Bangalore District Court
Sri. Nagaraja K.S vs The Managing Director on 2 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this the 2nd Day of July 2020
PRESENT: SMT. SUJATHA, S. B. COM., LL.B.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C. NO. 2976/2016
PETITIONER:
Sri. Nagaraja K.S.,
S/o Srinivasappa,
Aged about 43 years,
2. Master Bhuvan,
S/o Nagaraja. K.S.,
Aged about 13 years,
3. Master Amith,
S/o Nagaraja K.S.,
Aged about 11 years.
All are R/at No.168,
Raghavendra Layout,
Sri Nilaya, Garebhavi Palya,
Bangalore - 560 068.
Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minor,
hence the Petitioner No.1 father is representing as their
natural guardian.
(By Sri.D.H. Thulasee Ramdas., Adv.)
-VS-
2 M.V.C.No.2976/2016
SCCH-7
RESPONDENTS:
1. The Managing Director,
KSRTC, NWKRTC Dn,
Sirsi Taluk, U.K. District.
2 Sri. T.R. Sunil,
S/o Revanna D.M.,
No.813, D.No.14,
Ramaswamy Reddy Building,
2nd Floor R.K. Township,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore - 562 106.
3. The Regional Manager,
M/s National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Regional Office, T.P. Hub,
No.144, 2nd Subharam Complex,
M.G. Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
(Insurer of the Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136
Policy No. 35101031156337215314
valid from 03.09.2015 to 02.09.2016)
(R1 - By Sri. Mahadevaiah, Adv.)
(R2 - Exparte)
(R3 - By Sri.V.R. Muralidhara, Adv.)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Section 163-A of I.M.V. Act.
2. The Brief facts of the petitioners' case is that: On 21.11.2015, when the deceased Smt. Rekha was inmate of the Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 which was on N.H. 206 towards Jayanthi grama, the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-31-F-1262 3 M.V.C.No.2976/2016 SCCH-7 drove the same coming from opposite direction of the said Car with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Car, the driver of Car was also in high speed and as a result the accident occurred. In the said accident Smt. Rekha sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Petitioners stated that after the accident the dead body was shifted to Tipatur Government Hospital for postmortem examination. Petitioners stated that they spent Rupees 1,50,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation charges. Petitioners stated that prior to the accident deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 35 years and she was a home maker and due to her death they lost love and affection and their entire life is in the dark and miserable. The petitioners stated that, the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent act of driver of KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262. However the petitioners filed interim application seeking amendment of petition contending that the driver of Car in which Rekha was traveling was also in high speed. The petitioners by amended the petition contending that, the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent act of driver of KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31- F-1262 and also due to negligent act of the driver of Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-C-7136 and in this regard the jurisdictional police have registered a case in their crime No.89/2015 for the offence punishable under section 279 and 304 (A) of IPC. The petitioners stated that, the Respondent No.1 is the R.C. Owner of KSRTC Bus bearing bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262, the Respondent No.2 is the owner of Car bearing Registration No.KA-
4 M.V.C.No.2976/2016SCCH-7 51-C-7136 and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the Car. At the time of accident the contract between Respondents No.2 and 3 was in force, hence the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and prayed to allow the petition.
3. In pursuance of service of Notice, Respondent Nos.1 and 3 appeared before the court through their counsels and have filed separate objection statements. Respondent No.2 not appeared before the court hence he was placed exparte.
4. In the objection statement No.1 stated that the averments in the claim petition that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31- F-1262 is denied as incorrect statement and the Petitioners are to put strict proof of the same. The jurisdictional police authority have filed a FIR against the driver of the Maruthi Ritz Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 in Crime No.89/2015 under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. Respondent No.1 stated that on 25.11.2015 the NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262 was proceeding from Kumata to Bangalore N.H.206 via Shimoga driven by its driver slowly carefully on the left side of the road observing all the traffic rules and regulations. When the said Bus reached near Jayanthi Grama, one Maruthi Ritz Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 driven by its driver without following traffic rules and regulations came to wrong side by overtaking ongoing 3 cars, this was observed by the driver of the NWKRTC Bus and for the purpose of avoiding the accident moved the said Bus to left side of the road and the said Bus 5 M.V.C.No.2976/2016 SCCH-7 on the left side of the road covering the space of footpath. However the said Car came from opposite side by overtaking 3 cars as stated above and dashed against the front side of the Bus and due to impact some of the inmates of the Car sustained injuries and some of them died on the spot. The Respondent No.1 stated that, the driver of KSRTC Bus was not at all responsible for the accident. In this regard one Mahadevaiah filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police authority and the said police authority filed a criminal case in Crime No.89/2015 under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC against the driver of Car and hence Respondnent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. Under these circumstances Respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. In the objection statement, Respondent No.3 stated that the claim petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Respondent No.1 stated that it has issued a policy bearing No.35101031156337215314 favour of the Respondent No.2 in respect of Ritz Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 and it is valid from 03.09.2015 to 02.09.2016 and their liability, if any is strictly in terms and conditions, exceptions, limits and endorsement of the policy and subject to compliance of 64 VB of Insurance Act 1938 and law governing thereto. Respondent No.3 stated that the Respondent No.2 has violated the mandatory provisions, Section 134(C) and the Jurisdictional Police have not complied with provisions of Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Respondent No.3 stated that the Respondent No.2 willfully entrusted his vehicle to a person who did 6 M.V.C.No.2976/2016 SCCH-7 not possess valid and effective Driving Licence to drive the same as on the date of accident. There was no valid permit and fitness certificate to the car as on the date of accident and owner of car permitted to travel 6 persons including driver, exceeding the seating capacity. The owner of Car committed breach of terms and conditions of Policy and violation of Section 149(2) of M.V. Act, hence Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Respondent No.3 denied the age, avocation and income of deceased. The Respondent No.3 stated that, to the effect that on 21.11.2015 at about 5-00 p.m., the Petitioner and the deceased Smt. Rekha was inmate of Maruthi Ritz Car bearing registration No.KA-51- C-7136 on N.H.206 road near Jayanthi grama, Kibbanahalli Hobli, Bangalore towards Tipturu, at that time driver of NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262 came on the same road from Tipturu towards Bangalore came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the said Car is true and correct. The driver of NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262 had lot of opportunity to avoid the alleged accident since there was sufficient time and space on the left side of the road. The Respondent No.3 stated that since the driver of unknown Lorry which was parked on the left side of road, suddenly took towards right side of the road without any indication, in order to avoid that collision and to save the life of inmates of the driver of Car compelled to take little bit of right side. However the driver of Bus failed to exercise his diligence to avoid the alleged accident and to save the life of inmates of Car even though he had sufficient opportunity to avoid the said accident.
7 M.V.C.No.2976/2016SCCH-7 Respondent No.3 stated that the driver of Bus alone is liabile for causing the accident and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of Ritz Car. Respondent No.3 stated that, it reserves right to file additional statement in the event of changed circumstances. Respondent No.3 stated that it reserves its right to defend the claim on various grounds by filing separate application under Section 170 of M.V. Act, if the insured fails to contest the matter effectively and it seeks the protection to defend the matter as enunciated under Section 147 and 149 of M.V. Act. Respondent No.3 stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate. Under these circumstances Respondent No.3 prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, issues framed as follows:
[ ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that they are legal heirs and dependents of deceased Smt. Rekha?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262 and as a result Smt. Rekha sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to said injuries?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?8 M.V.C.No.2976/2016
SCCH-7
4. What order or Award?
7. Since the petitioners have amended the petition, this court deleted the Issue No.2 and Re-framed Issue No.2 as follows:
Re-framed Issue No.2 Whether the Petitioners prove that the Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 and NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31- F-1262 are used and involved in the road traffic accident and in the said accident Smt. Rekha sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to said injuries?
8. In order to prove the case, the Petitioner No.1 got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 17 documents as per Ex.P1 to P17. On behalf of the Respondent No.1, witness by name Lakshmesh Jettappa Naik got examined as R.W.1 and got marked 5 documents as per Exs.R.1 to 5 and on behalf of Respondent No.3 witness by name Himendra K. Simha the Administrative Officer of Respondent No.3 got examined as RW.2 and got marked 2 documents as per Ex.R.6 and Ex.R.7
9. Heard the arguments.
10. My findings on the above said issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Deleted
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative
9 M.V.C.No.2976/2016
SCCH-7
Re-framed Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
11. Issue No. 1: P.W.1 stated that he is the husband, Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the minor children of deceased Smt. Rekha, who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 21.11.2015. In this regard PW.1 has produced Ex.P.9 Marriage Invitation Card, Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of Adhar Card of PW.1, Ex.P.11 birth certificate of Petitioner No.3, Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of Adhar Card of deceased Rekha, Ex.P.13 Study Certificate of Petitioner No.2, Ex.P.14 Study Certificate of Petitioner No.3, Ex.P.15 Notarized copy of Adhar Card of Petitioner No.2, Ex.P.16 Notarized copy of Adhar card of Petitioner No.3, Ex.P.17 First page of bank pass book of deceased Rekha. In the cross examination by the counsel for Respondent No.3 PW.1 stated that after the death of Rekha, he married Smt. Dharmashree and residing along with her. Further PW.1 stated that his two children are also residing along with him. In the case on hand as per the evidence available on record, Petitioner No.1 the husband of deceased Rekha, married Smt. Dharmashree and leading marital life along with her. As such the Petitioner No.1 cannot be considered as dependent of deceased Rekha. However the Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the minor children of deceased Rekha, hence they can be considered as her dependents. For the aforesaid reasons, I have answered Issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative.
10 M.V.C.No.2976/2016SCCH-7
12. Reframed Issue No. 2: P.W.1 stated that, on 21.11.2015, when the deceased Smt. Rekha was traveling in the Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 on N.H. 206 towards Jayanthi grama, the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-31-F-1262 drove the same coming from opposite direction of the said Car with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Car and the driver of Car was also in high speed and as a result the accident occurred and in the said accident Smt. Rekha sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. PW.1 stated that after the accident the dead body was shifted to Tipatur Government Hospital for postmortem examination.
13. In order to prove the case, P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.4 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.5 Inquest Report, Ex.P.6 Postmortem Report, Ex.P.7 IMV Report and Ex.P.8 Sketch. In the cross-examination by the counsel for Respondent No.1 PW.1 admitted that after investigation the police have filed Charge Sheet against the driver of Car. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of Car. PW.1 stated that he has not seen the occurrence of accident and one Mahadevaiah has lodged complaint as per Ex.P.2. In the cross-examination by the counsel Respondent No.3 PW.1 admitted that both vehicles were involved in the accident. He stated that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of drivers of both vehicles. PW.1 stated that the driver of Car also died in the said accident.
11 M.V.C.No.2976/2016SCCH-7
14. In this case the Respondent No.1 to prove the defence got examined the driver of KSRTC Bus as RW.1. He deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of Car. He stated that the driver of Car came to wrong side of the road by over taking 3 cars which were proceeding in front of the said Car and in order to avoid the accident he took the Bus towards extreme left side of the road, however the Car dashed against the Bus and as a result the said accident occurred. RW.1 has produced Ex.R.1 Certified Copy of photographs, Ex.R.2 Certified Copy of his Driving Licence, Ex.R.3 Certified Copy of Insurance Policy, Ex.R.4 Certified Copy of Driving Licence extract of Saveen N. Gaonkar and Ex.R.5 Certified Copy of Judgment passed in MVC No.705/2016 clubbed with 706/2016 along with award copies. In the cross-examination by the counsel for Petitioner RW.1 stated that he was proceeding from Kumata towards Bangalore and it is two way. He denied the suggestion that as per the Sketch the accident occurred on the right side of the road. He denied the suggestion that he was driving the Bus in rash and negligent manner and accident occurred due to his fault. He denied the suggestions that by colluding with police he managed to register the case against the driver of Car. In the cross- examination by the counsel for Respondent No.3 RW.1 admitted that the accident took place between Bus and Car and no other vehicles involved in the said accident. He denied the suggestion that Ex.R1 Photographs were taken after clearance of traffic. RW.1 admitted that, a driver of Lorry which was parked by the side of road, suddenly 12 M.V.C.No.2976/2016 SCCH-7 moved the Lorry to main road without any indication, hence the driver of Car moved the Car towards right side of the road. R.W1 denied the suggestion that, the said accident occurred due to his fault.
