Bangalore District Court
Must Give An Explanation With Regard To ... vs No on 15 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 15th day of July, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl),L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.1405/2015
Mr. Libin. K. S., ..... PETITIONER
Aged about 24 years,
S/o. Mr. Shaji. K.K.,
R/at No.8, 6th Cross,
Kagadapura,
C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 093.
(By Sri. M.A. Sebastian, Adv.,)
V/s
1. M/s. The Oriental Insurance ..... RESPONDENTS
Company Ltd.,
CBO- 16,
Sheshadripuram,
No.401/2,
Swatik Manandi Arcade,
S.C. Road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore - 560 020.
Represented by its Branch Manager.
(Policy No.421902/31/2014/4803,
Valid from 03.03.2014 to 02.03.2015)
(Insurer of Eicher 11.10 Lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-03-D-8731)
2. M/s. Sree Transport,
2 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015
(SCCH-7)
Proprietor, Mrs. Benilla,
No.9, Kaveri Mansion,
2nd Floor, Behind MSIL Building,
Konena Agrahara,
Bangalore - 560 017.
(Owner of Eicher 11.10 Lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-03-D-8731)
3. Sri. Vasantkumar. S.P.,
Aged about 24 years,
S/o. Putte Gowda,
Shivane Gowdana Doddy,
Vyamvalli Hobli,
Gollahalli - P.O.,
Kanakapura,
(Driver of Eicher 11.10 Lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-03-D-8731)
(R1- By Sri. M. Ramesha, Adv.,)
(R2 and R-2 Exparte)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 to 3 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award compensation of Rupees 6,10,000/-.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case are as follows;
a) On 07.03.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., he was returning from his worksite at Medahalli to his residence at Tippasandra on his Bajaj Platinum Motor Bike bearing Registration No.KA-03-HP-
130. While he was traveling at Dommasandra - Varthur Main Road, in front of Greenwood High School, vehicle bearing 3 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 (Eicher) driven by its driver, the Respondent No.3, coming from Varthur side of Dommasandra, hit the vehicle, in which, he was traveling and because of the impact of the accident, he had sustained grievous injuries to his right leg. The driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 did not stop the vehicle on the spot and continue to drive in a high speed ahead till the villagers, who saw the accident blocked the vehicle.
b) He was immediately shifted by the passerby to the nearby Balaji Nursing Home, given first-aid and since the injuries sustained were major in nature, he was immediately shifted to St. Johns Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore.
d) He was admitted at St. Johns Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore on 07.03.2014 with the injuries. On 08.03.2014, he underwent surgery and inserted tubular plate and remained as inpatient till 12.03.2014. On 12.03.2014, he was discharged with an advise for follow-up treatment and review in OPD on 21.03.2014. He originally belongs to Iritty, Cannanore, Kerala, came to Bangalore only to take the employment after completion of the draftsman course. Since, there was nobody else to take care of him with the right leg immobilized, by hiring an Ambulance, he was shifted to his parental home at Iritty, Cannanore, Kerala.
e) He attended the nearby Amala Hospital, Iritty, for the follow-up treatment, wherein, he was admitted as an inpatient for the period from 25.04.2014 to 30.04.2014. He has to undergo 4 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) another surgery to remove the implants. Even today, he is undergoing the physiotherapy treatment.
f) The movement of the right foot is restricted and painful and he is not able to carry his body weight even on the right leg, cannot walk even for a short distance at a stretch, to run, squat or climb the steps. Because of the accident, he has suffered severe mental shock, agony and pain and permanent disability. He could not attend his Office for five months and thereafter, since the financial conditions does not permit him to sit idle, on the humanitarian ground, the employer had agreed to offer the job of a receptionist with low salary of Rupees 5,000/-. Because of the permanent disability sustained in the accident, he being a draftsman by profession is not able to take up the professional assignment, which needs lot of field work and his carrier prospects in the professional line is seriously hampered, permanent disability caused in the accident.
g) He claims the following amount as compensation;
a) Towards medical expenses Rs.1,50,000/-
b) Towards mental shock, agony, pain and
suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
c) Towards permanent disability Rs.2,00,000/-
d) Towards loss of income Rs. 45,000/-
e) Towards transportation charges Rs. 35,000/-
f) Towards food and nourishment Rs. 10,000/-
5 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015
(SCCH-7)
g) Towards attendant charges Rs. 20,000/-
h) For the removal of implants Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs.6,10,000/-
h) The accident has occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 and the jurisdictional Traffic Police have registered FIR in Crime No.56/2014 dated 10.03.2014 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act as against the driver of the Lorry.
i) He has not claimed any compensation under Section 140 before any other Authority. Towards the compensation for the death of his mother, he along with his father have filed another MVC petition along with the petition. Hence, this petition.
3. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 07.09.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
4. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondents No.2 and 3, they were remained absent and hence, they are placed as exparte on 09.06.2015 and 08.07.2015, respectively.
5. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
6 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015(SCCH-7)
a) The petition is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.
b) At the time of accident, the Petitioner and driver of the Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Lorry and Motor Cycle, respectively and thereby, they have violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
c) The insured Respondent No.2 knowing fully well that, the driver of the Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D- 8731 did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the Eicher Lorry, had handed over the same and thereby, the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the policy, hence, it is not liable to indemnify the insured.
d) It seeks that, as per Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, it as mandatory duty of the insured to furnish particulars of policy, accident date and time. The insured fails to furnish same.
e) There is 3 days delay in lodging complaint. The Petitioner must give an explanation with regard to delay in filing the complaint. If the Petitioner fails to explain the delay, the petition against its Company is liable to be dismissed.
f) As per Section 158(6) of the M.V. Act, it is mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the relevant papers to the concerned Insurance Company within 30 days from the date of intimation, but, the jurisdictional Police Station failed to forward the documents and not complied the statutory demand.
7 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015(SCCH-7)
g) At the time of accident, the Petitioner suddenly turned his Motor Cycle to the extreme right without observing the vehicles coming on the opposite direction, as a consequence of which, the Petitioner got hit by the Eicher Lorry in question, hence, the Petitioner himself had contributed major contributory negligence and this fact may be taken note at the time of passing the Judgment.
h) They have issued a policy in respect of the Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 vide Policy No.421902/31/2014/4803, valid from 03.03.2014 to 02.03.2015 in favour of the Respondent No.2 and the same was valid and current as on the date of the accident. The liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and verification of the relevant documents pertaining to the vehicle in question.
i) The Petitioner must prove that, he had not filed any other petition before any other Court or Authority in respect of the alleged accident as against any of the Insurance Company.
j) At the time of accident, the insured was running the vehicle without having a valid permit and fitness certificate and thereby, he had violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
k) It may be permitted to file an additional Written Statement if found necessary at a later stage. In the event of this Hon'ble Tribunal coming to the conclusion that, it is liable to indemnify the insured, such an event, the interest may be restricted to 6% per annum in view of the ruling declare by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ILR 1987 Page 142, which is again upheld in ILR 1990 Karnataka Page 8.
8 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015(SCCH-7)
l) The total compensation amount of Rupees 6,10,000/- is excessive, exorbitant and the same is without any basis of justification. The claim is only a speculative one and the Petitioner is trying to make a windfall out of a misfortune.
m) It reserves its liberty to take up all the defence available to the insurer under Section 170 of M.V. Act, in the event of the insured failing to contest the said petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with exemplary costs.
6. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-
03-D-8731 by its driver and in the said accident, he sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
7. In order to prove his case, the Petitioner himself has been examined as P.W.1 and has also examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 by filing the affidavits as their examination-in- chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on its behalf.
9 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015(SCCH-7)
8. Heard the arguments.
9. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rupees
3,18,248/- with interest at
the rate of 8% p.a.
(excluding future medical
expenses of Rupees
20,000/-) from the date of
the petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner has stated in his examination-in-chief that, on 07.03.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., he was returning from his worksite at Medahalli to his residence at Tippasandra on his Bajaj Platinum Motor Bike bearing Registration No.KA-03-HP-130 and while he was traveling at Dommasandra - Varthur Main Road, in front of Greenwood High School, Eicher vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 driven by its driver, i.e., the Respondent No.3, coming from Varthur side of Dommasandra and hit the vehicle, in which, he was traveling and because of the impact of the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries to his right leg and the driver of the said vehicle did not stop the vehicle on the spot and continue to 10 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) drive in a high speed ahead till the villagers, who saw the accident blocked the vehicle. He has further stated that, he was immediately shifted by the passerby to the nearby Balaji Nursing Home, given first-aid and since the injuries sustained were major in nature, he was immediately shifted to St. Johns Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore. He has further stated that, he was admitted at St. Johns Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore on 07.03.2014 with the injuries described, i.e., lacerated wound over right heel pad measuring 6 cm X 3 cm. X-ray right foot-fracture base of 5th metatinal, tenderness over right ankle region - X-ray right ankle bimalletor fracture right leg, tenderness and abnormal mobility over right collar base region - X-ray right claricle - fracture right claricle, broken nail right thump and multiple abrasion of varying sizes over right knee, which are grievous in nature. He has further stated that, on 12.03.2014, he was discharged from the Hospital. He has further stated that, the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.3, who is the driver of the Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 owned by the Respondent No.2. He has further stated that, the jurisdictional Police Sub-Inspector of Police, Sarjapura Police Station, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District has registered the criminal case under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act in Crime No.568/2014 dated 10.03.2014 as against the driver of the vehicle and after investigation, the Charge Sheet is filed as against the Respondent No.3.
11. It is pertinent to note here that, though the accident was taken place on 07.03.2014 at 6.00 p.m., the complaint is lodged in respect of the accident in question on 10.03.2014 at 11 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) 3.45 p.m., which disclosed that, there is 3 days delay in lodging the complaint in respect of the accident in question, which caused to the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner has not produced the spot hand sketch to disclose the existing things of the accidental spot.
