Bangalore District Court
Mr. Rajappa vs Liberty General Insurance Co on 8 September, 2020
SCCH-21 1 M.V.C. No.3197/19
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, & MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH21)
Dated this the 8th Day of September 2020
PRESENT: Smt. VANI A. SHETTY, B.A .Law L.L.B,
XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No. 3197/19
Petitioner/s: Mr. Rajappa,
S/o. Late Poojappa,
Aged 45 years,
R/at No.187, 7th Cross,
Manujunathnagar,
Opp Yellamma Temple,
Marathahalli,
Bangalore - 560 037.
9972089946
(By Sri. B.S. Devaraju, Advocate)
Vs
Respondent/s: 1. Liberty General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Office No.1, 'Alyssa', 1st Floor,
Rear Poration, Old No.28, New No.23,
Richmond road,
Bangalore - 560025,
Policy No.201250020118802109800000
Validity from 21/12/2018 to 20/12/2023
(By Sri. Kiran Pujar, Advocate)
SCCH-21 2 M.V.C. No.3197/19
2. Mr. Amith Kumar Rajput,
S/o. Darsh Ram Rajput,
R/at No.39/2, 2nd Cross,
Annasandrapalya HAL Post,
Bangalore - 560017.
(Owner of vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA01
JC7298)
(By Sri. V.Pratap Kumar,
Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/ from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that took place on 06.04.2019.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as follows:
On 06.04.2019 at about 09.25 p.m, while he was standing on extreme left side of footpath on Varthuru main road, near Doddanekkundi Cake Magic, Bengaluru, the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA01JC7298 by riding it in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner, caused the accident and as a result, petitioner sustained injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Manipal hospital for first aid treatment, thereafter he was shifted to Axon hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment and again for further treatment, he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi hospital, SCCH-21 3 M.V.C. No.3197/19 Bengaluru. It is stated that he has spent more than Rs.2,00,000/ for his treatment, medicine etc.,
3. It is further stated that prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and working as carpenter cum bar bender and earning Rs.27,000/ per month. Due to the accidental injuries, he is not able to do his work as doing earlier. It is stated that the accident in question was due to the rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the offending motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA01JC7298. Hence, the 1 st respondent being the insurer and 2nd respondent being the owner of the offending motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
4. On service of notice, the respondents No.1 and 2 entered their appearance through their respective learned counsels and filed their separate objection statements.
5. The 1st respondent in its objection statement has denied all the petition averments and contended that the petition itself is not maintainable either on facts or law. The 1 st respondent has denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and also the amount spent towards medical expenses by the petitioner. The respondent No.1 has denied the alleged negligence of the rider of the motor cycle and the involvement of the said motor cycle in the accident. It has contended that the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner himself. It has further contended that there is delay of 3 days in lodging the complaint and hence, the petition deserves SCCH-21 4 M.V.C. No.3197/19 to be dismissed. The respondent No.1 has further contended that rider of the motor cycle was not holding valid D.L and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. The 1st respondent has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA01JC7298 and contended that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The 1st respondent has further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioner are excessive and exorbitant. Hence, on all these grounds sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. The 2nd respondent in his objection statement denied all the averments made in the petition and contended that there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. The 2nd respondent has contended that the insurance policy was in force and rider of the motor cycle possessed valid and effective D.L at the time of accident and if the tribunal comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation, same may be saddled on the 1 st respondent. Hence, on all these grounds sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. Based on the pleadings, following issues are framed: ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 06.04.2019 at about 09.25 p.m, while he was standing on extreme left side of footpath on Varthur main road, near Doddanekkundi Cake Magic, Bengaluru, the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA01JC7298 by riding it in a rash and negligent manner, dashed SCCH-21 5 M.V.C. No.3197/19 against the petitioner, caused the accident and as a result, petitioner sustained injuries as alleged by him?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
8. In order to prove the case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and three witnesses as PW2 to 4 and got marked 20 documents as per Ex.P1 to 20. On the other hand, 1st respondent has examined its Legal Manager as RW.1.
