Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs Om Parkash
- Court
- Supreme Court
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 767
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.6743-6744 of 2023)
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
OM PARKASH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The appellant-insurer is aggrieved by the fastening of liability upon it by
th
the High Court in terms of the impugned judgment dated 14 September 2022
passed in FAO No.1049 of 2016 and FAO No.8517 of 2015 by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, reversing the finding of the Motor Accidents
1
Claim Tribunal, Panipat though granting compensation to the claimants but
directing the respondents nos. 1 and 2, namely, Om Prakash (driver of the
offending vehicle) and Rajinder Singh (owner of the offending vehicle), to pay
Signature Not Verified
the amount as awarded. The Tribunal held the appellant-insurer not liable to pay
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2026.07.30
16:20:16 IST
Reason:
1
MACT Case No. 116 of 2012 / Tribunal
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 1 of 13
the same.
th
3. The accident in question took place on 14 October, 2009 when the
offending vehicle hit the two-wheeler being driven by the claimant. The aspect of
rash and negligent driving is not in dispute. The reason why the Tribunal held
only respondents 1 and 2, and not respondent no.3 before it to be liable is that at
the time of the accident the driver did not possess a valid license. The total amount
quantified as compensation, payable to the claimants, is Rs.86,95,947/- along
with 7.5% interest. There was a further stipulation that if the amount was not paid
within two months, interest would be at the rate of 9% thereafter. On appeals filed
by the claimant, driver, and the owner, the High Court took a different view and
held that the driver did indeed have a valid license and, as such, the appellant-
insurer herein would be liable to pay compensation. The total amount in the High
Court’s computation was Rs.1,08,08,909/- with 8% interest.
4. The Tribunal found a contradiction between the statement of RW3
Shailendra Pal Singh, who is the Motor Licensing Officer, Northwest, Wazirpur,
Delhi, and the document produced by him. He deposed that a license had been
nd st
issued to Om Prakash on 22 June 2007, which was valid till 21 June 2010 for
the category of vehicle i.e. Motorcycle and HTV. However, the record produced
by him is said to have contradicted this statement since the extract produced did
not match the dates. The Tribunal also took note of the testimony of one Gopal
Krishan RW1, Dealing Assistant, Transport Department, Wazirpur Authority,
who deposed categorically, that Om Prakash did not have a license.
5. However, on the very same count, the High Court held that the driving
nd
license copy which was produced, showed it to be renewed as on 22 June 2007
st
and valid up to 21 June 2010. The testimony of RW3 was referred to and so was
the communication from the Motor Licensing Office of RW3, that due to some
technical error at the time of data transfer to the outsourced company, there was
some loss of data. Therefore, on the basis of the statement of RW3, it was certified
that the driving license of Om Prakash stood renewed for the relevant period.
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 2 of 13
The relevant extracts of the Tribunal’s reasoning as also the High Court’s are
placed sequentially as under:
The Tribunal:
“
36. Now, it is to be seen as to who is responsible for compensating the
claimant.0
37. RW.1 Gopal Krishan, Dealing Assistant, Transport Department
Wazirpur Authority, Delhi, has proved the driving licence of the
respondent no.1 Ex.R4 on record. This witness has further proved the
reports Ex.R6 and Ex.R7 supplied under the RTI Act. He has deposed
that their licencing authority has issued heavy driving licence w.e.f.
25.08.2010 to 24.08.2013 and from 06.02.2006 to 21.06.2007 for
private vehicle. He further deposed that as per reports Ex.R6 and Ex.R7,
driver Om Parkash was not having a driving licence to drive the vehicle
on 14.10.2009.
38. RW.2 Raj Singh, Clerk, Transport Department, Rohini, Sector-16,
Delhi has testified that he has brought the summoned record of driving
licence no.1119920103408 in the name of Om Parkash son of Narain
Dutt. Said driving licence is valid w.e.f. 03.04.1992 to 03.04.1996 and
the same is issued w.e.f. 24.08.2013 to 23.08.2016 for Transport
vehicle/motor-cycle/HTV. He further deposed that this licence is
renewed from 06.02.2006 to 21.06.2007 from their authority. He further
proved the extracts report of their authority Ex.RW2/A to Ex.RW2/C.
He further admitted that the licence in question is not covered the date
of accident dated 14.10.2009, as it was not renewed on that period from
their authority.
