Karnataka High Court
Smt.Jalajakshamma W/O. B Nagendrappa vs Mr.Kashinath M J S/O. Jayasghankara ... on 2 June, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB
MFA No. 101361 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101361 OF 2018 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101574 OF 2018
IN M.F.A. NO.101361 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIV NO.10 FLAT NO.101-106 N-I,
BMC HOUSE CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI-110001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER I FLOOR,
HUDDAR COMPLEX, OPP HEAD POST OFFICE,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD, DHARWAD-580001,
INSURER OF CAR BEG. NO.KA-17/P-1446
POLICY NO.35101031156136650707
VALID FROM 29.04.2015 TO 28.04.2016
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JALAJAKSHAMMA W/O. B. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: # 1675/118, I MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
RANGANATH BADAVANE, VIDYANAGAR,
DAVANAGERE, TQ: AND DIST:DAVANAGERE-570001.
2. KUMARI B.N. BHAVANA D/O. B. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: # 1675/118, I MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB
MFA No. 101361 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018
HC-KAR
RANGANATH BADAVANE, VIDYANAGAR,
DAVANAGERE, TQ: AND DIST:DAVANAGERE-570001.
3. MR. KASHINATH M.J. S/O. JAYASHANKARA MURTHY,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O: # 540/50, NEAR MOUNESHWARA TEMPLE,
MOUNESHWARA BADAVANE, NITTUVALLI,
DAVANAGERE, TQ: AND DIST:DAVANAGERE-570001.
(OWNER OF CAR BEG NO KA-17/P-1446)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S.HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R NO.1 AND 2;
SRI. NAGARAJ J.APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2018 PASSED IN
MVC NO.240/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, BY REDUCING THE COMPENSATION AND
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION AS IT IS FILED IN THE WRONG
COURT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A. NO.101574 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JALAJAKSHAMMA
W/O. B. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. KUMARI B.N. BHAVANA
D/O. B. NAGENDRAPPA,
AGE: 17 YEARS, 6 MONTHS,
OCC: STUDENT,
BOTH ARE R/O. # 1675/118, I MAIN,
3RD CROSS, RANGANATH BADAVANE,
VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE, TQ: AND DIST:
DAVANAGERE-577005.
APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED
BY APPELLANT NO.1.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S.HULMANI, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB
MFA No. 101361 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018
HC-KAR
AND:
1. MR. KASHINATH M.J.
S/O. JAYASHANKARA MURTHY,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/O. # 540/50, NEAR MOUNESHWAR TEMPLE,
MOUNESHWARA BADAVANE, NITUVALLI,
DAVANAGERE, TQ: AND DIST: DAVANAGERE-577004.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIV NO.10, FLAT NO.101-106, N-1,
BMC HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
I FLOOR, HUDDAR COMPLEX, OPP HEAD POST OFFICE,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.
TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ J.APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.240/2016 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
DHARWAD, ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR AND
ETC.,
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB
MFA No. 101361 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Although these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsels on both sides, the matters are taken up for final hearing.
2. Both these cross appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 11.01.2018. Hence, disposed of by common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to according to their respective ranks before the Tribunal.
4. MFA No. 101574/2018 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement, and MFA No. 101361/2018 is filed by the insurer seeking modification of the award passed in MVC No. 240/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').
5. The claimants have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'M.V. Act'), seeking compensation of ₹50,04,000/-. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased, B. Nagendrappa-- husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2-- met with a motor vehicle accident on 02.01.2016 at approximately 9:00 a.m., while he was travelling in a car bearing registration No. KA-17/P-1446. The said accident is alleged to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, who is the owner of the said vehicle, near Hosakatti village on the Ramanakoppa- Kundgol Road. It is further pleaded that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident while being shifted to the hospital. It is also averred that the deceased was employed as a Physical Education Teacher at Vishwachetan Vidyaniketan Residential English Medium School, Siramagondanahalli, Davangere, drawing a -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR monthly salary of ₹45,000/-, and was additionally earning ₹10,00,000/- per annum from agricultural activities. The claimants have further sought an amount of ₹1,50,000/- towards medical and funeral expenses.
6. Respondents No.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their statement of objections, denying the allegations regarding the age, income, and occupation of the deceased. They further contended that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car in question. In support of their case, the claimants examined two witnesses and marked 18 documents as exhibits. On the other hand, the respondents, though they did not examine any witnesses, marked 03 documents as exhibits.
7. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence on record, awarded compensation of ₹26,28,830/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. While doing so, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR ₹25,386/-, applied the multiplier of '11' considering the age of the deceased as 54 years, and also granted compensation under other conventional heads.
8. Sri Girish S. Hulmani, learned counsel for the claimants, submits that the deceased was employed as a Physical Education Teacher and was earning a sum of ₹29,978/- per month, as evidenced by the salary certificate issued for the month of December 2015. He further submits that the only permissible deductions from the gross salary are those towards professional tax and income tax. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in deducting amounts towards provident fund and canteen allowances, which ought not to have been excluded for the purpose of computing income.
