Bangalore District Court
Yathish M.B vs Chandrashekar H.R on 11 December, 2025
KABC020113052023
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, ACJM AND MEMBER-MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-13)
DATED THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
PRESENT: Smt.Shyla S.M., B.B.M. LL.B.,
II Addl.Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes
BENGALURU
M.V.C.No.2481 OF 2023
Petitioner: Mr. Yathish M.B.
S/o Basavaraju
Aged about 21 years,
R/At Kadaba, Bittakodanahalli Post,
Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District-572219.
Present Address:
R/At No.2, 1st Main, 2nd Cross,
Rajeevgandhinagar,
Near Govt. School, Laggere,
Bengaluru-560068.
(By Sri.Chikkanna B.H., Adv.,)
Vs.
SCCH-13 2 MVC.2481/2023
Respondents: 1. Mr.H.R.Chandrashekar
S/o T.Revanna
Jalagara Dibba, Honnudike Post,
Guluru Hobli, Tumkuru-572122.
(RC Owner Of motorcycle Bearing
Reg.No.KA-06-HJ-9837).
(By Sri.T.H.Prasanna Kumar, Adv,)
2. Deleted.
3 The Manager
The HDFC ERGO Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
Ground Floor, ACR Tower, 32,
Residency Road, Opp.SBI Bank,
Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru-560025.
(Policy No.2312910089997200000
Validity: 14-1-2021 To 13-1-2026)
(By Sri.T.Kodandarama, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This petition under Section 166 MV act is filed by the Petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on 15-04-2023 at about 7.00 p.m., he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-02-KR-
SCCH-13 3 MVC.2481/20230120 on Honnudike - Nagavalli Road, near Virupasandra village, Guluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, At that time, the rider of another motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-06-HJ-9837 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) came at a high speed and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle. Due to the force impact, the petitioner fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries.
3. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Govt. hospital, Tumkur, after receiving first aid, he was shifted to Aster hospital. Subsequently, he was shifted to ESI hospital, Bengaluru, where he was treated as an inpatient and underwent surgery. It is stated that due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner has suffered permanent disability and is unable to lead a normal life as he did prior to the accident.
4. The petitioner further contends that he incurred substantial expenditure towards medical treatment, medicines, conveyance and other incidental expenses. At time of the accident, he was aged about SCCH-13 4 MVC.2481/2023 21 years, working as a Line Assembly -2 employee in AMS factory, Peenya, Bengaluru and earning Rs. 25,000 per month. Due to the permanent disability, he has suffered loss of earning capacity and loss of income. As the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle, the petitioner has sought compensation from Respondent No. 1, the owner of the offending vehicle; Respondent No. 3, the insurer.
5. Initially, the petitioner had filed the claim petition against Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No.2 - Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. Thereafter, it was deleted from the array of parties, and HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., was impleaded as Respondent No. 3. Despite service of notice, Respondent No. 1 appeared before the Court but failed to file his objections. Respondent No. 3 has contested the petition by filing its written statement.
6. Respondent No. 3 has denied the allegations of rash and negligent riding on the part of the rider of the offending motorcycle and has contended that the police failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of SCCH-13 5 MVC.2481/2023 Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No. 3 has, however, admitted that a valid insurance policy had been issued in respect of the offending vehicle but contends that its liability, if any, is strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the said policy.
7. Respondent No. 3 has further disputed the manner of the accident and even the involvement of the offending vehicle. It has asserted that the accident did not occur due to any negligence on the part of the rider of the offending motorcycle but solely due to the negligence of the petitioner himself, who was allegedly riding his motorcycle without wearing a helmet, without holding a valid driving licence, without carrying vehicle documents, and without proper knowledge of riding.
8. It is also contended that the rider of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident and had thereby violated the policy conditions. Respondent No.3 has further denied the nature of injuries, age, occupation, income, disability, and medical expenses SCCH-13 6 MVC.2481/2023 claimed by the petitioner. Hence, Respondent No. 3 has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following Issues were framed :-
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 15-04-2023 at about 7.00 p.m., near Virupasandra Village, Honnudike-Nagavalli Road, Guluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-06-HJ-9837?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? If so, what amount?