12. But, the said delay of 3 days in lodging the complaint in respect of the accident in question and non-production of the spot hand sketch, no way affect to consider the case of the Petitioner as well as the evidence adduced by him in the examination-in-chief, as, to corroborate his case as well as oral version, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.1 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.2 FIR, Ex.P.3 Complaint, Ex.P.4 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.5 Vehicle Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P.6 RTO Letter , Ex.P.7 RTO Letter, Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary, Ex.P.11 Discharge Card relating to Amala Hospital and Ex.P.17 Case Summary, which clearly disclosed that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 by its driver itself, i.e., the Respondent No.3, in the commission of the said road traffic accident and there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner in the commission of the said road traffic accident, when he was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HP- 130 and the said offending Eicher Lorry dashed to the Motor Cycle, wherein, the Petitioner was proceeding and due to the said impact, the Petitioner fell down and had sustained three grievous injuries and two simple injuries and by admitting as an inpatient from 08.03.2014 to 12.03.2014, i.e., for 5 days and also from 25.04.2014 to 30.04.2014, i.e., for 6 days, totally for 11 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries at St. John's Medical College and Hospital and Amala Hospital, which is clear from the 12 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) following discussion. Furthermore, by producing Ex.P.18 Driving Licence relating to him, the Petitioner has proved that, at the time of accident, he was having valid and effective driving licence to ride his Motor Cycle. Further, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, at the time of accident, he was riding the Motor Cycle with a speed of 35-40 kmph and he has D.L. to ride the Motor Cycle at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was coming with very high speed. He has further stated that, some villagers, who saw the accident were shifted him to the Hospital immediately after the accident and he had only taken first-aid treatment at Balaji Nursing Home and thereafter, he was shifted to St. John's Hospital. Further, the P.W.1 has clearly denied the suggestions put to him by the Respondent No.1 during the course of cross-examination that, there was a centre median in the said accidental road and the alleged accident is occurred in the middle of the road and because of his negligence itself, the alleged accident was taken place and he was very high speed in riding the Motor Cycle and only for one day, he was admitted in the said Hospital. From this, it appears that though the P.W.1 has been cross-examined by the Respondent No.1, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to consider its specific defence. More so, the Respondent No.1 has not adduced any defence evidence on its behalf to consider its specific defence, which has been taken by it in its Written Statement.
13. The contents of Ex.P.2 FIR and Ex.P.3 Complaint disclosed that, the Co-worker of the Petitioner had lodged Ex.P.3 Complaint before the Sarjapura Police as against the driver of the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 by alleging that, on 07.03.2014 at 6.00 p.m., when the Petitioner was 13 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) proceeding on his Bajaj Platinam Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HP-130 on Dommasandra - Varthu Main Road and when he was proceeding on the straight road of Green Wood High School, the Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 came from Varthur to Dommasandra with very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving by its driver and dashed to the said Motor Cycle and the driver of the said offending Eicher Lorry has not stopped on the accidental spot and due to the said accident, the Petitioner fell down and had sustained grievous injuries on his right leg and right chest and he was shifted to Balaji Nursing Home and after the treatment, again he was shifted to St. John's Hospital, Bangalore and since he was looking after the Petitioner in the Hospital, there is delay in lodging the complaint and as such, he prayed to take necessary legal action as against the driver of the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 and based on the said Ex.P.3 Complaint, the said Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of the offending Eicher vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 187 of IMV Act under Crime No.56/2014. The reason for delay in lodging Ex.P.3 Complaint is clearly explained by the Complainant in Ex.P.3 Complaint itself.
14. The contents of Ex.P.4 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.5 Vehicle Seizure Panchanama and Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 RTO Letters further clearly disclosed that, the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said accident, which caused due to his negligence act of driving of the driver, which dashed to the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HP-130, wherein, the Petitioner 14 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) was proceeding and there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner in the commission of the said road traffic accident and the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident and if the driver of the said offending Eicher vehicle could have taken a little care while driving it at the time of accident, he could have avoided the said road traffic accident, which caused to the Petitioner.
15. The contents of Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate further clearly disclosed that, with alleged history of road traffic accident said to have been caused on 07.03.2014 at 6.30 p.m., at Sarjapura Road and referred from Balaji Nursing Home, the Petitioner was brought to St. John's Medical College and Hospital on 07.03.2014 at 9.30 p.m., and on examination, it is found that, he had sustained injuries, i.e., lacerated wound over right heel pad measuring 6 cm x 3cm, x-ray right foot: fracture base of 5th metatarsal, tenderness over right ankle region x-ray right ankle :
bimallolar fracture right leg, tenderness and abnormal mobility over right coller bone region x-ray right clavicle : fracture right clavicle, broclum nail right thumb, multiple abrasion of ranging sizes over right, i.e., three grievous injuries and two simple injuries and by admitting as an inpatient from 08.03.2014 to 12.03.2014, i.e., for 5 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries.
16. The contents of Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary issued by St. John's Medical College and Hospital and Ex.P.17 Case Summary and Discharge Records clearly disclosed that, during the course of treatment, it is diagnosed that, bimalleolar fracture 15 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) right leg, right clavicle fracture - medial 2/3rd and lateral 1/3rd, heel pad avulsion - right foot and pseudojones fracture of right foot and with alleged history of road traffic accident on 07.03.2014 at around 6.45 p.m., the Petitioner was riding a two wheeler and was trying to overtake a truck, when an oncoming truck hit him and fell over his right ankle and complaints of pain in shoulder, left ankle and wound over the heel and by admitting as an inpatient from 08.03.2014 to 12.03.2014, i.e., for 5 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries in the said Hospital.
17. The contents of Ex.P.11 Discharge Card issued by Amala Hospital has further clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner had also taken treatment in the said Hospital by admitting as an inpatient from 25.04.2014 to 30.04.2014, i.e., for 6 days.
18. The P.W.2, who is one of the treated Doctor has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that, with alleged history of road traffic accident on 07.03.2014 at 6.30 p.m., Sarjapura Road, Dommasandra, Bangalore, the Petitioner was admitted to St. John's Hospital on 08.03.2014 and he had sustained injuries, i.e., right bimalleolar fracture, right heel pad avulsion, right clavicle fracture and right pseudojones fracture and he was treated as emergency basis and was discharged on 12.03.2014. The P.W.2 has produced Ex.P.22 Inpatient Record, Ex.P.23 X-ray Films 18 in numbers and Ex.P.24 CD. He has further stated in his cross- examination that, he is one of the team of the Doctors, who has treated the Petitioner.
19. From the above said medical evidence, it is made crystal clear that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner 16 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) had sustained three grievous injuries and two simple injuries and by admitting as an inpatient totally for 11 days at St. John's Hospital and Amala Hospital, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries.
20. The contents of Ex.P.1 Charge Sheet further clearly disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found that, due to high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 by its driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken place on 07.03.2014 at 6.00 p.m., near Green Wood High School, Dommasandra - Varthur Main Road, which dashed to the Bajaj Platinam Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HP-130, wherein, the Petitioner was proceeding from Dommasandra to Varthur and due to the said impact, the Petitioner fell down along with the Motor Cycle and he had sustained grievous injuries on his right foot, right coller bone and right forearm and simple injuries on other parts of the body and the driver of the said offending Eicher has not stopped the said Canter on the accidental spot and as such, after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the driver of the offending Canter for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC R/w Section 187 of M.V. Act. There is no allegation leveled by the Investigation Officer in Ex.P.1 Charge Sheet as against the Petitioner about his negligence in the commission of the said road traffic accident.
21. From the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary, it is clearly proved that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Eicher Lorry 17 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 by its driver itself, the Respondent No.3, the said road traffic accident was taken place, wherein, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries and two simple injuries and the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 as well as its driver, i.e., the Respondent No.3 are very much involved in the said road traffic accident. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
22. ISSUE NO.2 :- The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.18 Driving Licence relating to him, which disclosed that, his date of birth is on 08.03.1991. The date of accident is on 07.03.2014. On perusal of the said dates, it appears that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 23 years old. Hence, the age of the Petitioner is considered as 23 years at the time of accident.
23. The P.W.1 has stated that, he was employed as a Draftsman and Site Supervisor with M/s. Palace Architect and Engineers, No.42, 1st Floor, 80 Ft. Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore - 560 075 since 01.09.2012 and as on the date of accident, he was drawing a salary of Rupees 9,000/- per month. The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.13 Letter dated 22.08.2012 issued by Palace Architect and Engineer, Ex.P.14 Appointment Letter dated 22.08.2012 issued by Palace Architect and Engineer, Ex.P.15 Pay Slip for the month of January 2014, Ex.P.19 Diploma Certificate relating to Libin. K.S., and Ex.P.20 Course Competition Certificate relating to Libin. K.S. The Petitioner has also examined his employer as P.W.3, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, M/s. Palace Architect and Engineers is engaged in the business of Land Development and Construction activities in a 18 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) small scale and the Petitioner, who hold the Diploma in Civil Engineering was appointed as a Draftsman and Site Supervisor vide Letter of Appointment dated 22.08.2012 and was paid a sum of Rupees 9,000/- per month towards the salary initially and he was very talented in the professional works and while he was returning from the worksite at Medahalli on 07.03.2014, he met with a road accident and sustained grievous injuries to his right leg and initially, he has monetarily supported the Petitioner to pay the Hospital bills and transportation charges to his home town at Iritty, Kerala, which was subsequently returned to him by the Petitioner. He has further stated that, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 are relating to their Company and issued to the Petitioner. He has further stated in his cross-examination that, M/s. Palace Architect and Engineer is a Proprietorship Concern and he is its Proprietor, which is unregistered with VAT Registration. He has further clearly stated in his cross-examination that, no Group Insurance Policy is available to his employees in his concern and the Petitioner is not his permanent employee and he is appointed on contract basis and there are 3 employees under him in his concern. On perusal of the said evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 coupled with the contents of the said documents clearly goes to show that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner is a Diploma Civil Engineer holder, who was working as a Draft man and Site Supervisor with M/s. Palace Architect and Engineer and he was drawing a salary of Rupees 9,000/- per month. The said salary of Rupees 9,000/- per month is not an exorbitant and unreasonable, by considering the educational qualification of the Petitioner. Further, Ex.P.15 Play Slip for the month of January 2014 clearly disclosed that, his salary was of Rupees 9,000/- p.m. Hence, the avocation and income of the Petitioner at the time of accident, as 19 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) stated by the P.W.1 and P.W.3 as well as shown in the said material documents is believed and accept. Hence, the income of the Petitioner is considered as Rupees 9,000/- p.m. at the time of accident.
