IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] - III PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02 (CENTRAL):DELHI Case NO.: 57395/16 [ENTITY] S/o. Late Mohd. Abbas R/o. H. No. 42, House of Billu, Near Nafeesha Masjid, Sarai Kaley Khan, New Delhi. Petitioner VERSUS 1. Sh. [ENTITY] (Driver) S/o. Sh. Genda Lal R/o. 419, T-Huts, Near Road No. 3, Andruj Ganj, New Delhi - 110049. 2. Sh. [ENTITY] (Regd. Owner) S/o. Sh. Mahender Singh R/o. 208-A, IInd Floor, Prakash Mohalla, East of Kailash, Near Village Garhi, New Delhi - 110065. 3. The [ENTITY] (Insurer) 8, Krishna Market, Ist Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110019. Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.07.2013 Date of reserving order/judgment : 02.02.2019 Date of pronouncement : 02.02.2019 JUDGMENT CUM AWARD
INFORMATION IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF THE [ACT] 1 Date of Accident 29.04.2013 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the 24.07.2013 Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clause 2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the 24.07.2013 Investigation Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause2) 4 Date of filing of the Report under section 24.07.2013 173 Cr.PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 24.07.2013 Information Report(DAR) by the Investigation Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause) 6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 24.07.2013 Company (clause11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s) 24.07.2013 (Clause11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects? ( Clause11) 9 If not state deficiencies in the DAR No 10 Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR? (clause4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the Investigation Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
12 Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned Officer by the Insurance Company 13 Name, address and contact number of the NA Designated Officer of the Insurance Company(Clause 19) 14 Whether the Designated officer of the No insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?(Clause 21) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted Yes the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause22) 16 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No on the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so whether any action/ direction warranted?
17 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the 20.01.2016 offer of the Insurance Company? (Clause
23) 18 Date of Award 02.02.2019 19 Whether the award was passed with the No consent of the parties? (Clause 22) 20 Whether the claimants(s) examined at the Yes time of passing of the award to ascertain his/ their financial condition? (Clause 26) 21 Whether the photographs, specimen Yes signatures, proof of residence and particulars of bank account of the injured/ legal heirs of the deceased taken at the time of passing of the award? (Clause26) 22 Mode of disbursement of the award amount Mentioned in the Award to the claimant(s) (Clause 28) 23 Next Date of compliance of the 02.03.2019 award(Clause30)
1. This judgment cum award shall decide the petition under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by petitioner for grant of compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by the injured in the road vehicular accident.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 29.04.2013 at about 9:10 AM, the petitioner was crossing the road and when he reached near I.P. Metro Station, suddenly one Indigo Car bearing registration no. DL-3C-BN-0556, came from [ENTITY] side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner. Due the accident, the petitioner received injuries. The petitioner has claimed compensation for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road accident.
3. The written statement was not filed by the Respondents No. 1 and 2.
4. The written statement was filed by respondent no.3 / insurance company admitting therein that the offending vehicle was insured with it as on the date and time of accident.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for consideration on 20.01.2016:-
1. Whether the petitioner [ENTITY] suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 29.04.2013 at about 09.10 hours involving Tata Indigo Car bearing registration No. DL-3C-BN-0556 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and insured with the Respondent No. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW- 1 and exhibited the documents viz.,
1. [ENTITY] - copy of his aadhar card,
2. Ex.PW1B - MLC
3. Ex PW1/C - DAR
7. In support of his claim, petitioner has also examined Dr. [ENTITY], Orthopedics, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi as PW-2, who proved the disability certificate Ex.PW2/1.
8. Respondents no. 1 and 2 did not lead any evidence in their defence.
9. Respondent no. 3 / Insurance company also did not examine any witness in its defence.
10. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and perused the record. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsels for the parties.
My findings on aforesaid issues are as under :-
11. The present petition is under [SECTION] of [ACT] and as such, it was the duty of the petitioner to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
12. The petitioner has filed the certified copy of criminal record pertaining to the case FIR no. 79/13 P.S. IP Estate u/[SECTION] [ACT] including charge- sheet etc.
13. To prove this issue, petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that on 29.04.2013 at about 9:10 AM, the petitioner was crossing the road and when he reached near I.P. Metro Station, suddenly one Indigo Car bearing registration no. DL-3C-BN-0556, came from [ENTITY] side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner. Due the accident, the petitioner received injuries. The cross-examination carried on by the Respondent No.3 is not suggestive of anything which may discard the claim of the petitioner that the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent at the time of accident. PW1 was not cross-examined by the respondents no. 1 and 2, despite opportunity.
14. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid, TATA Indigo Car bearing No. DL-3C-BN-0556 was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Indigo Car bearing No. DL-3C- BN-0556. The insurance company has not led any evidence on this aspect.