3. What order or award?
10. In order to prove the claim, the Petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and in support of his case, 2 witnesses were examined as PW-2 and 3 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.19. On the other hand, the Respondent No.3 has examined the Official of RTO, Tumkur as RW-1 and and got marked the documents as Ex.R.1 and 2. Further the official of SCCH-13 7 MVC.2481/2023 Respondent No.3 is examined as RW-2 and one document is marked as Ex.R.3.
11. By considering the available materials on record and the arguments addressed by the parties, I have answered the above Issues as under:
12. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative. Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative. Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
13. ISSUE NO.1:- It is the specific case of the petitioner that on 15-04-2023 at about 7.00 p.m., he was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-02-KR-0120 on Honnudike - Nagavalli Road, near Virupasandra village, Guluru Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, At that time, the rider of the offending vehicle came at a high speed and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle. Due to the force impact, the SCCH-13 8 MVC.2481/2023 petitioner fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries.
14. To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, reiterating the averments made in the petition. He produced the FIR at Ex P-1, complaint at Ex P-2, Police intimation memo at Ex.P.3, Spot Mahazar at Ex.P.4, IMV Report at Ex P-5, Wound Certificate at Ex P-6, and Charge Sheet at Ex P-7.
15. In further support of his case, Dr. Ramesh, Orthopedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, was examined as PW-2 and he produced the medical documents marked as Exhibits P-15 and P-16. The Medical Technician, MRT, ESIC Hospital, Bengaluru, was examined as PW-3 and he produced additional treatment records marked as Exhibits P-18 and P-19, i.e., copies of the MLC register and case sheets. The medical records establish that the petitioner sustained a communited displaced fracture of the mid-shaft of the right tibia along with fracture of both bones, which are categorized as grievous injuries. The FIR, IMV SCCH-13 9 MVC.2481/2023 report and charge sheet collectively corroborate the petitioner's version of the manner of accident. Notably, the charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the offending motorcycle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC, clearly indicating that upon investigation, the police found the rider of the offending vehicle responsible for the accident.
16. Respondent No. 3/insurer, however, contended in its written statement that the accident occurred solely due to the petitioner's own negligence, alleging that he was riding the motorcycle without wearing a helmet, without valid vehicle documents, and without proper riding knowledge. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, suggestions were put to him that the offending vehicle had not caused any accident and that the petitioner himself, while riding at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, fell on his own. The petitioner denied this suggestion. A further suggestion was made that the police recorded his statement only on the next day of the incident and that there was delay in lodging the complaint. The petitioner admitted this suggestion. It is, however, well settled that in motor vehicle accident claim SCCH-13 10 MVC.2481/2023 proceedings, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal trials.
17. RW-2, the official examined on behalf of Respondent No. 3, merely reiterated the contents of the written statement. This respondent, however, has not produced any documentary evidence or examined any independent witness to substantiate its allegation that the accident was a self-fall or that the petitioner was solely negligent. No material has been placed to discredit the police records. On the other hand, the petitioner has produced consistent and credible police documents FIR, IMV report, and charge sheet, all of which establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle.
18. Upon careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, this Tribunal finds that although the complaint was lodged one day after the incident, such minimal delay is not fatal to the petitioner's case, particularly when other contemporaneous records are available and remain unchallenged. The defence raised by Respondent No. 3 SCCH-13 11 MVC.2481/2023 rests solely on oral suggestions without any supporting evidence and therefore remains wholly unsubstantiated.
19. Accordingly, this Tribunal holds that the accident in question occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motorcycle, resulting in the petitioner sustaining grievous injuries. Thus Issue No. 1 is answered in the Affirmative.
20. ISSUE NO.2 :- The medical evidence on record establishes that the petitioner sustained a communited displaced fracture of the mid-shaft of the right tibia along with fracture of both bones. The medical documents classify these injuries as grievous in nature.
21. PW-2, Dr. Ramesh B., Orthopedic Surgeon, Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, deposed that the petitioner had suffered a fractures of tibia and fibula with right compartment syndrome in the road traffic accident. He further stated that the petitioner underwent external fixation, fabliotomy, lateral debridement, and later removal of the external fixator.