9. The learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses is liable to be enhanced by 10% every three years, in accordance -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. In support of his submission regarding the improper deductions, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meenakshi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., [2024 (3) ACJ 1647].
10. Sri G.N. Raichur, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, submits that the Tribunal committed an error in placing reliance on the salary certificate for the month of December 2015. He contends that the income tax returns, being the best form of evidence, ought to have been considered for determining the loss of earning capacity. It is further submitted that, as the salary certificate is not corroborated by income tax returns, the same ought to have been disregarded. The learned counsel further contends that the claim of an additional income of ₹10,00,000/- per annum, allegedly received in cash for overseeing the maintenance of the hostel, is not supported by any documentary evidence, and therefore, the Tribunal -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR erred in taking the said income into account. He also submits that the interest awarded at the rate of 9% per annum is on the higher side and prays for its reduction.
11. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and the Insurer.
12. The death of Sri B. Nagendrappa on 02.01.2016 in a motor vehicle accident involving the car bearing registration No. KA-17/P-1446 is not in dispute. The only grounds urged in both the appeals pertain to the quantum of compensation awarded. The employment and age of the deceased are also not in dispute.
13. The Tribunal relied upon Ex.P18--salary certificate--to compute the monthly income of the deceased. Ex.P18, being the last available salary document prior to the death of the deceased, was rightly considered by the Tribunal. The consideration of the salary certificate as the basis to determine the income of the deceased is further supported by Ex.P17, which is the bank passbook of the deceased
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR maintained with the State Bank of India, wherein the salary was regularly credited. A perusal of the bank entries for the month of December 2015 reveals that a sum of ₹25,386/- corresponds with the amount reflected in the salary certificate.
14. However, the Tribunal erred in deducting contributions towards provident fund, LIC, and canteen allowances from the gross salary. It is well settled that only statutory deductions such as professional tax and income tax are to be excluded for the purpose of computing income. Contributions towards provident fund and LIC are in the nature of personal savings of the deceased and do not diminish his earning capacity. Likewise, canteen allowances, being part of the consistent pay package and disbursed throughout the year, assume a permanent character. It is a settled position of law that any amount paid by the employer, irrespective of the head under which it is categorized, constitutes part of the income of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR employee and must be taken into account in its entirety for the purpose of determining just compensation.
15. The contention of the claimants that the deceased was earning ₹10,000/- per month in cash towards hostel management duties is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. Likewise, the contention of the insurer that the income considered by the Tribunal includes the said amount of ₹10,000/- paid in cash is also not acceptable. It is evident that the Tribunal has not taken the alleged cash component into consideration while computing the compensation, as the same was not proved. In that view of the matter, no further discussion on this issue is warranted.
16. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), only established and sustainable income is to be considered for the purpose of awarding compensation. The allowances, namely Car Allowance, Holiday Allowance, Fuel and Vehicle Maintenance Allowance, Compensatory
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR Allowance, Engagement Performance Bonus, and Food Valet, are paid over and above the basic salary and house rent allowance (HRA). The pay slips for the months of November and December 2018, and January 2019, demonstrate that these allowances were paid consistently and without variation each month. These allowances are in lieu of employment and form an integral part of the salary package. They represent agreed terms between the deceased and his employer and must, therefore, be included in the computation of the deceased's monthly income. Such monthly income, inclusive of all these components, constitutes the proper basis for assessing just compensation.
17. It is relevant to refer the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
(i) In Sunil Sharma and Others vs. Bachitar Singh and Others, (2011) 11 SCC 425, wherein it has been held as under, "(a) Computation of income
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR
6. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava [(2008) 2 SCC 763 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 550 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 744 : AIR 2008 SC 845] S.B. Sinha, J. has observed that: (SCC p. 767, para 9) "9. The term 'income' has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay- packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. Loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms."
7. His Lordship also stated that if some facilities were being provided whereby the entire family stood to benefit, the same must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis of which the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants was required to be determined. This Court held that: (Indira Srivastava case [(2008) 2 SCC 763 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 550 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 744 : AIR 2008 SC 845] , SCC p. 768, para 12) "12. ... superannuation benefits, contributions towards gratuity, insurance of medical policy for self and family and education scholarship were beneficial to the members of the family."
8. This Court clarified that by opining that: (Indira Srivastava case [(2008) 2 SCC 763 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 550 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 744 : AIR 2008 SC 845] , SCC p. 771, para 17) " 'just compensation' must be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The basis for considering the entire pay-packet is what the dependants have lost [in view of] death of the deceased. It is in the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR nature of compensation for future loss towards the family income."
and that: (Indira Srivastava case [(2008) 2 SCC 763 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 550 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 744 : AIR 2008 SC 845] , SCC p. 772, para 19) "19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however, hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted."
11. Based on the aforementioned judgments, we are of the view that deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA, CCA and medical allowance are done on an incorrect basis and should have been taken into consideration in calculation of the income of the deceased. Further, deduction towards EPF and GIS should also not have been made in calculating the income of the deceased.
