Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Mustaq @ Mustap Ismail Pendari on 15 December, 2022
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MFA NO.101192/2015 (MV)
C/W MFA NOS.101193, 100942 AND 100944 OF 2015
IN MFA NO.101192/2015
BETWEEN:
MUSTAQ @ MUSTAP S/O ISMAIL PENDARI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC:SALESMAN
(NOW NIL),
R/O: PENDARI ONI, BANHATTI,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT
NOW R/AT: CHAVAT GALLI,
BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI.SANSHETTEPPA S/O SHETTEPPA KAMASHETTI,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO. 2571, RABAKAVI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT.
CORRECT ADDRESS
H.NO.2571, DASAR ONI,
RABAKAVI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
2
2. THE MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
SUNDARAM TOWERS, WHITE ROAD,
CHENNAI-14.
TAMIL NADU STATE.
HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE
AT OPP: CORPORATION,
SWIMMING COMPLEX, COTTON
MARKET, HUBLI-1.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R2,
R1 SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S 173(1) OF
MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:08.01.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.1466/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III,
BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.101193/2015
BETWEEN:
1. LALSAB S/O KASHIMSAB MULLA @ MIRAJI,
AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:NOW NIL,
2. SMT.IAMAMBU W/O LALSAB MULLA @ MIRJI,
AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3. SMT.RASHIDA W/O RAFIQ MULLA MIRJI,
AGE:25 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O: NEAR DATTATRAY TEMPLE,
BANHATTI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
3
DIST: BAGALKOT. PRESENTLY
R/AT: GONDHALI GALLI BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI.SANSHETTEPPA S/O SHETTEPPA KAMASHETTI,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO. 2571, RABAKAVI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT.
CORRECT ADDRESS
H.NO.2571, DASAR ONI,
RABAKAVI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. THE MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
SUNDARAM TOWERS, WHITE ROAD,
CHENNAI-14.
TAMIL NADU STATE.
HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE
AT OPP: CORPORATION,
SWIMMING COMPLEX, COTTON
MARKET, HUBLI-1.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADV. FOR R2,
R1 SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S 173(1) OF
MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:08.01.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.1467/2012 ON THE
FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III,
BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
4
IN MFA NO.100942/2015
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-14,
TAMIL NADU STATE, HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT:
OPP. CORPORATION, SWIMMING COMPLEX, COTTON
MARKET, HUBLI-1. NOW REPTD., BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, ROYAL
SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE
CO., LTD., SUBRAMANIAN
BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1,
CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI-600002.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MUSTAQ @ MUSTAP ISMAIL PENDARI,
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC:SALESMAN
(NOW NIL),
R/O: PENDARI ONI, BANAHATTI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT
NOW R/AT: CHAVAT GALLI,
BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI.SANSHETTEPPA S/O. SHETTEPPA KAMASHETTI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H.NO. 2571, RABAKAVI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
(OWNER OF NANO CAR BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KA-48/M-3420)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VITTHAL S.TELI, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI.I.C.PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)
5
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S.173(1) OF
MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD
DATED:08.01.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1466/2015, ON THE
FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER FAST TRACK COURT-III
COURT AT BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.6,10,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TIL ITS REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.100944/2015
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO.
LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46,
WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-14,
TAMIL NADU STATE. HAVING ITS
LOCAL OFFICE AT: OPP.
CORPORATION SWIMMING COMPLEX,
COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-1.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, ROYAL
SUNDARAM ALLIYANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
CO., LTD., SUBRAMANIAN
BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1,
CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNASALAI,
CHENNAI-600002.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI.LALSAB S/O KASHIMSAB MULLA @ MIRJI,
AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O: NEAR DATTATRAY TEMPLE,
BANAHATTI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
6
2. SMT.IAMAMBU W/O LALSAB MULLA @ MIRJI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: NEAR DATTATRAY TEMPLE,
BANAHATTI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SMT.RASHIDA W/O RAFIQ MULLA @ MIRJI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: NEAR DATTATRAY TEMPLE,
BANAHATTI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
ALL RESPONDENTS NO1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT: GONDHALI GALLI, BELAGAVI.