39. RW.3 Shailendra Pal Singh, Motor Licencing Officer, North West-1,
Wazirpur, Delhi. This witness has brought the summoned record of
driving licence no.C08062001246212 in the name of Om Parkash son
of Narain Dutt. As per their record, said licence has been issued on
22.06.2007 and valid upto 21.06.2010 and the same is meant for motor-
cycle and HTV. This witness has proved the extract of record
Ex.RW3/A. However, the version given by this witness regarding
validity of the licence w.e.f. 22.06.2007 to 21.06.2010 is not
corresponding with the extract of record Ex.RW3/A, produced by him.
Hence, this contrary oral evidence to the extent of validity of licence
cannot be relied upon. During cross-examination, this witness has
proved the verification report dated 08.05.2015 prepared by him
Ex.RW3/B which consists of Ex.RW3/C to Ex.RW3/E. He further
proved the reply submitted by him to the Court Ex.RW3/F.”
The High Court
“10.1 …The Motor Licencing Officer was summoned who deposed that
the driving licence was not renewed between 2007 to 2010, however,
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 3 of 13
thereafter the driver has produced a communication Ex.RW3/B from
the office of Motor Licencing Office, North West Zone, Wazirpur,
Delhi, wherein it has been stated that due to some technical error, which
occurred at the time of transfer to an outsource company i.e. from HCL
to DIMTS, there was some loss of data. It has been certified that the
licence of Sh. Om Parkash continued to be renewed between the year
2007 to 2010.
…
The aforesaid driving licence has been proved by RW3-Sh. Shailender
Pal Singh, Motor Licensing Officer, North West-I, Wazirpur, Delhi. He
was examined as a Court witness. He categorically stated that the record
of renewal of the driving licence was previously not available at the
level of the Zonal office and he has obtained the same from Central
Agency, NIC which is maintaining the central server of Transport
Department (Headquarter). He has stated that the NIC is the only
competent authority to bring out the old record from the computer. He
is categoric that the driving licence in favour of Sh. Om Parkash son of
Sh. Narayan Dutt was issued on 22.06.2007 which was valid upto
21.06.2010. He has also proved Ex.R7 issued by Transport Department,
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi with respect to
driving licence issued to Sh. Om Parkash. In the aforesaid driving
licence, it has been certified that the said driving licence was issued on
22.06.2007 which was valid upto 25.08.2010. Therefore, the licence
was, again, renewed. In such circumstances, the Tribunal wrongly
recorded a finding that since the licence was subsequently renewed with
effect from 25.08.2010 by depositing penalty amount of Rs.200/-,
therefore, there was no valid driving licence in favour of the driver on
the relevant date of accident. RW3-Sh. Shailender Pal Singh, Motor
Licensing Officer, North West-I, Wazirpur, Delhi, has categorically
stated that the information/data for renewal of the driving licence had
to be retrieved by National Information Centre(NIC) because there was
some change in the agency responsible for data entry. It has also come
on record that the Licensing Authority, Ashok Vihar, subsequently
merged in Licensing Authority, Wazirpur. RW3-Sh. Shailender Pal
Singh, is a Motor Licensing Officer, who is an official of the Delhi
Transport Department. The correctness of his statement on the basis of
the official record could not be ordinarily doubted.”
6. Hence, this appeal is before us.
7. The limited issue to be examined is whether Om Prakash, the driver of the
offending vehicle, as on the date of the accident, possessed a valid driving license
or not. If the answer is in the affirmative, the High Court judgment would be
affirmed, or if it is in the negative, then the order of the Tribunal would have to
be upheld.
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 4 of 13
8. The relevant provisions of the MVA defining a driver’s license; the need
thereof; and the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle, should they allow a
person not possessing such license to drive their vehicle, are as follows:
“2 (10) “driving licence” means the licence issued by a
competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person
specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle
or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description
CHAPTER II LICENSING OF DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES
3. Necessity for driving licence.—(1) No person shall drive a motor
vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence
issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle;…
5. Responsibility of owners of motor vehicles for contravention of
sections 3 and 4.—No owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle
shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of
section 3 or section 4 to drive the vehicle .”
9. Although deciding a dispute regarding recruitment and its conditions, this
court in Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board v. Penjarla Vijay
2
Kumar , made some pertinent observations regarding the importance of driving
licenses as follows:
“32 … It cannot be lost sight of or denied that driving is not
merely a qualification on paper but also involves hands-on
experience coupled with regular practice. A lack of practice may
hinder a person's capability of being able to drive a vehicle …
33. …The theory that once a licence is renewed, even after a gap, the
renewal would operate from a back date implying that the licence
was continuing and valid even for and during the interregnum cannot
be countenanced…”
(emphasis supplied)
10. It is undisputed that a driving license is an official document that can only
be issued by the competent authority, subject to the applicant meeting all
requirements. When the document is itself in question, it only stands to reason
that the official authority will produce the records pertaining to the license in
question, either putting to rest questions about its validity or establishing
conclusively that the document so relied upon by the driver is in fact not valid.
