Bangalore District Court
Ranganatha K vs B.M.T.C on 4 April, 2025
KABC020100942024
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-25
Present: Sri.KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L, LL.M.,
Member, MACT
C/c. XXIII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 4th day of April - 2025
MVC No. 1657/2024
PETITIONER/S: Sri Ranganatha K.,
S/o Sri Kantharaju,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at: Muddipalya village,
Sira Thaluk, Dodda Agrahara,
Tumkur, Karnataka 572125.
(By Sri. Latha R.B., Adv.,)
V/s.
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Managing Director,
BMTC
Central office, K.H.Road,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore 560027.
(By Sri. Mahadevaiah, Adv.,)
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.1657/2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by claiming compensation by claiming that the injuries are sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 27-01-2024.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 27-01-2024 at about 7.20 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding on the motor cycle bearing No.KA.06.HK.9914 on Hesaraghatta main road, Bone mill, Bengaluru and when he reached near Nurture International Public School, at that time, all of sudden the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.5098 driven the same at very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle from behind and caused the accident. Due to the tremendous impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. SCCH-25 3 MVC No.1657/2024
Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was rushed to Sapthagiri hospital, wherein the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient and for further treatment the petitioner was shifted to Hemavathi Nursing Home, Tumkur, wherein the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient. The petitioner has spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medicines and other expenses.
Prior to the accident, petitioner was very hale and healthy and working as Uber driver and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries petitioner is not able to do his work as he was doing prior to the said accident and thereby lost his earning capacity.
The respondent is the owner and internal insurer of the bus is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest.
3. After service of summons, respondent appeared before the court through its counsel and filed written SCCH-25 4 MVC No.1657/2024 statement by denying the negligence of the driver of BMTC Bus bearing No.KA.57.F.5098. It is contended that, the compensation claimed by the petitioner is baseless, speculative, imaginary and exorbitant. Further it has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and also the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the alleged accident. Further contended that, the BMTC Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.5098 was proceeding from Hesaraghatta Yeshwanthpur and when the bus reached in front of International school at that time the petitioner who was riding the motor cycle on the right side of the bus in the same direction, without wearing helmet dashed against the road divider height of 2 feet and fell down on the road, due to which the leg of the petitioner touched the right side back wheel of the bus and sustained injuries hence, there is no negligence on the part of driver of BMTC bus. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition against it.
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.1657/2024
4. On the basis of the rival contention, the following issues are framed by this court:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 27-01-
2024 at 7.20 p.m due to rash and neg-
ligent riding of rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA.57.F.5098 and in the said accident petitioner sustained in- juries? ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 17. Further Dr. S Ramachandra, senior consultant at General Hospital, Jayanagara as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P18 & P19.
On the other hand the driver of the bus is examined as RW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R7. Learned counsel for the respondent corporation relied on the following judgments in support of their arguments: SCCH-25 6 MVC No.1657/2024
1. Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack reported in 1994 ACJ 1303 between Mataji Bewa and other Vs. Hemanta Kumar Jena and another.
2. Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.3459 of 2021 (MV-I) between Sri. Sadath Ali Khan Vs. Sri. Noor Ahmed Sayeed and another.
3. Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.1749 of 2023 (MV-D) between The Divisional Manager Vs. Mahadevaiah.M. and another.
6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material evidence that are available on record. At the time of arguments it is found that issue No.1 is framed by putting the burden on the petitioner to prove the negligence bus bearing No.KA-57-F-5098. But, it is wrongly typed as to prove the negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. The bus number is properly mentioned in the issue but, it is stated that the said vehicle bearing SCCH-25 7 MVC No.1657/2024 No.KA-57-F-5098 was riding by the rider of motorcycle. Hence, the issue No.1 is recasted as follows: ;
Recasted Issue No.1:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries due to the actionable negligent driving of BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA.57.F.5098 by its driver near Nurture International public school, Bengaluru?
7. My findings on the above issues are as under. Recasted Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative,
Issue No.3 : As per final orders
for the following:-
: R E A S O N S:
RECASTED ISSUE NO.1 :
8. That by reiterating all the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu of- examination in-chief, which is considered as P.W.1. In support of his case, he has produced true copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, spot sketch, IMV report and charge sheet, which are marked under Ex.P.1 to 5. SCCH-25 8 MVC No.1657/2024
9. On perusal of Ex.P1- FIR which is registered on the basis of Ex.P2 first information given by the friend of the the petitioner. In the said first information, the first informant alleged the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA.57.F.5098. The said first information as per Ex.P1 was given on 29.01.2024 by reporting the accident dated 27.01.2024.
