Allowed

Smt G v. Gayathri v the Union of India

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2026MFA/1542/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Railway Claims Tribunal dismissal of a compensation claim for the death of a passenger who fell from a moving train. Holding that absence of a ticket on the body did not defeat the claim once the ticket was produced with supporting evidence, the High Court allowed the appeal and awarded Rs.4,00,000 with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs.4,00,000 with interest at 6% per annum from date of accident till realisation, apportioned 60% to wife and 40% to mother; Tribunal order set aside.

Smt G v Gayathri Vs the Union of India — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1542 OF 2017 (RCT) BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT G V GAYATHRI W/O LATE G.H.ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶9

SMT BYCHAMMA W/O HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS.

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT VELAGALABURRE VILLAGE & POST, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563101

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI - 580020

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.B.M.KUSHALAPPA ., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 23(1) OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.26.04.16 PASSED IN OA II U 067/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard learned counsel Ms.Sushmitha.G for the appellants and learned counsel Sri.B.M.Kushalappa for the respondent.

¶25

Though the matter is listed for admission, with

¶26

the consent of the learned counsels appearing for both parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

This appeal is preferred by the

¶28

appellants/applicants, who are the wife and mother of the deceased G.H.Anjinappa, against the judgment dated

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

26.04.2016 passed in OA(II-U) No.067/2012 on the file of

¶33

the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru.

¶34

The facts of the case are as follows:

¶35

It is the case of the appellants, who are the legal heirs of Sri.G.H.Anjinappa, that on 03.11.2011, Sri.G.H.Anjinappa and his friends, namely Sri.K.Ramesh and Sri.J.B.Narayanaswamy boarded the BangaloreMarikuppam passenger train around 12.10 noon at Bangalore City Junction to go to Malur by purchasing a single computerised ticket bearing No.E- 10021609 for a sum of Rs.21/- for all three persons. Sri.G.H.Anjinappa was going to Malur from Bangalore City by standing in the last compartment due to the rush in the train and accidentally fell out of the moving train at about 12.40 noon near Whitefield Yard between K.R.Puram and Whitefield at KM No.332/200-300 and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. In view of the untoward incident and the death of the bonafide passenger, Sri.G.H.Anjinappa, his legal representatives,

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

namely the wife and mother, filed a claim petition before the claims tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/from the respondent.

¶39

On service of notice, the respondent- railway

¶40

organisation appeared and filed a written statement denied the claim of the appellants/applicants and took up

¶41

the plea that the death of the deceased was not an untoward incident and he was not a bona fide passenger. He also did not possess a valid journey ticket, much less the ticket bearing No.E-10021609. The fact of having fallen down during the course of his journey and the same being untoward incident and he being a bona fide passenger is seriously disputed by the respondent -railway organisation.

¶42

It is also contended by learned counsel Sri.B.M.Kushalappa for the respondent that if the accident

¶43

had occurred while he was travelling in the train, somebody must have seen it and could have pulled the

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

chain, and no such incident was reported neither was the

¶47

chain pulled to stop the train to inform or intimate the incident having taken place. Therefore, he pleaded it is not an untoward incident and would not come within the category of a bona fide passenger.

¶48

Based on the pleadings, the claims tribunal has

¶49

framed the following issues for consideration.

¶50

1. Whether the victim was a bonafide passenger?

¶51

2. Did victim die in an untoward incident?

¶52

3. Whether the respondent is exempted under Section 124-A of the Railways Act?

¶53

4. Whether the applicants are dependents of the deceased as defined in the Railways Act?

¶54

5. Relief and Costs?

¶55

In order to establish the case and substantiate

¶56

the issues, the claimant No.1 examined herself as AW1

¶57

and Sri.K. Ramesh as AW2, and documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A14. Whereas the respondent - Railways did

¶58

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

not lead any oral evidence. However, filed the DRM's investigation report, which came to be marked as Ex.R1. The matter was heard thereafter by providing an opportunity to both parties, and the learned Claims Tribunal after analysing the evidence and the documents placed on record came to the conclusion that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger and his death is not due to untoward incident. Accordingly, answered the issues against the claimants and dismissed the claim petition as the claimants were not entitled to any compensation in view of not establishing the untoward incident and the deceased being a bona fide passenger by holding a valid ticket. It is this judgment of the learned Claims Tribunal that is challenged by the appellants/applicants.

