate of insurance cannot be surrendered , a proper declaration to that effect is to be taken from the transferee before a new certificate of insurance is issued.” 29. But this General Regulation of the India Motor Tariff is at the most can be considered only as a subordinate legislation which has no independent existence when the statute poses a contrary view. 30. Therefore, it is vivid that the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Complete Insulations(P) Ltd vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd is applicable only to the cases in which the accidents were occurred in between Ist July 1989( the day on which Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is come into effect to till date of amending Act came into force. In the cases of own damage claims arising after the Motor Vehicle amending Act , Act 50 of 1994 came in effect the insurer is liable to make good the loss sustained to the vehicles also irrespective of the non transfer of insurance certificate and policy of insurance in favor of the transferee as contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 157 of the Act. 31 For the foregoing discussions it can be concluded the complainant Chandran has no insurable interest on the vehicle on the date of accident and it deemed to have transferred in the name of Mr. Subhash. 32. Therefore the claim should have been filed by Mr. Subhash who was the defacto owner of the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. 33. The technicality should not come in the way of Insurance Company honoring its part of contract if the principles of indemnification of loss by the insurers are considered. Therefore the opposite party is directed to receive a fresh Motor Claim application from Subhash and settle the claim on non-standard basis. We make it further clear that the opposite party shall pay 75% of the sum assessed by the surveyor to Mr.Subhash after receiving the claim application from him. The motor claim form shall be issued within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of duly filled motor claim form from Subhash. Failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest for the said amount @ 12% from the date of submitting application form till payment. In these circumstances there is no order as to costs . Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 16-03-09 letter sent by OP to complainant. A2. 25-06-09. Copy of lawyer notice. A3. Postal acknowledgement card A4. Photocopy of RC A5.Photo copy of driving license of Subhash.M.V. A6. Photocopy of driving licence of Radhakrishnan.K. A7.Contract Carriage permit of Chandran.P. A8.6-7-09 Cash bill an amount of 2300/- A9. to A11 Cash bills A.12. Registration Particulars of KL-14-D-4583. B1. Photocopy of Agreement B2.16-02-09 Copy of Investigation report. B3. 17-02-2009 Survey Report. By Thampan Nambiar.M.P. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