SCCH-13 12 MVC.2481/202322. Upon recent examination, PW-2 noted that the petitioner continues to experience persistent pain in the right leg and difficulty in squatting, sitting cross-legged, climbing stairs, walking on slopes, kneeling, standing on the affected limb, and performing routine daily activities. He also stated that the petitioner cannot walk without support and exhibits deformity of the limb. On clinical evaluation, PW-2 assessed the permanent physical disability at 46% of the right lower limb and 23% to the whole body.
23. During cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that he had not personally treated the petitioner and had based his assessment on the available medical records. He also admitted that there had been some improvement between the date of accident and the date of his examination, though he maintained that the fractures had not yet united. He denied the suggestion that external fixation is removed only after complete union of the fracture. He further admitted that the petitioner had not sustained any fracture involving the joints. He denied the suggestion that the assessed SCCH-13 13 MVC.2481/2023 disability ought to be reduced to one-third for whole- body assessment.
24. It is pertinent to note that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are in the tibia and fibula of the right leg, a region crucial for mobility, locomotion, and performance of occupational duties. Any impairment in this region necessarily hampers the petitioner's day-to-day functioning and impacts his ability to discharge professional responsibilities effectively.
25. While PW-2 quantified the permanent physical disability, he did not provide any specific opinion regarding the functional disability, namely the actual impact of such impairment on the petitioner's earning capacity. Thus, this Tribunal is required to independently assess the functional disability by considering the nature and location of the injury, the petitioner's age, occupation, residual symptoms, and the medical evidence on record.
26. Taking into consideration the nature and location of the injury, the degree of disability sustained, its functional impact on daily and SCCH-13 14 MVC.2481/2023 vocational activities, the age and avocation of the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the functional disability should be reasonably assessed at 12% to the whole body, rather than 23% as assessed purely on physical grounds. This assessment shall be taken into account for the purpose of computing compensation for future loss of earning capacity.
27. In the petition the age of the petitioner is mentioned as 21 years. Ex.P.10 - Aadhar card of the petitioner shows that he was born on 03-04-2002, the same is considered, then age of the petitioner as on the date of accident as 21 years and the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 18.
28. With respect to the petitioner's claim regarding his income, it is his specific case that at the time of the accident he was 21 years old and working as a Line Assembly -2 employee in AMS factory, Peenya, Bengaluru and earning Rs. 25,000 per month. In order to substantiate his avocation and income, the petitioner has produced his employment ID card and certain pay slips at Ex.P.9 and 10.
SCCH-13 15 MVC.2481/202329. Upon perusal of said pay slips, it is seen that for the month of March 2022, the petitioner received the wages of Rs 22,749, for the month of May 2022 he received the wages of Rs. 15,233 and for the month of October 2022 he received the wages of Rs. 18,184/-. However, the petitioner has neither examined his employer nor produced bank statements or any other primary documentary evidence to corroborate that he was continuously employed with the said factory. Apart from the certain pay slips, no contemporaneous salary records have been produced to establish continuity of employment or to substantiate the claimed monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. In the absence of such substantive material, and keeping in view the nature of the petitioner's avocation, this Tribunal is inclined to fix the notional income at Rs.16,000/- per month, which is considered just and reasonable for the purpose of assessing compensation.
30. Thus this tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner who sustained the injuries is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
SCCH-13 16 MVC.2481/202331. Loss of future income on account of permanent disability: Considering the petitioner's grievous injury which has resulted in performing daily vocational activities, this court is of the opinion that the functional disability of 12% is reasonable and just.
32. The petitioner was 21 years old as on date of alleged accident and the multiplier applicable to the petitioner as per decision laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Sarla Verma's case is at 18. The notional income taken as Rs.16,000 x 12 x 18 x 12/100= Rs.4,14,720/- towards loss of future income.
33. Pain and sufferings: So far as the compensation under non-pecuniary damages are concerned, considering the nature of the injury, which has resulted in difficulty in performing daily vocational activities, as well as the duration of inpatient treatment and physical and mental suffering endured by the petitioner, this tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of ₹.75,000/- would be just and fair compensation under the head pain and sufferings.
SCCH-13 17 MVC.2481/202334. Loss of amenities of life: undoubtedly the petitioner is suffering from difficulties in performing day to day activities and is facing continuous hardship due to the disability. Therefore this tribunal finds to appropriate to award a sum ₹.50,000/- under head of loss of amenities of life.
35. Medical expenses: Under the pecuniary damages, expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines, the Petitioner has relied on medical bills at Ex.P.13 for Rs.5,059/- and at Ex.P.23 for Rs.37,367/-. On perusal of these medical bills, it reveals that the Petitioner has spent totally ₹.42,426/- towards medical expenses. The medical bills appears to be genuine. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for medical expenses of ₹.42,426/- towards Medical Expenses.
36. Future medical expenses: PW-2 has stated that the petitioner requires further treatment for non union of tibia. However, no estimate has been produced to substantiate the cost of the further treatment. In the absence of material evidence, this tribunal considers it is just and reasonable to award a SCCH-13 18 MVC.2481/2023 sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses.
37. Conveyance, food and nourishment charges: Ex.P.12 - Discharge summary shows that Petitioner underwent inpatient treatment at ESIC hospital, Bengaluru from 16-04-2023 to 06-06-2023, from 15-06-2023 to 28-06-2023, from 13-09-2023 to 28-09-2023 and Ex.P.20 discharge summary shows that he has taken treatment as an inpatient from 23- 01-2024 to 23-02-2024 at Sapthagiri hospital, Bengaluru, and from 18-12-2024 at to 21-12-2024 taken treatment as an inpatient at Adichunchanagiri hospital, B.G.Nagara, i.e., totally for a period of 155 days. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to award compensation of ₹. 1,00,000/- under the head of conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges.
38. Loss of earning during laid up period: With regard to the loss of earnings during treatment period, Considering the nature of the grievous injury, which has resulted in significant difficulty in carrying out daily vocational activities, as well as the duration of SCCH-13 19 MVC.2481/2023 impatient treatment and recovery, this tribunal considers the 6 months for rest is considered . As the monthly income of the Petitioner is already considered as ₹.16,000/- per month, loss of earning during laid up period would be ₹.16,000 x 6 = Rs.96,000/-.
39. Thus the compensation awarded under the various heads are as under:
Sl. Nature of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Loss of future earnings ₹ 4,14,720/-
2. Pain and Sufferings ₹ 75,000/-
3. Loss of amenities ₹ 50,000/-
4. Medical expenses ₹ 42,426/-
5. Future medical expenses ₹ 20,000/-
6. Conveyance, Food, ₹ 1,00,000/-
Nourishment & Attendant
charges
7. Loss of income during laid ₹ 96,000/-
up period
Total ₹ 7,98,146/-
40. Liability: As already held under Issue No. 1, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motorcycle. It is an SCCH-13 20 MVC.2481/2023 admitted position that the vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company, and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. However, Respondent No. 3 has disputed its liability on the ground that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time.
41. To substantiate this defence, the respondent no 3 examined, its official as RW2, who deposed that the rider had no driving licence on the date of accident, and in further support their case, RTO of Tumkur examined as RW1, who produced the DL extract of the rider of the offending motorcycle and Rw1 deposed that the validity of the driving licence of Chandrashekar was from 26.7.2014 to 6.6.2022 and that the Driving licence subsequently renewed only on 25.05.2023, it is undisputed that the accident occurred on 15.4.2023, i.e., during the intervening period after the expiry of the previous Driving licence and prior its renewal. The charge sheet filed by the police also discloses an allegation of non-holding of DL.
SCCH-13 21 MVC.2481/202342. The respondent no 3 has contended that at the time of accident, the rider of motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective DL and therefore seeks to establish a breach of policy conditions by placing reliance on the following citations:
1. AIR 2020 SC 4453 (FB) - Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar and another.
2. 2008 AIR SCW 6512 - Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United India Ins.Co.Ltd., and others.
3. 2008 SC 409 - Sardari and others Vs. Sushil Kumar and others.