¶61

Learned counsel Ms.Sushmitha.G appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri.Gopal Krishna.N for the appellants/applicants vehemently contends that the

¶62

judgment rendered by the claims tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and erroneous and has not taken into

¶63

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

consideration the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, has ignored the vital piece of evidence of the claimant No.1 who has adduced evidence as AW1 and another witness Sri.K.Ramesh as AW2 so also the documents produced at Ex.A1 to A14 and the DRM's report at Ex.R1. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the factum of death is not in dispute and the body having been found in the railway track between K. R. Puram and Whitefield is not in dispute even as borne out from the DRM's report. The question that is involved is whether it was an untoward incident and whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger travelling in his train while the accident occurred.

¶66

It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that, AW1 - the wife of deceased has examined herself and narrated the incident of travel of the deceased along with two other friends. She has produced the ticket marked at Ex.A1, which is the original computerized journey ticket dated 03.11.2011 from

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Bangalore City to Malur, which contained a ticket fare for three persons. AW2 has been examined, namely Sri.K. Ramesh, friend of the deceased and co-passenger. Along with him, one more passenger namely J.B.Narayanaswamy also traveled, and that is why the single ticket was purchased by way of a computerized ticket.

¶71

It is further contended by learned counsel for

¶72

the appellants that the ticket not having been found on the body of the deceased at the time of recovery of the body by the GRP or the railway police would be no ground for denial of compensation. No doubt it is true that a mere finding of the body in the tracks will not prove the fact of the deceased having succumbed to death during the course of travel in the railway journey, falling within the category and provisions of Section - 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, and whether he would fall within the explanation of the said provision to be a bona fide passenger. In view of the evidence produced by AW1 and

¶73

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

the evidence of K. Ramesh-AW2 categorically stating that all the three passengers together travelled in the train, but in different compartment, there is a statement made which ought to have been accepted by the claims tribunal rather than denying the compensation and ignoring the said evidence of the witnesses-AW1 and AW2.

¶76

Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that pursuant to the accident, an enquiry and post mortem are conducted. A DRM's report is also filed. The DRM's report very clearly states with regard to a body having been found. Therefore, the fact of a body having been found in the railway track is established. The next point for establishment was whether he was a bona fide passenger travelling in the train, which fact has been proved and established by the evidence adduced by AW1 and AW2. AW2 being the passenger along with the deceased was the best piece of evidence that could have been adduced by the appellants, and which has been done.

¶77

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that the railway administration having not made out any contra evidence by disproving the case of the appellants, the tribunal ought to have allowed the petition of claim and granted compensation rather than dismissing the claim petition on the ground that it was not an untoward incident and the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. Accordingly, she seeks to allow the appeal and consequently the claim petition.

¶80

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sri.B.M.Kushalappa vehemently contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment rendered by the claims tribunal. When any such accident happens which is claimed to be in the course of journey in the railway, it is the onus upon the appellant to prove the fact that the deceased had travelled in the railway and an untoward incident had occurred as contemplated under Section 123 (c), 124(A) of the Railways Act, 1989, and would also have to prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger as

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

per the explanation provided under 124 (A) of the

¶85

Railways Act. In the present case on hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that admittedly there was no ticket found on the body of the deceased when the railway authorities came to know of the incident and the body was recovered. The evidence adduced by AW1 cannot be taken into consideration, as she was not the eyewitness and neither did she travel along with the deceased with regard to AW2.

¶86

It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that AW-2 has stated that he, along with two other persons, travelled by purchasing a ticket. But he has given a statement that during the course of the journey the deceased had called him, and he got down at Krishnarajapuram to meet his friend. But after that he did not meet him when he got down at Malur. Therefore, the statement of AW2 does not corroborate the fact of AW1 and a story made out by the claimant with regard to the

¶87

12 -

¶88

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

deceased having travelled further, as even according to AW2, the deceased got down at Krishnarajapuram.

¶91

It is contended by learned counsel for the

¶92

respondent that the AW2 did not come to know till the next day about the death of the deceased. He is also raising suspicion with regard to the death having occurred during the course of journey on the railway. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the onus is always upon the claimant to prove and establish the

¶93

case and so also the issues framed by the tribunal, which has not been done, and the tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition for want of proper materials and proof of the journey ticket as well as the untoward incident. Hence, he contends that there is no illegality and perversity and the appeal has to be dismissed.

¶94

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants

¶95

and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶96

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

It is seen from the claim statement of the claimants that, on 03.11.2011, the deceased, along with two of his friends, travelled from Bengaluru City to Malur after purchasing a computerized journey ticket, which was

¶99

in the custody of one Sri K.Ramesh, who has been examined as AW.2. It is their specific case that, during the course of the said journey from Bengaluru City to Malur, the deceased died in an untoward incident. The fact that the body of the deceased was found is not in dispute.

