As per case facts, the appellant's tractor and trailer were damaged in an accident involving a negligent lorry. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded a compensation that the appellant ...
1
Date of reserved for orders :24.04.2026
Date of pronouncement :01.07.2026
Date of uploading :01.07.2026
APHC010592852012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3520]
WEDNESDAY, THE 1
st
DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 833/2012
Between:
1. G. JAYARAMI REDDY, S/O RAMESWARA REDDY AGRICULTURIST,
OWNER OF THE TRACTOR & TRAILER NO.AP 21K 4127 & 4128 R/O
MADDUR VILLAGE, NANDYAL MANDAL,
...APPELLANT
AND
1. A V N MURALIMOHAN AND ANOTHER, S/O RAMANAIAH, MAJOR
OWNER OF LORRY NO. AP 21 W 4758 R/O H.NO.11/586 ROOM NO.
1, OPP; SUB STATION, CHAGALAMARRI, VILLAGE AND
MANDAL,KURNOOL DISTRICT.
2. M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP.BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KURNOOL.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtallow the appeal
by setting aside the decree and judgment dated 16-12-2011 made in
MVOP.No. 36 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman MACT cum V Addl. Dist
Judge [FTC] Kurnool at Nandyal
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 1959 OF 2012
2
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
condone the delay of 15 days in representing the above case
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. B S REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. .
2. A JAYANTHI
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.833 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Introductory:
1. The appellant herein is the claimant before the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Kurnool at
Nandyal (for short “the learned MACT”). He filed the case claiming
compensation for the damages caused to his Tractor and Trailer bearing
Registration Nos.AP 21 K 4127 and AP 21 K 4128 in an accident that occurred
on 19.04.2008, due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 21
W 4758 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by its driver.
2. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry / offending vehicle.
Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company. The appellant claimed
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, but the learned MACT awarded compensation
of Rs.41,400/-. Contending the same as inadequate and unreasonable, the
present appeal is filed.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as
the petitioner and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed before the
learned MACT.
Case of the petitioner:
4. On 19.04.2008, the tractor of petitioner was parked near Silpa Weigh
Bridge on National Highway-18, Nandyal. The offending vehicle came from the
4
Kurnool Side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed Tractor
and Trailer of the petitioner causing damage. The petitioner incurred expenses
of Rs.70,566/- towards repairs to the tractor engine and Rs.35,700/- towards
repairs to the trailer.
5. A case in Crime No.78 of 2008 was registered against the driver of the
offending vehicle for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 IPC.
6. The Policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Since the
petitioner suffered loss due to the damages caused to the tractor and trailer, he
is entitled for compensation and respondents are liable to pay.
7. Respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte
before the learned MACT.
Case of respondent No.2:
8(i). The petitioner shall prove all the allegations including the accident,
negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the damages suffered.
(ii). Further, it is the case of respondent No.2 that there was no negligence
on the part of the driver of the lorry.
(iii). In worst case, the negligence of the drivers of the both vehicles shall be
considered as the cause for accident.
Evidence:
9. On behalf of the claimant, he was examined as P.W.1 and he has stated
about the ownership of the vehicle, accident and the damage caused to the
vehicle.
5
10. P.W.2-One K. Danamaiah, motor mechanic who studied ITI was
examined to show that the spare parts used for repairs for the tractor and trailer
were worth of Rs.70,566/- covered by Ex.A4.
11. P.W.3-one S. Rayapu Reddy was examined to show that repairs were
made and new parts were provided to the tractor and trailer and they worth
Rs.35,700/- were covered under Ex.A5.
12. One Chakali Balanna was examined as P.W.4 to show that he has
witnessed the accident and that there was negligence on the part of the driver
of the lorry / offending vehicle.
13(i). P.W.5-One P.S.M. Hussain, Surveyor was examined to show that he is a
licensed Surveyor for four Government Insurance Companies and that Ex.A2 is
the report prepared by him on inspection of the accident spot.
(ii). As per his evidence, the repairs to the tractor and trailer were assessed
by him at Rs.1,07,000/-. After deducting depreciation, the value was assessed
at Rs.41,400/-. But, depreciation need not be deducted when new parts are
used for the repairs.
14. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company.
15. The claimant relied on Ex.A1-attested copy of FIR, Ex.A2-Surveyor’s
Report, Ex.A3-Postive photographs, Ex.A4-cash bill issued by M/s.Rythu
Tractors, Nandyal, Ex.A5- bill issued by M/s. Priya Engineering works, Nandyal
and Ex.X1 is the copy of the Insurance Policy.
