Bangalore District Court
Raghavendra.K.R vs The Managing Director on 22 December, 2015
BEFORE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS 22nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015
PRESENT: SRI. GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI, B.A,LL.B(SPL).
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT
M.V.C No.3053/2014
PETITIONER: Raghavendra.K.R,
S/o. Ramachandra.K.B,
Aged about 27 years,
R/a.No.82, 3rd 'B' Cross,
2nd Stage, Bapuji Nagar,
Bangalore - 68.
(By pleader - Sri. B.M.Chandra Shekara)
- V/S -
RESPONDENTS: The Managing Director,
B.M.T.C,
K.H.Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bangalore.
(By pleader - Sri. M. Divakar Maddur)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act against the respondent claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in RTA.
2) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as under:
On 12.10.2013, petitioner was about to get into the BMTC Bus bearing No.KA-57-F-111 route No.87 at plat farm No.26 at SCCH - 11 2 MVC No.3053/2014 Kempegowda Bus stop at around 10:30 pm, at that time, the driver of said bus without observing the boarding passengers and movement of passengers and without closing hydraulic doors driven the same in rash and negligent manner. Due to said impact, petitioner fell down and back wheel of the said bus ran over the left leg. The petitioner has sustained degloving injury to left lower limb extending from left knee down to left foot. Immediately after the accident, petitioner was shifted to the Victoria Hospital by the public and traffic police wherein he was admitted as an inpatient for more than two months. He has underwent several medical, clinical examinations and laboratory tests and X-rays were done and on the advice of the doctors, he underwent an operation for crush and vascular surgery, mussel, vascular and skin grafting was done to the left leg and he was advised for bed rest with regular follow-up treatment for six months. The petitioner has spent more than Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses and he has also spent amount towards conveyance, food, nourishment and other incidental charges.
3) Petitioner is still under treatment and he is suffering from severe pain and deep mental agony and still, there is swelling with gross deformity and movement of the left leg is SCCH - 11 3 MVC No.3053/2014 restricted and due to the crush injuries, he has become too weak and he cannot stand, squat, climb stairs, walk and bear weight and he is unable to do his normal work which he was doing earlier. Prior to the accident, petitioner was physically strong, hale and healthy and due to the accidental injury, he is unable to attend the work and there are less chances of recovery, which resulted in permanent disability. The petitioner has to undergo another operation for several complications. Prior to the accident, petitioner was working as Senior Server Engineer in the Wipro Company and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and due to the long leave and disability, he has been terminated the service and he has become jobless. The petitioner has suffered lot of mental and physical strain and he is only bread earning member in the family and his aged parents are completely depending upon his income. The petitioner is unable attend for his nature call independently and he cannot discharge his duty effectively due to disability and pain. The Upparpet traffic police have registered the criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle in crime No.47/2013 and after investigation, they have filed charge sheet against the driver of the said vehicle. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, SCCH - 11 4 MVC No.3053/2014 petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.22,20,000/- under different heads.
4) The respondent has filed written statement and denied the contents of the claim petition. It is contended that, on the said day, when the bus was driven by its driver just moving carefully, at that time, suddenly petitioner tried to board the bus by running without observing the hydraulic door, which was not opened and bus was still moving slowly by which petitioner fell down himself from the bus which was moving slowly and carefully and respondent is not responsible for the negligence of the petitioner. The respondent has paid interim compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner under receipt No.A17/281/2013.
The claim made by the petitioner under various heads is imaginary, exorbitant, fanciful and he has filed this claim petition just to cause wrongful loss to the respondent and wrongful gain for himself. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of the claim petition with costs.
5) The petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and also examined Dr. Ramesh K.T. S/o Thammanna Gowda as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 48 and closed the evidence. Sri. B.K. SCCH - 11 5 MVC No.3053/2014 Nagaraj is examined by the respondent as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 and closed the evidence.
6) Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both parties and perused the materials on record.
7) From the pleadings, the following issues are framed:
1. Whether petitioner proves that, on 12.10.2013 at about 10.30 p.m., when he was about to get into BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-111 at route No.87 at plat farm No.26 at Kempegowda bus stop by that time all of a sudden without observing the boarding passengers and movement of passengers without closing Hydraulic doors went ahead in rash and negligent manner and due to which he sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is quantum of compensation amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
8) My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 Affirmative;
Issue No.2 Partly Affirmative; the
petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.7,16,306/-
with interest @ 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till complete
realisation, from respondent.
SCCH - 11 6 MVC No.3053/2014
Issue No.3 As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
9) ISSUE NO.1: PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, on 12.10.2013, he was about to get into BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-111 route No.87 at platform No.26 at Kempegowda bus stop at about 10:30 pm. He has also stated that, at that time, the driver of said bus without observing the boarding passengers and movement of the passengers and without closing hydraulic doors driven the same in rash and negligent manner, due to which, he fell down from the bus and back wheel of the bus ran over on his left leg. He has also stated that, immediately after the accident, public and traffic police were shifted him to Victoria hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient for more than two months and he has underwent several medical, clinical examinations and laboratory tests and X-rays and also undergone surgery. He has also stated that, accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and jurisdictional police have registered the case in crime No.47/2013.
SCCH - 11 7 MVC No.3053/2014
10) In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has stated that, on 12.10.2013, he was waiting at plat form No.26, Kempegowda bus stop to go to his house at Bapujinar, and at that time, he came to his house for shopping purpose. He has stated that, on the date of accident, he had not gone to his work. He has also stated that, in the majestic bus, the buses will follow one after another and density of public in majestic bus stop is more. He has stated that, on that day, BMTC bus No.KA-57-F-111 was stationed and when he was boarding the bus, at that time, it was raining and door was closed and he fell down. He has denied the suggestion that, when bus was moving with closed doors, he tried to catch and board the bus and lost control and fell down and sustained injuries due to his negligence and there is no negligence on the part of the BMTC bus driver.
11) The learned counsel for respondent has submitted in his arguments that, on the date of alleged accident, the petitioner tried to board the moving bus and due to his negligence, accident has taken place and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. He has also submitted that, the offending bus was having hydraulic doors and only the bus will be moved after closure of doors. He has SCCH - 11 8 MVC No.3053/2014 also submitted that, petitioner has given two kinds of versions in his evidence and in his cross-examination, he has stated that, he has waiting in the bus stop in another place about board the bus. He has also submitted that, the petitioner has received interim compensation of Rs.10,000/- from the respondent BMTC, which is received by the mother of the petitioner. He has submitted that, PW.2 who is doctor has given disability which is on higher side and he has not taken 1/3rd of the particular limb as whole body disability.
12) The respondent has examined RW.1 who has stated in his evidence that, the said bus was driven by him which was just moving slowly and carefully and suddenly, petitioner tried to board the moving bus by running without observing the hydraulic door, which was not opened as the bus was still moving slowly. He has stated that, when it was moving slowly and carefully, he is not responsible for the accident and accident has taken place due to the negligence of the petitioner. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has admitted that, his bus is having hydraulic doors and he will move the bus after closure of hydraulic doors and after boarding of all passengers in the bus and he will close hydraulic passengers after boarding of all passengers and he SCCH - 11 9 MVC No.3053/2014 will not close the hydraulic door during the movement of bus. He has stated that, he closed the hydraulic doors after confirmation that, all passengers boarded the bus and after closure of hydraulic doors, it will not possible for any passengers to board or get down from the bus and on the date of accident, the hydraulic doors of his bus were functioning.
13) Petitioner has produced true copy of F.I.R and complaint, which are marked as Ex.P.1 and P.2 and as per the said documents, on 12.10.2013 at about 10.30 p.m, when petitioner was boarding the bus bearing No.KA-57-F- 111 at Kempegowda Bus stop in platform No.26, at that time, the driver of the said bus has driven the same in rash and negligent manner by which, petitioner fell down and the left back side wheel of the bus passed on the left knee of petitioner and caused the grievous injuries. The petitioner has also produced true copy of hand sketch map, which is marked as Ex.P.3 and he has also produced panchanama, which is marked as Ex.P.4. As per the said documents, the accident has taken place at platform No.26 of Kempegowda bus stop. The petitioner has produced motor vehicle inspection report, which is marked as Ex.P.3 and as per the SCCH - 11 10 MVC No.3053/2014 said document, no damages were noticed to the said vehicle at the time of inspection. He has also produced wound certificate, which is marked as Ex.P.6 about grievous injuries sustained and treatment taken by him in Victoria Hospital. Petitioner has produced true copy of charge sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.7 and as per the said document, the police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the BMTC bus for the offences punishable under section 279, 338 of IPC.
