- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100022 OF 2017 (MV) C/W MFA NO. 100016 OF 2016 (MV-D) IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100022/2017: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SANNA GADEMMA W/O LATE MUDDU BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, 2. KONCHAGERAPPA S/O LATE MUDDU BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 3. GNANAPPA S/O LATE MUDDU BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. MALLAPPA S/O LATE MUDDU BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 5. MALLAMMA D/O LATE MUDDU BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O KONCHAGERI VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI. …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. V. CHANDRA NAIK S/O V. NANU NAIK AGE. 25 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE TRAX BEARING REG NO.KA-34/A-8106, R/O BESIDES OLD GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, HONNALLAI TANDA, BALLARI TALUK & DISTRICT. Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 2. RAJASHEKAR NAIK V. S/O NANU NAIK AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRAX BEARING REG.NO. KA-34/A-8106, R/O BESIDES OLD GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, HONNALLAI TANDA, BALLARI TALUK & DISTRICT. 3. THE DIVISINAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, SLV TOWER, PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO, MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.388/2013 BY MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL-II BALLARI & ETC., IN MFA NO.100016/2016: BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 1ST FLOOR, SLV TOWER, PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI, NOW REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-29. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SANNA GADEMMA W/O LATE MUDDU BASAPPA AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, 2. KONCHAGERAPPA S/O LATE MUDDU BASAPPA AGE: 33 YEARS 3. GNANAPPA S/O LATE MUDDU BASAPPA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 AGE: 28 YEARS, 4. MALLAPPA S/O LATE MUDDU BASAPPA AGE: 23 YEARS, 5. MALLAMMA D/O LATE MUDDU BASAPPA AGE: 20 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O: NEAR TAYAMMA TEMPLE, KONCHAGERI VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, DIST: BALLARI. 6. SRI. V.CHANDRA NAIK S/O V. NANU NAIK AGE: 25 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE TRAX BEARING REG NO.KA-34/A-8106, R/O: BESIDES OLD GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, HONNALLI TANDA, TQ: DSIT: BALLARI. 7. SRI. RAJASHEKA NAIK V S/O V. NANU NAIK MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRAX BEARING REG NO.KA-34/A-8106, R/O: BESIDES OLD GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, HONNALLI TANDA, TQ: & DSIT: BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6, NOTICE TO R7 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:09.09.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.388/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL -II, BALLARI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,20,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION. THE CROSS OBJECTION AND THE APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) These two appeals are directed against the single judgment and award dated 09.09.2015 passed in M.V.C. No.388/2013 by the MACT-II, Ballari [for short, ‘the Tribunal’]. 2. M.F.A. No.100016/2016 is filed by the respondent No.3 [insurance company, in M.F.A. No.100022/2017] before the Tribunal challenging the liability fastened on it. Whereas, M.F.A. No.100022/2017 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. Parties to these appeals are referred with reference to their rank before the Tribunal. 4. The brief and relevant facts as set out by the claimants in their petition are as follows: That the first respondent is the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-34/A-8106 and the respondent No.2 is the owner of the said Tempo Trax and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the said vehicle. It is stated, that on 13.03.2013, the deceased alongwith one Somashekar were proceeding in an Ape Luggage Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-34/TY-9269 to unload the groundnut bags at APMC Yard, Ballari from Konchageri Village. The driver of the said autorickshaw was driving the same in a slow manner. When the said vehicle was nearing Havambavi infront of Srinivas Nagar, Venkata Shiva Poultry Farm, respondent No.1 being the driver of the Tempo Trax bearing registration No.KA-34/A-8106 while driving his vehicle in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Ape Luggage Autorickshaw from behind. Because of this impact, the Ape Luggage Autorickshaw turtled down and Muddu Basappa died in the said accident. He was shifted to VIMS Hospital. The Doctor conducted the postmortem. The claimants contend that, they have spent Rs.50,000/- towards transportation, funeral and other expenses. It is further stated that the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of the accident and he was an agriculturist by profession and was earning - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. The claimants being the dependants of the deceased, because of sudden death of the deceased, the claimants have been put to untold hardship and misery. He used to spend substantial money towards family maintenance. The claimants have lost their love and affection. Thus, it is prayed by the claimants to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- under all the relevant heads. 5. Before the Tribunal, pursuant to the notices, all the respondents appeared and respondent Nos.1 and 3 only filed the written statement and respondent No.2 adopted the written statement of respondent No.1. It is inter alia contended that the claim petition filed by the claimants is not maintainable and he has denied the driving of the said offending vehicle in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. It is denied that the deceased was travelling in the said Ape Luggage Autorickshaw alongwith one Somashekar. Even the income stated to have been earned by the deceased is also denied. It is also denied that the claimants have spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of dead - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 body and other expenses. It is contended that these respondents are not liable to pay the compensation and the claim made for by the claimants is highly excessive and exorbitant. 6. Whereas, respondent No.3 specifically contends that the claim petition is baseless and false. Even the respondent No.3 also denies the nature of the accident alleged by the claimant and according to the respondent No.3, the claimants have no locus standi to file this claim petition. It is specifically contended that, at the time of the said accident, the respondent No.1 was not holding the effective driving licence. Thereby there is violation of policy conditions by the respondent No.2 for entrusting the vehicle who did not possess the driving licence. 7. The respondent No.3 also denies about spending of Rs.50,000/- toward transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The claim so made by the claimants is exorbitant and it is denied that the deceased was earning Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. It is contended that the said - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 accident has not taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax and there was a contributory negligence on the part of the said Ape Luggage Autorickshaw. Thus, it is prayed by all the respondents to dismiss the petition. 8. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant three issues. 9. To substantiate the claim of the claimants, claimant No.1 entered the witness box as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 and closed claimants’ evidence. Respondent No.3’s Administrative Officer, entered the witness box as RW1 and got marked five documents in the shape of Exs.R1 to R5 and closed respondent’s evidence. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not led any evidence. 10. The Tribunal on hearing the arguments and on appreciation of the evidence, held that, the accident had taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax driven by the respondent No.1 and owned by the respondent No.2 and further held that, the claimants are - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 entitled for the compensation and it is held that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier 11, as per the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- under all the relevant heads together with interest at 6% per annum with cost from the date of petition till realization with apportionment as per the final order. 11. Now the claimants have come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. Whereas, the insurance company – respondent No.3 [in M.F.A. No.100016/2016] has come up in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the respondent No.1 was not holding the effective driving licence at the time of the accident and because of the same, as the respondent No.2 has entrusted the vehicle to a person who was not holding the driving licence, there is violation of the policy conditions and hence, it is prayed by the respondent No.3 to exonerate the insurance company from payment of compensation. 1 AIR 2009 SC 3104 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 12. The learned counsel for the insurance company Sri. S.K. Kayakamath submits that, on investigation, the Police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the said offending vehicle under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as he was not holding the effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Further he submits that, the respondent No.2 being the owner of the said vehicle has entrusted the vehicle to a person who was not holding the effective driving licence. Thereby he has violated the conditions of the policy though the insurance company admits the insurance policy and its validity on the date of accident. He further submits that, because of violation of the policy conditions, the insurance company is exonerated from payment of compensation muchless awarded by the Tribunal. 13. As against this submission, the learned advocate for the claimants Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy appearing through video conferencing submits that, the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month before his accident. Because - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 of untimely death of the deceased, the claimants being the dependants of the deceased are suffering both mentally and financially. He submits that claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased and claimant Nos.2 to 5 are his children. They were fully depending upon the income of the deceased. He submits that as the Tribunal has committed illegality in arriving at a proper income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-, the same requires modification. He submits that the claimants have spent substantial money towards funeral and other expenses, so also they have lost love and affection etc. Hence, it is prayed by the counsel for the claimants to enhance the compensation by allowing the appeal. 14. We have given our anxious considerations to the arguments on both sides. Perused the records. 