24. The P.W.1 has stated that, on 08.03.2014, he underwent surgery and inserted tubular plate and remained as inpatient till 12.03.2014 and on 12.03.2014, he was discharged with an advise for follow-up treatment and review in OPD on 21.03.2014. He has further stated that, originally, he belongs to Iritty, Cannonare, Kerala, came to Bangalore only to take the employment after completion of the draftsman course and since, there was nobody else to take care of his with the right leg immobilized, by hiring an Ambulance, he was shifted to his parental home at Iritty, Cannonore, Kerala. He has further stated that, on shifting to home town, he was undergoing follow-up treatment at nearby Amala Hospital, Iritty, for the follow-up treatment, wherein, he was admitted as an inpatient for the period from 25.04.2014 to 30.04.2014.
25. The P.W.2 has stated that, he was treated as emergency basis with open reduction internal fixation with 1/3rd tubular plate for lateral malleoli and 4 mm CC screw with washer for medial malleoli with wound debridement and suturing of heel pad avulsion was done on 08.03.2014 and was discharged on 12.03.2014 with an advise to review in OPD and he has attended the OPD four times after the discharge.
26. Based on the contents of Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary, Ex.P.11 Discharge Card and Ex.P.17 20 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) Case Summary and Discharge Record and Ex.P.21 Outpatient Record, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained lacerated wound over right heel pad measuring 6 cm x 3cm, X-ray right foot: fracture base of 5th metatarsal, tenderness over right ankle region x-ray right ankle : bimallolar fracture right leg, tenderness and abnormal mobility over right coller bone region x-ray right clavicle : fracture right clavicle, broclum nail right thumb, multiple abrasion of ranging sizes over right and by admitting as an inpatient from 08.03.2014 to 12.03.2014, i.e., for 5 days, in St. John's Hospital and from 25.04.2014 to 30.04.2014, i.e., for 6 days, at Amala Hospital, totally for 11 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.17 Case Summary and Discharge Record that, ORIF + 1/3 tubular plate for lateral malleolus fibula 4 mm CCS with washer for medial malleolus. The Petitioner had also taken follow-up treatment as per Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary. It is also clear from the contents of Ex.P.11 Discharge Card relating to Amala Hospital about the line of treatment taken by the Petitioner to the said accidental injuries in the said Hospital. On perusal of the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the said road traffic accident, line of treatment and length of treatment, it clearly goes to show that, even after discharge from the Hospital, the Petitioner was very much required follow-up treatment to the accidental injuries as per the advise of the treated Doctor. Therefore, the follow-up treatment taken by the Petitioner as per the advise of the treated Doctor, even after discharge from the Hospital, as stated by the P.W.1 and P.W.2, is believed and accept.
21 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015(SCCH-7)
27. The P.W.1 has stated that, because of the permanent disability sustained in the accident, even the movements of his right foot is restricted and painful and he is not able to carry his body weight even on the right leg, cannot walk even for some distance at a stretch, to run, squat or climb the steps. He has further stated that, because of the permanent disability sustained in the accident, he being holder of Diploma in Civil Engineering and a draftsman by profession, he is not able to take up the professional assignment, which needs lot of field work and the career prospects in the professional line is seriously hampered permanent disability caused in the accident. He has further stated that, because of the permanent disability sustained in the accident, he being a draftsman by profession is not able to take up the professional assignment, which needs lot of field work and his carrier prospects in the professional line is seriously hampered permanent disability caused in the accident. He has further stated that, because of the accident, he has suffered mental shock, agony and paid and permanent disability to his right leg and he cannot squat, claim steps or put weight on his right leg even now and his right foot movements are restricted.
28. The P.W.2 has stated that, he examined the Petitioner on 12.02.2016, he complaints of pain with decreased range of movement of (R) shoulder, right ankle subtalar joint and foot and history of swelling of right leg and ankle present and history of difficulty in walking long distance, climbing stairs up and down sitting cross legged and squatting and H/o difficulty in carrying out daily activities. He has further stated that, on examination of right shoulder, abnormal bony swelling present over middle 3rd clavicle, tenderness present over the bony swelling and range of 22 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) movement abduction decreased by 15 degree and on examination of right ankle, multiple surgical scar present over medial and lateral aspect and scar, joint line and fracture site tenderness present and implant palpable underneath scar and one more primary wound scar healed by primary intention present over heel pad of about 8 x 1 cm., and range of movement dorsi flexion decreased, plantar flexion decreased and eversion decreased and calf muscles wasting of 1 cm present. He has further stated that, 14.06% disability of whole body assessed according to Guidelines and Gazette Notification and loss of movement of right shoulder is 3.21%, loss of movement of right ankle is 7.85% and pain interfering with function is 3.00% and total 14.06%.
29. But, based on the above said oral version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the contents of the above said medical documents, it cannot be believed and accept that, due to the said accidental injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 14.06% to the whole body, as, the P.W.1 in his cross- examination has clearly stated that, now, he is working in Palace Architects and Engineers and now also continued the same job and now he is getting salary of Rupees 6,000/-. Further, the P.W.3 has also clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that, because of the permanent disability sustained to the right leg, he cannot do the professional work as a Draftsman/site Supervisor, which needs lot of field work and as a receptionist, he was paid a salary of Rupees 5,000/- per month and presently, it is increased to Rupees 6,000/- per month. From the said evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, it clearly goes to show that, even after the accident, the Petitioner has continued the job in the same Company by getting salary of Rupees 6,000/- p.m., out of the actual salary of Rupees 23 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) 9,000/- p.m., which received by the Petitioner at the time of accident, which disclosed that, the said extent of disability as stated by the P.W.2 no way caused inconvenience to the Petitioner to do the job and getting income, but, by considering the inability to do the work to some extent, the employer of the Petitioner has allowed the Petitioner to do the work by paying salary of Rupees 6,000/- p.m. Due to the said accidental injuries, the Petitioner has lost the income of Rupees 3,000/- p.m., as, at the time of accident, he was getting salary of Rupees 9,000/- p.m., and now, he is getting salary of Rupees 6,000/- p.m. The same has been clear from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. Further, the P.W.2 has not specifically assessed the permanent physical and functional disability of the Petitioner, which is suffered by him due to the said accidental injuries. Further, without knowingly avocation of the Petitioner, the P.W.2 has assessed the said extent of disability and in this regard, he has clearly stated in his cross- examination that, he don't know the avocation of the Petitioner. He has further clearly stated that, the reason for mal-union is since near to the joint, the fracture are caused to the Petitioner, the said fracture is mall united. Further, the P.W.2 has not specifically given the clinical notes to show how the said extent of 14.06% disability come in respect of the loss of movement of right shoulder, loss of movement of right ankle and pain interfering with function. In this regard, the P.W.2 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, he has not given the details of the calculation about disability of 14.06% in his affidavit. He has further clearly stated that, if the Petitioner is regularly taking physiotherapy treatment, the restriction of movements, are reduced. From the said evidence of P.W.2, it is made crystal clear that, the P.W.2 has not specifically and property assessed the 24 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) exact extent of permanent physical disability of the Petitioner, which is arising out of the said accidental injuries by considering mobility, stability component and additional points. Hence, the said extent of 14.06% disability as stated by the P.W.2 cannot be believed and accept.
30. However, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries and two simple injuries and he is having implants in situ and at the time of accident, he was 23 years old and he was employed as a Draftsman and Site Supervisor by getting salary of Rupees 9,000/- p.m., but, after the accident, now he is getting salary of Rupees 6,000/- p.m., due to the said accidental injuries, the Petitioner could have definitely suffered permanent physical and functional disability to some extent. By considering the same, this Tribunal feels that, due to the said accidental injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and functional disability of 12% to the whole body, which is believable and acceptable one. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads.
31. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the permanent physical and functional disability of the Petitioner is of 12%. This would certainly come in the way of the future life of the Petitioner and thereby, his income to that extent would be definitely reduced. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for future loss of income arising out of the permanent physical and functional disability of 12%.
25 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015(SCCH-7)
32. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the age of the Petitioner was 23 years at the time of accident. The multiplier corresponding to the said age as per Sarala Varma's case is 18.
33. As the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and functional disability of 12% to the whole body. The deficit income of the Petitioner is already considered as Rupees 3,000/- per month. Therefore, the loss arising out of the said 12% disability for monthly income of Rupees 3,000/- by applying multiplier 18 comes to Rupees 77,760/-, i.e., (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 18 x 12%).
34. As per Ex.P.8 Wound Certificate and evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries and two simple injuries. The Petitioner was in the Hospital as an inpatient from 08.03.2014 to 12.03.2014, i.e., for 5 days and from 25.04.2014 to 30.04.2014, i.e., for 6 days, totally for 11 days. Due to the said injuries, the Petitioner could have definitely suffered a lot of pain and agony during the course of treatment. Considering the said aspects, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 75,000/- towards pain and suffering.
35. As it is already observed that, the age of the Petitioner was 23 years. He has to lead remaining his entire life with 12% permanent physical and functional disability, which comes in the way of enjoyment of life. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life to the Petitioner.
26 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015(SCCH-7)
36. It is not disclosed by the Petitioner either in the petition or in his evidence that, he was unmarried as on the date of accident. But, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 23 years old, which implies that, he was unmarried at the time of accident. Further, due to the accidental injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and functional disability of 12% to the whole body, which comes in the way of enjoyment of his life. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation towards loss of marriage prospects. Therefore, a sum of Rupees 10,000/- is awarded towards marriage prospects to the Petitioner.
37. The Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries and two simple injuries and he was in the Hospital as an inpatient for 11 days. The P.W.1 has stated that, because of the injuries sustained in the accident and immobilization of his right leg, he could not attend his office for 5 months and he has lost the salary of Rupees 45,000/- during the laid up period. The P.W.3, who is an employer of the Petitioner, has also clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that, for 5 months after the accident, he did not report the job. He has further stated in his cross-examination that, no salary is paid to the Petitioner for 5 months after the accident. From the said material evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is clearly proved that, the Petitioner could not do any work for 5 months. Hence, the Petitioner deprived the income. Therefore, at the rate of Rupees 9,000/- per month, a sum of Rupees 45,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period.
38. The P.W.1 has stated that, at Balaji Nursing Home, he has spent Rupees 3,750/- towards Hospital charges and ambulance charges and he has produced the Doctor's 27 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) prescriptions of Balaji Nursing Home dated 07.03.2014 and discharged bill. He has further stated that, as an inpatient Hospital has billed him a sum of Rupees 34,075/- and he has paid the same vide inpatient deposit of Rupees 20,000/- dated 08.03.2014, inpatient deposit of Rupees 10,000/- and also dated 08.03.2014, patient settlement receipt dated 12.03.2014 and he has produced inpatient final bills dated 12.03.2014, inpatient deposit of Rupees 20,000/- dated 08.03.2014, inpatient deposit of Rupees 10,000/- also dated 08.03.2014, patient settlement receipt dated 12.03.2014 and in addition to the inpatient bill towards the OPD bills, X-ray and medicine/material purchase, he has spent a sum of Rupees 2,882/- and he has produced cash paid receipts 3 in numbers. He has further stated that, towards the Ambulance charges for transporting him from St. Johns Medical College to Iritty his home town, which is about 300 k.m., he has spent a sum of Rupees 10,000/-, for which, no receipt is issued by the driver. He has further stated that, during the period of hospitalization at Amala Hospital, he has spend a total sum of Rupees 5,194/- towards purchase of medicine, X-ray, Doctors charges and other Hospital charges and he has produced Doctors prescription and cash bills 12 in numbers for Rupees 5,194/- and in addition to the inpatient bill towards the OPD Bills, X-ray and medicine/material purchase, he has spent a sum of Rupees 2,257/- and he has produced the cash receipts 9 in numbers and towards the medical expenditure and Hospital charges, he has spent about Rupees 75,000/- and he has produced the cash receipts for Rupees 48,158/- and other bills are misplaced. He has further stated that, the distance between his home to Irity Hospital is up and down 30 km and he used to hire the cab for the transportation towards from home to Hospital and back for the 28 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) follow-up treatment and for every trip he had to pay Rupees 1,500/- and he has produced the taxi bills 6 in numbers for a total sum of Rupees 9,000/- and towards the transportation, he has spent a sum of Rupees 19,000/-. In this regard, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.10 Medical Prescription dated 07.03.2014, Ex.P.12 Medical Prescriptions 2 in numbers and Ex.P.16 Medical Bills and Taxi Bills 43 in numbers, out of which, Serial No.1 to 30 and 37 to 43 are Medical Bills and Serial No.31 to 36 are Taxi Bills, which are totally amounting of Rupees 59,488-11. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, he has not medi-claim policy or group policy scheme from the employer and he has not medical reimbursement facility from the employer. He has further clearly stated that, initially, his employer has paid the medical expenses and now all the said medical expenses is recovered from him by his employer and hence, he has produced Ex.P.16 Medical Bills. The P.W.3 has stated that, his proprietary concern M/s Palace Architect and Engineers is a small unit, which is not covered under the ESI facility and since the accident has not occurred during the course of employment, he has not supported the Petitioner towards the medical expenses. From the said evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, it is made crystal clear that, initially, the employer of the Petitioner had paid the medical expenses and thereafter, it is recovered. Hence, the amount covered under Ex.P.16 Medical Bills and Taxi Bills can very well be taken into for consideration. The Petitioner has taken treatment at St. John's Medical College Hospital, wherein, he was taken treatment as an inpatient from 08.03.2014 to 12.03.2014, i.e., for 5 days and from 25.04.2014 to 30.04.2014, i.e., for 6 days, totally for 11 days. Considering the nature of the injury and line of treatment given to the Petitioner and length of treatment, the possibility of spending 29 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) the said amount for the medicines cannot be doubted. Therefore, it is necessary to award the said actual medical expenses of Rupees 59,488-11, which is rounded off Rupees 59,488/- to the Petitioner.
39. The P.W.1 has stated that, he has to undergo another surgery to remove the implants, which will also cost him similar amounts. The P.W.2 has stated that, the Petitioner will require one more surgery which may cost him about Rupees 30,000/-. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary about ORIF + 1/3 tubular plate for lateral malleolus fibula 4 mm CCS with washer for medial malleolus, which disclosed about the insertion of implants in situ. The said implants have to be removed and therefore, the Petitioner requires the amount for future medical expenses. Neither the Petitioner nor P.W.2 produced the estimation for removal of implants. In this regard, the P.W.2 has stated in his cross-examination that, he has not produced the estimation in respect of the future treatment and its expenses to the Petitioner. However, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to award future medical expenses of Rupees 20,000/- to the Petitioner.
40. As the Petitioner was taken treatment as an inpatient for 11 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees 3,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rupees 3,000/- towards attendant charges and Rupees 5,000/- towards food, nourishment and diet charges etc.,
41. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
30 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015(SCCH-7) Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount Loss of future income
1. arising out of 12% Rs. 77,760-00 Disability
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000-00
3. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000-00
4. Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 10,000-00 Loss of income during laid
5. Rs. 45,000-00 up period
6. Actual medical expenses Rs. 59,488-00
7. Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000-00
8. Conveyance Rs. 3,000-00
9. Attendant Charges Rs. 3,000-00 Food, Nourishment &
10. Rs. 5,000-00 Diet charges TOTAL Rs. 3,18,248-00
42. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rupees 3,18,248/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum (excluding future medical expenses of Rupees 20,000/-) from the date of petition till payment.
43. The P.W.1 has stated that, the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.3, who is the driver of the Eicher 11.10 Lorry bearing No.KA-03-D8731 owned by the Respondent No2 and the vehicle was insured with the Respondent No.1 with Policy bearing Policy No.421902/31/2014/4803 having policy coverage for the period from 03.03.2014 to 02.03.2015, as such, the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
44. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Eicher Lorry bearing 31 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 by its driver itself, the Respondent No.3, the said road traffic accident was taken place, wherein, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries and two simple injuries and the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 as well as its driver, i.e., the Respondent No.3 are very much involved in the said road traffic accident.
45. The Petitioner in the cause title of the petition has clearly mentioned that, the Respondent No.1 is an insurer, the Respondent No.2 is a R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.3 is a driver of the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03- D-8731 and its Policy number 421902/31/2014/4803, valid from 03.03.2014 to 02.03.2015. The Respondent No.1 in its written statement has clearly admitted that, they have issued a Policy in respect of the Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731, vide Policy No.421902/31/2014/4803, valid from 03.03.2014 to 02.03.2015 in favour of Respondent No.2 and the same was valid and current as on the date of accident. The said period of insurance policy covers the date of accident. From this, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was an Insurer, the Respondent No.2 was a R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.3 was a Driver of the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731 and its Insurance Policy was valid, which covers the date of accident. To deny or discard the same, nothing is available on record on behalf of the Respondents, as, though the Respondent No.1 has filed the written statement to contest the case of the Petitioner, it has not adduced any evidence on its behalf to consider its specific defence and though the notices were duly served on the Respondents No.2 and 3, they were remained absent and hence, they are placed as 32 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) exparte. There is no allegation leveled by the Investigation Officer as against the Respondent No.3, who was a driver of the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731, in Ex.P.1 Charge Sheet that, at the time of accident, he was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of offending Eicher Lorry. The violation of the terms and conditions of the admitted Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.3 is not proved by the Respondent No.1. Further, admittedly, the Respondent No.3 was a driver of the said offending Eicher Lorry at the time of accident. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 being an Insurer and the Respondent No.2 being a R.C. Owner of the offending Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-8731, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioner. Since the Respondent No.1 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent No.2. Since, the Respondent No.3 was a driver of the offending Either Lorry, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner. Hence, the petition filed by the Petitioner as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 is liable to be allowed and it is liable to be dismissed as against the Respondent No.3. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
46. ISSUE NO.3 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor 33 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015 (SCCH-7) Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 3,18,248/-
with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rupees 20,000/-) from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, 75% shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Remaining 25% shall be kept in FD in the name of the Petitioner, in any nationalized Bank of his choice, for a period of 3 years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
34 M.V.C.NO.1405/2015(SCCH-7) Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 15th day of July, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER :-
P.W.1 : Sri. Libin. K.S.
P.W.2 : Dr. Mahadev Kumar. P.
P.W.3 : Biju Kottarathil
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONER :-
Ex.P.1 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.2 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.3 : True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.4 : True copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.5 : True copy of Vehicle Seizure Panchanama
Ex.P.6 : True copy of RTO Letter
Ex.P.7 : True copy of RTO Letter
Ex.P.8 : True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.9 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P.10 : Medical Prescription dated 07.03.2014
Ex.P.11 : Discharge Card relating to Amala Hospital
Ex.P.12 : Medical Prescriptions (2 in nos.)
Ex.P.13 : Letter dated 22.08.2012 issued by
Palace Architects and Engineer
Ex.P.14 : Appointment Letter dated
22.08.2012 issued by Palace Architects
and Engineer
Ex.P.15 : Pay Slip for the month of January 2014
Ex.P.16 : Medical Bills and Taxi Bills and