14) On perusal of oral evidence of the PW.1 and RW.1, it reveals that, the bus bearing No.KA-57-P-111 is having hydraulic door system and the said door will be opened while boarding and alighting of the passengers from the bus and it will be closed after boarding of the passengers in the bus. This fact is also admitted by the RW.1 in his cross- examination. It is the duty of the driver to close the hydraulic door after boarding of the passengers in the bus and there are no chances for any passengers to stand or hang to the door as the door will be closed after boarding of the passengers. But, petitioner fell down from the bus which was moving which goes to show the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus who had not closed the door. In case, he had closed the door, there were no chances of falling from SCCH - 11 11 MVC No.3053/2014 the moving bus by the petitioner. Even, it is the duty of the driver of the bus to drive bus after giving signal by the conductor and by closing the hydraulic door. On perusal of the police documents, the charge sheet has been filed by the police against the driver of the offending bus which is not challenged by him and on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, they reveal that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. So, I answer issue No.1 in Affirmative.
15) ISSUE No.2: PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Victoria Hospital wherein he was admitted for more than two months and he has underwent several medical, clinical examinations and laboratory tests and X-rays were done and he underwent an operation for crush and vascular surgery and mussel, vascular and skin grafting to his left leg. He has stated that, he has spent more than Rs.80,000/-towards medical expenses. He has also produced 15 medical prescriptions, which are marked as Ex.P.34 and 16 medical bills, which are marked as Ex.P.35 and as per the said documents, he has spent Rs.64,950/- for the purpose of treatment. So, I hold SCCH - 11 12 MVC No.3053/2014 that, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.64,950/-. Hence, petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.64,950/-under the head of medical expenses.
16) The petitioner has produced discharge summary issued by Victoria Hospital and as per the said document, he was admitted in Victoria Hospital from 17.12.2013 to 27.12.2013. He has also produced another discharge summary issued by the Victoria Hospital and as per the said document, he was admitted in the said hospital from 13.11.2013 to 25.11.2013. He was totally admitted in the hospital for 53 days. During the period of hospitalization, petitioner would have spent some amount towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendance charges and his family members who attended him would have also spent some amount for food and other incidental charges. So, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of food, nourishment, conveyance and attendance charges. Hence, petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of food, nourishment, conveyance and attendance charges.
SCCH - 11 13 MVC No.3053/2014
17) The petitioner was admitted in the Victoria hospital from 17.12.2013 to 27.12.2013 and 13.10.2013 to 25.11.2013 and he was admitted in the said hospital for more than 53 days. During the period of hospitalization, petitioner would have lost some income and his family members who attended him during the period of hospitalization would have also lost some income. Considering the long period of hospitalization, treatment taken by the petitioner, I feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of income during hospitalization.
18) As per the evidence of PW.1, due to the accidental injuries, he is suffering from severe pain and deep mental agony and there is swelling with gross deformity on his leg and movement of left leg is restricted and he has become too weak and he cannot stand, squat, climb stairs, walk and cannot bear weight on it and he cannot do normal work as he was doing as earlier. He has stated that, he has lost sensation to his right side and suffering from nerve problem and he gets fits due to accidental injuries and his left toe small two fingers are not in action and he is suffering severe pain in foot and he is not able to walk, run and stand for long time. He has lost marriage SCCH - 11 14 MVC No.3053/2014 prospectus due to the accidental injuries. He has also stated his difficulties in para No.4 of his chief affidavit. PW.2 has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner has underwent wound debridement, muscle grafting and skin grafting and operation and on 21.09.2015, he has examined the petitioner for disability assessment who has difficulty in walking, standing and on examination, he found restricted movement of ankle, loss of Dorsiflexion of 2nd and 3rd toe. He has stated that, petitioner has restricted movement of ankle 10%, restricted movement of toes 4%, stability component 20%, deformity 5%, pain 5%, loss of sensation 6%, ulceration 3% and he has assessed whole body disability at 53%. He has stated in his cross-examination that, petitioner told him about difficulties in walking and standing and he has conducted clinical examination about difficulties of the petitioner. Due to the accidental injuries, petitioner has restriction of movement of ankle and toe and he has to undergo deep pain and agony and he has to suffer throughout his life. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and agony. Hence, petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.35,000/- under the head of pain and agony.