4. MFA.No.7018/2023 C/w MFA No.2658/2024 dated 16-01-2025 - M/s.Tata AIG Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Sri.Manjunatha and others.
5. MFA.No.6154/2019 dated 14-12-2023 -
Hemalatha and others Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., and another.
6. MVC.No.3486/2022 - Bhagyashree and others Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., and another.
7. Special Leave to appeal (C)No.8269/2025 - ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Arti Devi and others.
8. Special Leave petition (C)No.11758/2025 - dated 24-4-2025 - Mahaveer Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Ins.Co.Ltd., and others.
SCCH-13 22 MVC.2481/202343. Though the owner has appeared, has not produced any document to show that he was holding a valid and effective driving licence. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, and in light of the charge sheet, EX R2 DL extract and oral evidence of RW1, the contention of Respondent No. 3 regarding breach of policy conditions stands fully substantiated.
44. It is therefore held that the offending motorcycle was being ridden by a rider without a valid and effective driving licence, and it amounts to a willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, Respondent No. 1, as the owner of the vehicle, is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
45. The petitioner has relied upon the following decisions laying down the principle of pay and recovery:
1. 2024 ACJ 2816 - Rajanna and another Vs. Abasheb and another.SCCH-13 23 MVC.2481/2023
2. MFA.No.202104/2024 dated 19-11-2024 - The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Pooja and others.
3. AHC.No.14110 - ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Smt.Arti Devi and 8 others.
46. It is a well-settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297, that even in case involving breach of policy condition such as the vehicle being driven without a valid and effective driving licence the doctrine of pay and recovery applies. In accordance with this principle the tribunal is empower to direct the insurer to satisfy award in the first instance and thereafter recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.
47. Even though respondent No. 3 has established that the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. This defence cannot defeat the lawful claim of the petitioner. Respondent No. 3, being the insurer, is directed to satisfy the award in the first instance and pay the compensation to the petitioner along with SCCH-13 24 MVC.2481/2023 interest at 6% per annum. Thereafter, respondent No.3 shall be entitled to recover the said amount from respondent No.1 - the owner of the offending vehicle - in accordance with law. With these observation I answer Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative.
48. ISSUE NO.3 : In view of the above discussion, reasons stated and findings given to above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act is allowed in part with cost. Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs. 7,98,146/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. (except future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation as awarded by this Tribunal.
Respondent No.3 - Insurance
company shall deposit aforesaid
amount within two months from the
date of this order and recover the entire compensation amount along with interest from the Respondent No.1 in view of violation of terms of insurance policy.SCCH-13 25 MVC.2481/2023
After deposit of the compensation amount, 25% of the amount shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of 2 years. Remaining 75% amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner through E- payment on proper identification. Advocate's fee is fixed at ₹.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court dated this the 11th day of December 2025.) (SHYLA S.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACJM Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner :
PW.1 : Yathish M.B. PW.2 : Dr.Ramesh PW.3 : Pavithra M.S.
List of documents marked for Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
SCCH-13 26 MVC.2481/2023
Ex.P.2 : True copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 : True copy of Police intimation memo
Ex.P.4 : True copy of spot mahazar
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 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card
Ex.P.9 : Notarized copy of Employment ID card
Ex.P.10 : Pay slips
Ex.P.11 : OPD record
Ex.P.12 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.13 : Medical bills
Ex.P.14 : 5 Photos with CD
Ex.P.15 : OPD card
Ex.P.16 : X-ray
Ex.P.17 : Authorization letter
Ex.P.18 : Copy of MLC register extract
Ex.P.19 : Case sheet X
Ex.P.20 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.21 : OPD book
Ex.P.22 : Followup records
Ex.P.23 : Medical bills
Ex.P.24 : X-ray films
List of witnesses examined for Respondents :
RW-1 : Ravikumar
SCCH-13 27 MVC.2481/2023
RW.2 : G.Suresh
List of documents marked for Respondents :
Ex.R.1 : Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 : DL extract
Ex.R.3 : Copy of Policy.
(SHYLA S.M.)
II Addl. Judge & ACJM
Member, MACT,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.