6
Findings of the learned MACT:
Accident:
16. In view of the evidence of the eye witness, the FIR and the Surveyor’s
report, the negligence contended by the petitioner is accepted. The petitioner
claimed that he has spent Rs.70,566/- and Rs.35,700/-. He has examined
P.Ws.2 to 5.
17. P.W.5 is the Surveyor. According to P.W.5, the surveyor, the final bill
should be Rs.41,400/-. He stated that the damaged spare parts removed were
sold out at the rate of Rs.12/- to Rs.15/- per kilogram. But, no record is
produced.
18. The petitioner had purchased the trailer in the year 2006 and the trailer
can be subjected to depreciation due to usage. He was not handed over
damaged parts to the Insurance Company after repairs. Therefore, the learned
MACT held that the final bill amount of Rs.41,400/- alone is the entitlement of
the claimant for compensation. Loss of incidental income during the period of
repairs is not proved. Therefore, entitlement of claimant in all is for Rs.41,400/-
only.
Arguments in the appeal:
For the appellant:
19(i). The incidental income due to the non availability of the vehicle during the
repair period is erroneously denied.
7
(ii). There is no rationality in the deducting depreciation when replacement of
parts takes place.
For respondent-Insurance Company:
20(i). The deduction of amount towards the depreciation is rational.
(ii). The compensation awarded is just and reasonable.
(iii). Evidence of P.W.5 is properly appreciated by the learned MACT.
21. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that the learned MACT erred
in deducting the amount towards the depreciation and that the period for which
the vehicle was kept for repairs shall be taken into consideration for awarded
loss of income.
22. Heard both sides extensively. Perused the record. Thoughtful
consideration is given to the arguments advanced by the both sides.
23. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.41,400/-
awarded by the learned MACT under the award and decree dated
16.12.2011 is just and reasonable or requires any enhancement, if so, on
what grounds?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
24. Since the appeal is filed by the claimant / petitioner, negligence, liability
of the respondents and entitlement of the claimant for compensation are all out
8
of dispute. The only point requires determination is what is the just and
reasonable compensation to which the appellant is entitled.
25. The damage caused to the tractor of the appellant is not in dispute. The
documentary evidence Ex.A4-cash bill issued by M/s. Rythu Tractors, Nandyal
is indicating the bill amount of Rs.70,556/-. Ex.A5-bill issued by M/s.Priya
Engineering works, Nandyal is indicating the amount of Rs.35,700/-. It is clear
that both bills relate to separate and independent repairs. No overlapping
between Exs.A4 and A5 is apparent.
26. The petitioner claimed that he has spent Rs.70,566/- towards spare
parts purchased from Rythu tractors corresponding to Ex.A4 and also
Rs.35,700/- towards repair to the trailer carried out at Priya Engineering the
corresponding to Ex.A5 and in total he spend Rs.1,06,266/- . He has placed
Exs.A4 and A5.
27. During the cross-examination of P.W.1 it was suggested to him that he
is deposing false for the purpose of claiming excessive compensation and that
he has claimed compensation from New India Assurance Company, with which
his tractor is insured and that no parts are replaced. He denied
28(i). P.W.2, one K. Danamaiah, is an ITI mechanic. As per his evidence, new
parts were provided to the tractor value Rs.70,566/-.
(ii). During cross-examination of P.W.2, it was suggested to him that parts
are not placed and excessive bills are given.
9
29. P.W.3, one S. Rayapu Reddy, is said to be Proprietor of Priya
Engineering works, where the trailer was repaired. According to his evidence,
spare parts worth Rs.35,700/- were used for repairs covered under Ex.A5.
30. It appears that the learned MACT has given more credence to evidence
of P.W.5, while assessing the damages at Rs.41,400/-.
31. As per the evidence of P.W.5, he gave Ex.A2-Survey Report. Ex.A2,
dated 27.06.2008, contains the details of the damage caused to the tractor and
trailer. They are:
Details of Damage
About Engine (Tractor):
1. Front Tie rod ends badly bent and damaged.
2. Front “I” Beam badly bent and damaged.
3. Steering worm shaft and its relevant components are badly
bent and detached.
4. Gear box-counter shaft and top gear and load gear teeth’s are
cut and damaged.
5. Power transmission shaft edges cut and damaged.
6. L.H and R.H side Hydraulic arms badly bent and damaged.
7. L.H and R.H side fender panels badly dented and folded.
8. Rear both wheel rims badly twisted at corner edges.
9. Cultch assembly badly broken in to pieces and its release
beading broken.