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2915
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 5 of 13
To put it differently, to prove an official document, official records as per the
3
procedure given in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are required to be produced.
11. While that is the general proposition of law, the law does recognise that it
is not always possible for primary evidence to be produced and as such permits
such documents to also be proved through secondary evidence. Sections 61 to 64
of the IEA are relevant for the present purposes.
11.1 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of
4
Delhi) , while dealing with a question concerning the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, discussed them as follows:
“ 60. Section 61 deals with proof of contents of documents which
is by either primary or by secondary evidence. When a document
is produced as primary evidence, it will have to be proved in the
manner laid down in Sections 67 to 73 of the Evidence Act. Mere
production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the court
cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. Its execution has to
be proved by admissible evidence. On the other hand, when a
document is produced and admitted by the opposite party and is
marked as an exhibit by the court, the contents of the document
must be proved either by the production of the original document
i.e. primary evidence or by copies of the same as per Section 65
as secondary evidence. So long as an original document is in
existence and is available, its contents must be proved by primary
evidence. It is only when the primary evidence is lost, in the
interest of justice, the secondary evidence must be allowed.
Primary evidence is the best evidence and it affords the
greatest certainty of the fact in question. Thus, when a
particular fact is to be established by production of
documentary evidence, there is no scope for leading oral
evidence. What is to be produced is the primary evidence i.e.
document itself. It is only when the absence of the primary
source has been satisfactorily explained that secondary evidence
is permissible to prove the contents of documents. Secondary
evidence, therefore, should not be accepted without a sufficient
reason being given for non-production of the original.
”
(emphasis supplied)
3
IEA
4
(2023) 4 SCC 731
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 6 of 13
11.2 Recently, this Court in Tharammel Peethambaran v. T.
5
Ushakrishnan , summarised principles regarding the admissibility of
secondary evidence:
“ 20.1 The fundamental principle of the Indian Evidence Act is
that facts have to be established by primary evidence. Section
64 mandates that documents must be proved by primary
evidence, which is considered the “best evidence”. Primary
evidence is the rule, while secondary evidence is an exception
admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. A party
is generally required to produce the best evidence available; so
long as the superior evidence (the original) is within a party's
possession or reach, they cannot introduce inferior proof
(secondary evidence).
20.2 Before secondary evidence can be admitted, the party
relying on it must lay a factual foundation. This involves two
steps: First, the party must prove that the original document
actually existed and was executed. Secondly, the party must
establish valid reasons as to why the original cannot be
furnished .
20.3 Secondary evidence is inadmissible until the non-
production of the original is accounted for in a manner that
brings the case within the specific exceptions provided in
Section 65. If the original itself is found to be inadmissible
through failure of the party who files it to prove it to be valid,
the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of
its contents.
20.4 Section 65 of the Evidence Act is exhaustive and states the
specific circumstances under which secondary evidence is
permissible. To introduce secondary evidence, a party must
satisfy the conditions of one of the clauses (a) through (g) of
Section 65.
20.5 Further, admitting a document as secondary evidence does
not automatically prove its contents. The secondary evidence
must be authenticated by foundational evidence showing that
the alleged copy is, in fact, a true copy of the original. For
instance, if a party wishes to introduce a photostat copy, they
must explain the circumstances under which the copy was
prepared and who possessed the original at the time the
photograph was taken.
20.6 Mere admission of a document or making it an exhibit does
not dispense with the requirement of proving it in accordance
with the law. The court has an obligation to examine the
probative value of the document and decide the question of
admissibility before making an endorsement on the secondary
evidence. If the foundational facts, such as the loss of the
original or the explanation for its non-production, are not
5
2026 SCC OnLine SC 169
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 7 of 13
established, the court cannot legally allow the party to adduce
secondary evidence.
20.7 There is no requirement that an application must be filed to
lead secondary evidence. While a party may choose to file such
an application, secondary evidence cannot be ousted solely
because no application was filed. It is sufficient if the party lays
the necessary factual foundation for leading secondary evidence
either in the pleadings or during the course of evidence. ”
(emphasis supplied)
11.3 The conclusion that can be drawn in the present facts, on the basis of
the law referred to above is that unless circumstances as enumerated in
Section 65 of the IEA are pleaded, present and proved, an original
document must be proved by primary evidence. If it cannot be so
proved, it has to be established that the original document existed in the
first instance and also as to why it cannot be proved by primary
evidence.
