Bangalore District Court
In: Sri. Sujan Venkatesh vs Sri. Manoj.R on 31 December, 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(SCCH-23) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
PRESENT: Sri.N.N.YALAVATTI, B.Com, LL.B, (Spl).,
XXI ADDL. SCJ & XIX ACMM
MEMBER - MACT
BANGALORE
M.V.C Nos.3839 and 3840 of 2015
PETITIONER IN: Sri. Sujan Venkatesh,
MVC 3839/2015 S/o D.Venkatesh,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at No.35, 4th Cross,
Sri. Lakshmi Layout,
Abbigere, Chikkabanavara,
Bangalore - 560090.
PETITIONER IN: Sri. Enoach Obed.E,
MVC 3840/2015 S/o Ebenezer,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.58, Enoach Villa,
Vasanthapura Main Road,
Near Manasa Theatre,
Konanakunte Cross,
Doddakallasandra,
Bangalore - 560062.
(By Sri.M.B. Muralidhara., Advocate)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS 1. Sri. Manoj.R,
IN BOTH THE CASES S/o Rangaswamy,
2 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23
No.53, 4th Main, 2nd Cross,
Shankarnagar, Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bangalore - 560096.
(Present R.C.Owner of the car
No.KA-03-MF-9471)
(Exparte)
2. Sri. Sanjay Bhan,
Bagmane Tech. Park,
No.56/3, Adjucent to LRDE,
Byrasandra, C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore - 560093.
(Previous R.C.Owner of the car
No.KA-03-MF-9471)
(Exparte)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
5th Floor, Centenary Building,
M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560001.
(Policy/Certificate No.1405542311008594
Valid from 18.11.2014 to 17.11.2015)
(By Sri. V.Shrihari Naidu., Advocate)
****
JUDGMENT
These petitions are filed by claimants under Sec.166 of M.V. Act against the respondents claiming compensation of 3 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 Rs.25,00,000/- in MVC 3839/2015 and Rs.10,00,000/- in MVC 3840/2015.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as averred in their respective claim petitions are as follows:
On 02.08.2015 at about 8:30 p.m., near Agachahalli Gate, NH-75 Road, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, the driver of the car bearing No.KA-03-MF-9471 belonging to 1st respondent and previous owner 2nd respondent insured with 3rd respondent, driving it rashly and negligently from Mullaiahnagiri towards via Hassan in a high speed and last his control. Therefore, the car came to extreme left side of the road and dashed against the road side stone and toppled into the road side ditch. As a result of which, the petitioner of both case and other inmates of car sustained multiple grievous injuries as shown in their wound certificate. Immediately after the accident, the petitioners were rushed to nearby hospital i.e., A.C. Giri Hospital fir treatment and shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment. Both the petitioners were admitted as an inpatient in 4 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 the said hospital and underwent surgeries for uniting of fracture injuries. The police have registered the case against the driver of offending car and filed the charge sheet. Inspite of best and costly treatment, the fracture injuries are not properly united. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, they are suffering from physical permanent disability and unable to do the work as working prior to the accident. The petitioners of both the cases were appeared their final year examination of B.E., and waiting for the results and job. They have a bright future. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, they have lost their hope about their bright future. Both the petitioners are the brilliant students and they may get job in good company's and they would have earn Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. Due to this injuries they are not in possession to get job and sustained loss of their future earnings. This accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and same was insured with 3rd respondent. The policy was in force. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount and requested to pass the award as prayed.5 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23
3. Inspite of serving the notice of 1st and 2nd respondents, the 1st and 2nd respondents remained absent and placed exparte,
4. In response to the notice, the 3rd respondent has appeared through its counsel and resisted the case of petitioners by filing objection.
The 3rd respondent has contended that the petitioners have filed this petition on imaginary grounds the compensation amount claimed by them is excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary. There is a inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and there is no proper explanation. The petitioners of both the case sustained more fracture injuries then other inmates of the car Sujan Venkatesh i.e., the petitioner in MVC 3839/2015 was driving the car by sitting on the front seat of the car besides the driver seat. Therefore, due to severe impact this two petitioners are alone sustained fracture injuries and other inmates of the car, who were sitting on the back side of the seat was sustained simple injuries. The father of Sujan Venkatesh is working in a police department. The 6 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 petitioners colluding with the Suman Nagaraj hospital charges and police department implicated the Suman Nagaraj as an driver and filed the complaint by taking 11 days time. The Suman Nagaraj was travelling one of the inmate by sitting on the seat of the back side of the car. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. The insurance company has denied the manner of accident, injuries, income and bright futures of the petitioners and requested to dismiss the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my learned Predecessor framed the following:
Issues in MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, they were sustained grievous injuries in RTA that alleged to have been occurred on 02.08.2015 at about 8:30 p.m., near Agachahalli Gate, NH-75 Road, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District and the petitioners sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the Honda Civic car bearing Reg.
No.KA-03-MF-9471?
7 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, petitioners are got themselves examined as PW-1 and PW-2. PW-3 is examined on their behalf and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-39 are got marked.
In order to prove the defence of 3rd respondent, the official of 3rd respondent has got himself examined as RW-1. The RW-2 is examined his behalf and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-12 are got marked.
7. I have heard lengthy arguments from both sides.
8. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments, my findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Petitioners are entitled
8 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23
compensation of Rs.3,96,560/- in
MVC 3839/2015 and Rs.1,02,601/-
in MVC 3840/2015 from the 3rd
respondent with 6% p.a, interest on
the said amount from the date of
petition, till deposit of amount
before the Court,
Issue No.3: As per final order,
For the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 in both the cases: I have carefully
scrutinized the oral evidence of PW-1, PW-2 along with records pertaining to criminal case. It reveals that on 02.08.2015 at about 8:30 p.m., the driver of offending car driven it rashly and negligently from Hasan towards Bangalore, left the road came on extremely left side and dashed against the road side stone. As a result of which, the car fell into the ditch. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 are very much corroborating with each other and corroborating with the records pertaining to the criminal case. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this accident was occurred on a rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
9 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23
10. The advocate for the 3rd respondent Sri. VSN strenuously contending before me that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The petitioner of these two cases were sustained grievous injuries and remaining inmates of the car are sustained only simple injuries. All the inmates of the car were shifted to Adhichunchanagiri Hospital and took first-aid their. Then the petitioners were shifted to Bangalore for higher treatment. The available records speaks that one Suman Nagaraj was not a driver of the car. But, the Sujan Venkatesh who is the petitioner of MVC 3839/2015 was driving the car. He did not have a driving licence. Therefore, the petitioner took 11 days time and filed the complaint by falsely implicating the Suman Nagaraj as an driver. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the petitioners may be dismissed. On the other hand, the advocate for the petitioner strenuously contending before me that on the date of accident itself the police intimation has been sent from the Adhichunchinagiri Hospital. It is the duty of police department to come to hospital and record the statement of injured. The petitioners and their relatives were engaging in providing a 10 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 treatment to the petitioner at Bangalore and unable to file a complaint. In support of his argument he has relied on a decisions reported in 2011(2) AIR KAR R 295 and 2011 ACJ
279. I have given careful consideration to the points urged by both the side. The PW-1 and PW-2 have faced searching cross- examination. But nothing was elicited from their mouth to prove that the Suman Nagaraj was not driving the offending vehicle and Srujan Venkatesh was driving the offending car. The PW-1 and PW-2 were travelling in the said car as an inmates. They are the best persons to give evidence in relating to who was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident. RW-2 is the doctor, who has given first-aid to all inmates of the car. As per his evidence on the date of accident itself he has sent a police intimation as per Ex.P-39. I have gone through the Ex.P-39 it is true that the RW-2 himself has sent Ex.P-39 which is the police intimation to the police station, same was reached to the police station. But, the police have not come forwarded to the hospital for recording the statement of injured.
11 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23
11. The PW-1 and PW-2 in their evidence they are categorically spoken that the Suman Nagaraj was driving the car at relevant point of time. The petitioner of both the case may be sustained grievous injury and the front portion of the car may be severely damaged. The grievous injuries sustained by the petitioners and severe damage caused to the offending car is not sufficient to say that the Sujan Venkatesh was driving the car on the date of accident. Therefore, the further discussion is not at required to say that on the date of accident Suman Nagaraj was driving the car. Hence, I answered issue No.1 in both the cases Accordingly.
12. Issue No.2 in MVC 3839/2015: I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence of PW-1, PW-3 along with wound certificate and discharge summary marked at Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10. It reveals that the petitioner has sustained multiple fracture injuries i.e., SAH left frontal lobe, small heamorrhagic contusion right temporal lobe, L1 brust fracture, bimalleolar fracture subluxation left ankle, blunt trauma chest with bilateral multiple rib 12 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 fractures with left pneumothorax, right hemathrax, massive contusion of right lung, right angle fracture of mandible and left paraspaphysis fracture of mandible, contusion posterior segment of right upper lobe, medial psterior and lateral segment of right lower lobe, minimal right hemothorax and left pneumothorax fracture right 5th and left 10th and 11th ribs with bilateral surgical emphysema, burst fracture L1 with retropulsion causing about 10% canal compromise; fracture left lamna, elft pedicle and right transverse process and fracture right transverse process of L2, 3 and 4 and took treatment in Hosmat Hospital as an inpatient from 03.08.2015 to 14.08.2015 and underwent surgeries for uniting of fracture injuries. Considering the number of injuries, nature and seriousness of injury, period of treatment, number of surgeries, the petitioner was suffering from pain and mental agony. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards "pain and sufferings".