4. SHRI.SANSHETTEPPA S/O SHETTEPPA KAMASHETTI,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H.NO. 2571, RABAKAVI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
(OWNER OF NANO CAR BEARING
REGISTRATION NO. KA-48/M-3420)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VITTHAL S.TELI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI.I.C.PATIL, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S.173(1) OF
MV ACT,1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD
DATED:08.01.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1467/2012, ON THE
FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER FAST TRACK COURT-III
COURT AT BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.12,40,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9%
P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TIL ITS REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.2.2022 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, UMESH M
ADIGA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7
JUDGEMENT
The above appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 08.01.2014 in MVC Nos.1466 and 1467 of 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, FTC-III, Belagavi.
2. Petitioners in respective cases have filed MFA Nos.100942 and 100944 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation and respondent No.2-insurer filed MFA Nos.101192 and 101193 of 2015 challenging the judgment fixing the liability on the insurer to pay compensation.
3. Since all these appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the trial court, they are taken up together for disposal.
4. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.
5. It was the case of the claimants in both the petitions that, on 20.11.2011, the deceased Rafiq and petitioner in MVC No.1467/2012 Mustaq were proceeding to Banahatti on the motorcycle bearing KA-48/M-1206 on 8 Banahatti-Jamakhandi road. The deceased Rafiq Mulla was rider and Mustaq was pillion rider. Near Bidari Kalyan Mantap, due to actionable negligence of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-48/M-3420, dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, both rider and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment, Rafiq Mulla succumbed to the injuries on 11.02.2012. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the car for causing the accident in question. With these reasons, Mustaq filed petition MVC No.1466/2012 and legal heirs of deceased Rafiq Mulla were filed claim petition in MVC No.1467/2012 claiming compensation.
6. Respondent No.1 denied the contentions of the petitioners/claimants. It was further contended that accident was caused due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. His car was insured with respondent No.2 and it is liable to pay the compensation.
7. Respondent No.2 denied the case of the petitioners/claimants and it has further contended that 9 driver of the car had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the car. He had violated terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, respondent No.2 was not liable to pay compensation.
8. The trial court framed necessary issues.
9. Petitioners in both the cases examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P57. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 examined R.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.R1 to R8.
10. The trial court appreciating the pleadings and evidence of both the parties by the impugned judgment, awarded compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- in MVC No.1466/2012 and Rs.12,40,000/- in MVC No.1467/2012. Respondent No.2 was directed to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The said judgment is challenged by the claimants as well respondent No.2, in both the cases.
11. We have heard the arguments.
10
12. The following points that emerge for our determination:
i) Whether the claimants in MFA Nos.101192 and 101193 of 2015 are entitled for enhancement of compensation?
ii) Whether driver of the car violated terms and conditions of the policy and hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify respondent No.1?
13. The accident is not seriously disputed. The trial court on the basis of material available on record rightly held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver which has resulted in the injuries to the claimant in MVC No.1466/2012 and death of Rafiq Mulla. It does not call for any interference.
14. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants in MVC No.1467/2012 is that trial court has not added future prospects to the earnings of the deceased 11 while assessing compensation. The amount of compensation awarded under the heads are on the lower side. Therefore, prayed to enhance the said amount.
15. It is further contended that claimant in MVC No.1466/2012, earning of the injured was not properly considered. The disability assessed by the trial court is on the lower side. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, prayed to award just and reasonable compensation.
16. The trial court appreciating the pleadings and evidence has held that age of the claimant in MVC No.1466/2012 was 24 years, his income was Rs.6,000/- p.m., disability of 25% to the whole body and on that basis awarded compensation of Rs.6,10,000/-. The learned trial Judge though properly accepted the income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- p.m., but has failed to add income towards future prospects. The claimant was aged about 24 years. Therefore, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. The trial court appreciating the evidence 12 of P.Ws.3 and 4 held that disability to the whole body of the claimant was 25%. Since it is not challenged by the respondents, there is no need to reconsider the same. The trial court has properly applied multiplier of '18'. After adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income of the claimant comes to Rs.8,400/-. On the basis of the same, the compensation under the head loss of future earning capacity is Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.2,100/- x 12 x 18 x 25%).
17. The learned trial Judge considering the receipts and medical bills properly awarded Rs.1,76,000/- and it does not call for interference.
18. The compensation towards pain and suffering is also properly awarded.
19. The claimant had been suffering certain disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident as stated by P.Ws.3 and 4. Considering the same Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities. Accordingly, the 13 claimant in MVC No.1466/2012 is entitled for following compensation.