9. Heard the arguments and perused the written argument submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.
10. My findings on the above issues as under: Issue No.1 ... Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.2 ... Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.3 ... As per final order For the following:
REASONS
11. Issue No.1: It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.04.2019 at about 09.25 p.m, while he was standing on the extreme left side of footpath on Varthuru main road, near Doddanekkundi Cake Magic, Bengaluru, the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA01JC7298 by riding it in a rash and SCCH-21 6 M.V.C. No.3197/19 negligent manner, dashed against him, caused the accident and as a result, he sustained injuries. The petitioner in order to prove his contention, got examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the averments of the petition and got marked F.I.R, F.I.S, Sketch, Spot Mahazar, IMV Report, Wound and Charge Sheet as per Ex.P1 to 7.
12. The accident said to have occurred on 06.04.2019 at 9.25 p.m. The FIS was lodged by one Vijay Stephen on 09.04.2019 at 10.00 a.m., clearly stating the history of the accident. Ex.P8 to 10 the discharge summaries show that the petitioner was admitted to 3 Hospitals from 06.04.2019 to 27.04.2019. Since petitioner was inpatient, there was no chance for him to lodge the FIS immediately after the accident. The MLC extract produced at Ex.P16 shows that police intimation issued to the Station House Officer, Halsuru Police Station, Bengaluru from the Axon Speciality Hospital on 07.04.2019 narrating the history as RTA. The motor vehicles accident report produced at Ex.P5 shows the damages caused to offending motor cycle. No explanation given by the respondents for the damages caused to the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA01JC 7298. It shows the involvement of the offending motor cycle in the accident. There is no reason to distrust the evidence of PW1 with regard to the accident.
13. As per the case of the petitioner, while he was standing by the side of the road at Varthuru main road, Bengaluru, the rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA01 SCCH-21 7 M.V.C. No.3197/19 JC7298 hit him and thereby, he sustained injuries due to the sole negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of A.Anandan v. Abdul Azeez and others (2004 ACJ 1091). But, the respondent No.1 has contended that the petitioner crossed the road in a point where pedestrian cross was not permissible and therefore, the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the petitioner. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the case of Koosappa Poojari vs. K.Sadabha and Others(ILR 2004 KAR 1104) and Sri Narasimhaiah vs. The General Manager & Anr.(ILR 1998 KAR 1934).
14. I have carefully examined the entire evidence on record. Though the petitioner has stated in the petition that the accident occurred while he was standing by the side of the road, the FIS lodged by one Vijay Stephen, it is mentioned that the accident occurred while petitioner was crossing the road. The statement given to register the FIR was at an earliest point of time than the petition filed by the petitioner. Ex.P3 is the spot sketch and Ex.P4 is the Mahazar. These documents clearly indicates that accident occurred at a distance of 6 feet from the left edge of the road. The spot of the accident is not in dispute. Therefore, it is improbable to believe that the accident occurred while petitioner was standing by the side of the road. On the other hand, the evidence probabalises that the petitioner SCCH-21 8 M.V.C. No.3197/19 attempted to cross in a busy road where the vehicles were constantly moving and during that time, the accident has occurred. Admittedly, the place of accident is not a place reserved for pedestrian crossing. Hence, the petitioner should not have made an attempt to cross the road without noticing the oncoming vehicle. Further, the doctor has also deposed that a note is made in the case sheet that the petitioner consumed alcohol. But the extent of consumption of alcohol has not been established. However, the attempt of the petitioner to cross the road is proved. Some sort of negligence can certainly attributed on him.
15. It is also to be noted that there is distinction between right of way for the vehicles in the national highway and within the city limits. In the city limits, large number of people will keep on moving along with the vehicles. Therefore, the degree of care to be exercised by the drivers/riders of vehicles is comparatively more in the city limits to protect the lives of the people. In the present care, the respondents have not contended that the petitioner has suddenly crossed the road. Further, the respondents have not contended that rider of the motor cycle has made an attempt to avoid the accident which was his primary responsibility. Having regard to these aspects, I am of the opinion that it would be just and proper to proportionate the contributory negligence of 20% on the part of the petitioner and 80% on the part of rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA01JC7298. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative.
SCCH-21 9 M.V.C. No.3197/1916. Issue No.2: While answering issue No.1, I have already observed that the accident occurred due contributory negligence of 20% on the part of the petitioner and 80% on the part of rider of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA01JC7298. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for the compensation to an extent of 80%.
17. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
It is the case of the petitioner that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and was working as Carpenter cum bar bender and earning Rs.27,000/ per month. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Neeta and others Vs Divisional Manager, Maharashtra state road transport corporation ( 2015 ACJ 598). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the income at Rs.12,000/ to the skilled carpenters, who were coming under ZoneII at Belgaum District. But, in the present case, except assertion, petitioner has not produced any document to show his occupation and income. Further, during the cross examination, petitioner has stated that he was doing small work for his livelihood. In the absence of document of income, the court has to consider the notional income of the petitioner. The incident occurred during the year 2019. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to consider the income of the petitioner at Rs.11,000/ p.m. Petitioner claims that he is unable to work due to the injuries sustained to him. The petitioner examined the Doctor SCCH-21 10 M.V.C. No.3197/19 as PW.2. In the evidence of doctor, he has deposed that petitioner sustained right subtrochanteric fracture. PW.2 has deposed that due to injuries sustained by the petitioner, he is having difficulty in doing daily routine activities and getting involved in manual work. PW.2 assessed the disability of right lower limb at 47%. I have gone through the Xrays. While calculating the loss of future income on account of permanent disability, the functional disability to the whole body has to be considered. The disability to the whole body shall have to be assessed on the basis of the profession of the injured and relative effect of the disability to his profession. The injury sustained by the petitioner is not in dispute. After considering the nature of the disabilities evidenced by the doctor, I am of the opinion that petitioner has suffered disability to an extent of 15% to his whole body.
It is contended that petitioner was aged 45 years as on the date of accident. The accident occurred on 06.04.2019. However, by considering the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P11 Voter ID as 02.01.1974, petitioner was aged 45 years at the time of accident. The multiplier applicable to the age of 45 is 14 as per the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation(AIR 2009 SC 3104). Hence, petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,77,200/ (Rs.11,000x12x15x14/100) towards loss of future income on account of permanent disability.SCCH-21 11 M.V.C. No.3197/19
18. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS:
As per wound certificate produced at Ex.P6, petitioner has sustained following injuries:
1. Haemotoma over right fronto temporal region.
2. CT scan showed orbital fracture with subarchnoid haemorhage,
3. Head injury,
4. fracture of right femur.
The doctor has opined that the injury No.1 is simple in nature and injuries No.2 to 4 are grievous in nature. The Ex.P8 Discharge Summary of Manipal hospital reveals that petitioner brought to their hospital for first aid treatment on 06.04.2019 and thereafter, he took treatment in Axon speciality hospital on 07.04.2019 as per Ex.P9. Ex.P10 Discharge Summary shows that he was treated as an inpatient at Sanjay Gandhi hospital from 07.04.2019 to 27.04.2019 and underwent ORIF with long PFN and SS wire application. As petitioner undergone surgery, definitely he has suffered pain and sufferings. Considering these aspects, I deem it just and proper to award Rs.40,000/ towards pain and sufferings.
19. MEDICAL EXPENSES, ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD & NOURISHMENT AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES & FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The discharge summary reveals that petitioner was treated as inpatient at Sanjay Gandhi hospital from 07.04.2019 to 27.04.2019 and underwent ORIF with long PFN and SS wire SCCH-21 12 M.V.C. No.3197/19 application. The petitioner has produced medical bills worth Rs.1,12,608/ as per Ex.P12. I have examined the medical and advance bills. Since petitioner was treated as inpatient and underwent surgery, there are no reasons to disbelieve the amount spent by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,12,608/ and he is entitled for the same.
The doctor has deposed that the petitioner has to undergo one more surgery and it costs around Rs.20,000/ to 25,000/. But the estimation for the expenses to be incurred is not produced. Admittedly, petitioner has undergone surgery. The X ray shows that implant is insitu. Therefore, he requires to be operated. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/.