12. Here, it is not a matter of dispute that Om Prakash had a driving license
since 1992. What is in dispute is whether, at the relevant point of time of the
accident, such a license stood renewed and was valid or not? Consideration of the
evidence by the Tribunal reveals that it did not exist. RW1 and RW2 stated thus;
in fact, even RW3, who produced documents, admits that the penalty (for
renewal) for the period in question was paid by Om Prakash. We find it difficult
to accept the version of the High Court which places reliance on a document
(RW3/B), which Om Prakash had produced, allegedly sent by the Wazirpur
Authority informing him of the gap in the data. The officer of the Authority has
not produced any document recording the loss of data and the steps taken by the
Authority to recover the same, or fill the gaps that have been caused thereby. What
they could have shown, for instance, were the steps taken by the Authority in
respect of other persons whose licenses stood allegedly renewed during this time,
but as on date, data in respect thereto, does not exist. If RW3 could bring the file
of Om Prakash to court to establish one thing, he could have easily established
the data gap himself through official evidence. This was not done. It is not
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 8 of 13
evidence of such a quality that on the basis thereof, it can be assumed that all
steps in law were taken and as such imputing liability upon the appellant, would
be justified.
13. The letter dated 8th May 2015, Ex.RW3/B on which much reliance is
placed by the driver reads as under:
“OFFICE OF THE MOTOR LICENSING OFFICER (NWZ-I)
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF DELHI
WAZIRPUR, DELHI
MLO (NWZ-I)/WAZIRPUR/2015/349 DATED: 08.05.2015
To,
Sh. Om Prakash
S/o Sh. Narain Dutt
R/o C-105, Rajiv Nagar
Delhi-110085
Sub: Regarding furnishing of record of Driving Licence No.
C-08062001244612.
Sir,
This is in connection with your request letter dated 28/04/2015, thereby
you have requested to provide the record of above stated license w.e.f.
2007 to 2015. In this connection, it is to inform you that upon scrutiny
from the computer it has been revealed that your license earlier issued
on 08/06/2001 for the category of Motor Cycle with gear and Transport
vehicle (HMV), which was subsequently renewed and the current
validity of license is upto 23/08/2016, as per the record for the period
2007 to 2010 is concerned the same is not available in this office due to
the some technical error occurred at the time of transfer of outsource
company from HCL to DIMTS. At the time of transfer of license some
of the record belongs to HCL were could not be transferred in computer
as per the version of system analysist of transport department. However,
since your license continued to be renewed after the 2010 and still valid
upto 23/08/2016. The confirm that during that period of 2007 to 2010
is not available in this office but you were holding the valid license in
that intervening period. The non availability of record does not make is
any suspicious that you were not holding the valid license at that time.
This may be treated as valid license during the period of which the
record of not available.
MLO
(NWZ-I)”
A perusal of the letter shows that it is dated 08.05.2015 and records that as on the
said date the license of Om Prakash was valid till 2016, but the authority had no
record of the status of his license between 2007 and 2010. As such, it was required
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 9 of 13
of him to produce the records from the authority for this time period. It was
nowhere observed whether on the date of the accident, the license held by Om
Prakash was valid or not. Apart from this document that alleged the gap in data
and the oral statement of RW3, no official record corroborates this position.
14. There is an additional point. If the license of Om Prakash was valid
throughout, as is the statement of RW3, what occasioned the payment of penalty
is a gap that is unaddressed. RW3 stated in the cross-examination that:
“Licencing Authority has charged Rs.450/- as renewal fee as
mentioned in Ex.RW3/A. Out of this amount of Rs.450/-, an amount
of Rs.250/- is the renewal fee and Rs.100/- is the penalty for first
year and Rs.50/- each has been charged for subsequent years.
Licencing Authority has charged penalty from 06.02.2006 to
21.06.2007 on the basis of renewal from 25.08.2010 to 24.08.2013.
The amount of penalty of Rs.200/- has been charged for the
intervening period i.e. 21.06.2007 to 25.08.2010.”
Both the Tribunal and the High Court acknowledged this fact that a penalty has
been paid, but only the Tribunal, in our view, takes this point to some sort of a
conclusion. The High Court only mentions it, but immediately turns back to the
statement of RW3 and treats it somewhat like the gospel.