15. In view of the rival submissions on both the sides, the points that would arise for our consideration are: “1. Whether the claimants have made out any grounds to enhance the compensation as prayed in their appeal memo? - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 2. Whether the respondent No.3 – insurance company being the appellant in M.F.A. No.100016/2016 is exonerated from payment of any compensation as prayed?” Point No.1: 16. As could be seen from the records of this case, so far as occurrence of the accident on 13.03.2013 in between Ape Luggae Autorickshaw and the Tempo Trax stated above, is not seriously disputed. However, PW1 being the claimant No.1 has entered the witness box before the Tribunal and has spoken about the accident. It is the specific case of the claimants that, the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax. To prove the said fact, the claimants have produced various documents in the shape of Exs.P1 to P9. These documents are the documents produced alongwith the charge sheet. The contents of these documents do establish about the rash and negligent driving of the offending Tempo Trax by its driver. Even respondent Nos.1 and 2 though appeared but have not entered witness box and just they have filed the written statement. In the absence of specific evidence from - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also non-denial of the accident by the insurance company, it can very well be stated that the said accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending Tempo Trax by respondent No.1 owned by respondent No.2. 17. So far as death of Muddu Basappa in the said accident is concerned, it is not in dispute. It is the specific case of the claimants, that the deceased Muddu Basappa was earning Rs.1,20,000/- per annum and because of the untimely death of the deceased, they have lost the earning member and also they have lost his love and affection. To show that the deceased was earning Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, except the self serving pleadings and evidence of PW1, no documents are produced by the claimants. In the absence of the same, we have to rely upon the notional income of the deceased. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, as the accident has occurred in the year 2013, the notional income that is to be taken is at Rs.7,000/- per month. As the deceased was a married man and having five dependants and on perusal of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 the cause title of the claim petition that the claimant Nos.3 and 4 are major sons of the deceased, out of the said Rs.7,000/-, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. As per the judgment in the case of in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, 10% is to be added towards future prospects. The deceased was aged 55 years at the time of the accident, as per the postmortem report which is the only document produced by the claimants. Therefore, as per the judgment in Sarla Verma [supra], the proper multiplier that is applicable is 11. Thus, as the claimants were the dependants on the deceased, as per the documents produced, the loss of dependency is calculated as under: Rs.7,000 + 10% - 1/3 X 12 X 11 = Rs.6,77,556/- Thus, the loss of dependency is calculated at Rs.6,77,556/- rounded off to Rs.6,77,600/-. 18. So far as conventional heads like loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium is concerned, as per 2 2017 ACJ 2700 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 the judgment in Pranay Sethi case (supra), there shall be 10% hike for every three years. Therefore, there shall be increase in the compensation to the extent of the 30% as the accident has taken place in the year 2013. That means the claimants are held entitled for compensation towards loss of estate at Rs.19,500/- [Rs.15,000+30% of Rs.15,000/-], towards funeral expenses, Rs.19,500/-[Rs.15,000+30% of Rs.15,000/-] and towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- to petitioner No.1 with increase of 30% at Rs.52,000/- [Rs.40,000+30% of Rs.40,000/-]. Sofaras petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are concerned they are the major sons and a daughter of deceased and have lost their father’s love and affection. Cause title of the appeal indicates that they are unmarried. Hence, towards loss of love and affection is concerned the amount is to be awarded to them. If at Rs.25,000/- each is awarded towards loss of love and affection it would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation as per the tabulation below: - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 Sl. No. Heads Amount Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 6,77,600.00 2. Loss of estate 19,500.00 3. Towards funeral expenses 19,500.00 4. Towards Loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 52,000.00 5. Towards Loss of love and affection to petitioner Nos.2 to 5. (Rs.25,000/-x 4) 1,00,000.00 Total 8,68,600.00 19. As per the insurance company as discussed above, the driver of the said offending vehicle was not holding the effective driving license. To that effect, one K.Shyamasunder entered the witness box and examined himself as RW.1. He specifically stated in his evidence that, respondent No.1 had not obtained any driving license to drive the said vehicle. Thus, it is contended that, respondent No.2 being the owner of the said vehicle has committed the breach of the policy conditions while entrusting the said vehicle to the unauthorized person. This evidence is not at all denied by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Even it is brought on record in the cross-examination that, though, respondent - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 No.3 has issued notice to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to produce the Driving License but, no such Driving License is produced. Therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against respondent No.1 that he was not holding the effective Driving License at the time of the accident. So also, respondent No.2 has entrusted the offending vehicle to the person who was not holding the effective Driving License, thereby it is proved by the respondent No.3 that there is a violation of policy conditions by respondent No.2. 20. Sofaras claimants are concerned, they are the third parties. The policy as on the date of the accident is admitted, so also there was a contract between the respondent Nos.2 and 3 with regard to indemnifying the compensation amount. With regard to the liability of the insurance company, defence is established by the insurance company about the violation of the policy contentions. The Full Bench judgment of this Court passed by the then Ladyship Smt.B.V.Nagarathna (now the judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court) in the case of New India Assurance company Limited Bijapur by its Divisional - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 Manager Vs. Yallavva and Another3 is made applicable to the present facts of the case. In the said judgment, it is held as under: “36. Thus, on a reading of Section 149, it becomes clear that when third party risks are involved or when the victim of the accident is a third party, such risk being compulsorily covered under sub-Section (1) of Section 147, any exclusion in the policy must be suitably interpreted having regard to the main purpose for which an insurance contract is entered into. In Swaran Singh the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enumerated the aforementioned twin tests in the above context. It is only when both the tests are satisfied that the insurer could be permitted to pay and recover from the insured as per the proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 147 otherwise, no pay and recovery order could be made and the insurer has to satisfy the award. 37. Thus, what follows is that, in regard to third party rights, the insurer can defeat such rights under Section 149(2)(a) by proving a breach of the condition of the policy and further, proving that the same is a fundamental breach. In such an event, the insurer can only mitigate its liability and the insured would be liable to satisfy the judgment vis-a-vis the insurer who would have satisfied the claim of the third party in the first instance. Therefore, the insurer cannot defeat a third 3 ILR 2020 KAR 2239 - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 party claim by any exclusion in the policy having regard to the four comers of Section 149(2)(a). It can only mitigate its liability by seeking recovery from the insured on proof of the exclusion clause as per the twin tests enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is the object of Section 149(4) and the proviso thereto which contemplates pay and recovery order to be made against the insurer who has been notified in a claim proceeding instituted by a third party under Section 149(1) of the Act. The underlining is by this Court 38. To this, another nuance may be added. What would be the position when the insurer is able to prove a breach of the policy, but the said breach is not a fundamental breach or the breach did not contribute to the cause of the accident but what could be termed as an innocent breach and not an intentional one. In such a case also, the Insurance Company must pay to the third party and recover from the insured. This could be illustrated with reference to the vehicle not being covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd [(2018) 7 SCC 558: AIR 2018 SC 2662.] , held that the vehicle not having a permit at all and being used for hire or reward is a case of fundamental breach and hence, the insurer though absolved of its liability had to pay the compensation and recovery order was made in the said case permitting recovery from the insured. Also, when a vehicle had a - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 permit to ply within a particular area or on a route deviated from the said area or route and was plying in another area or route and an accident occurred, then it is not a case of fundamental breach, although, there is a violation of the terms of the policy. In such an event also, the pay and recovery order has been made in the case of Rani v. National Insurance Company Ltd. [(2018) 8 SCC 492.] , by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.” 21. So, in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court, as the claimants are the third parties, therefore the Insurance Company has to deposit the compensation and recover the same from respondent No.2. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER [A] Both the appeals are allowed in part. [B] The claimants in MFA Crob. No.100022/2017 are entitle for enhanced compensation of Rs.8,68,600/- as against Rs.5,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till it’s realization. [C] Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally held liable to pay - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:652-DB MFA.CROB No. 100022 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 100016 of 2016 compensation. However, respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. [D] However, respondent No.3 is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.2 by executing the award. [E] There shall be modification of the award in the above terms. [F] Registry to transfer the statutory deposit to the Tribunal forthwith. [G] Registry to transmit the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal along with copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE Rsh : para 1 to 17 PJ : para 18 to end, CT: VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36