Bangalore District Court
Trisha S vs Mallappa on 16 June, 2025
KABC020217262021
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
AND ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-6)
Present: Smt. Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge &
ACMM, Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2025
M.V.C.No.3585 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
TRISHA S.
D/o SOMESHWARA REDDY
AGED 17 YEARS
#231-A, ADAKAMARANAHALLI,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
MAKALI POST,
BENGALURU NORTH - 562 123.
SINCE THE INJURED PETITIONER IS MINOR
HENCE REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER
SOMESHWARA REDDY. AGED 40 years
VERSUS
OPPONENT:
MALLAPPA
S/O BHEEMARAYA,
2 MVC No.3585 of 2021
JUDGMENT
CHIKKA KAMMANAHALLI, TEACHER LAYOUT, GOTTIGERE POST, BANGALORE - 560083.
(RC OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE) 2: THE REGIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 44/45 LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS PB. NO. 25123 BENGALURU - 560025.
MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-05-HQ-7829 POLICY NO.421600/31/2021/6484 COVERING FROM 02-02-2021 TO 01-02-2022 3:MANJU PRASAD. N. NO.36, 1ST MAIN 7th CROSS KONANAKUNTE.
BENGALURU-560062 (POLICY HOLDER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-05-HQ-7829)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER: SRI.MANJAPPA ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1-EXPARTE ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2-Adarsh Gangal ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3-EXPARTE , JUDGMENT This is a petition filed u/s 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 232 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 3 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT claiming for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest from respondent on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident.
2. The petitioner's case in brief:
That on 8-7-2021 at 9.30 p.m. Opp.Prabha Nagar Gowdown, Dasanpura hobli, Tumkur-Bengaluru NH -48 Road, Bengaluru, when petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA-05-HQ-7829 from house towards Madanayakanahalli, at that time, rider of the motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA-05-HQ-7829 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and fell down from the motor cycle, as a result of which petitioner sustained grievous injuries and she took treatment at Swasthya hospital, Nelamangala and still under treatment. Petitioner spent money for her treatment and also suffering from disability and discomforts. Hence prays to award compensation of Rs.20 lakhs from the respondents.
3. Inspite of service of notice, the respondent No.1 and 3 remained absent and placed exparte. The respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement 4 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT wherein contended that there is a violation of Section 157 of MV Act. The rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-05-HQ- 7829 did not have a valid and effective driving licence to ride the said vehicle and knowing it, respondent No.1 has permitted Mr.Naveen Kumar to ride the said motor cycle. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive, fanciful and does not have nexus to the alleged age, injury, expenses incurred, disability etc., Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
4. From the above said pleadings three issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA- 05-HC-7829 on 8-7-2021 at about 9.30 ap.m. oppsoite Prabha nagara godown, Tumkur-Bengaluru NH 48 road, Bengaluru city ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitle for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate? From whom?
3. What Order or Award?5 MVC No.3585 of 2021
JUDGMENT
5. The father/natural guardian of minor petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and also got examined PW-2. Exs.P1 to P53 documents are marked. The respondent No.2 got examined its Assistant Manager as RW-1 and got marked Ex-R1 to Ex-R5.
6. Heard arguments and perused the entire materials placed on record.
7. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 : In order to prove the rash and negligence, driver of the offending vehicle, the father of the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 51 documents as Ex-P1 to 51 i.e.,FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, rough sketch, 133 MV Act notice, reply notice, IMV report, wound certificate, charge sheet, discharge summary, medical bills, prescriptions, aadhaar card, x-rays, OPD slip, x-ray. 6 MVC No.3585 of 2021
JUDGMENT
9. On the other hand, respondent No.2 denying the contention fo the petitioner admitted the issuance of the policy in respect of the offending vehicle. PW-1 was cross examined at length by the counsel for the respondent No.2. But nothing worth was elicited from the mouth of the PW-1 in favour of the respondent. In the cross examination of the PW- 1, counsel for the respondent No.2 by putting the suggestion that on the day of the accident, petitioner Trisha was travelling in the motor cycle as a pillion rider ridden by the Naveen Kumar which was admitted by the PW-1 and by putting the said suggestion, respondent No.2 clearly admitted that on the date of accident, petitioner was moving in the motor cycle as a pillion rider. On perusal of the evidence on record, soon after the accident, the father of the petitioner has lodged the complaint before Nelamangala traffic police station as per Ex-P2. Based on which jurisdictional police registered FIR as per Ex-P1. Thereafter jurisdictional police conducted thorough and detailed investigation and filed the charge sheet against the Naveen Kumar rider of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable u/s 279, 338 of IPC r/w 7 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT section 181 of IMV Act by holding that on 8-7-2021 at about 9.30 p.m. when petitioner was travelling on the motor cycle, said Naveen Kumar rode the motor cycle from Tumkur to Bangalore NH 48 service road in a rash and negligent manner, at that time, Naveen Kumar lost control over the vehicle and made the vehicle to fell on the road side and due to this, petitioner/pillion rider fell down and sustained severe injuries to his right leg. Further IO has filed the charge sheet against the accused Naveen Kumar for the offence punishable u/s 279, 338 of IPC, section 181 of IMV Act as it was found that the said Naveen Kumar was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Though respondent No.2 denied the entire averments of the petition, but not examined the rider of the motor cycle to disprove the evidence of the PW-1. The respondent has not placed any material to prove that the charge sheet filed against the Naveen is not collusive and defective. Moreover Ex-P3 spot mahazar clearly shows that the spot of accident is NH 48 service road, width of 38 feet and the road was running from Tumkur to Bangalore in west to est direction and accident 8 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT has been taken place in the 6 feet from the north edge. Further Ex-P4 clearly shows that accident has been taken place on the left side of the road. The very manner of the accident itself reveals that accident has been taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle. The non examination fo the rider of the motor cycle is a fatal t the case of the respondent.
