Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1835 of 2019 1 - Smt. Parvati Lodhi W/o Late Manohar Lodhi Aged About 30 Years R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Kamleshwari Lodhi D/o Late Manohar Lodhi Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parvati Lodhi W/o Late Manohar Lodhi, R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Chhaya Lodhi D/o Late Manohar Lodhi Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parvati Lodhi W/o Late Manohar Lodhi, R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Maya Lodhi D/o Late Manohar Lodhi Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parvati Lodhi W/o Late Manohar Lodhi, R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kartik Ram Lodhi D/o Late Manohar Lodhi Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Parvati Lodhi W/o Late Manohar Lodhi, R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shiv Kumar Lodhi S/o Late Radhe Shyam Lodhi Aged About 56 Years R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2
Legal Reasoning
7 - Smt. Mogra Bai W/o Shiv Kumar Lodhi Aged About 52 Years R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Raj Kumar Lodhi S/o Shiv Kumar Lodhi Aged About 19 Years R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Santosh Kumar Panika S/o Shri Chokelal Panika R/o House No. 13/139, Chunginaka, Near Hanuman Mandir, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Lalit Chandrakar S/o Shri B.P. Chandrakar R/o Ward No.21 B.T.I. Road, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - New India Insurance Company Limited R.D.A. Building Behind Hanuman Mandir, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No. 1728 of 2019 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited By Branch Manager, R.D.A. Building, Behind Hanuman Mandir, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorized Signatory, Manager Suit Claim Legal Hub, 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Above Axix Bank, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.(N.A. No.2), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Parwati Lodhi Wd/o Late Manohar Lodhi Aged About 30 Years R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Kamleshwari Lodhi D/o Manohar Lodhi Aged About 11 Years Through Their Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Lodhi (R-1), R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, 3 Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kumari Chhaya Lodhi D/o Manohar Lodhi Aged About 9 Years Through Their Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Lodhi (R-1), R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kumari Maya Lodhi D/o Manohar Lodhi Aged About 7 Years Through Their Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Lodhi (R-1), R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kartik Ram Lodhi S/o Manohar Lodhi Aged About 3 Years Through Their Guardian Mother Smt. Parwati Lodhi (R-1), R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shiv Kumar Lodhi S/o Late Radheshyam Lodhi Aged About 56 Years R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Mogra Bai W/o Shiv Kumar Lodhi Aged About 52 Years R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Rajkumar Lodhi S/o Shiv Kumar Lodhi Aged About 19 Years R/o Thakurdiya Para, Aarang, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Santosh Kumar Panika S/o Choukelal Panika R/o H.No. 13/139, Chungi Naka, Near Hanuman Mandir, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver)., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 10 - Lalit Chandrakar S/o B.P. Chandrakar R/o Ward No.21, B.T.I. Road Mahasamund, Thana Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund. (Owner)., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 4 MAC No. 1835/2019 For Appellants For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate MAC No. 1728/2019 For Appellant For Respondents No. 1 to 8 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 9 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 17/07/2025 Order On Board 1. As both the appeals are arising out of the common award, they are
Decision
being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 1728/2019 has challenged the liability fastened upon it to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 13,60,240/- by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 04.07.2019 in Claim Case No. 785/2017 without considering the grounds raised of breach of policy conditions and contributory negligence in appropriate manner and fastening liability upon the Non-applicants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally to satisfy the amount of compensation. 3. Appellants-Claimants in MAC No. 1835/2019 have sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 22.09.2017 at around 08:15 P.M. Manohar Lodhi (since deceased) along with his friend namely, Narendra Prajapati after offering prayers in temple, was going towards Mahasamund from Arang on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 LU 6815, when they reached near Kharora Square, a mini-bus bearing registration no. CG 06 P 0244 (hereinafter referred to as 5 offending vehicle) driven by the Non-applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed her bicycle and caused accident. In the said accident, Manohar Lodhi and Narendra Prajapati suffered serious injuries and Manohar Lodhi succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to said accident, a report was lodged in the concerned police station bearing Crime No. 475/2017, P.S. Mahasamund for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5. The appellants/claimants filed a claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on the date of accident the deceased was 33 years of age, doing the work of Mason and earning Rs. 300/- per day. He was bread-winner of his family and due to death of deceased, they are facing financial difficulties, claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 36,00,000/- from the non-applicants. 6. Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 submitted their reply opposing the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that on the date of accident, Non-Applicant No. 1/Driver was possessing valid and effective driving license, there was valid permit and fitness of the offending vehicle. Offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3, therefore, if any compensation is awarded, then same is payable by the Non- Applicant No. 3. 7. The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company also filed separate reply, took a stand that the occurrence of accident and death of deceased is due to his own negligence. There is no proof of the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident and the offending vehicle was insured from 04.01.2017 to 03.01.2019. The Non-Applicants No. 1 was not possessing the valid and effective driving license. There was no 6 permit and fitness and the vehicle was plied in breach of policy conditions. The claimants/applicants failed to prove the age, nature of occupation and income of the deceased as pleaded in the claim application and therefore, Non-Applicant No. 3 is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. It is also pleaded that deceased was contributory negligent. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of facts and evidences brought on record held that the contributory negligence of deceased is not proved. Accident was a result of negligent driving of the offending Bus No. CG 06 P 0244 by Non-applicant No. 1 resulting death of Manohar Lodhi. Breach of policy conditions was not found proved. Computed and awarded Rs. 13,60,240/- as compensation, fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-applicants No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation. He submits that the accident occurred on 20.02.2017, age of the deceased on the date of accident was 33 years, but, Tribunal assessed income of the deceased notionally as Rs. 6,000/- per month only which is less. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed income of the deceased keeping in mind, minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to Claimant No. 1/widow and not to other claimants who are widow, children, parents and brother of the deceased, and submitted that the compensation awarded be suitably enhanced. 7 10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that the Claims Tribunal upon considering facts and circumstances of the case and further that the claimants failed to prove occupation and income of the deceased has assessed income of deceased notionally and awarded just amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. 11.He further submits that the Insurance Company has also filed appeal challenging the impugned award in MAC No. 1728/2019 on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal erroneously decided the issue of breach of conditions of insurance policy against the insurance company overlooking the fact that the Non-Applicant No. 1/Driver was plying the vehicle (Mini Bus), which is a medium passenger vehicle, for which, endorsement of authorizing to drive the transport vehicle is mandatory whereas, Non-Applicant No. 1 was possessing license authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has decided the issue of contributory negligence erroneously and concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. 12. Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 9/Owner in MAC No. 1728/2019 would support the impugned award. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 14. This Court finds it appropriate to first consider the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 1728/2019. 8 15. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company has raised first ground that Non-Applicant No. 1 was possessing license to drive light motor vehicle only, whereas, on the date of accident, he was plying mini-bus. Mini-bus will fall under the class of medium passenger vehicle. Secondly, the issue of contributory negligence raised by the Appellant/Insurance Company has not been considered appropriately by the Claims Tribunal. 16. So far as the first ground raised by the counsel for the Appellant/Insurance company is concerned, copy of the extract of the driving license is placed on record by the Insurance Company as Ex. D/3. Perusal of the same would show that It mentions that the license was issued initially for light motor vehicle on 25.08.1983 and the non- transport license was renewed on 09.07.2014 and was valid up to 08.07.2019 whereas, accident was of 22.09.2017 i.e. in between the validity period of non-transport license. The vehicle which is involved in the accident, subject matter of these appeals is a passenger carrying mini-bus with sitting capacity of 32. Perusal of the registration certificate of the offending vehicle which is placed before this Court for perusal across the dais would show that in the vehicle particulars issued by the registration authority, unladen weight of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs. 7480 Kg. The unladen weight of the vehicle below 7500 kg was also considered by the learned Claims Tribunal in para no. 23 & 24 of the impugned award. 17. Light motor vehicle is defined under Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988), which mentions that light motor vehicles means transport vehicle or omini- bus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or a 9 tractor or a road-roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. The unladen weight of the vehicle as discussed in the preceding paragraph is mentioned in the particulars of the vehicle issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Mahasamund as 7490 and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the person possessing license authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle can drive the omnibus falling within category of light motor vehicle. 18. Submission of counsel for the appellant that as the vehicle involved is a passenger vehicle and therefore, it will fall under the definition of medium passenger vehicle as envisaged under Section 3 (24) of the Act, 1988. The definition reads as “medium passenger motor vehicle means, any public service vehicle or a private service vehicle or educational institution bus other than the motor cycle [adopted vehicle] light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle.” The definition bears the exclusion clause, class of the vehicles excluded from the definition of medium passenger vehicles has been specifically mentioned therein, which includes light motor vehicle and therefore, the vehicle which is having the unladen weight of not exceeding 7500 kg will fall within the definition of the light motor vehicle. 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 has considered the issue as to whether the person having in his name, the license authorizing him to drive the light motor vehicle can also drive the light passenger motor vehicle and the light goods vehicle and held thus:- “60...60.1 “(i) ‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in Section 2 (21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in 10 Section 2 (21) read with Section 2 (15) and 2 (48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54 of 1994. 