SCCH - 11 15 MVC No.3053/2014
19) Due to the accidental injuries, petitioner has
restriction of range of moments and he has to undergo pain and agony and he cannot do his routine activities as earlier. The petitioner has to depend upon others for his routine activities. The accidental injuries have caused deformity, pain, loss of sensation and there is restricted movement of ankle, by which petitioner has to suffer throughout his life and he is unable to enjoy amenities in life. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of amenities.
20) PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, prior to the accident, he was working as Senior Server Engineer and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and due to long leave and disability, he has been terminated from his job and he has lost his job and suffered physically and mentally. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has stated that, he was working in Wipro Company since two years prior to the accident and he was getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- which depended upon the shift. He has stated that, in case of night duty, he was getting more than salary and he was working in Wipro Company. He has SCCH - 11 16 MVC No.3053/2014 stated that, since Wipro Company is Multi National Company and in case of absence from duties for 45 days, he has to submit his resignation as undertaken at the time of joining service. He has stated that, MD of India Insurance Company Limited has not given any compensation for his death policy. PW.2 has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner has restricted movement of ankle at 10% and 4% restricted movement and 20% stability component, 5% deformity, 5% pain and 6% loss of sensation and 3% ulceration and he has suffered left lower limb at 53%. He has stated in his cross-examination that, he has not mentioned particular point for difficulty in walking and he has assessed disability as per the guidelines of Government of India. He has admitted that, in the Government of India Gazette notification guidelines, in case of difficulty in walking and standing, clinical test is to be conducted and points are to be noted. He has admitted that, he has not taken whole body disability. He has denied the suggestion that, the particular limb disability assessed at 53% is on higher side. He has also admitted that, he has not taken 1/3rd of particular limb as the whole body disability.
21) The learned counsel for respondent has contended in his argument that, the PW.2 has assessed higher side disability SCCH - 11 17 MVC No.3053/2014 and he has not taken the 1/3rd of particular limb as whole body disability and he has not followed the guidelines of Government of India notification, while assessing the disability. He has also submitted that, as per the evidence of PW.1, he was working as Senior Server Engineer in Wipro Company and he has not examined the Manager of the Wipro Company before this Court. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted in her arguments that, the petitioner was working in Wipro Company and he was getting salary more than Rs.27,000/- per month. On perusal of the medical evidence on record, the petitioner has not undergone major surgery and he has undergone wound debridement and skin grafting. But, PW.2 has assessed disability at 52%, which is on higher side and he has not taken 1/3rd of particular limb as the whole body disability. If 1/3rd of the particular limb is taken as whole body disability, it will be 17.66%. The petitioner has produced his election identity card, which is marked as Ex.P.11 and as per the said document, he is born on 23.04.1986 and as on the date of accident, he was aged about 27 years.The multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is '17'. The petitioner has produced his marks cards of 1st to 6th semester diploma examination and diploma certificate issued by Board of Technical Examination, which goes to show that, he is well qualified and obtained the Diploma degree in Electronics SCCH - 11 18 MVC No.3053/2014 Engineering Communication in the year 2006. He has also produced certificates issued by Mysore Rathna Hindi Prachara Parishath and Raja Puraskara issued by the Bharath Sports and guidelines, which goes to show that, the petitioner is well qualified person. But, due to the accidental injuries, he has restriction of movements and he has to suffer physically and mentally throughout his life. The petitioner has produced photographs, which goes to show that, he has undergone wound debridement and skin grafting due to the accidental injuries. He has produced true copy of his SSLC marks card, pan card, passport, diploma certificate, diploma marks card from 1st to 6th semester and also produced true copy of Rajapuraskar, identity card and photographs, which are marked as Ex.P.12 to P.33. He has produced statement of account, which is marked as Ex.P.38 and as per the said document, on 07.10.2013, the salary of Rs.11,176/- was credited to his account, on 01.11.2013 salary of Rs.9,993/- is credited to his account and on 05.11.2013, the salary for the month of October 2013 is credited only Rs.250/-. This goes to show that, he was drawing net salary of Rs.9,993/-. But, he has not produced pay slip about his accurate salary. However, considering Ex.P.38, the net salary of petitioner is taken at Rs.9,000/-. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Rajesh and others V/s Rajbeer Singh and other, 2013 SCCH - 11 19 MVC No.3053/2014 ACJ 1403, there shall be addition of 50% to the persons below the age of 40 years. If 50% is added to his salary, it will be Rs.13,500/-. Then if Rs.9,000/- is taken as net income of the petitioner and 50% is added towards future prospectus, it will be Rs.13,500/-. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Raj Kumar V/s Abhaya Kumar, 2013 ACJ page No.1, there shall not be deduction in case of injured victim. The multiplier applicable to the facts of the case as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sarla Verma case (AIR 2009 SC 3104) is '17'. Then loss of income will be calculated as under :
Rs.13,500/- X 12 X 17 X 17.66/100 = Rs.4,86,356/- Therefore I hold that, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,86,356/- under the head of loss of income.
22) Since PW.2 has not suggested any future medical expenses, I hold that, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under the head of future medical expenses.
23) The Calculation table stands as follows:
1) Medical Expenses Rs. 64,950 /-
2) Food, conveyance, Rs. 50,000/-
nourishment, attendant and
SCCH - 11 20 MVC No.3053/2014
other expenses
3) Loss of income during the Rs. 40,000/-
period of treatment
4) Pain and agony Rs. 35,000/-
5) Loss of amenities in life Rs. 40,000 /-
6) Loss of income Rs.4,86,356/-
Total Rs.7,16,306/-
So, I hold that, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.7,16,306/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent is owner of the Bus and liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. So, I answered issue No.2 in partly affirmative.
24) ISSUE No.3: In view of answers to issues No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,16,306/- along with interest at the rate of 6% SCCH - 11 21 MVC No.3053/2014 p.a. from the date of petition till complete realization.
The respondent is hereby directed to deposit the entire amount with accrued interest, within one month, from the date of this award.
In case of deposit of the awarded compensation by the respondent, the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be deposited in F.D in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for the period of 5 years, failing to furnish the particulars, the same shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bangalore.
Remaining amount of Rs.4,16,306/- with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 22nd day of December, 2015.) (GANAPATHI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM SCCH - 11 22 MVC No.3053/2014 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS:
PW.1 - Raghavendra K.R
PW.2 - Dr.Ramesh K.T.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 - True copy of F.I.R
Ex.P.2 - True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 - True copy of hand sketch map
Ex.P.4 - True copy of Panchanama
Ex.P.5 - True copy of IMV report
Ex.P.6 - True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P.7 - True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.8 - 59 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P.9 - 149 Medical bills
Ex.P.10 - Lab report
Ex.P.11 - True copy of election identity card
Ex.P.12 - True copy of SSLC marks card
Ex.P.13 - True copy of Pan card
Ex.P.14 - True copy of Pass Port
Ex.P.15 - True copy of diploma certificate
Ex.P.16 - True copy of 1st Sem Diploma marks card
Ex.P.17 - True copy of 2nd Sem Diploma Marks card
Ex.P.18 - True copy of 3rd Sem Diploma marks card
Ex.P.19 - True copy of 4th Sem Diploma marks card
Ex.P.20 - True copy of 5th Sem Diploma marks card
Ex.P.21 - True copy of 6th Sem Diploma marks card
Ex.P.22 - True copy of 6th Sem Diploma marks card
Ex.P.23 - True copy of Rajya Puraskar issued by
SCCH - 11 23 MVC No.3053/2014
Scouta and Guides
Ex.P.24 - True copy of Hindi Rathna certificate
Ex.P.25 - True copy of identity card
Ex.P.26 to 32 - 7 Photographs
Ex.P.33 - CD
Ex.P.34 - 15 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P.35 - 16 Medical bills
Ex.P.36 & 37 - 2 discharge summaries
Ex.P.38 - Statement of account
Ex.P.39 - One OPD card
Ex.P.40 - One case sheet
Ex.P.41 & 42 - Three OPD cards
Ex.P.43 - OPD card
Ex.P.44 - 30 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P.45 - Clinical notes
Ex.P.46 - One Medical prescription
Ex.P.47 - 52 Medical bills
Ex.P.48 - One x-ray
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 - B.K. Nagaraja
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS :
Ex.R.1 - True copy my identity card
Ex.R.2 - True copy of driving licence
I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT.