Kerala High Court
Bindhu V.K vs Jagatheeswara Prabhu (Deleted) on 7 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943
MACA.No.3381 OF 2016(C)
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 706/2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL PALA
(OP (MV) NO. 706/2013 IS CORRECTED AS OP (MV) NO.707/2013 VIDE
ORDER DATED 20.05.2020 IN I.A. NO. 1/2020 IN MACA NO. 3381/2016)
APPELLANT:
BINDHU V.K
W/O.SHIBI, POOVATHOTTU HOUSE,
PLAPPALLY KARA, KOOTTICKAL.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SHRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 JAGATHEESWARA PRABHU (DELETED)
S/O. THANGARAJ, 17/7,
VETHAMUTHU LANE,
BODINAYAKANUR POST,
THENI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU STATE - 625 513.
(RESPONDENT NO 1 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE
RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 07/07/2020 IN
IA 3/2020 IN MACA 3381/2016)
2 S.ANTONY
S/O. SUNNY, VELLARA TRANSPORT,NO.98/5,
MAIN ROAD, PULIYUR C.F P.O.,
KARUR DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU DISTRICT - 639 114.
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001.
4 KAMALASHY
W/O. DAMODHARAN, POOVATHODU HOUSE,
THALUMKAL POST, PLAPPALLY,
KOOTTICKAL - 686 514.
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
2
R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31-03-2021, ALONG WITH MACA.3700/2016(D), MACA.3847/2016(A),
THE COURT ON 07-04-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943
MACA.No.3700 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 706/2013 DATED 29-02-2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA
APPELLANT:
BINDHU V.K
W/O SHIBI, POOVATHOTTU HOUSE,
PLAPPALLY KARA, KOOTTICKAL.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SHRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 JEGATHEESWARA PRABHU
S/O THANGARAJ, 17/7,
VETHAMUTHU LANE,BODINAYAKANUR POST,
THENI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE.625513.
(RESPONDENT NO 1 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER
DATED 07/07/2020 IN IA 2/2020 IN MACA 3700/2016)
2 S. ANTONY
S/O SUNNY, VELLARA TRASNPORT,NO.98/5,
MAIN ROAD, PULIYUR C.F.P.O,
KARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE.639114.
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
4 KAMALASHY
W/O DAMODHARAN, POOVATHODU HOUSE,
THALUMKAL POST, PLAPPALLY, KOOTTICKAL.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31-03-2021, ALONG WITH MACA.3381/2016, MACA.3381/2016(C),
MACA.3847/2016(A), THE COURT ON 07-04-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943
MACA.No.3847 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 708/2013 DATED 29-02-2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL PALA
APPELLANT:
BINDHU V.K.
W/O. SHIBI, POOVATHOTTU HOUSE,
PLAPPALLY KARA, KOOTTICKAL.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SHRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 JEGATHEESWARA PRABHU (DELETED)
S/O. THANGARAJ, 17/7,
VETHAMUTHU LANE,
BODINAYAKANUR POST,
THENI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU STATE-625513.
(RESPONDENT NO 1 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER
DATED 03/07/2020 IN IA 2/2020 IN MACA 3847/2016)
2 S.ANTONY
S/O. SUNNY, VELLARA TRANSPORT,
NO.98/5, MAIN ROAD, PULIYUR C.F.P.O.,
KARUR POST, TAMIL NADU STATE-639114.
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31-03-2021, ALONG WITH MACA.3381/2016, MACA.3381/2016(C),
MACA.3700/2016(D), THE COURT ON 07-04-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
5
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
================================
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
================================
Dated this the 7th day of April 2021
JUDGMENT
These three appeals are connected and
therefore, I am disposing all these three appeals by a
common judgment. MACA No. 3381/2016 was filed
by the petitioner in OP (MV) No. 707/2013 on the file
of Motor Accident claims Tribunal Pala. MACA Nos.
3700 & 3847/2016 are filed by the same appellant
against the award in OP (MV) Nos. 706 & 708 of
2013 of the same Tribunal. (Hereinafter the parties
are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the
Tribunal).
2. The short facts are like this:-
The accident in this case occurred on
06.08.2013 at 7.15 a.m.. Shibi who is the husband of
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
the petitioner was riding a maruthi car bearing
Registration No. KL 4/P 4730. His father, her mother
and two children were in the car along with him.
When they reached the place of accident, a torus
lorry bearing Registration No. TN 47 U/0718 came in
the opposite direction and the vehicle collided each
other. As a result of the accident, the husband of the
petitioner in OP MV No. 706/2013 and the two
children died. According to the claimants, the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of 1st respondent, who was driving the lorry.
The 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle. 3rd
respondent is the insurer. OP (MV) No. 706/2013 is
filed by the widow of the deceased claiming
compensation. OP (MV) Nos. 708 and 707 of 2013
are filed by the petitioner, who is the mother of the
two children. The claim petitions were considered
together by the Tribunal.
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
3. To substantiate the case, Exhibits A1 to A8
were marked on the side of the petitioner. The
petitioner herself was examined as PW1. Two
witnesses were examined on the side of the
respondents. Ext.C1 and C2 were also marked as
court exhibits. After going through the evidence and
documents, the Tribunal dismissed OP (MV) No.
706/2013. But, the Tribunal allowed in OP (MV) Nos.
707 and 708 of 2013 in part and fixed the
compensation. Aggrieved by the above common
award these three appeals were filed by the
petitioner.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the 3 rd
respondent-insurance company.
5. I will consider all these appeals separately.
M.A.C.A No. 3700/2016
6. This is an appeal filed by the widow of the
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
deceased against the award dated 29.02.2016 in OP
(MV) No. 706/2013. It is a claim petition filed under
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tribunal
dismissed this claim petition mainly for the reason
that the accident occurred because of the negligence
on the part of the deceased. The findings of the
tribunal on this can be extracted hereunder;
" 12. I have gone through the rival contention.
The respondent had examined as RW1 and
RW2. The evidence of RW2 will go to show
that after investigation police has found that
the accident was due to the negligence of
Shibi. PW1, who is the village officer, who
prepared a plan has also stated that the
accident was due to the negligence of the
deceased. After going through the oral
evidence of PW1 and RW1 and RW2 and after
perusing Ext.C2(a) to Ext.C2(d) documents,
there is no doubt that the accident occurred
due to the negligence of deceased Shibu. The
evidence will go to show that he was driving
the car. His car was coming from Erattupetta-
Kanjirappally road. It is admitted by PW1 that
at the place of accident, they overtook the
parked lorry and at that time another lorry
came into opposite direction. Ext.C2(d) will go
to show that the car came and overtaking the
lorry. First respondent has stopped the lorry
when he saw the car coming at a very high
speed. But the car hit on the lorry. The
accident occurred due to the negligence of
the car driver. The scene mahazar will go to
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
show that the road at the place of accident
has a width of 5.60 ms. The lorry was coming
from south to north. So the proper side of the
lorry is western side of the road. The car was
going from north to south. The correct side of
the car is the eastern side of the road. In
Ext.C2(a), it is seen that the accident
occurred on the western side of the road. It is
evident that the car was on the wrong side.
From the final report, it can be seen that the
accident occurred at the wrong side of the
car. It is clearly proved that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the
deceased. From the evidence of PW1, it can
be seen that the road at the place of accident
is a straight road to a distance of 100 ms. So
the deceased who was driving the car could
see the lorry coming in the opposite direction.
He was overtaking the parked lorry which was
parked on his side. Naturally, the deceased
has the duty to stop his vehicle and to allow
the lorry coming into opposite direction to
pass. In this case the duty was breached by
the deceased. So the accident occurred due to
the negligence of the deceased.
13. The counsel for the petitioner
contented that even though it is established
that there was negligence on the part of the
deceased when two vehicles are involved, the
question of contributory negligence can be
over looked. He also pointed out that as far as
the torus lorry is concerned, the driver was a
third party. So the petitioner are entitled to
get compensation.
14. This contention raised by the
counsel for the petitioner is not maintainable.
When we consider the evidence in this case, it
is clear that the petitioner in OP 706/13 is the
legal heirs of the tort feaser. It is established
that the accident was due to the deceased
Shibu. So the petitioner Bindu is not entitled
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
to get compensation on the ground as a legal
heirs of deceased Shibu. Regarding the other
two petitioners, they are the passengers in the
car. She is entitled to get compensation,
because the accident occurred due to the use
of the motorcycle. Issue No.1 is found
accordingly."
7. It is an admitted fact that, it is a claim
petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act. Now it is settled by several decisions of
this Court and the Apex Court to the effect that, in a
proceedings under Section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise
any defence of negligence on the part of the victim.
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd V. Sunil
Kumar and Another (2017 KHC 5644), the Apex
Court observed like this;
" 7. As observed in Hansrajbhai V. Kodala
(supra) one of the suggestions made by the
Transport Development Council was to
provide adequate compensation to victims of
road accidents without going into long drawn
procedure. As a sequel to the
recommendations made by the Committee and
the Council, S.140 was enacted in the present
Act in place of S.92A to 92E of the Old Act.
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
Compensation payable thereunder, as under
the repealed provisions, continued to be on
the basis of no fault liability though at an
enhanced rate which was further enhanced by
subsequent amendments. S.140 and S.141 of
the present Act makes it clear that
compensation payable thereunder does not
foreclose the liability to pay or the right to
receive compensation under any other
provision of the Act or any other law in force
except compensation awarded under S.163A
of the Act. Compensation under S.140 of the
Act was thus understood to be in the nature of
an interim payment pending the final award
under S.166 of the Act. S.163 - A, on the other
hand, was introduced in the New Act for the
first time to remedy the situation where
determination of final compensation on fault
basis under S.166 of the Act was
progressively getting protracted. The
Legislative intent and purpose was to provide
for payment of final compensation to a class of
claimants (whose income was below
Rs.40,000/- per annum) on the basis of a
structured formula without any reference to
fault liability. In fact, in Hansrajbhai V. Kodala
(supra) the bench had occasion to observe
that:
"Compensation amount is paid without
pleading or proof of fault, on the principle of
social justice as a social security measure
because of ever - increasing motor vehicle
accidents in a fast - moving society. Further,
the law before insertion of S.163 - A was
giving limited benefit to the extent provided
under S.140 for no - fault liability and
determination of compensation amount on
fault liability was taking a long time. That
mischief is sought to be remedied by
introducing S.163 - A and the disease of delay
is sought to be cured to a large extent by
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
affording benefit to the victims on structured
formula basis. Further, if the question of
determining compensation on fault liability is
kept alive it would result in additional
litigation and complications in case claimants
fail to establish liability of the owner of the de
- faulting vehicles."
8. From the above discussion, it is clear that
grant of compensation under S.163 - A of the
Act on the basis of the structured formula is
in the nature of a final award and the
adjudication thereunder is required to be
made without any requirement of any proof of
negligence of the driver / owner of the
vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is
made explicit by S.163A(2). Though the
aforesaid section of the Act does not
specifically exclude a possible defence of the
Insurer based on the negligence of the
claimant as contemplated by S.140(4), to
permit such defence to be introduced by the
Insurer and / or to 10 understand the
provisions of S.163A of the Act to be
contemplating any such situation would go
contrary to the very legislative object behind
introduction of S.163A of the Act, namely,
final compensation within a limited time
frame on the basis of the structured formula
to overcome situations where the claims of
compensation on the basis of fault liability
was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to
understand S.163A of the Act to permit the
Insurer to raise the defence of negligence
would be to bring a proceeding under S.163A
of the Act at par with the proceeding under
S.166 of the Act which would not only be self -
contradictory but also defeat the very
legislative intention.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the
question arising by holding that in a
proceeding under S.163A of the Act it is not
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
open for the Insurer to raise any defence of
negligence on the part of the victim."
8. In the light of the above decision the
findings of the Tribunal will not stand. Therefore,
that part of the order is to be set aside. The Tribunal
already quantified the compensation amount in this
claim. There is no dispute about the quantification of
the compensation by the Tribunal in this case from
both sides. Therefore, the impugned award
dismissing OP (MV) No. 706/2013 is to be set aside
and the amount of Rs.3,69,500/- which is quantified
by the tribunal as compensation is to be allowed.
M.A.C.A No.3847/2016 & 3381/2016
9. These two appeals are filed challenging the
quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal. The
main grievance of the petitioner is that, the notional
income of the deceased is not fixed properly. The
learned counsel submitted that the deceased in
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
these appeals are minor children. They can be
treated only in the category of persons who had no
income prior to accident and the notional income of
such person is to be decided as per Serial No. 6(a) of
the 2nd schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. If that is
taken, the annual income of the deceased in these
two claim petition is Rs.15,000/-. But in Serial
number 1 of the Schedule-II, there is no separate
column for a person who is getting an annual income
of Rs.15,000/-. The Schedule only shows about
persons who are getting annual income of
Rs.12,000/- and 18,000/-. But in this case the annual
income is Rs.15000/-. Then how the compensation is
to be assessed is decided by the division bench of
this Court, in National Insurance Company Ltd.
v. P.C.Chacko and others (2011 (3) KHC 438).
The relevant portion of the above judgment is
extracted hereunder;
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
" 31. One more point deserves consideration. We
have already considered this question in some
earlier decisions (see ' unreported judgment
dated 19/07/2011 in MACA No. 2794 of 2009
(United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalitha and
Others, 2011 (3) KHC 393). The 13 vertical
columns relating to annual income of the victims
show only specific figures like Rs.3,000/-, 4,200/-,
5,400/- etc., the last one being Rs.40,000/-.
Suppose a person earns between these 2
incomes, how then is the compensation to be
ascertained by the Tribunal? There will be no
relevant entry for such persons in the table /
chart. Suppose the annual income of a person is
Rs.3,001/-, then there will be no specific column
under which he can be brought. In such an event
how is compensation to be ascertained?
32. It is argued that in that event also, as
observed by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 KHC 4634 :
2009 (6) SCC 121 : AIR 2009 SC 3104 : 2009 (2)
SCC (Cri) 1002 : 2009 (78) AIC 153 : 2009 (162)
DLT 278 : 2010 (2) KLT 802 : 2009 (6) SCALE
129, it may not be impossible to ascertain the
compensation payable for persons whose income
falls between two entries. That can of course be
done. But taking such a view would mean that the
Tribunal will be obliged to ascertain the precise
annual income of an individual victim. The thrust
or the accent under S.163A is avoidance of
avoidable disputes warranting adducing of
elaborate evidence for their resolution. So
reckoned, we feel that the relevant vertical
column can be reckoned as indicating the income
group and not the precise income. Entry 1 shows
Rs.3,000/-. It is certainly possible to reckon that
entry by a process of interpretation as relating to
persons having annual income upto Rs.3,000/-.
The second entry can be reckoned as income upto
Rs.4,200/- and then only persons earning above
Rs.3,000/- upto 4,200 alone will come under that
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
vertical column. Similarly all the vertical columns
can be read to mean persons earning annual
income upto the relevant amount shown. If that
be so, the last entry (i.e. the 13th vertical
column) would relate to persons earning income
above Rs.36,000/- upto Rs.40,000/-. If we so
understand and reckon the relevant vertical
columns, that would save the Tribunals of a lot of
unnecessary work in the attempt to identify the
precise annual income. If one would examine the
circumstances under which S.163A was born (we
see detailed discussions by the Supreme Court on
that aspect in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Hansrajbhai V. Kodala and Others, 2001 KHC 391
: 2001 (2) KLT 235 (SC) : 2001 (2) KLJ NOC 46 :
2001 (5) SCC 175 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 857 : 2001
(105) Comp Cas 743 : AIR 2001 SC 1832 and
Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance
Co.Ltd., 2004 KHC 595 : 2004 (2) KLT 395 (SC) :
2004 (5) SCC 385 : AIR 2004 SC 2107 though for
entirely different purposes), one cannot omit to
note that the long queues for justice before the
Tribunals was vexing the legislature. The
legislative prescription for the malady was a
scheme - a take it or leave it scheme, under
which package a final (not interim) resolution of
the claim for compensation was offered. The
amount offered under S.163A may not be
compensation correct to the last decimal. But the
legislature offered a scheme which must satisfy
many a claimant and spare him of the obligation
to stand in the long queue. The salient feature of
the package is the yearning to avoid unnecessary
litigation. Negligence - you need not prove.
Dependency - you need not prove. Exact age - you
need not prove. The same compensation will be
payable to all of the same age group. If
elimination of possible disputes warranting
complex evidence is the thrust S.163A, we have
to understand the income specified also as in
ranges and not in exact figures. If the contra view
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
were to be accepted, for every victim earning an
annual income of even one rupee more or less
than the figure specified in the relevant vertical
column, the Tribunal will again have to resort to
the multiplier - multiplicand method to ascertain
the compensation. Multiplier will have to be
ascertained in each case - not by looking at
vertical column No. 2 of the table, but by
ascertaining the rationale underlying the
amounts prescribed for each age group. Such an
interpretation and understanding would again
bring back the obligation to ascertain the exact
income obliging the parties to adduce specific
and detailed evidence and obliging the Tribunals
to come to specific findings. That is against the
very scheme of S.163A. That is against the
fundamental rationale / philosophy of S.163A.
Ranges of age and income of the victims are
specified so that the Tribunals' obligation will
only be to ascertain the range / group. Rough and
ready justice without the obligation to be exact
and specific to the last digit in the ascertainment
of age and income appears to be the signature
tune of S.163A of the MV Act. An interpreter
cannot lose sight of the basic purpose, object and
thrust of the scheme under a newly introduced
statutory provision. We therefore hold that
though particular figures are shown on top of the
relevant vertical columns, they must be read as
income upto the amounts prescribed (specifying
ranges of income)."
10. In the light of the above dictum laid down
by the division bench of this Court, the monthly
income of the deceased in these cases are to be
taken as Rs.18,000/-. Then the dependency
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
compensation as per 2nd schedule will be
Rs.3,60,000/-. From the above amount 1/3rd is
deducted, then the balance amount will be
Rs.2,40,000/-(Rs.3,60,000X2/3= Rs.2,40,000/-). The
other amount entitled by the petitioners as per the
2nd schedule are the Funeral Expense (Rs.2,000/-)
and Loss of Estate (Rs.2500/-). Therefore, the
petitioners in these two claim petitions are entitled
the compensation in the following manner:
Head Amount
Loss of dependency Rs. 2,40,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 2,000/-
Loss of estate Rs. 2,500/-
Total Rs.2,44,500/-
11. The petitioners are entitled interest at the rate
of 9% p.a from the date of application till realization.
Therefore, these appeals are allowed in part.
1. MACA No. 3700/2016 is allowed. The
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
impugned award is set aside and the petitioner is
entitled an amount of Rs.3,69,500/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Only) with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a, from the date of
petition till realisation. The 3rd respondent is
directed to pay the enhanced compensation with
interest to the petitioner.
2. MACA No. 3381/2016 is allowed. The
impugned award is modified and the petitioner is
entitled an amount of Rs.2,44,500/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs Fourty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only)
with interest at the rate of 9% p.a, from the date of
petition till realisation. The 3rd respondent is
directed to pay the enhanced compensation with
interest to the petitioner.
3. MACA No.3847/2016 is allowed. The
impugned award is modified and the petitioner is
entitled an amount of Rs.2,44,500/- (Rupees Two
M.A.C.A. Nos. 3381, 3700 & 3847 of 2016
Lakhs Fourty Four Thousand Five Hundred Only)
with interest at the rate of 9% p.a, from the date of
petition till realisation. The 3rd respondent is
directed to pay the enhanced compensation with
interest to the petitioner.
(Sd/-)
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
LU