About Load Body (Trailer):
1. Trailer Chasis badly bent and damaged.
2. L.H. and R.H side doors are slightly dented.
3. Trailer rear door badly dented at L.H. side.
10
4. Rear door support pillars badly bent and damaged.
5. Hydraulic lift cocky strucked and damaged and its hose pie cut
and detached.
32. Estimates submitted by the repairer (Rythu tractors, Nandyal) is
Rs.1,06,266/-. Further P.W.5 evidence is that both the tractor and trailer were
damaged. To make the vehicle to bring to road working condition new spare
parts were replaced and if new spare parts are used, there will not be any
depreciation. He has admitted that he has deducted depreciation in his report.
He has also admitted that Insurance Company is also liable for non usage of
tractor at the time of repair and the tractor like in the present case will fetch
income of Rs.1,000/- per day. Without deducing depreciation his assessment
shall be more than Rs.59,000/-.
33. From the evidence available on record, the following aspects are clear:
(i). the petitioner deposed that he has spent the amount covered by Exs.A4
and A5.
(ii). P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed that new spare parts covered by Exs.A4 and A5
are provided to the vehicle. Therefore, Exs.A4 and A5 are proved. P.W.5 did
not say with reference to Exs.A4 and A5, that the such spare parts are not
used. Even according to P.W.5, he has deducted deprecation which need not
be the loss. In case of replacement with new spare parts there need not be
any deduction towards depreciation.
11
(iii). Full Bench of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in a case between
M. M. Joseph vs. Venkata Rao M and Ors.
1
, addressed this point as to
purchase of new spare parts for making the vehicle roadworthy. The third-party
claimant is entitled for actual cost of the spare parts. After referring to a catena
of decisions, the full Bench made relevant observations in para Nos.19 to 21,
and set aside the deduction of 35% made towards depreciation in the said
case.
19. In the case of M.A.C.A. No. 990/2005 (supra), the Division Bench
took a view that when a vehicle is repaired, the owner will get a better
utility for the vehicle as if it is a new vehicle and therefore depreciation is
justified to arrive at the actual damage. But what is to be considered is
whether these spare parts are required for making the vehicle roadworthy.
One cannot expect a person to repair his vehicle with old spare parts.
Therefore, necessarily, new spare parts will have to be purchased for
making the vehicle roadworthy. Even assuming for the sake of argument
that the utility of the vehicle might be increased on account of new spare
parts being fitted into the vehicle, it is by way of restitution, to enable the
claimant to use the vehicle as he was using it before the accident. In other
words, without effecting such repairs, it may not be possible for the
claimant to put the vehicle on road. Therefore, making a further reduction
to the actual value of spares will in effect amount to reduction from the
actual loss suffered by him.
20. Hence we are of the view that the judgment
in Abraham v. Johny [2009 (4) KLT 679] does not lay down the correct law
and we approve the judgment in T.A. Kuriakose v. Ittoop (M.A.C.A No.
693/2004).
1
2016 SCC OnLine Ker 4646: AIR 2016 KERALA 101 : M.A.C.M.A.No.1373 of 2013
12
21. In the result, the appeal is disposed as under:
The award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The deduction of
35% from the assessed amount of Rs.4,14,244.85 ps. is set aside. The
claimant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.1,44,986/-. In all other
respects, the award is confirmed.
34. In a case between G.Md. Masoom vs. S.K. Khader Vali and another
2
,
the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad observed that a third party whose vehicle is damaged in a motor
accident is entitled to claim not only compensation for the damage caused to
the vehicle but also compensation towards the loss of business due to
non-availability of the vehicle during the repair period. The relevant
observation in para 21 reads as follows:
21. It is observed by the Madras High Court in Rajendran v. Selvaraj,
2002 ACJ 104, that the Claims Tribunal can entertain the damages to
the property including loss of business income after considering the
entire law. In all the aforesaid decisions, it is clearly stated that the
owner is entitled to claim damages for the vehicle involved in the
accident. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to award compensation after
the amended provisions of Sections 165 and 166 of the Act which have
come into force after the motor vehicle accident of 1988 as there is
express bar of entertaining by Civil Court and the Civil Court cannot
entertain a claim in respect of damage caused to the vehicle involved in
the accident. The owner has been conferred with a right of presenting an
application for compensation under Section 166 of the Act in respect of
damages. The only thing that has to be decided is whether computation
can be made in respect of business loss, which is part of the policy of
2
2003 SCC OnLine AP 1197: 2004 (2) ALD 324 (DB)
13
insurance and whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction under the head -
Damages of compensation. It is clear from the principles laid down by
the decisions rendered by the English Courts that the loss occasioned
due to non-availability of the vehicle under repair can be awarded during
the period of repair. It is not stated in those decisions that the entire
business loss of income can be entertained on awarded. What is
contemplated under the law is that the loss of income sustained during
the period of vehicle under repair is an incidental loss, which resulted
due to the damages to the vehicle, and it can be awarded and the
Tribunal alone can entertain such a thing. Section 166 mentioned about
the application to be made for compensation. Section 165 says that
compensation can be claimed for damages to any property of a third
party so arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Does it cover the loss of
incidental income of the owner? It must be held that loss of incidental
income due to non-availability of vehicle, which is under repairs is
covered. That has to be taken into consideration while awarding
compensation. It cannot be stated that the incidental loss sustained by
the owner due to the damage to the vehicle and due to non-availability of
the vehicle cannot be taken into consideration. The Court has to take
into consideration about the ousting of Civil Courts jurisdiction for
claiming compensation in respect of damages to any property. The
incidental loss of income has to be taken into consideration while
awarding compensation for damages to the property. The Single Judge
of this Court has rightly observed that there cannot be two forums for
claiming compensation. The incidental loss of income is part of the
damages to be awarded by way of compensation. The same view has
been taken by the English Courts. The method that has to be adopted is
to calculate the loss of income due to non-availability of the vehicle. If
the vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company, it is liable to pay
damages which inclusive of incidental loss of income due to non-
availability of the vehicle. The incidental loss of income differs from
14
business loss. The business loss has to be arrived at after taking into
consideration of non-availability of the vehicle on the particular period
and its availability after repairs. We are of considered view that just
compensation has to be arrived at by calculating the compensation
towards damages including the incidental loss occasioned during the
period of non-availability of the vehicle. On a consideration of the entire
law, we are of the view that the owner of the vehicle is entitled to claim
incidental loss of income under the head Damages caused to the vehicle
before the Tribunal and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. We also state
that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation towards
damages caused to the vehicle, which includes the incidental loss of
income being part by business loss.
35. In view of the above, this Court finds that the claimant is entitled for
compensation towards the damages to the extent of bills covered by Exs.A4
and A5 i.e.Rs.70,566/- and Rs.35,700/- totaling Rs.1,06,266/-. The claimant is
also entitled to compensation towards the loss arising from the inability to use
the vehicle at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for a period of one month, totaling to
Rs.15,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
length of time etc. interest is awarded at the rate of 6% per annum.
36. In view of the discussion made above, the claimant is entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,21,266/- and the compensation awarded by the learned
MACT requires enhancement to that extent. Point framed is answered
accordingly.
15
Point No.2:
37. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as follows:
(i) The compensation awarded by the learned MACT in
M.V.O.P.No.36 of 2010 at Rs.41,400/- with interest at the rate of
6% per annum is modified and enhanced to Rs.1,21,266/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
(ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the learned MACT are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation. However, Respondent
No.2/ Insurance Company is liable in view of the Insurance Policy.
(iii) Time for payment/deposit of the balance amount is one month.
(a) If the claimant furnishes the bank account number within 15 days
from today, the Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company shall
deposit the amount directly into the bank account of the claimant
and file the necessary proof before the learned MACT.
(b) If the claimant fails to comply with (iii)(a) above, respondent No.2
/ Insurance Company shall deposit the amount before the learned
MACT and the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount at
once on deposit.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal.
16
38. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall
stand closed.
____________________________
A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J
Date:01.07.2026
Note:L.R. copy to be marked.
(B/o).
Knr
Whether the order is:
Speaking Reasoned ✓
Reportable ✓ Non-reportable
17
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
M.A.C.M.A.No.833 of 2012
1st July, 2026
Knr
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has revisited a crucial Motor Accident Compensation Appeal, delivering an enhanced award that underscores principles of just compensation. This detailed judgment, which originally came before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, highlights key aspects of property damage and incidental income loss, and is meticulously analyzed on CaseOn as a pivotal legal development for understanding motor accident claims.
The appellant, G. Jayarami Reddy, an agriculturist, was the owner of a tractor and trailer (Registration Nos. AP 21 K 4127 & 4128). On April 19, 2008, his vehicles, while parked near the Silpa Weigh Bridge on National Highway-18 in Nandyal, were severely damaged by a lorry (Registration No. AP 21 W 4758) driven in a rash and negligent manner. A police case (Crime No. 78 of 2008) was registered against the lorry driver under Sections 337 and 338 IPC.
The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Nandyal, seeking Rs. 1,50,000/- for the damages caused to his tractor and trailer. He submitted bills showing expenses of Rs. 70,566/- for tractor repairs and Rs. 35,700/- for trailer repairs, totaling Rs. 1,06,266/-.
The MACT acknowledged the negligence of the offending vehicle's driver based on eyewitness testimony, the FIR, and the surveyor's report. However, relying primarily on the surveyor's depreciated assessment, the MACT awarded only Rs. 41,400/- as compensation. The Tribunal also denied any claim for loss of incidental income due to the non-availability of the vehicle during the repair period, reasoning that it was not adequately proven.
The core issues addressed in this appeal before the High Court were:
The High Court referred to a significant precedent set by the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala in M. M. Joseph vs. Venkata Rao M and Ors.¹ This judgment clarified that when new spare parts are used to restore a damaged vehicle to a roadworthy condition, no deduction for depreciation should be made. Such repairs are considered an act of restitution, aiming to put the claimant in the same position as before the accident, not to provide a 'betterment' that would justify depreciation deductions. Reducing the actual cost of new spares effectively reduces the actual loss suffered by the claimant.
The High Court also drew upon the observations of the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G.Md. Masoom vs. S.K. Khader Vali and another². This ruling established that a third party whose vehicle is damaged in a motor accident is entitled to claim not only compensation for direct damage but also for the loss of business or incidental income resulting from the vehicle's non-availability during the repair period. The MACT has the appropriate jurisdiction to entertain such claims.
For legal professionals and students looking for a quick yet comprehensive understanding of such intricate rulings, CaseOn.in offers 2-minute audio briefs that distill the essence of judgments like MACMA No. 833 of 2012, making complex legal analysis accessible and efficient.
The High Court meticulously re-examined the evidence presented. P.W.1 (the claimant) affirmed his ownership and the damage sustained. P.W.2, a motor mechanic, and P.W.3, the proprietor of Priya Engineering works, both testified that new spare parts were purchased and installed for the tractor and trailer respectively, corresponding to bills Ex.A4 (Rs. 70,566/-) and Ex.A5 (Rs. 35,700/-), totaling Rs. 1,06,266/-. P.W.4, an eyewitness, corroborated the negligence of the offending vehicle's driver.
Crucially, P.W.5, the surveyor, despite initially deducting depreciation in his report (leading to the Rs. 41,400/- assessment), admitted during cross-examination that depreciation should not be deducted when new parts are used. He also acknowledged that the claimant incurred a loss of income during the repair period, estimating the vehicle's daily earning potential at Rs. 1,000/-.
Aligning with the Kerala High Court's precedent, the Andhra Pradesh High Court found the MACT's deduction of depreciation from the cost of new spare parts to be irrational and erroneous. Since P.Ws 2 and 3 unequivocally established that new parts were installed, the full cost as per bills Ex.A4 and Ex.A5, amounting to Rs. 1,06,266/-, was deemed recoverable.
Further, drawing on its own Division Bench's judgment, the High Court held that the denial of incidental income loss by the MACT was incorrect. Considering the evidence, particularly P.W.5's admission about the vehicle's earning capacity, the court found it reasonable to award compensation for the period the vehicle was under repair. It estimated this loss at Rs. 500/- per day for a period of one month, totaling Rs. 15,000/-.
Based on its comprehensive analysis, the High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying and enhancing the compensation. The claimant was awarded:
This amount is to be paid with an interest rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition until the date of realization.
The High Court held Respondent Nos. 1 (owner of the offending lorry) and 2 (Insurance Company) jointly and severally liable. However, the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 2) was primarily made liable due to the existing insurance policy. The balance amount is to be paid within one month. The court also specified that if the claimant provides bank account details within 15 days, the Insurance Company shall directly deposit the amount; otherwise, the amount should be deposited with the MACT for withdrawal by the claimant.
This judgment serves as a vital precedent for both legal practitioners and students specializing in motor accident claims. It clearly reiterates and reinforces two crucial principles:
By clarifying these aspects, the High Court has provided clearer guidance on what constitutes 'just and reasonable compensation' in cases of property damage arising from motor accidents, preventing undue reductions in awards and ensuring more equitable outcomes for accident victims.
All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to their specific circumstances. CaseOn and its authors are not liable for any actions taken based on the information presented herein.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....