13. Determination of loss of future earnings and physical permanent disability:
13 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23 Once again, I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence of PW-1, PW-3 along with hospital records like wound certificates, discharge summaries. It reveals that the petitioner has sustained following injuries which are fracture left ankle (medial malleolus and fibula), multiple fracture ribs (right 4th and left 8th and 9th ribs), haemothorax and lung contusion, L1 compression fracture, mandible fracture and head injury (subarachnoid haemorrhage) and took treatment from 03.8.2015 to 14.08.2015 and underwent following surgeries i.e., on 30.08.2015 left intercostal drainage was done, on 03.08.2015 right intercostal drainage was done, on 08.08.2015 open reduction and internal fixation left ankle done with plate and screws was done, on 08.08.2015 spine fixation was done by pedicle screws (D11 to L3) and on 08.08.2015 mandible fixation was done. Inspite of best and costly treatment, the fracture injuries are not properly united. The petitioner is facing difficulties in kneeling, squatting, sitting cross legged and unable to walk for long time. He cannot stand for long period and he is unable to eat ho food. The PW-3 considering all these problems he has assessed the physical permanent disability to the extent of 14 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 26% on his whole body by following procedure. But, the cross-
examination of PW-3 reveals that all fracture injuries are properly united. The PW-3 in his cross-examination at page No.6 he has categorically admitting that the broken left ankle bone is properly united. These screws have been removed. I have assessed the cross-examination of PW-3 line by line and found that the injuries sustained by the petitioners are properly united. But, he getting a pain while walking, sitting and to eat hard food. Considering the entire cross-examination of PW-3 along with hospital records and evidence of PW-1, it is just and proper to say that the petitioner is suffering from physical permanent disability to the extent of 13% on his whole body. The PW-3 is trying to exaggerate the physical permanent disability of the petitioner. As per his evidence itself all fracture injuries are properly united and screws are removed. He is getting little pain while walking, sitting and standing. Considering all these aspect, it is just and proper to say that the petitioner is suffering from physical functional disability to the extent of 13% on his whole body. The advocate for the petitioner strenuously contending before me by submitting that the petitioner 15 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 had very bright future and would have earn high income by joining the Multi National Company if this accident would have not happened. The petitioner was offered by one of the company in 2015 on a monthly salary of Rs.15,710/- p.m. Due to this accidental injuries, he could have not jointed that company. The advocate for the petitioner draw my attention on Ex.P-14. I have gone through Ex.P-14. It is not a appointment letter issued from the company. It is e-mail issued from the college. If at all he was appointed in the year of 2015, he could have received the appointment letter from the company and the petitioner would have received the offer of the company. So, I am not going to consider Ex.P-14 as it is a appointment letter.
14. As per B.E., marks card of the petitioner, he is an average student. But, he did passed B.E., and searching the job. Considering his age, education and his marks obtained in his B.E., education, it is just and proper to fix his salary notionally at Rs.7,000/- p.m. If he would have joined, he would have earning Rs.7,000/- based upon his marks obtained in B.E. Therefore, I 16 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 am going to say that he would have earned Rs.7,000/- if he did not suffering from physical permanent disability. As per the available records, he was 21 years old on the date of accident. The appropriate multiplier is '18'. Therefore, his loss of future earnings would work out as 7,000 X 12 X 18 X 13% = Rs.1,96,560/-. Therefore, I am awarding Rs.1,96,560/- under the head of "loss of future salary".
