Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Madhusudhana on 19 July, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A.NO.534 OF 2017 (MV)
C/W
M.F.A.NO.535 OF 2017 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.536 OF 2017 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.537 OF 2017 (MV)
M.F.A.NO.1778 OF 2017 (MV)
IN M.F.A.NO.534 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
MAGANUR BASAPPA COMMERCIAL COMPELX,
P B ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501,
ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
NOW REPRESENTED BY
MANAGER LEGAL
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MADHUSUDHANA
S/O JAYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST AND STUDENT
R/O YALANADU VILLAGE,
HULIYARU HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK - 572 218
NOW RESIDING AT
SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE,
2
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 542
2. VARALAKSHMI
W/O C MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
# 291, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
BHAVANI NAGAR, BSK 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 070
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.C.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O/DTD 11.01.2022, R2 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET
ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2016 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
HOSADURGA, IN MVC NO.3/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.535 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
MAGANUR BASAPPA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
P B ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
NOW REP BY MANAGER LEGAL
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHALINGAIAH
S/O. RAMAIAH @
3
JOLLAPPANAVARA RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. YALANADU VILLAGE,
HULIYARU HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK - 572 218.
NOW RESIDING AT SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE,
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI,
HUSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 542
2. VARALAKSHMI
W/O. C MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#291, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
BHAVANI NAGAR, BSK 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.C.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O/DTD 11.01.2022, R2 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET
ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2016 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
HOSADURGA, IN MVC NO.4/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.536 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
MAGANUR BASAPPA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX
P B ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501
ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INS CO. LTD.,
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
4
NOW REPRESENTED BY
MANAGER LEGAL
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMAIAH
S/O MUDDALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O YALANADU VILLAGE,
HULIYARU HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK - 572 218
NOW RESIDING AT
SRIRAMPURA VILLAGE,
SRIRAMPURA HOBLI
HUSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 542
2. VARALAKSHMI
W/O C MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
#291, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
BHAVANI NAGAR, BSK 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.C.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O/DTD 11.01.2022, R2 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET
ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2016 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
HOSADURGA, IN MVC NO.5/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.537 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL
5
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
ENVIRON TOWERS 60/4,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
ELECTRONIC CITY,
BENGALURU - 560 100,
ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
NOW REPRESENTED BY
MANAGER LEGAL
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
AND AGRICULTURIST
2. SMT MANGALAMMA
D/O NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
3. SMT KAVITHA
D/O NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
SINGAPURA VILLAGE,
CHIKKANAHAYAKANAHALLY TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF
OBALAPURA VILLAGE
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 542
6
4. VARALAKSHMI
W/O C MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
# 291, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
BAHVANI NAGAR, BSK 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.C.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3;
V/O/DTD 11.01.2022, R4 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET
ASIDE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2016 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT
HOSADURGA, IN MVC NO.139/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.1778 OF 2017 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. GANGAMMA
W/O NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
HOUSE HOLD WORK AND
AGRICULTURIST
2. SMT MANGALAMMA
D/O NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
3. SMT KAVITHA
D/O NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SINGAPURA
VILLAGE, CHIKKANAYAKANHALLY TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
PRESENT RESIDENT OF OBALAPURA VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 527 ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH N.D, ADVOCATE)
7
AND:
1. VARALAKSHMI
W/O MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/A # 291, 4TH MAIN,
BHAVANI NAGAR,
B S K 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 070
(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
BEARING REG NO.KA-41-8926)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
MAGANUR BASAPPA COMMERCIAL
COMPLEX
P B ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 527
(RESPONDENT NO.2 IN MVC 3,4 & 5/14)
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
ENVIRON TOWNERS, 60/4,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
ELECTRONIC CITY
BENGALURU - 560 100
(RESPONDENT NO.2 IN MVC 139/14)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION OF THE APPELLANTS
BY AWARDING COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM
PETITION BY MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.11.2016 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
8
THESE MFAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
30.06.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are arising out of common judgment and
award dated 30.11.2016 in MVC.Nos.3, 4, 5 and 139/2014.
2. MFA.Nos.534-536/2017 are filed by respondent No.2
- Insurance company against the judgment and award in
MVC.No.3-5/2014 respectively, whereas MFA.No.537/2017 and
MFA.No.1778/2017 are filed by petitioners and respondent No.2
respectively, against the judgment and award in MVC.139/2014.
3. Since these appeals are arising out of a common
judgment and award, they are clubbed together and disposed of
by a common judgment.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to by their rank before the Tribunal.
5. FACTS: Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing
of respective claim petitions are that on 22.02.2013, petitioner
in MVC.3/2014 (Madhusudhan) and petitioner in MVC.No.5/2014
(Ramaiah) were proceeding on TVS Star City motor cycle bearing
Chasis No.MD625KF5362F33154 from their village to Thandaga
Village. Madhusudhan was riding the motor cycle and Ramaiah
was the pillion rider. Near Heggere village on Hiriyur-Hosadurga
Road at about 7.30 p.m., motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-44-K-0862 being driven by deceased Ningappa, the
husband and father of petitioners in MVC.No.139/2014, along
with Mahalingaiah (petitioner in MVC.No.4/2014) as a pillion
rider were proceeding in front of them.
5.1 It is further case of the petitioners that a Mahindra
Renault Logon car bearing registration No.KA-41-8926
(hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) came from the
opposite side, being driven by its driver in a rash or negligent
manner and dashed against the TVS motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-44-K-0862 and then against TVS Star City
motor cycle. In the said accident, bothl the riders and pillion
riders were injured. Immediately, they were shifted to Primary
Health Centre, Huliyar. Since Ningappa was grievously injured,
he was shifted to District Hospital, Tumakuru, for further
treatment. However, while undergoing treatment, he died.
Mahalingaiah (petitioner in MVC.4/2014) was taken to ESI,
Bengaluru. He took prolonged treatment for a period of two
months.
5.2 It is further case of the petitioners that
Madhusudhan (petitioner in MVC.No.3/2014) was shifted to
Chord Road Hospital, Basveshwaranagar, Bengaluru. Ramaiah
(petitioner in MVC.No.5/2014) was shifted to General Hospital,
Tiptur and he took treatment as in-patient as well as out-patient.
5.3 Prior to the accident, all the petitioners as well as the
deceased Ningappa were hale and healthy and earning
Rs.3,00,000 to 4,00,000/-p.a. Deceased Ningappa was earning
Rs.500/- per day by doing coolie work in a brick factory in
addition to getting agriculture income of Rs.2,00,000/-p.a. He
was aged 55 years. After the accident, the petitioners in
MVC.Nos.2, 4 and 5/2014 are unable to work as they used to
and thereby suffering loss of income. The accident occurred due
to the rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending
vehicle. Therefore as owner and insurer of the offending vehicle,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation.
6. In all the cases, respondent No.2 has taken up a
common defence denying the age, occupation, income of the
deceased as well as the petitioners. It has also denied that the
accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving by the
driver of the offending vehicle. On the other hand, the accident
was result of rash or negligent by the riders of the motor cycles.
At the time of accident, they were not holding a valid driving
license and that was the cause for the accident. The driver of the
offending vehicle was also not holding a valid driving license and
by allowing him to drive the vehicle, respondent No.1 has
violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the
respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation.
7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed
issues in the respective cases.
8. Since all the petitions arose out of a common
accident, the Tribunal has allowed the parties to lead a common
evidence.
9. Petitioner in MVC No.139/2014 is examined as PW-1
and he has relied upon Exs.P-1 to 11.
10. Petitioner in MVC No.3/2014 is examined as PW-2
and he has relied upon Exs.P-12 to 65.
11. In MVC No.5/2014, Petitioner is examined as PW-3
and Exs.P-66 to 73 are marked.
12. Similarly, Petitioner in MVC No.4/2014 is examined
as PW-4 and relied upon Exs.P-74 to 79.
13. In MVC Nos.3 and 5/2014, Dr.S.M.Shridhar is
examined as PW-5 and Exs.P-88 is marked.
14. The Senior Legal Executive of respondent No.2-
Company is examined as RW-1 and Exs.R-1 and 2 are marked.
15. Vide the impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions granting
compensation in a sum of Rs.3,16,300/- in MVC No.3/2014,
Rs.1,99,700/- in MVC No.5/2014, Rs.79,000/- in MVC No.4/2014
and Rs.5,27,600/- in MVC No.139/2014 with interest at 6% p.a.
It has directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to jointly and severally
pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. The details of
compensation granted in these petitions are as under:
In MVC No.3/2014:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Medical expenses and hospital 85,500
charges
Pain and suffering 55,000
Loss of amenities and 45,000
happiness and frustration of life
Conveyance, Attendant, Food, 15,000
Nourishment charges
Loss of earning during laid up 18,000
period
Loss of future earnings 77,800
Future medical expenses 20,000
TOTAL 3,16,300
In MVC No.5/2014:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering 50,000
Loss of amenities and 40,000
happiness and frustration of life
Conveyance, Attendant, Food, 15,000
Nourishment charges
Loss of earning during laid up 18,000
period
Loss of future earnings 56,700
Future medical expenses 20,000
TOTAL 1,99,700
In MVC No.4/2014:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering 40,000
Loss of amenities and 30,000
happiness and frustration of life
Loss of earning during laid up 9,000
period
TOTAL 79,000
In MVC No.139/2014:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of dependency 3,72,600
Conveyance and funeral 25,000
expenses
Loss of love and affection 20,000
Loss of estate 10,000
Loss of consortium 1,00,000
TOTAL 5,27,600
16. During the course of the arguments, the learned
counsel representing respondent No.2 submitted that since the
offending vehicle was not having a permit to ply in the area
covering the place of accident, there is willful violation of the
terms and conditions of the Policy and as such, respondent No.2
is not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has erred in
not appreciating the fact that the place of accident is coming
under the jurisdiction of Hosadurga Taluk of Chitradurga District
whereas the permit is in respect of 25 kms within the radius of
Bangalore City Corporation. Alternatively, the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 submitted that the compensation granted is on
the higher side and without any basis.
17. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing
petitioners in MVC No.139/2014 argued that the compensation
granted is very meager and requires enhancement.
18. The learned counsel for petitioners argued and
supported the impugned judgment and award so far as findings
of the Tribunal with regard to permit is concerned.
19. Heard arguments and perused the record.
20. Since the petitioners in MVC.Nos.3, 4 and 5/2014
have not challenged the impugned judgment and award, the
findings with regard to adequacy of the compensation has
become final.
21. So far as MFA.No.537/2017 and 1778/2017 are
concerned which are arising out of MVC No.139/2014, as the
petitioners have challenged the adequacy of the compensation
and as the respondent No.2 has also challenged the quantum,
the said issue is required to be examined in these two appeals.
22. In all the appeals filed by respondent No.2, its
contention is with regard to the vehicle being used beyond the
limits for which permit was issued, whether the insurance
company is liable to indemnify the owner is the main issue
involved. Through the evidence of RW-1, respondent No.2 has
got marked copy of the policy and extract of the permit at Exs.
R-1 and R-2. As per Ex.R-2, the validity of permit is from
15.07.2010 to 14.07.2015 and it is described as a city taxi
vehicle. The area for which permit is given is within a radius of
25 Kms. from the limits of the Bangalore City Corporation. Thus,
the permit is restricted to the area specified in Ex.R-2.
Admittedly, the accident occurred near Heggere village on
Hiriyur-Hosadurga Road which comes under Hosadurga Taluk of
Chitradurga District. It is beyond 25 Kms. radius of the
Bengaluru City Coporation. Therefore, there is violation of the
permit condition.
23. On this aspect, learned counsel for respondent No.2
has relied upon the following decisions:
i) Rani and others Vs. National Insurance
Company Limited and others1
ii) Dilip Vs. Nitin Jain and others2
24. In both these decisions, it is held that even where
there is violation of permit condition, all that is required to be
(2018) 8 SCC 492
2021 (1) KLJ 363 (DB)
done is to direct Insurance Company to pay the compensation
and recover the same from the owner. Inspite of this issue being
raised by respondent No.2, the Tribunal has not considered the
same and has not given any findings on that aspect. To that
extent, all the appeals filed by the respondent No.2 - Insurance
company deserves to be allowed.
25. Now coming to the adequacy of compensation
granted in MVC No.139/2014, from the judgment and award of
which MFA.Nos.537 and 1778/2017 have arisen. Even though in
the claim petition, the petitioners have given the age of the
deceased as 55 years, they have not produced any documents
prove his exact age. However, in the PM report, the age of the
deceased is given as 60 years. Therefore, the same is relied
upon. Similarly, though the petitioners have claimed that
deceased was earning Rs.500/- per day from coolie and getting
Rs.2,00,000/-p.a. from agriculture, there are no documents to
evidence the said fact. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken his
notional income as Rs.4,500/- per month. Since the accident is
of the year 2013, even if it is considered that the deceased was
earning Rs.200/- per day, his notional income is required to be
taken at Rs.6,000/- p.m. Therefore, the income of the deceased
is considered as Rs.6,000/- p.m.
25.1 As the age of the deceased was 60 years, the
appropriate multiplier is 9. Relying upon decision reported in
2013 ACJ 1403, the Tribunal has added 15% of income of the
deceased towards loss of future prospects. However, as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General
Insurance Company's case, in case of persons aged between
51 to 60 who are in private employment, 10% is required to be
added. Therefore, towards loss of future prospects, 10% is taken
into consideration. 10% of Rs.6,000/- comes to Rs.6,600/-.
Therefore, the notional income of deceased is taken as
Rs.6,600/- per month. Since deceased has left behind his wife
and two daughters, 1/3rd of his income is required to be
deducted towards his personal and living expenses and
remaining 2/3 of his income is to be taken into account for
calculating the loss of dependency. With these components, the
loss of dependency is Rs.6,600/- x 12 x 9 x 2/3 = 4,75,200/- as
against Rs.3,72,600/- granted by the Tribunal.
26. Loss of consortium: As per the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and Magma General
Insurance Co.Ltd cases, the spouse, children and parents of
deceased are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.40,000/-
each under the head loss of consortium. In the present case, the
Tribunal has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000/-
under the head loss of love and affection and Rs.1,00,000/-
under the head loss of consortium i.e., Rs.1,20,000/-. Having
regard to the fact that there are three dependants, though the
total compensation granted under this head is the same as
required to be granted under the head loss of consortium, the
same is given under the head loss of consortium instead of loss
of love and affection.
27. Loss of estate and Funeral expenses: The Tribunal
has granted compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the
head conveyance and funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- under
the head loss of estate. However, as per the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd cases, when the major compensation is
granted under the head loss of dependency, under the
conventional heads of funeral expenses which includes
transportation charges and loss of estate Rs.15,000/- each is
required to be granted. Therefore, as against Rs.25,000/- and
Rs.10,000/- granted under the above heads, Rs.15,000/- each is
granted.
28. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.6,25,200/- as against
Rs.5,27,600/- granted by the Tribunal as detailed below:
Heads Amount Amount
granted by the granted by
Tribunal this Court
In Rs. In Rs.
Loss of dependency 3,72,600 4,75,200
Conveyance and funeral 25,000 15,000
expenses
Loss of love and affection 20,000 -
Loss of estate 10,000 15,000
Loss of consortium 1,00,000 1,20,000
Total 5,27,600 6,25,200
27. To this extent, the appeal filed by the petitioners in
MVC No.139/2014 i.e., MFA No.1778/2017 deserves to be
allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER
(a) MFA No.1778/2017 is allowed in part.
(b) The petitioners in MVC No.139/2014 are entitled for
total compensation in a sum of Rs.6,25,200/- with
interest at 6% p.a. as against Rs.5,27,600/- granted
by the Tribunal.
(c) MFA Nos.534, 535, 536, 537/2017 are allowed in
part.
(d) The respondent No.2 - Insurance company is
directed to pay the compensation to all the
petitioners with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization (minus the amount already
paid/deposited) and recover the same from
respondent No.1.
(e) The Registry shall transmit the amount in deposit, if
any, to the Tribunal.
(f) The Registry is directed to transmit the trial court
records along with copy of this judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MDS/RR