As the petitioner has taken treatment in different hospitals and was treated as an inpatient for a period of 22 days, certainly he might have spent amount towards conveyance, attendant charges, nourishing food and other incidental expenses and also at the time of subsequent follow up treatment. Considering these aspects, I deem it proper to award Rs.20,000/ under this head. Hence, in all petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,57,608/ (Rs.1,12,608+25,000+20,000).
20. LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD:
According to the petitioner, he was working as Carpenter cum bar bender and earning Rs.27,000/ per month. But there is no evidence to that effect. As already observed above, the SCCH-21 13 M.V.C. No.3197/19 notional income of the petitioner is taken into consideration as Rs.11,000/ per month. The evidence on record reveals that petitioner took treatment for the head injury and also for fracture of right femur. Considering the injuries sustained to the petitioner and treatment taken by him, he might not have attended his work at least for a period of 5 months. Hence, petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.55,000/ on the above head.
21. LOSS OF AMENITIES IN LIFE/LIFE COMFORTS AND EXPECTANCY OF LIFE/MARRIAGE PROSPECTUS:
The petitioner was aged about 45 years at the time accident and on account of accident, he has to suffer the above disability. He has to suffer this discomfort and sacrifice the amenities through out his remaining life. This court has considered disability to the extent of 15% to whole body. PW.2 has stated that due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner is facing difficulty to do daily activities and manual work. Considering all these aspects, I deem it proper to award Rs.25,000/ on this head.
Thus in all, the petitioner entitled for the compensation as here under:
Sl.
Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Loss of future earnings due to Rs. 2,77,200
disability
2. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 40,000
3. Medical expenses Rs. 1,12,608
SCCH-21 14 M.V.C. No.3197/19
4. Future Medical expenses Rs. 25,000
5. Conveyance, food and Rs. 20,000
nourishment, attendant charges
and other incidental expenses.
6. Loss of income during laid up Rs. 55,000
period
7. Loss of amenities in life/Life Rs. 25,000
comforts and expectancy of
life/marriage prospectus
Total Rs. 5,54,808
Less: 20% contributory negligence Rs. 1,10,961.60
of petitioner
Total compensation payable to the Rs. 4,43,846.40
petitioner (5,54,8081,10,961.60) In total, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,43,846.40.
22. The petitioner is claiming interest at 12% on the compensation amount. The respondents have denied the same. Our Hon'ble High Court in the case rendered in Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another (MFA.No.100090/2014 C/W MFA.No.25107/2013 dated 07.03.2018), has held that in the absence of any other law relating to interest on judgments, the MACT has to follow the provisions of Sec.34 of C.P.C and awarded interest @ 6% p.a. Considering the aforesaid decision, I deem it proper to award interest at 6% per annum on the above compensation amount excluding the future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/.
23. Liability: Regarding the fixation of liability is concerned, I have already observed that accident was taken SCCH-21 15 M.V.C. No.3197/19 place due to the negligence on the part of the rider of motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA01JC7298 to an extent of 80%. It is not in dispute that 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending motor cycle. The respondent No.1 has admitted that insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The respondent No.1 has not proved the breach of any of the policy conditions. Hence, 1st respondent being the insurer and 2nd respondent being the owner of the offending motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to an extent of 80%. The 1st respondent being the insurer shall indemnify the 2nd respondent in payment of compensation amount. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
24. Issue No.3: In view of my findings on issues No.1 and 2, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,43,846.40(Rupees four lakhs forty three thousand eight hundred and forty six and forty paise only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.4,18,846.40 (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.25,000) from the date of petition till its realisation.
The respondents No.1 & 2 being the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. The liability to pay the SCCH-21 16 M.V.C. No.3197/19 compensation is joint and several between the respondents. But, respondent No.1 shall indemnify the respondent No.2 and shall deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount, 50% shall be released in the share of the petitioner and remaining 50% of the share amount shall be deposited in the name of petitioner for a period of 5 years in any nationalized bank with liberty to draw the periodical interest.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 8 th day of September 2020) (VANI A. SHETTY) XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner:
P.W.1 : Rajappa
P.W.2 : Dr. Chidanand K.J.C.
P.W.3 : Dr. Kiran J.
P.W.4 : Padma T.
SCCH-21 17 M.V.C. No.3197/19
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioner:
Ex.P.1 FIR Ex.P.2 First Information Statement Ex.P.3 Sketch Ex.P.4 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.5 IMV Report Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate Ex.P.7 Charge Sheet Ex.P.8 to 10 Discharge Summaries Ex.P.11 N/c. of Voter ID Ex.P.12 Medical bills Ex.P.13 Xrays Ex.P.14 Case Sheet Ex.P.15 Xray Ex.P.16 Police Intimation Ex.P.17 Inpatient Record Ex.P.18 Authorization letter Ex.P.19 MLC Extract Ex.P.20 OPD Record
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
RW.1 : Sandeep Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: Nil (VANI A. SHETTY) XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
SCCH-21 18 M.V.C. No.3197/1908.09.2020 Petitioner by B.S.D. Respondent No.1 K.P. Respondent No.2 by V.P.K. For Judgment Judgment pronounced in open court(vide separate order) ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,43,846.40(Rupees four lakhs forty three thousand eight hundred and forty six and forty paise only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.4,18,846.40 (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.25,000) from the date of petition till its realisation.
The respondents No.1 & 2 being the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. The liability to pay the compensation is joint and several between the respondents. But, respondent No.1 shall indemnify the respondent No.2 and shall deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount, 50% shall be released in the share of the petitioner and remaining 50% of the share amount shall be deposited in the name of petitioner for a period of 5 years in any nationalized bank with liberty to draw the periodical interest.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw award accordingly.
(VANI A. SHETTY) XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
SCCH-21 M.V.C. No.3197/19
AWARD
SCCH NO.21
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY M.V.C. No. 3197/19 Petitioner/s: Mr. Rajappa, S/o. Late Poojappa, Aged 45 years, R/at No.187, 7th Cross, Manujunathnagar, Opp Yellamma Temple, Marathahalli, Bangalore - 560 037.
9972089946 (By Sri. B.S. Devaraju, Advocate) Vs Respondent/s: 1. Liberty General Insurance Co., Ltd., Office No.1, 'Alyssa', 1st Floor, Rear Poration, Old No.28, New No.23, Richmond road, Bangalore - 560025, Policy No.201250020118802109800000 Validity from 21/12/2018 to 20/12/2023 (By Sri. Kiran Pujar, Advocate)
2. Mr. Amith Kumar Rajput, S/o. Darsh Ram Rajput, R/at No.39/2, 2nd Cross, Annasandrapalya HAL Post, Bangalore - 560017.
(Owner of vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA01 JC7298) (By Sri. V.Pratap Kumar, Advocate) SCCH-21 M.V.C. No.3197/19 WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Vani A. Shetty, XVII.Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,43,846.40(Rupees four lakhs forty three thousand eight hundred and forty six and forty paise only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.4,18,846.40 (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.25,000) from the date of petition till its realisation.
The respondents No.1 & 2 being the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle are liable to pay the compensation. The liability to pay the compensation is joint and several between the respondents. But, respondent No.1 shall indemnify the respondent No.2 and shall deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
SCCH-21 M.V.C. No.3197/19 On deposit of the compensation amount, 50% shall be released in the share of the petitioner and remaining 50% of the share amount shall be deposited in the name of petitioner for a period of 5 years in any nationalized bank with liberty to draw the periodical interest.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2020.
Member, M.A.C.T, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
MEMORANDUM OF COST INCURRED IN THIS SUIT By the Plaintiff/s Defendant/s
1. Stamp paid on plaint (C/f)
2. Stamp paid for power
3. Stamp on I.A's
4. Service on Process
5. Advocate
6. Others / Total Decree drafted by Decree Scrutinized by Member, M.A.C.T, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengalurure.
Decree Clerk Sheristedar SCCH-21 M.V.C. No.3197/19