60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10 (2) (d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10 (2) (d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. 60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10 (2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10 (2) (e), medium passenger motor vehicle in Section 10 (2) (f) heavy goods vehicle in Section 10 (2) (g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in Section 10 (2) (h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in Section 10 (2) (e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of Section Section 10 (2) (d) and Section 2 (41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle. 60.4. The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. 11 20. The decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) was referred to larger Bench for consideration and the 5 Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi & ors., reported in (2025) 3 SCC 95, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that : - “181. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:- 181.1. A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10 (2 (d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10 (2) (e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e- carts, e- rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. 181.2 The second part of Section 3 (1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2 (21) of the MV Act. 181.3. The additional eligibility criteria specified in theMV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’. 181.4 The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.” 21. In light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme 12 Court in aforementioned judgments, wherein it has been categorically held that a driver possessing a valid licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) under Section 10(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is legally competent to drive a vehicle with gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7500 kg, even if such vehicle is registered as a “Transport Vehicle”, without the necessity of obtaining a separate endorsement or authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the Act, therefore, first ground raised by the learned counsel for appellant is not sustainable. Accordingly it is repelled. 22. So far as the second ground raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company that the learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the plea of contributory negligence upon the deceased is concerned, the deceased undisputedly was an occupant of the vehicle and not driver and therefore, contributory negligence will not be attracted for him. 23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan & Ors. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 has observed that for a pillion rider or an occupant of the vehicle, it will be composite negligence and held thus: “6. “Composite negligence” refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not 13 establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” For the aforementioned reason, the second ground raised by the counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company is also not sustainable. Accordingly, it is repelled. 24. So far as the ground raised by the counsel for appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal assessed income much less than what is the wage prevailing at the State of Chhattisgarh. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium. Date of accident is 22.09.2017, on the said date, the minimum-wages for the Unskilled Labourer is determined for ‘A’ zone area as Rs. 8,450/-. In the aforementioned facts of the case, as the claimant failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased, I find it appropriate to determine the income of the deceased taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as Rs. 8,450/- for ‘A’ Zone area. It is ordered accordingly. 25. The Claims Tribunal has rightly added 40% of the assessed income 14 towards future prospect, applied deduction of 1/5th and multiplier of 16 which does not call for any interference. Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards the loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the Claimant No. 1 which is also correctly awarded. However, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of consortium to the other Claimants as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC. In above case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the types of consortium as spousal consortium to widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents of Rs. 40,000/- each. In case at hand, respondents/claimants no. 2 to 5 are children and respondents/claimants no. 6 & 7 are parents and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental and filial consortium respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 26. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Pranay Sethi (Supra) has observed that there shall be increase of 10% on the amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded under head of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate is to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly. 27. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants:- S. Heads No. Compensation 15 1. (A) Loss of Income/Dependency : Rs. 18,17,088/- 8450 X 12 = 1,01,400/- (B)Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (1,01,400 X 40% = 40,560) (1,01,400 + 40560 = 1,41,960/-) (C) Deduction of 1/5th towards personal and living expenses: (1,41,960 X 1/5 = 28,392) (1,41,960 – 28,392 = 1,13,568/-) (D) Multiplier of 16 (1,13,568 X 16 = 18,17,088/-) 2. Funeral Expenses 3. Loss of Estate 4. Loss of parental consortium to : (+) Rs. 16,500/- : (+) Rs. 16,500/- : (+) Rs. 3,08,000/- Claimant/Appellants @ Rs. 44,000/- each (44,000 X 7) Total Compensation : Rs. 21,58,088/- 28. Now, the Appellants/Claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 21,58,088/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 29. In the result, appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed and appeal filed by claimants is also allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as mentioned above. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge