IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 46/S/2013.                  DATED : 15.01.2016.            

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT                 : SMT. SEULI BARMAN,  

                                                  W/O Sri Shiben Roy,

  R/O Sakoajhora,

  P.O.- Sakoajhora, P.S.- Banarhat,

  Dist.- Jalpaiguri.

O.Ps.             1.                     : IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE  

                                                  COMPANY LTD.,

a company registered under the Companies      

Act, 1956, having its registered office at

“IFFCO Sadan”, C-1, District Center, Saket,

New Delhi – 110 017 and also having its

Branch office at Isskon Mandir Road,

P.O.- Sevoke Road, P.S.- Siliguri,

Dist.- Darjeeling.

2.                     : THE BRANCH MANAGER,

  Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

  having his office at Isskon Mandir Road,

  P.O.- Sevoke Road, P.S.- Siliguri,

  Dist.- Darjeeling. 

3.                     : ROYAL MOTORS,

  (prop. Auto Carriage Pvt. Ltd.),

  135 A.S.P. Mukherjee Road,

  Kolkata – 700 026.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Rathin Sarkar, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

The complainant’s case germane in the written complaint can be preciously reproduced herein under that the complainant purchased one

Contd…….P/2

-:2:-

Bolero SLX Model vehicle from the Royal Motors hereinafter called OP No.3, making payment Rs.6,24,394/- on 09.07.2010.  The said vehicle was duly insured with OP No.1 and after making huge sum of money of Rs.23,350/-.  The OP No.2 has issued one cover note being No.70368874 in the name of the complainant on 07.09.2010.  The said policy was valid on and from 09.07.2010 to 08.07.2011.  The complainant purchaser naturally was not conversant with nature and performance of documentation, which is naturally done by Retailer Company with the help of Motor Vehicles Department.  The complainant brought her vehicle to her native place i.e., Sakoajhora under Banarhat P.S., Jalpaiguri.  On 24.06.2011 the vehicle was lost from the place of parking.  The Police was informed on 24.06.2011 by filing F.I.R. Banarhat Police Station and Banarhat P.S. registered the case No.169/2011 dated 24.06.2011 under Section 379 I.P.C.  The complainant got the policy schedule certificate on account of premium.  But the actual premium of the vehicle was Rs.18,999.08/- (vide para 11 of complaint).  The Banarhat Police investigated a case and filed charge sheet and could not trace the theft vehicle of the complainant.  The complainant submitted claim from the Insurance Company, but they did not get any suitable reply from the Insurance Company (OP Nos.1 & OP No.2).  The complainant issued notice to the OP Nos.1 & 2, but no fruitful result.  Hence, this case before this Forum for neglect and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and for relief as prayed for. 

OP Nos.1 & 2 filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  The positive version of OPs is that on the date of alleged theft, the vehicle in question was not registered because the registration period expired on 09.07.2010.  The OP Nos.1 & 2 did not raise any controversial conversation regarding the validity of insurance policy.  They have travelled with the provision of Motor Vehicles Act e.g.e. Registration, Insurance, objection of registration and other administrative function of the Motor Vehicles Act & Rules.  But they are in oblivion regarding the ambit and duty of Insurance Act, 1939.

Contd…….P/3

-:3:-

The OP Nos.1 & OP No.2 has elaborately gone through the police report and other materials which concerns with investigation of this case.  But they in para 19 of written version stated that they did not some papers for which they were unable to process the claim and they were unable to give the claim in view of the terms and conditions of the policy and the OP Nos.1 & 2 yet did not repudiate the claim of the complainant (vide para 19 of W.V.).  The Written Version also shows that they have taken different types of defences against the insurance claim raised by the complainant and finally states that the complainant is not entitled to get any claim (vide para-7 of W.V.).

Complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Original copy of Policy certificate being No.73274672.

2.       Original copy of Motor Vehicle Insurance Cover Note issued on 09.07.2010. 

3.       Original Copy of Tax Invoice dated 30.06.2010.

4.       Original copy of the complaint lodged by Seuli Barman (Roy) with the I.C. Banarhat Police Station, Banarhat, dated 24.06.2011. 

5.       Original copy of letter to R.T.O., Jalpaiguri dated 07.07.2011.

6.       Original copy of Motor Claim Form dated 08.07.2011. 

7.       Original copy of letter dated 13.08.2011 issued by Seuli Barman (Roy), to the IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana and to The Branch Manager of IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd., Siliguri, along with two postal receipts. 

8.       Original copy of letter dated 26.09.2011 issued by IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd., to Smt. Seuli Barman (Roy).

9.       Original copy of letter dated 15.02.2012 issued by IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd., to Smt. Seuli Barman (Roy).

10.     Original copy of letter dated 13.03.2012 along with postal receipt issued by Smt. Seuli Barman (Roy), to the Branch Manager of IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd.

11.     Original copy of letter dated 07.08.2012 issued by Authorized Signatory of IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd., to Seuli Barman (Roy).

Contd…….P/4

-:4:-

12.     Original coy of the received copy of the documents by the Investigator Mr. Niloy Roy, IFFCO TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd. 

13.     Original copy of Lawyer’s Notice dated 05.07.2012 along with Postal Receipts.  

Complainant has filed examination-in-chief by affidavit.

Complainant has filed written notes of Argument. 

Complainant has also filed some principles of law.

OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed written notes of Argument with some principles of law.  

  In the written averments the OP discussed the provision of Motor Vehicles Act particularly Section 39, 43 and other provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, but without any conclusion regarding those provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act.  Again in para-14 the OP has stated that they did not get some letters about nine (Annexure-7).  However, the complainant did not get favourable order for loss of the vehicle has approached before this Forum for Redressal.      

Points for determination

1.       Is the complainant purchased the vehicle ?

2.       If the said vehicle was lost ?

3.       If police case has been filed and police has completed investigation?

4.       Was the vehicle of the complainant insured with the OPs ?

Decision with reason

          All the issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

It is admitted position that complainant purchased a vehicle.

It is also admitted position that vehicle was lost and police started case under Section 379 IPC.  It is also admitted position that police after investigation failed to recover the vehicle.  It is also admitted position that the vehicle was registered, but temporarily.  After temporarily

Contd…….P/5

-:5:-

registration, the vehicle was not registered, in the meantime the vehicle lost.  The said policy was valid on and from 09.07.2010 to 08.07.2011.  The OP Company admits it.  The issuance of insurance policy by the OP is admitted. 

From the complaint and written version the point of disputes appear that the said vehicle was not registered after the period of temporarily registration and theft was done when the vehicle was kept under the possession of the owner.  It is contended by the complainant’s advocate that the registration of the vehicle is in no way connected with the theft of the vehicle.  The vehicle was kept and at the time of theft vehicle was not registered with Registration Authority.  Owner of the vehicle cannot drive the vehicle in public place or any other place unless it is registered.  At the time of theft, the car was not being plied by the owner.  So, no nexus between Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act and cause of theft.  It is argued on behalf of the complainant that Registration and Insurance are completely matter of registration and public policy and such non registration and even absence of insurance policy, will not be the ground of repudiation of claim of compensation for theft.  In this case in our hand the said vehicle was registered temporarily and the said vehicle was within the valid insurance coverage.  So, the OP cannot deny to make compensation.  To substantiate the point the complainant argued this case citing different principle of law pronounced their Lordship in several cases. 

Ld advocate of the complainant cases referred :

1.       Kamlesh Babu and Ors. v. Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others, IV (2008) CLT 219 (SC). (Relied)        [Para 10]

2.       Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Unjha Gujarat and Ors, v. Kirankumar Mafatlal Parmar and Ors., I (2013) CPJ 168 (NC). (Relied) [Para 11]

3.       Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ajmer Singh and Another, First Appeal No.208 of 2013 decided on 3.4.2013. (Relied)  [Para 12]

4.       Niranjan Kumar Yadav v. National Ins. Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 64 (NC). (Referred)           [Para 14]

Contd…….P/6

-:6:-

5.       Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., R.P. No. 4030 of 2008 decided on 16.2.2012. (Referred)       [Para 16]