(ii) Triveni Kodkany vs. Air India Ltd., (2021) 19 SCC 214, wherein it has been held as under, "9. Both the sides have prefaced their submissions by relying on the principles which have been evolved by the court in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, where an accident has resulted in death. The table which we have reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment would indicate that the total CTC per annum, on account of the employment of the deceased, to his employer was AED 4,82,395. This comprises of the basic pay, house rent allowance, transport allowance, telephone allowance, LTA, medical aid and gratuity. The ion which has been made by the employer in the salary of the deceased is, in our view, no reason
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR to make any deductions from the total CTC of AED 4,82,395. The consolidated amount is the amount annually borne by the employer on account of the employment of the deceased. Hence, we are unable to accept the reasons which weighed with NCDRC in making a deduction of AED 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the submission of Air India that the transport allowance should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons. However, in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of the employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. We, therefore, proceed for the purpose of computation on the basis of the annual income of AED 4,82,395."
"11. The material on record does not indicate that the deceased was entitled to a specified quantum of ESOPs as a matter of right. These would be linked to performance. Apart from the letter of the employer, no evidence was produced before NCDRC to indicate that the ESOPs were payable at a certain rate or quantum every year. These were incentives paid to the deceased. Similarly, the other financial benefits which have been adverted to in the above extract from the letter dated 21-3-2011, have not been demonstrated to be a matter of right. The letter indicates that the deceased was eligible for certain benefits on an annual basis. In the absence of cogent evidence indicating that this was a part of the salary package which was payable to the deceased as an entitlement irrespective of performance, we are not inclined to accept the submission that the incentive benefits should be added back to the income for the purposes of computation."
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR
18. In view of the consistent payment of allowances from month to month, such payments must be regarded as established and sustainable income. The mere bifurcation of earnings under different heads does not alter the character of the deceased's income. What is essential is to consider the steady and consistent income actually received by the deceased. Payments made under various heads form an integral part of his income and cannot be treated as speculative or irregular, especially when such allowances have been paid consistently on a monthly basis.
19. As per Ex.P18, the monthly income of the deceased was ₹29,978/-, which amounts to an annual income of ₹3,59,736/-. Deducting professional tax of ₹2,400/- and income tax of ₹7,514/-, the net annual income stands at ₹3,49,822/-. Since the claimants were dependents on the income of the deceased, 1/3rd of the net income is to be deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The deceased was employed for a period of 22
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR years with the same employer, indicating that his employment was permanent in nature. Considering that the deceased was aged 54 years at the time of his death, 15% is to be added towards future prospects. The age and the applicable multiplier is not in dispute. Hence, multiplier '11' is applied by considering the age as 54 years. Accordingly, the loss of dependency would be as under:
₹29,978 - ₹200 =₹29,778 ₹29,778 x 12 = 3,57,336 ₹ 3,57,336 - ₹7,514 = ₹3,49,822 ₹3,49,822 + ₹52,473 (15% towards future prospects)= ₹4,02,295 ₹4,02,295 - ₹1,34,098 (deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses) = ₹2,68,196/-
₹2,68,196 x 11 (multiplier) = ₹29,50,156/-
20. Though the Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium, the quantum is not in conformity with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and the decision in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others, [2018 ACJ 2782]. Both claimants are entitled to compensation of ₹40,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium. Further, the compensation awarded under the heads of loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses is liable to be enhanced by 10% for every three years, as prescribed by the above-mentioned authorities. Since the accident occurred in the year 2016, approximately seven years ago, an additional 20% [10%+10%] enhancement is justifiable on the compensation awarded under these conventional heads. The award of compensation under the head of loss of love and affection is impermissible, as it lacks sanction under any statutory provision or judicial pronouncement.
21. Insofar as the interest at the rate of 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is found to be reasonable and does not warrant any interference.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR
22. Similarly, the claimants are entitled to ₹15,000/- plus 20% [10%+10%] towards loss of estate and funeral expenses which comes to ₹18,000/- each. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation,
23. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation, Sl.No. Particulars Amount 1 Loss of dependency ₹29,50,156/-
2 Loss of estate ₹18,000/-
3 Funeral expenses ₹18,000/-
3 Spousal, parental and filial ₹96,000/-
consortium (₹40,000/- each + 20% [10%+10%] 4 Total ₹30,82,156/-
24. The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of ₹30,82,156/-. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹26,28,830/-. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR enhanced compensation of ₹30,82,156 - ₹26,28,830 = ₹4,53,326/-.
25. In the light of the above, the following:
ORDER i. MFA No.101361/2018 by the insurer is dismissed and MFA No.101574/2018 by the claimants is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and award dated 11.01.2018 Passed in MVC No.240/2016 is modified as under,
(a) The claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹4,53,326/- (Rupees four lakh fifty-three thousand three hundred and twenty-six only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
iii. The insurer shall deposit the enhanced compensation before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7250-DB MFA No. 101361 of 2018 C/W MFA No. 101574 of 2018 HC-KAR iv. The order of the Tribunal with regard to apportionment and investment is maintained. v. Registry shall transmit the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE CLK CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9