10. Mere taking of defence is not sufficient to dislodge the testimony of other side, which has no sanctity in the eyes of Law. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 which is supported by police documents has to be accepted. Consequently I hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. All these documents clearly shows that the car was involved in the accident. Moreover all these documents have not at all been disputed by the respondents.
11. The priority is to take treatment and not the lodging of first information. When the minor petitioner was admitted to the Abhay Vasihtha hospital for treatment, then it is the duty of the hospital authority to give information to the police 9 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT regarding the injuries sustained by him in road traffic accident. As far as the defence taken by the respondent is concerned, it remains only as defence without having any backbone. If at all the petitioner by colluding filed false complaint, then why he has not lodged complaint or taken other legal action against the petitioner and if the police refused to receive the complaint then what prevented him to send through post and to file private complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction is not explained. The respondent has not taken pain to take any action and to produce the same before the tribunal to prove its defence and also not established before the court that the IO in order to help the petitioner filed the false charge sheet against them. The charge sheet filed by the IO is a corroborative evidence which strengthens the say of the petitioner.
12. At this juncture, It is necessary to apply the citation reported in AIR 2011 SC 1504 between Parmeshwari -vs- Amir Chand & Ors - wherein it has been held that -
"In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in 10 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
13. Mere taking of defence is not sufficient to dislodge the testimony of other side, which has no sanctity in the eyes of Law. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 which is supported by police documents has to be accepted. Consequently, I hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the driver of offending vehicle.
14. In addenda, in a claim for compensation U/Sec.166 of M.V Act, 1988, the claimant has to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656. With this observation issue No.1 in is answered as 'In the Affirmative'.
15. ISSUE NO.2 : As already discussed above the petitioner has proved that the accident took place due to the 11 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT actionable negligence of the rider of the motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA-05-HQ-7829. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for compensation.
16. AGE, AVOCATION AND INCOME : So far as the age of petitioner is concerned, the PW-1 contended that at the time of accident petitioner was aged 17 years. PW-1 has produced the Aadhaar card as per Ex.P.47 and 48, it disclose the date of birth of the petitioner as 11-7-2005 and the accident took place on 8-7-2021. So, as on the date of accident the petitioner was aged 15 years, 11 months, 27 days. PW-1 has stated that petitioner was student, on account of the accidental injuries petitioner had lost concentration in her studies and lost memory, education carrier and future prospectus.
17. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the parents has spent substantial amount towards the treatment and incidental charges like nourishment of the minor and spent huge amount towards the treatment. Due to the accidental injuries petitioner has sustained disability, lost her education and future 12 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT prospectus.
18. While determining the compensation this court has to look into the pain and sufferings, medical expenses, diet, food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life that the minor petitioner has suffered, which are discussed herein below.
19. TOWARDS PERMANENT DISABILITY:- As per the medical records the petitioner has sustained the following injuries : (1) fracture of both bones right leg (M/3rd of tibia and U/3rd of fibula. In the said wound certificate, doctor opined that the said injury is grievous in nature. PW-1 has stated that petitioner was student and her education has been disturbed and there is development of disability where her future prospectus has fell into dark and lost concentration in her studies and memory. On account of the accidental injuries the petitioner being 15 years and certainly undergone severe pain and mental agony.