15. Not only this, the Respondent No. 1 namely [ENTITY] (accused in the State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT] by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. TATA Indigo Car bearing No. DL-3C-BN-0556. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of TATA Indigo Car bearing No. DL- 3C-BN-0556 by respondent no.1.
16. While determining the negligence, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [PRECEDENT] wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under [SECTION] A [ACT] or the certified copy of the FIR in addition to recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach at the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the [ACT] are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Further, in [PRECEDENT], it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act.
17. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the [ACT]. This is because the chapter in the [ACT] dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
18. This aspect has also been considered recently by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as [PRECEDENT] decided on 23/07/2012. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under:-
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court [ENTITY] and Ors. [PRECEDENT] wherein it was held as under:
"In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
19. Thus, issue no. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2 : COMPENSATION NATURE OF INJURIES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL BILLS:
20. As per the MLC, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner has not placed on record any medical bills. It is common knowledge that generally people during the treatment do not maintain the bills etc as they are not aware of this benevolent legislation having provisions for compensation. Keeping in view the overall circumstances, I hereby grant a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards medical expenses.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS :
21. It is settled law that a particular amount can not be fixed for pain and sufferings in all the cases and it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken to the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries as aforesaid, he might have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have taken heavy dose of anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v/s Jai Kishan , FAO No:
709/02, date of decision: 2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] wherein it was held that:-
"On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value. However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected.
(c) Duration of the treatment."
22. Keeping in view the said guidelines, nature of injuries and duration of treatment, I hereby grant Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings. I hereby award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards special diet and conveyance.
LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT PERIOD
23. The petitioner was stated to be Carpenter (Kisok/Stall Installer) and was stated to be earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, but no income proof has been filed or proved on record. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, duration of treatment as per medical record, it appears to me that petitioner could not have worked for about six year. In these circumstances, the income of the petitioner can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the [ACT]. The date of accident was 29.04.2013 on which the Minimum Wages for Unskilled Persons were Rs. 7722/-. Accordingly, I award Rs.46,332/- (Rs. 7722/- X 6) towards loss of income.
COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY:
24. PW-2 Dr. [ENTITY], has proved the disability certificate, Ex. PW2/1. As per the disability certificate Ex.PW2/1 the petitioner has got 12% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left upper limb & left lower limb.
25. It is settled law that it is the percentage of functional disability arising out of physical disability which matters while assessing the compensation arising out of disability. On this aspect, I gain support from judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] in which it was held as under:-
"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings(by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation ( see for example, the decisions of this Court in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]."
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry . On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emolument, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity."
26. After going through the testimony of PW-2 and keeping in view the job of the petitioner [ENTITY], I am of the opinion that permanent disability of 12% in relation to permanent physical impairment in relation to his left upper limb & left lower limb shall effect 6% upon his working capacity.
27. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment titled as [ENTITY] Vs Puran Singh & Ors passed in [CASE NUMBER] by Hon'ble Justice Sh. [ENTITY] dated 09/03/2018. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-
4. In above facts and circumstances while the conclusion of the tribunal about the extent of disability to be 40% is correct, error in computation of compensation for loss of income due to disability has crept in due to the assumption that the claimant's income be taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. It appears, the tribunal has gone by the prescription in the [SECTION] appended to the [ACT]. The present case is under [SECTION] of [ACT]. The calculation of loss of income due to disability should have been made with the help of minimum wages of Rs. 2783.90 as payable on the relevant date to an unskilled worker, there being nothing on record to show any educational or trade qualifications of the claimant. It may be added that in computing the loss of future income due to disability, the element of future prospects to the extent of 40% will have to be added. (see judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered on 31.10.2017 in [CASE NUMBER], [PRECEDENT].,). Thus, the loss of income due to permanent disability is in future is computed with the multiplier of 16 as (2783.9 X [SECTION]/100 X 40/100X12X16) Rs.
2,99,325/, rounded of to Rs. 3,00,000/-.
28. The Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the latest judgment which has arisen out of [CASE NUMBER] titled as [PRECEDENT] decided on 31.10.2017 has held as under:-
"61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-
(i) The two-Judge Bench in [ENTITY] should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in [ENTITY], a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As [ENTITY] has not taken note of the decision in [ENTITY], which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in [ENTITY] is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of [ENTITY] which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in [ENTITY] read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [CASE NUMBER] titled as [PRECEDENT] decided on 02.11.2017 has held that even in the cases where the income of the deceased is calculated on the basis of the minimum wages, the benefit of future prospects is to be given in accordance with the abovesaid guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovestated authority as per the rule applicable to self employed or privately employed persons.
29. As per the copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner [ENTITY], the date of birth of the petitioner is 01/01/1986. The date of accident was 29.04.2013. Accordingly, the petitioner was around 27 years of age on the date of accident.
30. Accordingly, the petitioner was around 27 years of age as on the date of accident for which the relevant multiplier 17, as mentioned in [ENTITY] Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in [CASE NUMBER] is applicable. In view of the aforementioned judgment [ENTITY] (supra), the loss of income due to permanent disability in future is computed with the multiplier of 17 as (Rs. 7722X[SECTION]/100X6/100X12X17) Rs. 1,32,324.192. Same is rounded off to Rs. 1,32,325/-
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
31. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him and his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards loss of amenities of life and enjoyment of life (Reliance placed on "[PRECEDENT], DECIDED ON 04.01.2018 BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI).
The total compensation is assessed as under:-
Treatment expenses: Rs. 5000/- Pain and sufferings: Rs. 50,000/- Conveyance & special diet: Rs. 40,000/- Loss of income during treatment period : Rs. 46,332/- Compensation on account of disability : Rs. 1,32,325/- Compensation on account of loss of amenities of life and enjoyment of life : Rs. 50,000/- Total: Rs. 3,23,657/- 32. RELIEF:
I award Rs. 3,23,657/- (Rupees Three Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Seven Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR i.e. 24.07.2013 till realization in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
33. As per the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India [PRECEDENT] and in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [CASE NUMBER] titled as [ENTITY] Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jasbir Singh & Ors. Dated 01.05.2018, in order to avoid the money being frittered away, Ninety percent (90%) of the amount awarded to aforementioned petitioner shall be kept in 5 FDRs of almost equal amount for a period of 1,2,3,4 & 5 years. No loan or advance shall be allowed against the said fixed deposit. Petitioner can withdraw the interest monthly from the said FDRs. 10% of the award amount alongwith entire interest be transferred in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner upon furnishing his identification documents and necessary account details.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
34. The Respondent No: 3 being the insurer, its liability is joint and several with other respondents. Accordingly, Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
35. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment in [CASE NUMBER] dated 13.1.2010 Union of India Vs. [ENTITY] as well as in MAC. [CASE NUMBER] titled as [PRECEDENT] titled as [PRECEDENT] Dated 15/12/2017 have laid certain guidelines which are as under regarding depositing of award amount.
"The State Bank of India and UCO Bank have formulated special schemes for the victims of the road accident on the above terms and, therefore, the order for the deposit should be made presently to State Bank of India through its nodal officer Mr. [ENTITY], Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari or to UCO Bank through Mr. [ENTITY], Member-Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No.09310356400) as per the convenience of the victim /legal representatives of the victim. However, if any other bank agrees to provide the special scheme for victims of the road accident on the above terms, the deposit be permitted to be made in that Bank subject to the convenience of the victim/legal representative of the victim of the road accident".
36. It was further held in the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in [ENTITY] case (Supra) that "The State Bank of India and UCO Bank have formulated special schemes for the victims of the road accident on the above terms and, therefore, the order for the deposit should be made presently to State Bank of India through its Nodal Officer Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari or to UCO Bank through Member- Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi as per the convenience of the victim /legal representatives of the victim. However, if any other bank agrees to provide the special scheme for victims of the road accident on the above terms, the deposit be permitted to be made in that Bank subject to the convenience of the victim/legal representative of the victim of the road accident".
37. The copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost. The petitioner shall approach the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch for opening the account.
38. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the [ACT]
39. The Manager of the Bank is directed to comply the award. The Bank Manager is directed to release the award amount to the petitioner. However, in case the amount is ordered to be kept in the FDR, the said amount should not be released unless the FDR is matured.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 02.03.2019.
[ENTITY] by [ENTITY] Date: 2019.02.05 12:47:30 +0530 Announced in the open court ([ENTITY]-III)
on this 02nd Day of February, 2019. PO: MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI/02.02.2019 Case NO.: 57395/16 02.02.2019 Present : Ld. Counsels for the parties.
Arguments heard.
Put up for judgment at 4:00 PM.
( [ENTITY] - III ) P.O. MACT (Central - 02) Delhi / 02.02.2019 AT 4:00 PM Present: None.
Vide separate detailed judgment of even date today, I award Rs. 3,23,657/- (Rupees Three Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Seven Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the DAR i.e. 24.07.2013 till realization in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as well as DSLSA as per the provisions of the [ACT].
The petitioner is further directed to open a bank account, if not opened earlier, near his place of residence and to file the photocopy of his passbook, with due endorsement on the passbook that no cheque book or debit card is issued and file the copy of the same with the Nazir of this court.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 02.03.2019.
( [ENTITY] - III ) P.O. MACT (Central - 02) Delhi/02.02.2019