¶100

As per the records, on 03.11.2011 at about 12:14:15 hours, the Station Master, Whitefield Railway Station, conveyed a message to the GRP/SI/SNC, stating that Sri E. Venkatesh, Keyman of Gang No.5, had reported that the dead body of an unidentified male, aged about 26 years, was lying side by the track up line at KM No.332/200–300 between Whitefield and

¶101

Krishnarajapuram Railway Stations.

¶102

14 -

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

It is also seen that, upon receipt of the complaint, a case was registered in UDR.No.106/2011 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. An inquest over the dead body was conducted and thereafter, the body was sent to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru, for post-mortem examination. It is further seen from the records that, at the time of recovery of the dead body, no railway journey ticket was found in the possession of the deceased.

¶106

Pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the Railway Authority, claimant No.1 - Smt. Gayathri, who is the wife of late G.H.Anjinappa, appeared before the Authority, identified the dead body of the deceased and gave her statement. Thereafter, she filed the necessary claim petition seeking compensation.

¶107

It is seen from the DRM's enquiry report that the body of the deceased was found on the railway track at 14:00 hours. The said fact is not in dispute. The question that falls for consideration before this Court is

¶108

15 -

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

whether the incident in question would fall within the ambit of an "Untoward Incident" as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'), so as to attract the provisions of Section 124A of the said Act

¶112

and whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 124A of the Act.

¶113

At this stage, it would be relevant to extract Sections 123(c) and 124A of the Act.

¶114

"Section 123:-

¶115

(a) xxx

¶116

(b)xxx

¶117

(c) "untoward incident" means-

¶118

(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or

¶119

(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

¶120

(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the

¶121

16 -

¶122

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

precincts of a railway station; or

¶125

(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a

¶126

train carrying passengers."

¶127

"Section 124A:- Compensation on account of untoward incident. -When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extend only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:

¶128

Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to -

¶129

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

¶130

(b) self-inflicted injury;

¶131

(c) his own criminal act;

¶132

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

¶133

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or

¶134

17 -

¶135

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident."

¶138

Pursuant thereto, the evidence of the witnesses was recorded. Smt. M.V.Gayathri, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as AW.1. She has deposed that the deceased had travelled along with two other persons, namely, Sri K.Ramesh and J.B.Narayanaswamy.

¶139

Sri K. Ramesh, a friend of the deceased and a co-passenger who had travelled with him, was examined as AW.2. He has deposed that he had purchased the journey ticket and that the same remained in his custody during the journey. He has further stated that, since the ticket was not collected when he alighted from the train, he retained it in his possession and upon learning of the incident, handed over the said ticket to the wife of the deceased.

¶140

AW.2 has clearly deposed that he purchased the journey ticket by paying ₹21/- for travel from Bengaluru

¶141

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶142

HC-KAR

¶143

City to Malur and boarded the Bengaluru–Marikuppam Passenger Train, which departed from Bengaluru City at 12:20 hours. He has further stated in his crossexamination that all three of them had safely boarded the train and were seated. No doubt, AW.2 has also stated in his cross-examination that, after boarding the train, he received a call from the deceased at Krishnarajapuram, whereupon he got down from the train to meet his friend. However, this part of his testimony has not been further corroborated, nor was he specifically cross-examined as to whom he went to meet, where he went thereafter, what transpired during that period or whether he had in fact alighted from the train and gone to meet his friend.

¶144

It is also stated that, pursuant thereto, the deceased neither telephoned AW.2 or met him and thereafter, AW.2 was unaware of the whereabouts of the deceased. However, the other two friends, namely, Sri K. Ramesh and Sri J.B. Narayanaswamy, continued their journey and reached Malur at about 1:30 p.m., thereafter

¶145

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶146

HC-KAR

¶147

they returned to their respective houses. It is submitted that AW.2 came to know about the incident through his villagers on the next day i.e., 04.11.2011 at about 6.00 in the evening.

¶148

In the above circumstances, what requires consideration is whether the deceased - G.H.Anjinappa, Sri K.Ramesh and Sri J.B.Narayanaswamy had travelled together in the Bengaluru–Marikuppam Passenger Train from Bengaluru City to Malur and whether they were in possession of a valid journey ticket.

¶149

Apparently, there is no dispute, having regard to the evidence of AW.2 that he was in possession of a valid journey ticket, which has been produced as Ex.A1 and is a computerized ticket. It is also his categorical evidence that all the three of them, including the deceased, had boarded the Bengaluru–Marikuppam Passenger Train at Bengaluru City for their journey to Malur. However, what requires consideration is whether

¶150

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

the statement of AW.2 that he received a call from the deceased informing him that he would alight at Krishnarajapuram to meet a friend would, by itself, disentitle the claimants from claiming compensation. This aspect has neither been explained nor corroborated by any independent evidence, nor has any material been elicited in the cross-examination of AW.2 to substantiate the said assertion or to establish its relevance.

¶153

The undisputed fact remains that the body of the deceased, was found on the railway track between Krishnarajapuram and Whitefield Railway Stations at about 14:00 hours. This was after all the three passengers had boarded the Bengaluru–Marikuppam Passenger Train at Bengaluru City for their journey to Malur.

¶154

In the above circumstances, when AW.1 has

¶155

filed her affidavit in evidence and the claimants have produced the journey ticket, which has been marked as Ex.A1, the onus shifts to the Railway Authority to verify

¶156

21 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶157

HC-KAR

¶158

whether such a journey ticket had in fact been issued, as

¶159

it is the custodian of the relevant records and the Competent Organisation to issue such tickets. Being a computerized journey ticket, the onus lies even more on the Railway Authority to verify and establish whether such a ticket was in fact issued for travel from Bengaluru City to Malur on the Bengaluru–Marikuppam Passenger Train. Admittedly, no such verification has been undertaken by the Railway Authority.

¶160

In the absence of any material to establish that the journey ticket produced by the claimants is either fabricated or not genuine, the Railway Authority cannot dispute its authenticity. Once the journey ticket has been produced and oral evidence has been adduced by AW.1 and AW.2 in support thereof, the same is liable to be accepted unless the contrary is proved by cogent satisfactory evidence.

¶161

22 -

¶162

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶163

HC-KAR

¶164

It is also relevant to note that a claim for

¶165

compensation under the Railways Act, 1989, is a beneficial welfare legislation. Such proceedings are not in the nature of a criminal trial, where the facts are required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The standard of proof applicable to such proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities.

¶166

Having regard to the principles laid down by the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Union of India v. Rina Devi reported in (2019) 3 Supreme Court cases 572 and Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2182 , this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have made out a valid case for grant of compensation. The material placed on record clearly establishes that the incident in question squarely falls within the ambit of an "Untoward Incident" as defined under Section 123(c) of the Act and that the death of the deceased occurred while he was travelling as a bona fide

¶167

23 -

¶168

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶169

HC-KAR

¶170

passenger in the Bengaluru–Marikuppam Passenger Train

¶171

from Bengaluru City to Malur.

¶172

It is relevant to extract para-29 of the judgment

¶173

in Union of India stated supra , which reads as follows:

¶174

"29. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured or deceased was a bona fide passenger for which claim for compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence of ticked with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly."

¶175

It is also relevant to extract paras-14 and 15 of

¶176

the judgment in Rajni and Another stated supra , which reads as follows:

¶177

24 -

¶178

NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶179

HC-KAR

¶180

"14. Hence, we reaffirm that proceedings under Section 124-A of the Railways Act are not criminal trials demanding proof beyond reasonable doubt, but welfare statues are governed by the principles of preponderance and probabilities. Once the foundational facts of (i) possession or issuance of a valid ticket, and (ii) occurrence of an accidental fall from a train, are established through credible material, the statutory presumption of bona fide travel must operate in favour of the claimant. The Railways, as an instrumentality of the State, cannot defeat such claims by pointing to procedural imperfections in investigation or non-examination of formal witnesses. To hold otherwise would erode the beneficial character of the legislation and convert a socialjustice remedy into a forensic obstacle race.

¶181

15. It is therefore declared that where an official railway inquiry or evidentiary record verifies the issuance of a ticket corresponding to the date and route of an untoward incident, such verification shall constitute prima facie proof of bona fide travel, shifting the evidentiary burden on the Railway Administration. The absence of a seizure memo, or the inability of the police to preserve physical evidence, cannot by itself defeat a legitimate claim when the totality of circumstances supports the claimant’s version. This principle shall guide all future tribunals and High Courts in construing Section 124-A, so that the statutory right to compensation remains real, accessible, and consonant with the humanitarian purpose of the enactment. "

¶182

25 - NC: 2026:KHC:32958 MFA No. 1542 of 2017

¶183

HC-KAR

¶184

The facts and circumstances of the present case

¶185

also bring the deceased within the scope of the explanation to Section 124A of the Act, as a bona fide passenger travelling under a valid journey ticket who died in an untoward incident. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Act. Since the accident occurred on 03.11.2011, i.e., prior to the amendment, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of ₹4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶186