Bangalore District Court
Muttulinga R P vs Prasad N P on 20 January, 2026
KABC020726362024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY 2026
MVC No.8003/2024
PETITIONER: Sri. Muttulinga R P
S/o late Puttalingaiah,
Aged about 43 years,
R/a No 118,
Rajegowdanadoddi,
Kasaba Hobli, Maddur tq,
Mandya Dist.
(By Sri. T.K.Shanthappa,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Prasad N P
S/o Puttaraju
R/a Alluru,
Neelakantanahalli, Maddur
tq, Mandya dist. 571433
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.8003/2024
(owner of the Maruthi swift
bearing Reg.No: KA-09-MB-
1066)
(By Sri. Ravi Kumar V.
Advocate.)
2. The Manager,
Iffco Tokio General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
O/a KSCMF Building, III
Floor, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore-52.
(Pol.No: 1-3YO2RCQ3 P400 # N0918583
Valid from 15/10/2024 To 14/10/2025)
(By Sri. B.Anjaneyalu,
Advocate/s.)
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the claimant against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying for awarding compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 15.10.2024 at about 01.00pm.
2. The case of the claimant in nutshell is that:
On 15.10.2024 at about 01.00pm the SCCH-25 3 MVC No.8003/2024 petitioner was riding two wheeler vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-41-H-8533, when he reached near Alur Tank Bund Road, K.Honnalagere, Alur Road, Aluru Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya a Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg.No.KA-09-MB-1066 came with high speed, driven by its Driver in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and hit the petitioner's vehicle. Due to impact he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Mandya General Hospital, wherein provided first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to Digvish Hospital, Bengaluru for higher treatment and underwent surgery and the right leg got amputated. So far he has spent Rs.8,00,000/- towards his treatment, nourishment, food etc., Due to the said accidental injuries, suffering from permanent disability. The injuries caused in the accident are permanent in nature.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that, Prior to accident the petitioner was hale and healthy, doing Agriculture and Dairy Farming and earning sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The said accident occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruthi Swift bearing Registration No.KA-09-MB-1066 and Maddur Police have SCCH-25 4 MVC No.8003/2024 registered a case against the driver of the car in Cr.No.240/2024. The respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner prayed to allow the petition and to grant compensation as prayed in the petition.
4. In response to the notice, the respondents appeared through their respective counsels and filed separate written statement.
4A. The 1st respondent has filed written statement and has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the ownership of the vehicle. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant.
4B. The 2nd respondent in its written statement has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the Swift Car bearing No.KA-09-MB-1066 in faovur of the 1st respondent. Further stated that the driver of the Car did not possess a valid DL at the time of accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the Car bearing SCCH-25 5 MVC No.8003/2024 No.KA-09-MB-1066. Further the rider of the motorcycle also did not possess a valid DL to ride the vehicle. It has specifically denied the involvement of the car in the accident. There is non compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further denied the age, occupation, medical expenses etc., Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 15-10-2024 at 1:00pm, near Alur tank bund road, K Honnalagere, Alur Road, Aluru villiage, Maddur Tq., Mandya, due to negligent driving of driver of Maruti Swift Car Reg.No.KA-09- MB-1066 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
Issue No.3: What Order or Award?
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.8003/20246. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 11 & 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P11 & 14. He has also got examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.12 & 13. The respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on its behalf.
7. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decision:
MFA 2519/2020 (MV) C/w MFA No.4621/2020 (MV):
The Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. ltd., Vs. Gangadhara C.V. & Anr.
8. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence let in before this tribunal, my answers to the above points are as follows:
Issue No.1 :In the affirmative, Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative. Issue No3: As per final order, for the foregoing SCCH-25 7 MVC No.8003/2024 #REASONS#
9. Issue No.1:- In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Eleven documents as Exs.P1 to P11 & 14. He has also got examined Doctor as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.12 & 13. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
10. It is the specific case of the respondent No.2 that the driver of the offending Car was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of accident. It has denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. To prove the same it has not examined any witness nor produced any documents.
11. The petitioner has reiterated the petition averments in the chief examination. He has duly cross examined by the counsel for Respondent No.2 at length. During the cross examination of PW.1, he has stated that, the bike belongs to him only and the vehicle is also in his name and the policy was in existence. He was alone going on the bike. The accident Road was a Two way 10 - 12 feet widen Road, two cars would move on the Road. There was a SCCH-25 8 MVC No.8003/2024 curve on the spot of the accident and the accident occurred on the same spot. He was moving on the left side of the Road. The complaint was lodged by his cousin brother. He has denied the other suggestions made by the counsel for the other side.
12. Before evaluating the evidence of the PW.1, for cost of repetition, it is necessary to reproduce the case of the petitioner. That On 15.10.2024 at about 01.00pm the petitioner was riding two wheeler vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-41-H- 8533, when he reached near Alur Tank Bund Road, K.Honnalagere, Alur Road, Aluru Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya a Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg.No.KA-09-MB-1066 came with high speed, driven by its Driver in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and hit the petitioner's vehicle and caused the accident.
13. Among the documents produced, Ex.P-1 is the FIR and Ex.P.2 is the complaint and Ex.P.8 is the Charge sheet it is mentioned that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of offending Car. The police have registered the case against the accused/driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under section 281, SCCH-25 9 MVC No.8003/2024 125(a), 125(b) of BNS. The petitioner has produced the charge sheet at Ex.P.8. The police documents are clearly discloses that the accident was occurred due the negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is wroth to note herein that the damages referred in motor vehicles accident report marked at Ex.P7 is clearly depcits that the offending vehicle has got damaged on the front portion and the motor bike used by the petitioner was got damaged at both sides. The sketch clearly demonstrate that the next to accident spot little curve is existing. The offending vehicle was proceeding from Nilakantanaalli to Aluru Side. When such being the driver of the offending vehicle was almost on right side at accident spot.
14. It is undisputed fact that there was delay in the lodging the complaint. The First information report adiscloses the reasons of delay and lodging of complaint in delay. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAVI V/s. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "in accident cases, human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more SCCH-25 10 MVC No.8003/2024 importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the Courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim cannot be dismissed merely on that ground although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases. Delay in lodging the claim should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof."
15. In the light of the Judgment referred to supra in RAVI's case, it is manifestly clear delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. However, the claim has to be examined SCCH-25 11 MVC No.8003/2024 with a closer scrutiny, particularly the contents of the FIR. The6 Contents of the complaint clearly depicts that the informant has failed to lodge the complaint immediately as he was busy in providing medical facility to the petitioner. So, the reasons assigned by the informant is satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof. It is well settled position of law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation and the evidence required about negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of probability.
16. Thus, on an overall consideration of these documents coupled with the evidence of PW-1, it would clearly establish that the accident in question had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-09-MB-1066. Therefore, I hold that the accident is caused due to sole rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-09-MB-1066. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to SCCH-25 12 MVC No.8003/2024 prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima- facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the part of driver of the insured. So, the materials on record clearly indicates that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
17. Issue No.2: the claimant has produced Wound Certificate as per Ex.P.6. It shows that the claimant has sustained (i) Lacerations over left temporal region of head and upper lip, (ii) Floating knee comminuted distal femur fracture with missing medial condyle, (iii) Communited fracture of proximal tibia and patella and (iv) Crush laceration of left lower limb over an are of 50 x 20cms with vascular injury with non-viable portion below mid thigh. Out of these injuries, injury No.1 is simple and injury Nos.2, 3 & 4 are grievous in nature. The medical officer has expressed his opinion on the basis of the clinical notes and X-ray that the injury is grievous in nature.
SCCH-25 13 MVC No.8003/202418. In this regard, the petitioner has got examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW.2. The PW.2 has stated in the chief examination affidavit paragraph Nos.3 to 7 that the petitioner has sustained "Lacerated wound over the left temporal region, floating knee comminuted fracture distal femur and comminuted fracture of the right porximal tibia and patella fracture with mangled extremity of right lower limb with neuro vascular injury". As per the discharge summary, the petitioner was treated at Digvish Hospital with wound debridement and suturing of the laceration over the left temporal region and right femur and tibia knee spanning extrnal fixator on 15.10.2024 and later do to nonavailability of the libm, he underwent above knee amputation on 18.10.2024 and later discharged on 22.10.2024. he said was on regular follow up in the same hospital and the wound healed with severe pain in the stump. The petitioner now complains of unable to walk as before, needs support and severe pan in the tip of the stump. Further, on examination, the petitioner has above knee stup of the right lower limb. X-ray of the right thigh shows evidence of the above knee amputation. The petitioner was examined clinically, radiologically and assessed the disability.
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.8003/2024The PW.2 has opined that the petitioner has suffered Trans Femoral (Above knee) up to upper 1/3 of thigh is at 85%, pain full neuroma is at 10% and to the whole body at 95%. Further PW.2 has mentioned that the petitioner is need of a good prosthesis for his movements, which costs around Rs.4,00,000/- and also needs annual maintenance which costs around Rs.30,000/-.
18A. The PW.2 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination, PW.2 has stated that he has not treated the petitioner. There is amputation of right let due to wound. He has denied the further suggestions of the counsel for the other side.
19. Before discussing on this point, it is necessary to advert to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay 1 Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of 1 2011 ACJ 1 SCCH-25 15 MVC No.8003/2024 awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
20. Our Hon'ble High Court has held in a case MFA.811 OF 2015 (MV-I) decided on 18 July, 2019 in between Rajanna @ Raju and another V/s Srinivas and another that "It is necessary to understand the meaning of the expression "permanent disability", which has been elucidated in Rajkumar. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner SCCH-25 16 MVC No.8003/2024 considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any SCCH-25 17 MVC No.8003/2024 of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is
permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent,
whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person."
21. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and also suffered with right leg amputation. And it certainly affected on functioning over the right leg. The petition discloses that the petitioner was doing Agriculture and Dairy Farming and earning SCCH-25 18 MVC No.8003/2024 sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. The evidence of the medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, the medical officer has pointed out the difficulties of the injured person to do routine work with some difficulties. It means, the petitioner is not in position to do the earlier work effectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a judgment/decision of 2 ALIVELI MALLAREDDY Vs SURTHANI LINGANNA @ CHINNA LINGANNA & Others. in paragraph No.10 "This evidence has been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and having regard to the fact that the Almanco Manual would suggest that the disability when not assessed to the whole body, the disability to the lower limb will be 1/5 and upper limb be ¼ of the disability assessed."
By considering the age, the materials on record are clearly demonstrated that the petitioner was agriculturist and milk vendor by profession. It is pertinent to note herein that both legs are very essential to any person to do the work in proper manner and that too agriculturists are need of both legs and hands to cultivate the land either by organic or by using cultivators. Hence, in the opinion of this 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19636 of 2024) dated 07.04.2025 SCCH-25 19 MVC No.8003/2024 court, it is just to hold that the petitioner has sustained 80% in relation to right lower limb and suffered 100% functional disability. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
22. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at St.John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, took treatment as an inpatient. The documents placed by the petitioner indicates that he has taken treatment before the said hospital. To prove the same, the Petitioner has produced the Discharge Summary at Ex.P.9. The petitioner has produced medical bills at Ex.P.10. There is no contrary to these bills from the respondent and also no repeated bills. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.7,93,323/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of treatment and medical expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospital as an inpatient. It can be seen at Ex.P.9, as per this document, petitioner admitted on 15.10.2024 and discharged on 22.10.2023. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.500/-per SCCH-25 20 MVC No.8003/2024 day for attendant and Rs.500/- for food and nourishment charges, which would comes Rs.7,000/-. A sum of Rs.7,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
23. The claimant has contended that, he was doing Agriculture and Dairy Farming and earning sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has not produced any documents nor examined any witness. He has failed to prove his exact income. So, considering the nature of work notional income of Rs.16,500/-pm. is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.3,850/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
24. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as PW-2. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability. By considering the nature of injuries. Amputation of Right lower leg and treatment, it is SCCH-25 21 MVC No.8003/2024 appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered permanent Functional disability at 100%. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 43 years. But, the Aadhar Card marked at Ex.P11 clearly discloses that, the age of the petitioner was 42 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 42 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 14. As I have already stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.16,500/-pm, The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.16,500/- (Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 14 (multiplier) X 100 (disability) ÷100 =Rs.27,72,000/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
25. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
SCCH-25 22 MVC No.8003/2024FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES PW.2 has contended that the petitioner in need of Prosthesis for his leg movements, which costs around Rs.4,00,000/- and it needs annual maintenance which costs around Rs.30,000/-. In this regard the petitioner has produced Estimation letter at Ex.P.14 given by the Intell-prosthetics and Orthotics India Pvt. Ltd., for a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-. There is no contrary to this letter from the respondents. Therefore, by considering the treatment and on the basis of amputation of right lower leg, this court award Rs,3,00,000/- towards Future Medical Expenses.
26. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses Rs.7,93,323=00 02 Loss of income during Rs.3,850=00 treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.7,000=00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000=00 SCCH-25 23 MVC No.8003/2024 05 Loss of future earning on Rs.27,72,000=00 account of disability 06 Future Medical Expenses Rs.3,00,000=00 TOTAL Rs.39,76,173=00
27. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As I discussed in supra, the accident was occurred sole negligence of offending vehicle's driver. The petitioner proved that as on the date of accident the policy was in force. Therefore, Respondent No.2 has to indemnify the respondent No.1 and liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, I answer issue No.2 partly in affirmative.
28. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings to the above issues, the claimants are entitled for the compensation at the at rate of 6% P.A. from the respondent No.2. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The claim petition filed by claimant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay SCCH-25 24 MVC No.8003/2024 total compensation to the tune of Rs.39,76,173=00 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Three Only) together interest @ 6%PA (except on future medical expenses) from the date of petition till realization.
The Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of this judgment after deducting any amount paid as the interim compensation.
On deposit of compensation, 25% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner and remaining amount shall be released in the name of the petitioner through e-payment on proper identification.
All the interim application if any pending stands disposed off. The advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed. Draw the award accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 20th day of January, 2026) (RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-25 25 MVC No.8003/2024
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner:
PW.1 : Sri. Muttulinga R.P. PW.2 : Dr. Nagaraj B.N.
List of documents marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Complaint Ex.P3 crime detail form along with Sketch Ex.P4 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P5 Seizure Mahazar procedure Ex.P6 Wound Certificate Ex.P7 IMV report Ex.P8 Charge sheet Ex.P9 Discharge summary Ex.P10 37 Medical bills Ex.P11 Attested copy of Aadhar card Ex.P12 Clinical Notes Ex.P13 X-ray Ex.P14 Estimation letter
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents.
--- NIL ---SCCH-25 26 MVC No.8003/2024
List of documents marked for the Respondents:
-- NIL --
(RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.Digitally signed by RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2026.01.22 10:50:41 +0530