15. In this case on going through Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 complaint it is noticed that one Mahadevaiah has lodged complaint against the driver of Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136, on 21.11.2015 before Kibbanahalli Police station and based on said Complaint Kibbanahalli Police have registered Crime No.89/2015 against the driver of Car for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. Further Ex.P.4 Spot Mahazar and Ex.P.8 Sketch reveal that the accident occurred on left side of Thiptur - Bangalore Road. In Ex.P.7 Motor Vehicle Inspector has reported right front, head lamp, indicator assembly, front right bumper, front radiator frame of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262 sustained damages and wind shield glass, head light, door glasses, dash board, mirrors, dash board, bonnet, engine, steering axels, brake pipes to front wheels of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 sustained damages. Further Ex.P.5 Inquest Report reveals that inquest of dead body of Rekha was conducted at Thiptur Government Hospital. In Ex.P.6 Postmortem Report the Doctor opined that the cause of death of Rekha is due to head injury as a result of injury sustained. Further as per Ex.P.3 Charge Sheet the Investigating Officer of Kibbanahalli Police station after investigation has filed abated Charge Sheet against the driver of Maruthi Ritz Car for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304 (A) of IPC. In the Charge Sheet the 13 M.V.C.No.2976/2016 SCCH-7 Investing Officer stated that, the driver of Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 was proceeding from Kibbanahalli side towards Thipatur and he driven the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F- 1262 which was coming from Thipatur towards Kibbanahalli side and as a result the driver of Car and Smt. Rekha who was travelling in the said car, died on the spot. In the case on hand the Respondent No.1 contended that, the accident occurred due to rash negligent act of the driver of Car and the Charge sheet is also filed against the Car driver. On the contrary the Respondent No.3 contended that, the driver of Bus could have avoided the accident and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of Bus. It is to be noted that, the present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 163-A of Indian Motor Vehicle Act. As per the evidence produced by the petitioner No.1, the accident took place between Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 and NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262. Since the petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, the petitioners need not prove rash and negligent act and only involvement of the vehicle is sufficient to claim compensation under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act. In the case on hand oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner No.1 proves that, both Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 and NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262 are involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein Smt. Rekha sustained injuries and died on died on the spot. For the aforesaid 14 M.V.C.No.2976/2016 SCCH-7 reasons, I have answered Reframed Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
16. ISSUE No.3 : Since the present petition is filed under Section 163-A of IMV Act to compute the quantum of compensation, this Court has relied on the Gazette Notification of The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Notification, New Delhi, 22 nd May, 2018 S.O.2022(E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section(3) of section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (59 of 1988) the Central Government, keeping in view the cost of living, hereby makes the following amendment to the Second Schedule to the said Act viz.,.
In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the Second Schedule, the following Schedule shall be substituted viz., "The SECOND SCHEDULE OF S.163A SCHEDULE FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE THIRD PARTY FATAL, ACCIDENT/INJURY CASES CLAIMS
1)(a) Fatal accidents:
Compensation payable in case of Death shall be five lakhs Rupees.
On and from the date of 1 st day of January 2019, the amount of compensation specified in the clauses of paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5 per cent annually."
The notifications shall come into form on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette".15 M.V.C.No.2976/2016
SCCH-7
17. On applying the principles of Gazette Notification, it is just and proper to award Rs.5,25,000/- towards loss of dependency. Further the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,500/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- under the head of funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
18. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 5,29,500/- under different heads as below.
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 5,25,000-00
2. Loss of estate 2,500-00
3. Funeral & Obsequies 2,000-00
ceremony expenses
Total 5,29,500-00
19. The counsel for Respondent No.1 argued that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of drive of Car in which deceased Rekha was proceeding and Charge Sheet is filed against the driver of Car. Further the driver of NWKSRTC Bus no way responsible for the cause of accident, hence Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and petition is to be dismissed against the Respondent No.1. It is to be noted that, as already stated the petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act. The claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act is an absolute liability on the owner, insurer and any other person 16 M.V.C.No.2976/2016 SCCH-7 whose equipment are responsible in causing the accidental injury or death. In this case the court came to conclusion that both the Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 and NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262 are very much used and involved in the road traffic accident, wherein Smt. Rekha sustained injuries and died on the spot. The Respondent No.1 is the internal Insurer of NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262. The Respondent No.3 admitted the issuance of Insurance Policy to the Ritz Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136. However Respondent No.3 contended that the driver of Car did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the same as on the date of accident. In this regard the Respondent No.3 got examined witness by name Himendra Simha M.N., as RW2. He deposed inconsonance to averments made in the objection statement. R.W2 has produced Ex.R.6 Authorization letter and Ex.R.7 Copy of Insurance Policy. In the cross examination by the counsel for Petitioner R.W2 admitted that in the Charge sheet the Investigating Officer not stated that the driver of Car did not possess Driving Licence. RW.2 denied the suggestion that a person who is having non transport Driving Licence can drive the transport vehicle which does not exceed 7500 kgs., weight. In the case on hand the evidence on record discloses that, insured vehicle is a Car which is Light Motor Vehicle and as per Ex.R.4 Driving Licence extract as on the date of accident driver of the car had LMV Driving Licence. In AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, Driver holding LMV Licence can drive all vehicles of class including transport vehicle - No separate endorsement required 17 M.V.C.No.2976/2016 SCCH-7 to drive such transport vehicles and Definition of 'light Motor Vehicle' has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with Section10(2)
(d) of Motor Vehicle Act which makes abundantly clear that 'light Motor Vehicle' is also a transport vehicle', gross vehicle weight or unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kgs., as specified in provision. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, only on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident is a Taxi, the contention raised by the Respondent No.3 that the driver of insured vehicle was not having valid and effective Driving Licence cannot be accepted. The Respondent No.3 cannot be exonerated from liability of indemnifying the Respondent No.2. This court already come to conclusion that Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 and NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262 are very much used and involved in the road traffic accident, wherein Smt. Rekha sustained injuries and succumbed. As such the Respondent No.1 being the internal insurer of NWKRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-31-F-1262 and the Respondent No.2 being the owner and Respondent No.3 being the Insurer of Car bearing registration No.KA-51-C-7136 are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% each compensation amount to the Petitioners with interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of petition till realization. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
20. Issue No. 5: In view of above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
18 M.V.C.No.2976/2016SCCH-7 ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Sec.163-A of I.M.V Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 5,29,500/- along with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of entire amount.
The Petitioner No.1 is not entitled for compensation amount.
The Respondent No.1 being the internal insurer of Bus and Respondent No.3 being the Insurer of Car are here by directed to deposit 50% each awarded compensation amount within two months from the date of award.
Out of the compensation amount the Petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for 50% share each. Since the Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors, their entire shares is ordered to be deposited in fixed Deposit Scheme in their respective names in any Nationalized Bank till they attain the age of majority.
The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, computerized by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on 02.07.2020).
(SUJATHA S), IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM, Court of Small causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.19 M.V.C.No.2976/2016
SCCH-7 ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/S;
P.W.1. Nagaraja. K.S. II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/S:
Ex.P1 FIR
Ex.P2 Complaint
Ex.P3 Charge Sheet
Ex.P4 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P5 Inquest Report
Ex.P6 Postmortem Report
Ex.P7 IMV Report
Ex.P8 Sketch
Ex.P9 Marriage Invitation
Ex.P10 Notarized copy of Adhar Card of Nagaraja K.S.
Ex.P11 Notarized copy of bith certificate of Ameeth
Ex.P12 Notarized copy of Adhar Card of Rekha. S.
Ex.P13 Notarized copy of Study Certificate of Mohan
Kumar.N.
Ex.P14 Notarized copy of Study Certificate of Amith. N.
Ex.P15 Notarized copy of Adhar Card of Bhuvan Kumar. N.
Ex.P16 Notarized copy of Adhar card of Amith. N.
Ex.P.17 Notarized copy of First page of Bank pass book pertaining to Rekha III. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
RW.1 : Lakshmesh Jattappa Naik
RW.2 : Himendra Kartantik Simha M.N
20 M.V.C.No.2976/2016
SCCH-7
IV. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 : Certified copy of photographs
Ex.R.2 : Certified copy of driving licence of Lakshmeesh Naik Ex.R.3 : Certified copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R.4 : Certified copy of driving licence extract of Saveen N. Gaonkar Ex.R.5 : Certified copy of Judgment passed in MVC No.705/2016 clubbed with 706/2016 along with award copies Ex.R.6 : Authorization letter Ex.R.7 : Copy of Insurance Policy (SUJATHA S), IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM, Court of Small causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.