Bombay High Court
Smt. Archana Sandip Purandare vs Shri Dawoodsab Ladlesab Walikar on 12 December, 2013
Author: R.Y.Ganoo
Bench: S.C.Dharmadhikari, R.Y.Ganoo
jud fa 872-12.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.872 OF 2012
1. Smt. Archana Sandip Purandare
Age 42 years, Occ: Housewife
2. Ku. Swarali Sandip Purandare
Age 10 years, Occ: Student.
3. Shri Shashikant Raghunath Purandare
(since deceased through its legal heirs
3a) Sou. Madhavi Shashikant Purandare
Age.72 years, Occ: Housewife
3b) Shri Sanjay Shashikant Purandare
Age 50 years, Occ: Service,
Both res. at Pramanik Society
2nd floor, Sir P.M.Road, Flat No.202,
Vile Parle (E), Mumbai.
3c) Sou. Archana Sandip Purandare,
Age 45 years, Occ: Housewife,
res. at Sarita, Nishigandha,
F-8/10, Sarita Nagari,
Phase-I, Ganesh Mala,
Sinhagad Road, Pune.
4. Mrs. Madhavi Shashikant Purandare,
Age 69 years, Occ: Housewife,
res. at Flat No.8, Raghav.
Shri Rahuraj Society, 118-A
Sinhagad Road, Pune 30 .. Appellant
pps 1/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 :::
jud fa 872-12.doc
v/s.
1. Shri Dawoodsab Ladlesab Walikar
Age 55 years, Occ: Business.
Res. at (a) Green Gate
Opp. Bench Police Chowky,
Gilbeart Hill Road,
Andheri (West),
Mumbai.
(b) A-Wing, 402, A.G.Nagar,
Western Express Highway,
Kashimira Road (E),
Thane.
2.
Shri Bimappa Balappa Harijan
Age 47 years, Occ: Driver,
Res. at Janata Colony,
Malikaarjun Chawl,
Gilbert Hill Road,
Near Navrang Theatre,
Andheri (West),
Mumbai.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
having its regional office at
May Fair Towers,
Old Pune Mumbai Highway,
Wakadewadi, Pune ..Respondent/s
Mr. Shriram S.Kulkarni for the Appellants
None for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Sanjay Krishnan i/b. Leges Consultus for the Respondent No.3.
pps 2/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 :::
jud fa 872-12.doc
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,
& R.Y.GANOO, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 12, 2013
JUDGMENT (PER R.Y.GANOO, J.) :
1. The appellants are challenging the award dated 5.12.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune in Claim Petition No.1215 of 2007. Few facts necessary for disposal of this first appeal are as under:-
2. The appellant no.1 married one Sandip Purandare. The appellant no.2 is the daughter born out of said marriage between appellant no.1 and said Sandip. The original applicant no.3 Shashikant was the father of said Sandip. During pendency of the said petition, said Shashikant expired. Hence present appellant nos.3a to 3d were brought on record as heirs of said Shashikant. This was done during the pendency of claim petition. The appellant no.4 is mother of said Sandip. She was also impleaded as heir of said Shashikant. The appellant no.3b is brother of said Sandip and is pps 3/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc shown as such in his capacity as heir of said Shashikant. The appellant no.3(c) Mrs. Archana is the heir of said Shashikant and has been brought on record in the said capacity.
3. It is the case of the appellants that on 5.7.2007 at about 7.15 a.m., said Sandip Deshpande, since deceased (hereafter referred to as said Sandip) was riding Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.MH 02 AJ 5240 on Western Express Highway, Mumbai.
ig Said Sandip was proceeding from Vile Parle towards Mumbai in moderate speed. According to the appellants at Gold Spot junction, below the over bridge a truck (dumper) bearing registration No.MH 04 BG 9913 came from Andheri side in excessive speed and gave dash to said Sandip. On account of the said impact, said Sandip sustained grievous injuries and he died on the spot. The police had after due investigation filed the chargesheet against the respondent no.2 i.e. the driver of the said truck under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Present respondent no.1 is the owner of the said truck. The respondent no.2 was the driver of the said truck at the time of the pps 4/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc aforesaid incident. The respondent no.3 is insurance company with whom the said truck was insured. On account of death of said Sandip, present appellant no.1, appellant no.2, said Shashikant (since deceased) and appellant no.4 filed an application for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Pune. (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal). That application was numbered as Claim Petition No.1215 of 2007. The original applicants applied for compensation by contending that said Sandip was working in Larsen and Tubro Ltd., and was earning a substantial salary to the tune of Rs.43,693/- and was getting annual performance linked reward to the extent of Rs.65,000/-. According to the original applicants they were entitled to get compensation for the reasons pleaded in the said claim petition. The compensation was claimed on various counts more particularly stated in the said claim petition.