15. When in question was an official document, and the law is that the certain
circumstances have to be established before secondary evidence can be taken to
prove the same, we fail to understand the undue importance which is placed by
the High Court on the statement of RW3, more so, in view of the fact that the
Tribunal has explicitly recorded there being a contradiction with documentary
evidence RW3/A which is extracted as under:
License Details
Application No. : 24838010 Application Date : 27/07/2010
Fee Receipt No. : RV-14125 Fee Receipt Date : 27/07/2010
Fee Amount : 450 Blood Group : U
License No. : DL-1119920103408
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 10 of 13
Old License No.: C08062001246212
TR Valid From : 25/08/2010 Valid To : 24/08/2013
NT Valid From : 06/02/2006 Valid To : 21/06/2007
Vehicle Class : MCYL
TRANS
Name : OM PRAKASH
S/O : NARAIN DUTT
Gender : M Date Of Birth : 03/02/1974
Address : C 105, RAJIV NAGAR, DELHI
Contact No. Zone :
This document with which there is an alleged contradiction has not even been
mentioned by the High Court, much less considered.
16. Here only we may add that the owner has not entered the witness box either
to say whether on the date of the accident the driver had a valid license or not, or
to say that he had taken steps to ensure that the driver’s license was renewed after
it had expired.
17. A question similar to the one in the present case arose in Beli Ram v.
6
Rajinder Kumar , to the effect that if a driving license which was valid at the
time of taking the policy, has subsequently expired, does the responsibility of the
insurer abate? It was concluded by a three-judge bench in the affirmative. In
reaching this conclusion, the following observations are instructive:
“14. We are of the view that once the basic care of verifying the
driving licence has to be taken by the employer, though a detailed
enquiry may not be necessary, the owner of the vehicle would know
the validity of the driving licence as is set out in the licence itself. It
6
( 2022) 15 SCC 572
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 11 of 13
cannot be said that thereafter he can wash his hands off the
responsibility of not checking up whether the driver has renewed the
licence. It is not a case where a licence has not been renewed for a
short period of time, say a month, as was considered in Swaran
Singh [ National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh , (2004) 3 SCC
297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] where the benefit was given to a third
party by burdening the insurance company. The licence in the instant
case, has not been renewed for a period of three years and that too in
respect of commercial vehicle like a truck. The appellant showed
gross negligence in verifying the same. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Beli Ram supra had approved the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
7
Hem Raj , the observations whereof are relevant for us, given the prima facie
similarity of circumstances:
“18. When an employer employees a driver, it is his duty to
check that the driver is duly licensed to drive the vehicle.
Section-5 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that no owner
or person incharge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit
any person to drive the vehicle if he does not fulfill the
requirements of Section 3 and 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The owner must show that he has verified the license. He
must also take reasonable care to see that his employee gets
his license renewed within time. In my opinion, it is no
defence for the owner to plead that he forgot that the driving
license of his employee had to be renewed. A person when
he hands his motor vehicle to a driver owes some
responsibility to society at large. Lives of innocent people
are put to risk in case the vehicle is handed over to a person
not duly licensed. Therefore, there must be some evidence
to show that the owner had either checked the driving
license or had given instructions to his driver to get his
driving license renewed on expiry thereof. In the present
case, no such evidence has been led. In view of the above
discussion, I am clearly of the view that there was a breach
of the terms of the policy and the Insurance Company could
not have been held liable to satisfy the claim.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. Following the dictum above, the appeal is allowed. The appellant insurer
cannot be held liable to make good the award. The final burden shall be on both
the employer and the driver. In the order issuing notice, we had directed that the
amount as computed be released in favour of the claimants. In view of the above
7
2011 SCC OnLine HP 4735
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 12 of 13
discussion, we hold the principle of ‘pay and recover’ to be applicable in this case.
The appellant-insurer shall therefore be at liberty to take steps in accordance with
law.
19. This Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that asking a driver or an owner
to pay such a large amount is a humongous burden upon them. It may throw into
disarray, their entire lives all because the driver and the owner did not take
adequate precaution to ensure that there was no break in the validity of the driving
license. Had that been done, the burden would not have fallen upon them, and the
appellant-insurer would have been bound to honour the award. In our view, this
underscores the importance of the driving license. It is a document that certifies
the ability to drive on the road, and so it stands to reason that all drivers should
have it.
20. The Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, as
also the respective counterparts of the States should, we may suggest, undertake
campaigns through all mediums such as awareness drives, social media, etc. to
drive home this importance; introduce measures to ensure strict compliance; and
also streamline the process of issuance/renewal of licenses. Other issues such as
regulation of driving schools, the affordability thereof, and accessibility in terms
of regional languages, when it comes to applications and tests, etc. also need
urgent attention.
21. The appeals are accordingly allowed. All pending application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
..……….…………………………………….J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi;
July 30, 2026
C.A. No(s)../2026 @ SLP(C) 6743-6744 of 2023 Page 13 of 13