15. Medical expenses:
The father of the petitioner is working as Head constable. Here we shall turn our attention on his chief-examination. The PW-1 in his chief-examination at page No.3 has pleaded as "I have produced only available bills, some bills were lost and some of the bills were not obtained". Here we shall turn our attention on his cross-examination, the PW-1 in his cross-examination at page No.12 he has deposed contrary to his chief-examination. As per his cross-examination he has deposed as it is not true to suggest that the medical bills are reimbursed. His father is the police. Therefore, the final bill was submitted under Arogya Bhagya 17 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 Scheme. The medical bill amount will paid to hospital straightly. So, it is crystal clear from his cross-examination that the PW-1 is trying to tell lie by deposing in his chief-examination as the medical bills are misplaced and some bills were not obtained. If at all he is a fare, he could have pleaded about the reimbursement of the medical bill in his pleadings as well as in his chief-examination. But, he has not done so. He trying to mislead the court by deposing in his chief-examination as some of the medical bills are misplaced and some of the medical bills are not obtained. But, the true facts is the final bill is handed over to his father for getting reimbursement under Arogya Bhagya Scheme. It was not necessary to petitioner to suppress this fact. We shall turn our attention on medical bills filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed 18 medical bills worth of Rs.94,598.29/-. The petitioner did not file original final bills of the hospital. The some of the medical bills filed by the petitioner are pertaining to purchasing of the materials on credit basis and some laser bills are pertaining to the purchasing of the medicines on cash payment basis. If the petitioner filed original bill it would help to 18 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 know whether purchasing of the medicines on credit basis is including in the final bill or not. Admittedly, the PW-1 is not a fare enough. He ought to have produced the documents from hospital to show that how much amount was paid under Arogya Bhagya Scheme and how much amount is paid out his pocket. Therefore, the PW-1 is not entitle any amount under the head of "medical expenses". In my opinion, the entire hospital bills including the amount utilized for purchasing the medicines might have paid under Arogya Bhagya Scheme. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner is working as a police in police department. Therefore, the father of the petitioner might have managed to pay the all hospital bills and medical bills under Arogya Bhagya Scheme. Without aid of the final bill we cannot decided to award amount under the head of medical expenses. Therefore, I am not awarding any amount under the head of "medical expenses".
16. Once again I have gone through the entire evidence of PW-1, wound certificate, discharge summary along with evidence of PW-3, it is true that the petitioner is suffering from 19 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 physical permanent disability. He is getting a severe pain while walking, sitting and sleeping. Due to injuries sustained in the accident he become a crippled. Therefore, I am going to award Rs.50,000/- under the head of "loss of happiness, loss of in conveyance and loss of discomfort".
17. In addition to this, as per the evidence of PW-3 the petitioner has to undergo another surgery for removal of implaint as the cost of Rs.50,000/- without filing estimation. Hence, I am going to award Rs.25,000/- under the head of "future medical expenses".
18. In addition to this, I am awarding Rs.50,000/- towards "conveyance, nourishment and nutritious food", and Rs.25,000/- towards "attendant charges".
19. In all I award Rs.3,96,560/- under the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/-
2 Loss of future salary Rs.1,96,560/-
20 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23
3 Future medical Rs.25,000/-
expenses
4 Loss of happiness, loss Rs.50,000/-
of in conveyance and
loss of discomfort
5 Attendant charges Rs.25,000/-
6 Conveyance, Rs.50,000/-
nourishment and
nutritious food
Total Rs.3,96,560/-
20. Issue No.2 in MVC 3840/2015: I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence of PW-2, PW-3 along with wound certificate, discharge summary marked at Ex.P-20 to Ex.P-22. It reveals that the petitioner has sustained fracture of bone bones in right leg and took treatment from 03.08.2015 to 05.08.2015 and underwent surgeries on 03.08.2015 inter locating nailing was done. Inspite of best and costly treatment till the petitioner is facing difficulty in nailing, squatting, sitting and unable to walk, stand for a long time. The petitioner was suffering from pain along with mental agony. Considering his age, nature of injury, period of treatment and surgery, it is just and proper to award Rs.35,000/- under the head of "pain and sufferings". 21 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23
21. Once again, I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence of PW-2, wound certificate, discharge summary along with evidence of PW-3, who has assessed his physical permanent disability. The PW-3 in his chief-examination has stated many things. But the cross-examination of PW-3 reveals that the fracture injury is properly united. The fracture injury is not on the joint. The disability cannot be assessed based on the muscle stiffness. Considering his entire cross-examination and the evidence of PW-1 and his hospital records, it is just and proper to say that the petitioner is suffering from physical permanent functional disability to the extent of 10% on his whole body.
22. The petitioner has produced his B.E., marks card and submitted that due to injuries sustained in the accident, he was under treatment. Therefore, he could not attend his academic classes. Therefore, he is facing difficulties for extending the examination. The petitioner did not produced any documents to show that he dis-continued his education due to injuries sustained in the accident. He took treatment from 03.08.2015 to 22 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 05.08.2015. It means he was in the hospital for a period of only three days and he might have taken bed rest for a period of 15 days. So, the question of sustaining loss in his education does not arise at all. He was 24 years old on the date of accident. He was a student. He was not a earning member. The injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident would not obstacle to him to continue his education. Therefore, he is not entitle any amount under the head of loss of his future earnings, but he is entitle the amount under the head of loss of happiness, in conveyance and loss of discomfort. Once, again, I have gone through the evidence of PW-1, wound certificate, discharge summary along with evidence of PW-3. It reveals that the petitioner has sustained fracture injury in his leg and underwent surgeries. Some screws and rod are inserted in his leg. Due to this screw and rod, he may suffering from pain and lost his happiness. He has to undergo one more surgery for removal of this screw and rod. So, I am going to award Rs.50,000/- under the head of "loss of happiness, in conveyance and loss of discomfort".
23 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23
23. In addition to this, the petitioner has produced 16 medical bills worth of Rs.7,601.18/- at Ex.P-26. The PW-1 in his cross-examination, he has fairly admitting that he has handed over final bill to the insurance company. The petitioner has purchased the medicines after discharging from the hospital and filed those bills. Therefore, the petitioner is entitle Rs.7,601/- under the head of "medical expenses".
24. In addition to this, I am awarding Rs.10,000/- under the head of "nourishment, conveyance and nutritious food".
25. In all I award Rs.1,02,601/- under the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.35,000/-
2 Loss of happiness, in Rs.50,000/-
conveyance and loss of
discomfort
3 Medical expenses Rs.7,601/-
4 Nourishment, Rs.10,000/-
conveyance and
nutritious food
Total Rs.1,02,601/-
24 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23
26. It is proved fact that this accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The driver of the car had valid and effective driving licence. The policy was in force. The 3rd respondent being the insurer of the vehicle of the vehicle. Therefore the 3rd respondent has directed to deposit the amount as stated in my judgment. With these observation, I answered issue No.2 in both the cases accordingly.
27 Issue No.3: In view of the discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The claim petitions U/Sec., 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioners are hereby allowed in part with cost.
The petitioners are awarded total compensation of Rs.3,96,560/- in MVC 3839/2015 and Rs.1,02,601/- in MVC 3840/20015 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount in the tribunal.
The 3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.25 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23 The 3rd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount in the tribunal within the two months from the date of this decree.
In MVC 3839/2015 after deposit of the compensation amount, 50% of the amount shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court branch, Bangalore for a period of five years and the balance amount shall be released to his through account payee cheques.
The petitioner in MVC 3840/2015 is at liberty to withdraw her compensation amount with interest. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- in each case. Keep original Judgment in MVC 3839/2015 and copies in other case.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 31st day of December 2016) (N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE.26 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015
SCCH-23 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS IN BOTH THE CASES PW-1: Sujan Venkatesh PW-2: Enoach Obed.E PW-3: Dr. Krishan Prasad LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS IN ALL THE CASES Ex.P-1: FIR Ex.P-2: Complaint Ex.P-3: Wound certificate Ex.P-4: Charge sheet Ex.P-5: Police intimation given by Adhichunchanagiri Hospital Ex.P-6: Crime details form Ex.P-7: IMV report Ex.P-8:
And 2 wound certificates Ex.P-9:
Ex.P-10: Discharge summary Ex.P-11: SSLC marks card Ex.P-12: Dimploma marks card from 1st semester to 6th semester Ex.P-13: Marks card of B.E., from 3rd semester to 8th semester 27 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 Ex.P-14: Three page document given by college regarding selected for job Ex.P-15: 25 medical prescriptions Ex.P-16: 80 medical bills for Rs.94,598.29 Ex.P-17: X-rays Ex.P-18: CT scans Ex.P-19: Statement of injured Ex.P-20:
And 2 wound certificates Ex.P-21:
Ex.P-22: Discharge summary Ex.P-23: College ID card Ex.P-24: Marks card of B.E., from 3rd semester to 6th semester Ex.P-25: 2 medical prescriptions Ex.P-26: 16 medical bills for Rs.7,601.18 Ex.P-27: 3 x-rays Ex.P-28: Outpatient record Ex.P-29: Inpatient record Ex.P-30: 3 x-rays Ex.P-31: Recent examination report Ex.P-32: Outpatient record Ex.P-33: X-ray Ex.P-34: Recent examination report 28 MVC Nos.3839 & 3840 of 2015 SCCH-23 Ex.P-36:
To 2 statements Ex.P-37: Ex.P-38: 133 notice Ex.P-39: Police intimation
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN BOTH THE CASES:
RW-1: Santhosh B.L RW-2: Dr. B.C.Manjappa
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN BOTH THE CASES Ex.R-1: Policy Ex.R-2:
To 5 wound certificates
Ex.R-6:
Ex.R-7: IMV report
Ex.R-8:
To Accident register extracts
Ex.R-12:
(N.N.YALAVATTI)
XXI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BANGALORE.