4. The claim petition was opposed by Respondent No.3. It was decided ex-parte so far as respondent nos.1 and 2.
pps 5/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 :::jud fa 872-12.doc
5. On behalf of the present appellants, appellant no.1 Archana gave evidence as P.W.1. Shashikant, father of said Sandip gave evidence as P.W.2. One Mr. Sharma was examined as P.W.3 by the present appellants. Said Sharma was in the employment of Larsen and Tubro Ltd. He was examined to prove the income of Sandip. It is required to be noted that after the death of Sandip present appellant no.1 married one Mr. Sandip Raikar. Said Sandip Raikar is earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of salary. The appellant no.1 is also working with an organization known as Bharti Hospital, Pune as dietician.
Learned Member of the said Tribunal framed following issues:
"1) Whether the applicant proves that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle no.MH.04/BG/9913 owned by opponent no.1 and insured with opponent no.3?
2) Whether the applicants prove that deceased was earning Rs.43,993/- per month?pps 6/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 :::
jud fa 872-12.doc
3) Whether applicants further prove that deceased was getting Rs.65,000/- p.a. towards performance onwards 2006?
4) Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation as claimed? If yes, to what extent?
5) What award?
6. The learned Tribunal answered issue no.1 in the affirmative. It held issue no.2 is partly proved. Issue no.3 was answered in the negative. Issue nos.4 and 5 were decided as per the operative part of the order, namely grant of total compensation of Rs.30 lakhs inclusive of NFL amount along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till realization.
7. The appellants i.e. heirs of said Sandip have challenged the said pps 7/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc award as they were of the view that the said Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record in the proper perspective. Learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni, appearing on behalf of the present appellants submitted the following points so as to challenge the impugned award.
8. It was submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni that the learned member erred in holding that the annual salary income was Rs.3,15,252/- before deduction of income tax and profession tax.
Learned Advocate Mr.Kulkarni had drawn our attention to Exhibit 43 which shows that said Sandip was promoted with effect from July 2007 and his monthly salary was Rs.41,610/-. Learned Advocate Mr.Kulkarni submitted that if the monthly salary is treated as Rs.41,610/- the annual salary of said Sandip would be Rs.4,99,320/-
before deduction of income tax and profession tax. According to learned Advocate Mr.Kulkarni while calculating the income of said Sandip the learned Tribunal should have taken into account Rs.4,99,320/- as annual salary of said Sandip and should have gone ahead to calculate the income of said Sandip. Learned Advocate Mr. pps 8/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc Kulkarni had submitted that after deduction of income tax of Rs.98,796/-, education cess of Rs.2964/- and profession tax of Rs.2,500/- the annual income of said Sandip should have been treated as Rs.3,95,360/-. He submitted that the figure of Rs.3,95,360/- should hae been treated as annual salary of said Sandip for the purpose of calculating compensation.
9. Learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni had further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3 rd of the annual salary towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In so far as this point is concerned, learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni submitted that the learned Tribunal should have noted that on the day when the incident had taken place i.e. on the day when Sandip expired, the total number of family members dependent upon said Sandip were 4, namely the appellant no.1, appellant no.2, original applicant Shashikant-father, and appellant no.4. Learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni therefore submitted that in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported pps 9/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc in (2009) 6 SCC 121, taking into consideration the number of dependents as four, the learned Tribunal should have deducted 1/4 th of the annual salary towards personal and living expense of said Sandip.
Learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni therefore submitted that to this extent the learned Tribunal has committed an error and is required to be corrected by this court in its appellate jurisdiction. Learned Advocate Mr, Kulkarni submitted that if the aforesaid submissions are accepted, the annual salary of said Sandip should be treated as Rs.2,96,295/-.
10. It was submitted by learned Advocate Mr.Kulkarni that the said Tribunal failed to add to the income of said Sandip an amount towards future increase in his annual income on account of length of the service.
11. Learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni submitted that the Tribunal should have added 50% of the amount arrived at after multiplying figure of Rs.2,96,295/- by multiplier 15. According to him such addition ought to be to the extent of 50% as per the judgment in the pps 10/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc case of Sarla Varma (Supra). Learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni therefore submitted that on the basis of his submission earlier advanced, namely taking into consideration the annual salary of said Sandip at Rs.2,96,295/- and multiplying this figure by 15 the total salary turns out to be Rs.44,44,425/-. He, therefore, submitted that 50% of Rs.44,44,425/- namely Rs.22,22,213/- should have been added to arrive the total income of said Sandip. Learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni submitted that according to him total income of said Sandip should be treated as Rs.66,66,638/-.
12. Learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni submitted that the learned Tribunal has not granted costs. He submitted that appropriate order granting costs be passed in the interest of justice.
13. The respondent nos.1 and 2 have remained absent at the time of hearing of this appeal. The respondent no.3 insurance company is represented through learned Advocate Mr. Krishnan. It is required to be noted that the insurance company has not filed any appeal pps 11/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc challenging the grant of compensation. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal as regards involvement of the respondent no. 2 in the accident will have to be accepted. Similarly, the finding that the respondent no.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and is liable to pay appropriate amount of compensation will have to be accepted.
Respondent no.3 is the insurance company with which the offending truck was insured. Respondent no.3 has not filed any appeal against the award. Consequently, the liability of Respondent no.3 as an insurance company cannot be disputed by the respondent no.3 before the court. The respondent no.3 is also not challenging the finding recorded by the Tribunal as regards entitlement of the appellant no.1 even after her marriage with one Mr. Sandip Raikar. Hence the finding recorded by the said Tribunal on the question of liability of all the respondents will have to be confirmed.
14. The learned advocate Mr.Krishnan appearing on behalf of Respondent no.3 opposed the submissions advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni appearing on behalf of the appellants. He pps 12/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc submitted that the learned Tribunal had correctly arrived at the compensation amount after considering oral as well as documentary evidence on record. He submitted that the appeal should be dismissed as impugned award needs no interference.
15. On consideration of rival submissions following points arise for our determination:
a) Whether the learned Tribunal correctly arrived at amount of compensation?
b) If answer to point is in the negative what should be the amount of compensation payable to the appellants?
For the following reasons, our finding on point no.1 is in the negative.
We have for the reasons stated hereafter arrived at the amount of compensation payable to the appellants and we propose to apportion the amount of compensation between the appellant considering their ages and family needs. Consequently, point no.(b) is decided as per operative part of this judgment.
pps 13/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 :::jud fa 872-12.doc
16. On perusal of the impugned award it is noticed that the learned Tribunal has arrived at the annual salary of said Sandip as Rs.3,15,252/-. The appellants have relied upon the salary certificate at Exhibit 43 being certificate dated 14.11.2007. The said certificate mentions the salary of said Sandip as of June 2007 and as of July 2007. The arguments advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni that since the incident had taken place on 5.7.2007, the salary of Sandip as of July 2007 ought to have been considered by the Tribunal is correct. Said Sandip was promoted w.e.f. July 2007 and consequently there has been increase in his salary. Learned Advocate Mr.Kulkarni had submitted statement as regards the monthly salary of said Sandip on account of promotion, payment of income tax, education tax, profession tax etc, The said statement was taken on record. It is now well settled that from the annual salary received by the deceased, amounts covered by income tax, education cess and professional tax are required to be deducted. As per Exhibit 43 salary of said Sandip from July 2007 before deduction of taxes was Rs.41,610/-. Hence the annual salary of Sandip will turn out to be Rs.
pps 14/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 :::jud fa 872-12.doc 4,99,320/- . From the record it is noticed that the income tax to the tune of Rs.98,796/- has been paid. Education cess to the tune of Rs.2964/- is paid and profession tax to the tune of Rs.2500/- is paid.
Deducting the aforesaid three amounts from the annual salary of Sandip viz. Rs.4,99,320/- a figure of Rs.3,95,060/- is arrived at. This will have to be taken as annual salary of said Sandip. The tribunal has committed an error in not accepting the monthly salary of said Sandip as per Rs.41,610/- ig Consequently, an error has occurred while computing annual salary of said Sandip. To that extent the argument advanced by learned Advocate Mr.Kulkarni will have to be accepted.
We, therefore, hold that annual salary of said Sandip will have to be taken as Rs.3,95,060/-.
So far as the total number of dependents are concerned, said
17. Sandip died leaving behind him appellant no.1-the widow, appellant no.2-the daughter , his father Shashikant who was applicant no.3 and appellant no.4 Mrs. Madhavi his mother. Hence total number of dependents on said Sandip were four. The argument advanced by pps 15/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni on the basis of judgment in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra) it was necessary for the Tribunal to deduct 1/4 th of the annual salary towards personal expenses of Sandip. The deduction to the extent of 1/3rd by the Tribunal is not correct. Hence, 1/4th of the annual salary of said Sandip turns out to be Rs.98,765/-, Deducting this amount from Rs.3,95,060/- multiplicand, namely annual salary of Sandip turns out to be Rs.2,96,295/-.
18. We hold that considering the age of said Sandip and applying the judgment in case of Sarla Varma (Supra) the learned Tribunal has rightly fixed the multiplier as 15. No interference is required in said view of the tribunal.
19. Keeping in view the multiplicand, namely Rs.296295/- and the multiplier as 15 the annual salary of Sandip turns out to be Rs.44,44,425/-.
20. It was argued by learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni that the pps 16/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc Tribunal has not considered the rise in the future income. According to learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni, 50% of the total income arrived at is to be added by way of rise in the income of the deceased. It was submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni that this is to be done in view of judgment of Sarla Varma (supra). This submission of learned Advocate for the appellants is correct and therefore a sum of Rs.22,22,213/- is required to be added in the total income of said Sandip by way of rise in the salary. Hence, the appellants would be entitled to get Rs.66,66,638 as compensation on the basis of annual earning of said Sandip.
21. The learned Tribunal has granted Rs.15,000/- by way of loss of estate. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted by way of loss of consortium and sum of Rs.7000/- is granted by way of funeral expenses. Grant of these amounts in our view needs no interference. Considering the aforesaid observations, the appellants would be entitled to receive Rs.66,98,638/- by way of compensation on account of death of said Sandip. The learned Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 8% pps 17/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc per annum on the total amount of compensation from the date of application till realization. We see no reason to differ from this view.
Appropriate order would be passed in that behalf.
22. It is required to be mentioned that the aforesaid amount of Rs.66,98,638/- will be inclusive of the amount covered by no fault liability.
23. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid we are inclined to grant to the appellants a sum of Rs.66,98,638/- as and by way of compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on 66,98,638/- from the date of filing of the application for compensation till realization.
24. The learned Tribunal has passed orders as regards apportionment of the amount granted by it namely Rs.30 lakhs along with the interest.
The compensation is ordered to be paid/invested to appellant no.1 namely widow of said Sandip, Appellant no.2 namely daughter of said Sandip and Appellant no.4 namely mother of said Sandip. We have pps 18/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc considered the question of apportionment of the compensation between the appellants. The present appellant no.3(b) and 3(c) are the heirs of Shashikant father of said Sandip. No specific material is placed before the court to show that they were dependent upon said Sandip, as such we do not wish to award any amount to them by way of compensation.
25. We have noted that the appellant no.2 Kum. Swarali, daughter of said Sandip is presently of about 11 years. We hold that she would require substantial amount for her education, marriage and for day to day maintenance. It is possible that she would require substantial amount for her education such as education in medical/ engineering faculty. It is on this ground we are inclined to award 60% of the total amount of compensation receivable as per this order to appellant no.2.
The said amount will have to be initially inivested in a nationalized bank and quarterly interest accrued on the same can be paid over to her. The record indicates that the said appellant no.2 is staying with appellant no.1 despite her marriage with said Sandip Raikar. Hence, pps 19/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc the amount of interest payable to appellant no.2 can be paid over to appellant no.1 so that the said amount can be used by appellant no.1 for maintenance, education and other expenses of appellant no.2. We anticipate that as the appellant no.2 would passout 12 th standard examination, she may require some amount for higher education expenses. In such a situation, liberty is granted to the appellant no.2, if she is major, or to appellant no.1 if appellant no.2 is minor, to make an application to the said tribunal for withdrawal of part amount by redeeming the portion of the amount invested in fixed deposit.
26. It is true that we have noted that appellant no.1 has re-married.
However, undoubtedly, she is entitled for compensation on account of death of said Sandip. Nothing has been pointed out to us in law which would disable her to claim compensation only because she has remarried during the proceedings before the Tribunal. The law postulates grant of just compensation to the claimants. That she was married to deceased Sandip and had given birth to a girl child is undisputed. That she has lost the company of Sandip and will have to pps 20/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:32 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc take care of the child even after remarriage ought to have therefore weighed with the Tribunal while awarding compensation. We propose to award 20% of the total amount of compensation receivable as per this order to appellant no.1. We are of the view that the said amount of compensation can be handed over to appellant no.1 in lumpsum, so that the appellant no.1 would be able to invest the said amount as per her choice and get maximum returns on it. This is so because the appellant no.1 is an adult and is competent to attend to her financial matters in the best possible manner.
27. So far as the grant of compensation in favour of appellant no.4, it is noted that the appellant no.4 is presently aged about 72 years.
Hence, we propose to grant 20% of the total amount of compensation receivable as per this order to appellant no.4. We intend to direct that the amount payable to appellant no.4 be invested in a nationalized bank and the interest payable should be on quarterly basis. If in future the appellant no.4 requires some amount for her medical expenses, she would be at liberty to withdraw an appropriate amount from the total amount which she would receive by redeeming the fixed pps 21/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:33 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc deposit/deposits.
28. We have considered the submission of learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni on the question of grant of costs. Learned Tribunal should have granted costs to the appellants. Considering the question of costs we are inclined to grant costs of Rs.30,000/- being costs towards the application before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and this court.
All the respondents are directed to jointly and severally pay the total costs of Rs.30,000/-. These costs amount be paid over to appellant no.1 as she must have taken lead to file application for compensation as well as appeal.
29. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid the appeal is disposed of by passing following order:
ORDER i. The award dated 5.12.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune in MACP No.1215 of 2007 is partly modified, and in its place following award is passed.pps 22/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:33 :::
jud fa 872-12.doc The application for compensation is granted and it is hereby ordered that all the respondent jointly and severally do pay total compensation of Rs.66,98,638/- ( Rupees Sixty-six Lakhs Ninety-eight Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-eight Only) (inclusive of NFL amount) to the appellant nos.1,2 and 4 alongwith interest on Rs.66,98,638/- at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till the date of realization of the same.
ii. The respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation granted as per this order with the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Pune.
iii. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune shall pay to appellant no.1, 20% of the amount of compensation granted as per this order absolutely.
v. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune shall invest 60% of the amount of compensation granted as per this order in the name of pps 23/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:33 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc the appellant no.2 by way of fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. The interest payable should be quarterly.
vi. The amount of interest so accrued shall be paid to appellant no.1.
The appellant no.1 shall utilize the said amount for maintenance, educational expenses and other expenses of appellant no.2. If in future appellant no.2 requires a particular amount for spending it for higher education, the appellant no.2 or the appellant no.1 in her capacity as mother of appellant no.2 will apply to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune for withdrawal of a particular amount and said application will be decided by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune on its own merits. On appellant no.2 attaining the age of 21 years, the amount standing to her credit alongwith the accrued interest, if any, would be paid to her absolutely.
vii. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune shall pay 20% of the amount of compensation granted as per this order, to appellant no.4.
The said amount be invested in a nationalized bank. The interest pps 24/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:33 ::: jud fa 872-12.doc payable should be quarterly. The said interest be paid over to appellant no.4 for her maintenance etc. If appellant no.4 in future requires a particular amount for medical expenses, she is free to make an application to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune for withdrawal of a particular amount from the amount standing to her credit in the fixed deposit along with accrued interest, if any. Said application will be decided on merits.
viii. It is hereby ordered that all the respondents jointly and severally do pay to Appellant no.1 Rs.30,000/- by way of costs towards proceedings before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune and this court.
xi. If any amount is already paid to any of the appellants, credit for the same be given while making payment as per this order.
[R.Y.GANOO J.] [S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] pps 25/25 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:34:33 :::