6.       IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pratima Jha, II 2012 CPJ 512 (NC). (Relied)                   [Para 18]

7.       Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Chandrakant Kisan Khatale, 2012 (4) CPR 196 (NC). (Relied)                  [Para 19]

As per principle of law in Para 18 it was held by Hon’ble Commission, in case IFFCO TOKIO General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Pratima Jha, II 2012 CPJ 512 (NC) that Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim merely on ground that the vehicle had not registered.  Their Lordship observed in Para 89 as follows :- In the revision petition, the petitioner has emphatically urged the point of violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prohibits use of an unregistered vehicle.  It has also referred to the consequences, which can flow under Section 177 from non-registration.  According to the appellant, Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, also lays down that a temporary registration (as in this case) shall be valid only for a period of one month, except under certain circumstances allowed in the provision.  It is contended that if there is violation of law as contained in the above mentioned provisions, the contract or agreement would fail whether there is an express provision in this effect in the terms and conditions to that effect, or not. 

The above stand in the revision petition, in our view is an unconvincing attempt on the part of the revision petitioner to circumvent a concurrent finding of fact given by both the Fora below.  We therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting it at threshold itself.  We, may point out that in HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ILA Gupta and Ors, this Commission had held that the Insurance Co. is not entitled to repudiate the claim merely on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered.  This view has again been affirmed by this Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swami Devi Dayal Hi Tech Education Academy.”

Contd…….P/7

-:7:-

It was also held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Chandrakant Kisan Khatale, 2012 (4) CPR 196 (NC), that “in case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane” and relevant paras of the same i.e., para Nos.5 and 11 (relevant part) are reproduced :

“5.  Now we advert to the merits of this case.  The case of the complainant, Smt. Chandrakant Kisan Khatale is this.  Her Tata Sumo bearing registration No.MH 18D 894 was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, petitioner in this case.  In the course of journey, two unknown persons intoxicated the driver by pouring some intoxicating substances in his tea which led the driver of the vehicle to unconsciousness state.  Thereafter, the above said two unknown persons stole away the above said vehicle.  The claim was preferred before the Insurance Company, which was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of terms and conditions of the policy.

‘11.  Above all the authority by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nitin Khandelwal applies to this case on all fours.  Its relevant extract is reproduced as follows –

‘13.  In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen.  In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane.  The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was s breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis.  The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.’ ”

Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in II (2012) CPJ 512 (NC) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. & ANR v. PRATIMA JHA, Revision Petition No.171 of 2012 against Order dated 30.08.2011 in Appeal No.174 of State Commission, Chhattisgarh – decided on

Contd…….P/8

-:8:-

27.04.2012, it was held Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b) – Insurance – Non-registration of vehicle – Vehicle stolen – Surveyor appointed – Claim repudiated on ground that on day of theft vehicle was not registered with transport authorities – District Forum allowed complaint – State Commission dismissed appeal – Hence revision – Contention, there is violation of law, which prohibits use of unregistered vehicle – Not accepted – Insurance Company is not entitled to repudiate claim merely on ground that vehicle had not been registered – No jurisdictional error, material irregularity or illegality in impugned order.  [Paras 8, 9, 10].

Result : Revision Petition dismissed.

Cases referred :

1.       HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ILA Gupta and others,      I (2007) CPJ 274.  (Relied)        [Para 9] 

2.       Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swami Devi Dayal Hi Tech Education Academy, Revision Petition No.497 of 2012 – Decided on 14.2.2012 by NCDRC in the order pronounced on 14.2.2012.  (Relied).

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed against the concurrent findings of the Fora below.  There is a delay of 36 days in filing the revision petition which, considering the explanation of the appellant, was condoned.  The matter was accordingly taken up for consideration on merits.  The matter arises out of theft of a Mahindra Bolero vehicle on 21.03.2009.  At the time of the theft the vehicle was insured with the revision petitioner IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.  The claim under the policy was repudiated by the Insurance Co, on the ground that on the day of the theft the vehicle was not registered with the transport authorities.  This amounted to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was considered a violation of the terms of the insurance policy by the Insurance Co.

2.       The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the Insurance Co. had insured the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 5,62,400,

Contd…….P/9

-:9:-

after charging a premium of Rs.20,242.77.  The insurance was effective from the date of purchase and was in operation when the vehicle was stolen on 21.3.2009.

3.       The OP/IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. contested the claim.  It was however, admitted that the OP had provided the insurance cover for the vehicle.  But, the Insurance Company, asserted that the repudiation of the claim was as per the conditions of the policy.  The insurance policy operated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.  According to the OP, the vehicle remained unregistered and the Complainant continued to use it without proper registration.

4.       The District Forum took into account the fact that the vehicle was covered under a temporary registration from 07.09.2008 to 7.10.2008.  There was no evidence to show whether the vehicle had received permanent registration, after the above period.  The District Forum noted that as per records, the claim was repudiated by the OP on the ground that of non-registration with the RTO, which was a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act.  But, it held that there was nothing in insurance policy to discharge the insurer from its liability under the policy on the ground of non-registration.  The District Forum, therefore, allowed the claim, directing the OP/revision petitioner to pay the amount of insurance i.e., Rs.5,62,400/- together with compensation of Rs.7,600/-. 

5.       Considering the appeal against the above order, the State Commission noted that complete documents were not filed before the District Forum, by the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Co. could therefore not be permitted to say that some terms of the insurance policy had been violated by the Complainant insured.  The Commission observed that a perusal of the documents on record showed that there was nothing to support the claim that the Insurance Co. would stand exonerated from its liability, in the event of violation of any provision of law by the insured.  The claim of the appellant/Insurance Co. was rejected by the State Commission with the following observations :

“From the record, it appears that the vehicle was got registered in

Contd…….P/10

-:10-

the Office of the RTO, Raipur, vide document Annexure-A4.  This document shows that under the provisions of Section 25 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the vehicle in question was got registered under a temporary registration and registration No.C.G. 04 5651/TR was allotted to the vehicle.  In the certificate, it was also been mentioned that the certificate would be valid from 08.09.2008 to 17.10.2008 and necessary charges Rs.130 was paid for the purpose of getting this temporary registration number on 8.10.2008 and then again on 13.11.2008.  These dates have been mentioned against the word “deposit”.  Probably this endorsement shows that some amount was deposited for getting temporary registration continued from 14.10.2008 to 13.11.2008.  Though no specific endorsement was made by the Registering Authority in this regard, but from this entry of deposit, it appears that the concerning RTO, permitted the owner of the vehicle to use the temporary registration for a period beyond the period, which was mentioned earlier.

Considering these documents, we can safely infer that a particular Registration Number was allotted and registration fees was also deposited from time-to-time by owner in the Office of Registering Authority.  On 13.10.2008, when Rs.100 was deposited, then again endorsement was made by the Registering Authority with seal and signature of the Authroity concerned.  Against the entry, there is no mention that after this deposit for how long period, the owner of the vehicle was permitted to sue the temporary registration No.  It might be even up to date of accident, so on the basis of this particular document, this cannot be said that vehicle was being used without getting the same registered in the Office of the Registering Authority.  Thus there was no violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in this regard.”     

6.       Thus, the District Forum as well as the State Commission have both given a finding that there is nothing in the insurance policy which could exonerate the Insurance Co. from its liability on the ground of non-registration of the vehicle. 

7.       We have perused the records of the case and heard the Counsel for the revision petitioner.

Contd…….P/11

-:11:-

8.       In the revision petition, the petitioner has emphatically urged the point of violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prohibits use of an unregistered vehicle.  It has also referred to the consequences, which can flow under Section 177 from non-registration.  According to the appellant, Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, also lays down that a temporary registration (as in this case) shall be valid only for a period of one month, except under certain circumstances allowed in the provisions, the contract or agreement would fail whether there is an express provision to this effect, in the terms and conditions to that effect, or not. 

9.       The above stand in the revision petition, in our view is an unconvincing attempt on the part of the revision petitioner to circumvent a concurrent finding of fact given by both the Fora below.  We, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting it at threshold itself.  We may point out that in HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ILA Gupta and Others, I (2007) CPJ 274, this Commission had held that the Insurance Co. is not entitled to repudiate the claim merely on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered.  This view has again been affirmed by this Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swami Devi Dayal Hi Tech Education Academy, Revision Petition No.497 of 2012, in the order pronounced on 14.2.2012. 

10.     In the result, the revision petition fails to bring out any case of jurisdictional error, material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, which could justify intervention of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed and the order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.174 of 2011 is confirmed.  Cost of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) is awarded in favour of the respondent/Complainant.    

          Revision Petition dismissed. 

The complainant did not make registration of her vehicle for his own detriment the Insurance Company is not affected by the said negligence on her part. [Pare 13 of Aroma Paints Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. National Commission 639]. 

Contd…….P/12

-:12:-

So, this case was engineered by the complainant Smt. Seuli Barman (Roy) who purchased vehicle in question and the same was insured with the OP IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.  There had been temporary registration.  The said vehicle was kept under the possession of the complainant woman.  Obviously, the complainant woman is not at all conversant with the documentations laid down by Motor Vehicles Act.  But fact remains the vehicle was insured.  It is nowhere case of the OP that the vehicle was not insured.   All the factum of the case including theft and insurance and registration were all within knowledge of the OP.  In spite of knowing all the rules and laws and facts of this case, the insurance company IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. did not came forward to settle the claim of the complainant.  As mentioned hereinbefore, the said OP is quite conversant with the all decisions and laws pronounced by our Apex Court as well as Hon’ble National Commission.  Without taking the actual claim of the claim the OP has moved other provisions of Motor Vehicles Act particularly registration and insurance etc., for which several provisions have been laid down in the said Act regarding penal provisions chapter 13 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  But in spite of alleviating the sufferings of the consumers, the OP Insurance Company in different pretext has caused immense suffering of the lady complainant so far the case is concerned.  This Forum after deep deliberation over the facts, circumstances, prevailing village situation and poverty of the people is fully convinced that the OP Insurance Company is liable for deficiency in service by not providing adequate insured amount to the complainant for lost of her vehicle. 

It is the OP Insurance Company who compelled the complainant to approach before this Forum for adequate compensation and to fulfil the monetary loss suffered by the complainant for the wrong doer i.e., act of theft.  The complainant has not only suffered huge amount of money for theft of her vehicle, but also mentally, physically and financially harassed.  It is pertinent to note that the said OP Insurance Company is quite conversant with the norms of practice for the beneficial purpose of

Contd…….P/13

-:13:-

the consumers.  The OP has duty for the benefit of the consumers.  The concerned act has been brought in the existence only for the interest of the loss of property and for which vehicle, house, property and other valuable things are insured.  The purpose of insurance will be jeopardised if the OP companies are allowed to act against the interest of the common people for whose interest they are presumed to be acting.

So, the complainant’s case is allowed and complainant is entitled to get compensation. 

Now, let us fix the quantum of compensation. 

The complainant purchased the vehicle at Rs.5,93,174/- which is entitled to get from the OP Nos.1 & 2. 

The complainant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- on account of compensation for the mental pain, agony and harassment. 

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.25,000/- on account of her punitive damages.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards litigation cost. 

In the result, the case succeeds. 

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.46/S/2013 is allowed on contest against the OP Nos.1 & 2 and dismissed ex-parte against the OP No.3. 

The complainant is entitled to get Rs.5,93,174/- for the insured vehicle in question from the OP Nos.1 & 2/IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment caused by the OP Nos.1 & 2/IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.25,000/- on account of her punitive damages from OP No.1 & 2.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.15,000/- towards litigation cost from the OP Nos.1 & 2.

Contd…….P/14

-:14:-

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.5,93,174/- for the insured vehicle in question by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days of this order.

 The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment within 45 days of this order.

OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards her punitive damages within 45 days of this order.

OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation cost within 45 days of this order.

In case of default of payment, the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs.7,18,174/- from the date of filing of this case till full realization. 

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.