20. Ex.P10-discharge summary discloses that for the aforesaid injuries, the petitioner had taken treatment as inpatient at Swasthya hospital from 9-7-2021 to 12-7-2021 13 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT for 4 days.
21. It is the specific case of the petitioner that owing to the accidental injuries she has become disabled. Therefore he got examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW.2 who stated that petitioner had sustained injuries to right leg both bones fracture and undergone CRIF with IMIL nailing of the right tibia. PW-2 further stated that petitioner was wasting of the right leg muscles, restricted right knee and ankle movements. PW-2 stated that petitioner is having physical disability of the right lower limb at 42% and for wholebody physical disability at 14%.
22. It is pertinent to note that while assessing the disability specially in the case of child victim it is very important to note that for a child the best part of her life is yet to come.
23. Hence, the compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop life style which will offset to some extent, the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability.
24. By applying the said precedent to the present case 14 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT on hand, in this case the petitioner sustained injuries. The evidence discloses that he is facing some difficulties. For a student leg is important organ of her body and plays very important role to build up her carrier. Now as the petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones right leg ( M/3rd of tibia and U/3rd of fibula) head injury, abrasion over legs, hands, chest, face, forehead and other parts of the body. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the disability has to be taken upto 14% by considering the avocation and age of the petitioner.
25. The reason why the proof of disability and extent of disability is crucial while determining the compensation payable to petitioner is, the petitioner herein is a minor and as per the principle of law laid down in Mallikarjun V. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396 while assessing the compensation for pain and sufferings, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts, etc. and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability and other heads. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at para No.12 of the said Judgment has held as under: 15 MVC No.3585 of 2021
JUDGMENT "Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, we are of the view that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc. should be, if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to the whole body, Rs.3 lakhs; up to 60%, Rs.4 lakhs; up to 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs.6 lakhs. For permanent disability up to 10%, it should be Rs.1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick."
26. As already observed, the petitioner has examined PW.2 who has assessed disability of the petitioner as 14%, but this court considers the disability could be 12% which when compared to the avocation i.e., the petitioner being the student need to carryout her day-to-day activities and other sports. Hence, the disability is considered at 12%.
27. The petitioner is student, looking into the future career, the incident and the injury has certainly would have 16 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT affected on his future studies and heath and career and also PW-1 has stated that due to injuries, petitioner lost concentration in her studies and lost memory and education carrier and future prospectus was suffered shock and mental agony which cannot be compensated. In the result he is entitled for the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under this head.
28. TOWARDS DISCOMFORT, INCONVENIENCE AND LOSS OF EARNINGS TO THE PARENTS DURING THE PERIOD OF HOSPITALISATION : Looking into the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, a maximum of 4 months would have been required for recovery. Hence the petitioner's parents could not have attended their work for those long period of 4 months. Therefore this Tribunal deems it expedient to take note of loss of income of parents during the course of treatment and rest of the petitioner. The same is quantified at Rs.10,000/- p.m. and a sum of Rs.40,000/- (10,000 X 4) is awarded as compensation for discomfort, inconvenience and loss of income to the parents during the period of hospitalization of the minor petitioner. 17 MVC No.3585 of 2021
JUDGMENT
29. ATTENDANT CHARGES, FOOD, NOURISHMENT & TRAVELLING EXPENSES: The period of hospitalization of 4 days is proved with a help of Ex.P10 discharge summary of Swasthya hospital from 9-7-2021 to 12-7-2021. Thus having regard to the age of the petitioner and also the nature of injuries sustained by him, he unavoidably required the service of an attendant for nursing and care. He must also have been given diet food as suggested by the doctor. For that the petitioner's family members might have spent some amount towards attendant charges, food, nourishment & travelling expenses. Accordingly considering the rate of inflation and rise in the price index, the same is quantified at Rs.1,000/- per day. Hence Rs.6,000/- (6 X 1,000) is awarded under this head.
30. MEDICAL EXPENSES.
As regard to claim of medical expenses, the petitioner got marked the document as per Ex.P.11 to 34 i.e.,medical bills for Rs.93,819/- and Ex-P35 to 46-medical prescriptions. The serial number 15 of medical bill for Rs.1,427/- reveals the name of Raghu. Hence the said amount of Rs.1,427/- is 18 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT not considered. Upon considering the above bills and injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, the resultant disability suffered by her due to such injuries, I proceed to award Rs.92,392/- under the head of medical expenses.
31. FUTURE MEDICAL AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES:-
The PW-2 doctor has stated in his affidavit that petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implant the estimate of this surgery is around Rs.60,000/-. No estimation is produced to show the future surgery expenses. But undisputedly the petitioner has to undergo certain corrective surgeries, for which he has to necessarily bear certain expenses. Keeping in view the young age of the petitioner some amount also needs to be awarded towards incidental expenses. Thus in all the petitioner is awarded Rs.40,000/- towards his future medical and other incidental expenses.
32. The calculation table stands as follows :
1 Permanent disability : 3,00,000-00 2 Medical expenses : 92,392-00 3 Discomfort, inconvenience & : 40,000-00 loss of income to the 19 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT parents during the period of hospitalisation 4 : 6,000-00 Attendant charges, food, nourishment & travelling expenses 5 Future medical and other : 40,000-00 incidental expenses Total Rs.4,78,392-00
33. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: With regard to the liability, counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that since the respondent No.1 has handed over the lorry to the driver is not having the driving licence and hence has violated fundamental breach of policy and hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation amount. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner argued that though the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the driving licence, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation and can recovery the same from the respondent No.1. In this regard, on perusal of the evidence on record, admittedly, IO after conducting thorough and detailed investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused i.e., rider of the motor cycle Naveen Kumar for not having the valid and effective driving 20 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT licence at the time of accident for offence punishable u/s 181 of IMV Act. Hence, the respondent No.1 has committed the breach of the fundamental terms of the policy by allowing the person to ride the motor cycle who is not having the valid driving licence.
34. In this regard this court has relied on decision reported in (2018) 3 Supreme Court cases 208 between Pappu Vs Vinod Kumar wherein the Hon'ble Apex court in para No.17 to 20 held that-
This issue has been answered in National insurance co., Ltd., In that case, it was contended by the insurance company that once the defence taken by the insurer is accepted by the Tribunal, it is bound to discharge the insurer and fix the liability only on the owner and /or the driver of the vehicle. However, this court held that even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the court can direct the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claimant(s) and in turn, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The three Judge Bench after analyzing the earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well settled principle.
21 MVC No.3585 of 2021
JUDGMENT
35. In the case of third party risks, as per the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh the insurer had to indemnify the compensation amount payable to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Doctrine of "pay and recover" was considered by the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh case wherein the Supreme Court examined the liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver and held that in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the compensation amount to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Elaborately considering the insurer's contractual liability as well as statutory liability vis-a-vis the claims of third parties, the Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines as to how and in what circumstances, "pay and recover" can be ordered. In para (110), the Supreme Court summarised its conclusions as under:-
"110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: 22 MVC No.3585 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)
(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
(iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish "breach" on the part of the owner of the vehicle;
the burden of proof wherefore would be on them, (v) The 23 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.
36. Hence by fastening liability on the respondent No.2, this court directs the respondent No.2 to pay compensation to the petitioner along with interest at 6 % per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit of entire amount and 24 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT then to recover the said amount from the respondent No.1. Hence issue No.2 is answered as in the affirmative.
37. ISSUE NO.3: In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
-: O R D E R :-
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,78,392/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pay the aforesaid award amount together with interest to the petitioners within 30 days from the date of this order, with liberty to recover the same from the insured/respondent No.1 in appropriate execution proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd V/s Nanjappan & others reported in (2004) 13 SCC
224.
On deposit of the said amount, since the petitioner is a minor medical expenses of Rs.92,392/- shall be released to her guardian and the balance amount shall be deposited in any nationalised or scheduled bank chosen by the said 25 MVC No.3585 of 2021 JUDGMENT guardian till the minor attains the age of majority with liberty to the guardian to receive the periodical interest.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 16th day of June 2025).
(Chetana S.F.) IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Someshwara Reddy PW.2 : Dr.Nagaraj B.N.
List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P1 : FIR
Ex.P2 : Complaint
Ex.P3 : Spot mahazar
Ex.P4 : Rough sketch
Ex P5 : 133 notice
Ex.P6 : Reply notice
26 MVC No.3585 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Ex.P7 : IMV report
Ex.P8 : Wound certificate
Ex.P9 : Charge sheet
Ex.P10 : Discharge summary
Ex.P11 to : Medical bills
34
Ex.P35 to : Medical prescriptions
46
Ex.P47 and : Adhaar cards
48
Ex.P49 to : 3 X-rays
51
Ex.P52 : OPD slip
Ex.P53 X-ray
List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW-1 : C.S.Venugopal List of documents marked for the respondent/s:
Ex.R1 : Authorisation letter Ex.R2 : Policy copy
Ex.R3 to 5 : Requisition letter, receipt and returned postal cover (Chetana S.F.) IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACMM, Court of Small Causes, BENGALURU.
27 MVC No.3585 of 2021JUDGMENT