Sl.No. Heads Amount
(Rs.)
1 Loss of future earning capacity 4,53,600
2 Pain and suffering 75,000
3 Loss of amenities 50,000
4 Medical expenses 1,76,000
Total 7,54,600
20. The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,54,600, which is rounded off to Rs.7,55,000/- as against Rs.6,10,000/- awarded by the trial court.
21. In respect of claimants in MVC No.1467/2012, the trial court on the basis of the material on record accepted the age of the deceased as 24 years, income at Rs.6,000/- p.m., relevant multiplier of '18' and awarded compensation of Rs.12,40,000/-. The trial court has not added future prospects to the income of the deceased. Since he was aged about 24 years, 40% has to be added towards future prospects. The trial court has deducted 1/3rd of the salary of the deceased towards personal expenses. Considering the said facts, the claimants are 14 entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency at Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.5,600/- x 12 x 18).
22. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are parents and claimant No.3 is wife of the deceased. The trial court awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of loss of love and affection. It is settled law that towards spousal consortium as well as loss of filial consortium Rs.40,000/- each shall be awarded to the dependants. Accordingly, Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded under the head loss of consortium. The claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
23. The deceased had sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted as an inpatient from the date of the accident till 03.01.2012. The medical bills and other receipts are produced. On that basis, the trial court has rightly awarded Rs.2,80,000/- towards medical expenses and it does not call for any interference. The claimants in 15 MVC No.1467/2012 are entitled for following compensation:
Sl.No. Heads Amount
(Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 12,09,600
2 Loss of spousal & filial consortium 1,20,000
3 Loss of estate 15,000
4 Funeral expenses 15,000
5 Medical expenses 2,80,000
Total 16,19,600
Rounded off 16,20,000
24. The trial court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. in both the cases, which is on the higher side. It is reduced to 6% p.a. since commercial banks are granting interest less than 6% p.a. on fixed deposits for a period of one year. Claimants in MVC No.1467/2012 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.16,20,000/- as against Rs.12,40,000/- awarded by the trial court.
25. The contention of respondent No.2 is that respondent No.1, who was owner-cum-driver of the car was holding learner's licence and he had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the car. According to 16 Ex.P2, at the time of the accident, one Durgappa was sitting beside the drivers seat. It is not the case of respondent No.1 that he was holding valid driving licence to drive the car or he was instructing to driver of the car. Contrary to the contents of Ex.P2, respondent No.1 led evidence of R.W.2 to show that he was sitting beside the driver seat and instructing respondent No.1 to drive the car. It clearly indicates that he was planted witness. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. The trial court has not considered this point properly.
26. Learned counsel for the claimants has contended that according to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, competent authority can issue learner's licence and it is valid licence. Admittedly, respondent No.1 had learner's licence to drive the car. Since it is issued by the competent authority, it is valid licence. Respondent No.1 has examined R.W.2 to prove the fact that R.W.2 was sitting beside the driver seat. R.W.2 has produced copy of the 17 driving licence. Therefore, requirement of learner's licence was complied by respondent No.1.
27. R.W.2 was subjected to cross-examination by respondent No.2 and nothing was brought out to discard his evidence. It is on record that complainant was no more. Respondent No.2 has not examined investigating officer or eye-witness. Even so called eye-witnesses were not examined by respondent No.2, to show that R.W.2 was not sitting in the car. Therefore, contents of complaint is contrary to evidence of R.W.2, does not mean that evidence of R.W.2 is not reliable.
28. On the basis of the available material on record, it is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 had learner's licence to drive the car and he was driving the car at the time of the accident. Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 says that 'learner's licence' means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein, to drive as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified 18 class or description. Therefore, licence given to respondent No.1 was valid licence given by competent authority, of course, it has certain restrictions.
29. Sections 7 and 8 of M.V.Act deals with the restrictions and grant of learner's licence and it is not in dispute that, when a driver of a vehicle is having learner's licence, then he has to go along with a person who has knowledge of driving and also holding valid driving licence to drive such a class of vehicle. In this case, respondent No.1 along with R.W.2 was going in the said car. R.W.2 was sitting beside the driver seat and on his instructions, respondent No.1 was said to be driving the car. The mandatory provision was complied by respondent No.1. The trial court has discussed in detail and there is no need to repeat it.
30. In a motor vehicle accident case, on the basis of police records, the court will prima facie accept the facts mentioned therein. It does not mean that when certain fact is seriously disputed then also on the basis of contents 19 of the documents, it has to be accepted without leading evidence. The evidence of R.W.2 was seriously challenged by respondent No.2 and he was thoroughly cross- examined, but nothing was brought out to disbelieve his evidence about his presence in the car, at the time of the accident. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 examined R.W.3 who is the administrative officer of respondent No.2. According to R.W.3, complainant died within few days after the accident. R.W.3 has stated that company has appointed investigating agency and the said agency submitted the report of investigation. The said report is not placed on record by respondent No.2. The evidence of R.W.3 does not help respondent No.2 to show that R.W.2 was not traveling in the car. Respondent No.2 has examined R.W.4-ARTO of Belagavi. He has stated about holding of learner's licence by respondent No.1 that is not in dispute. Under these circumstances, the contention of respondent No.2 that respondent No.1 has violated terms of the policy or he has not followed the 20 conditions of the learner's licence while driving the car is not established.
31. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon the following judgments.
i) MFA No.7371/2019 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Jayarama Shetty and Others of this court. In that case, rider of the motorcycle who died in the accident, had learner's licence and accident had taken place in the middle of the road. Therefore, this court held that it was contributory negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and on that basis 25% of the compensation was reduced as contributory negligence of the deceased. It is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
ii) 2001 (5) MPHT 625 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Manik Rao and Others). The principle laid down in the above said case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 21
iii) 2013 ACJ 1697 (Vikas Kumar Verma vs. Lachiya Devi and Others (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur)).
iv) MANU/CG/0513/2020 (Krishna Kumar Sahu and Others vs. Mani Lal and Others (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur)).
In the above cases, the court held that driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence and therefore, insurance company was exonerated from payment of compensation. In the said case, there is clear violation of the rules by the driver of the vehicle who had learner's licence. Therefore, the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
v) 2018 ACJ 577 (Abdul Gafoor K.P. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd). In this case also there is violation of conditions of licence by the driver of the vehicle, who had learner's licence. Therefore, principles of law laid down in the above judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 22
vi) 1991 ACJ 173 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Masabi).
vii) 1996 ACJ 253 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe and Others).
In the above cases, the facts are different and not applicable to the facts of the present case.
32. Learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance on the following judgments.
i) Division Bench judgment of this court in MFA No.102528/2019 c/w MFA No.101452/2019 dated 13.09.2022, wherein it is held that breach of terms and conditions of policy was not proved by the insurance company as specified under Section 149(2) of the M.V.Act and there is no way the insurer can be absolved of its liability.
ii) (2018) 9 SCC 650 (Shamanna and Another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others).
23
iii) (2004) 3 SCC 297 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others.
In the above said cases, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, if the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, to drive such class of vehicle, the insurance company has to pay the compensation and recover the same from owner of the vehicle.
33. In the present case, respondent No.2 is unable to show that respondent No.1 has violated the conditions of learner's licence or policy of insurance. Therefore, question of directing respondent No.1 to pay the compensation does not arise.
34. For the aforesaid discussion respondent No.2 cannot claim exonerating it from payment of compensation. The trial court considering the fact and material available on record, has rightly held that there was no violation of conditions of the policy by respondent 24 No.1. We concur with the same and it does not call for any interference.
35. For the aforesaid discussion, we answer the points accordingly and pass the following:
ORDER
i) MFA Nos.100942 and 100944 of 2015 are dismissed.
ii) MFA Nos.101192 and 101193 of 2015 are allowed in part. The impugned judgment passed by the trial court is modified.
iii) The claimants in MVC No.1466/2012 are
entitled for total compensation of
Rs.7,55,000/- as against Rs.6,10,000/-
awarded by the trial court.
iv) The claimants in MVC No.1467/2012 are
entitled for total compensation of
Rs.16,20,000/- as against Rs.12,40,000/-
awarded by the trial court.
v) In the both the cases, the claimants are
entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 25 the date of petition till realization of the entire amount.
vi) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the said amount.
vii) The amount if any deposited by respondent No.2 shall be transmitted to the trial court forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MBS