10. After registration of FIR, the IO has conducted spot mahazar and rough sketch wherein the accident spot is identified. The contents of mahazar and rough sketch asper Ex.P2 & 3 are not specifically disputed by respondent. As per the contents of Ex.P2 & 3 mahazar and rough sketch, the accident spot is in the middle of the road near to the devider. The mahazar and rough sketch depicts that the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA.57.F.5098 came from Chikkabanawara side in the left side of the road and changed its lane from left side to the right side and thereby caused the accident. SCCH-25 9 MVC No.1657/2024 Teh Ex.P.4 is the IMV report shows that the bus bearing No.BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA.57.F.5098 has got damages its bumper right side and right side body . In the same manner, the motorcycle of the petitioiner has got damages in its front and right side. This shows that as the damages of the BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA.57.F.5098 is in front bumper right side it shows that front right side bumper dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. Thereby the content of Ex.P.4 IMV report establishes that the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA.57.F.5098 changed his lane from left side towards right side as such, the front bumpers right side got damages. Thereby the contents of mahazar as per Ex.P2 and IMV report as per Ex.P4 establishes the negligence of driver of BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-57- F-5098.
11. The driver of respondent examined as RW.1 and produced Ex.R1 to 7 who admitted the accident, but disputed his negligence. In the written statement and SCCH-25 10 MVC No.1657/2024 also in the affidavit evidence, RW.1 has admitted the fact of accident thereby, even though there is delay of 2 dyas in lodging the complaint, the delay itself is not fatal to the case of the petitioner. The RW.1 also produced the complaint given to the Chikkabanavara P.S. and the judgment copy of C.C.No.3529/2024 wherein, in the criminal case the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA.57.F.5098 got acquitted as the negligence was not proved.
12. By keeping the evidence of RW.1 in background if we verify the contents of documents placed by the petitioner very specifically the contents of mahazar and damages mentioned as per Ex.P.4 IMV report shows that the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA.57.F.5098 changed its lane towards right side and caused the accident. In the trial of claim petitions, the existence of facts has to be proved in the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. The mahazar and IMV report establishes the negligence of driver of BMTC Bus SCCH-25 11 MVC No.1657/2024 bearing Reg.No.KA.57.F.5098. The observations of criminal court is not binding on the trial of claim petitions as the proof of any fact before the criminal court is beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the claim petition, the same fact has to be proved in the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities.
13. No other independent evidence is placed by the respondent No.1 to prove the contrary to the documents produced by the petitioner. The IMV report marked at Ex.P4 helped the petitioner to prove the negligence of BMTC bus driver also.
14. Ex.P5 charge sheet is filed against the driver of BMTC Bus bearing No. KA-57-F-5098, the IO has opined that the negligence is on the part of driver of BMTC Bus. No other grounds are made out by the respondent to show the contributory negligence from the petitioner.
SCCH-25 12 MVC No.1657/2024
15. In a claim for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319 Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others.
16. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530, wherein it is held that, it was necessary to be borne in 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.
SCCH-25 13 MVC No.1657/2024
17. In support of these documentary evidence, if we perused the oral evidence of the petitioner on this point, even though the respondent made a suggestions to the petitioner by stating that the accident was occurred by his negligence, nothing being elicited or produced to probabalise the said defence.
18. The contents of Ex.P2 spot mahazar and Ex.P4 IMV report falsifies the contention of respondent about the contributory negligence of petitioner for the occurrence of accident. In this context by considering the contents of Ex.P1 to 5 this court tilts in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner has to prove the alleged negligence on the basis of the evidence and proof of the same on preponderance of probabilities.
19. The learned counsel for respondent relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Katak in MA No.119/1987 dated 17.08.1993 between Mathaji Deva and Others Vs. Hemanth Kumar Jena and Another and argued that the contents of charge sheet cannot be SCCH-25 14 MVC No.1657/2024 treated as evidence in claim petition. As already held above the observation of the criminal court is not binding in the trial of claim petitions and the contents of charge sheet cannot be accepted. But, in this case both the petitioners and respondent except producing the criminal case records, no independent evidence is led to disprove the case of petitioner. No doubt that the contents of charge sheet cannot be made fully acceptable and if any contrary is available the contents of charge sheet has to be rejected. In this case, the petitioner and respondent No.2 both relying on the criminal case records and no independent evidence was led by the respondent No.1 to doubt the credibility of charge sheet thereby in my humble opinion, the above quoted judgment is not applicable to the case on hand.
20. As per well settled principle of law, the standard of proof in the claim petition like the present is preponderance of the probability. There are no grounds to disbelieve the case of petitioner in the absence of SCCH-25 15 MVC No.1657/2024 contrary to the contents of charge sheet. All the materials available on record leading to show that, petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident took place on 27-01- 2024 which is caused by the negligence of driver of the Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.5098. There is no reason to discard the evidence of petitioner. In the claim petition like present one strict proof is not necessary, but preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Accordingly, issue No.1 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
21. As already held herein above, the petitioner has proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which is caused by the equal negligence of driver of the Bus bearing No. KA.57.F.5098. Hence, the petitioner is entitle for compensation. Now the quantum of compensation is to be ascertained on different heads.
a) PAIN AND AGONY:- At the time of alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 28 years. Driving licence produced at Ex.P15 shows the date of birth of the SCCH-25 16 MVC No.1657/2024 petitioner as 15.05.1995, the accident was occurred on 27-01-2024, as on the date of accident petitioner was aged about 29 years. In the petition itself he has averred that immediately after the accident he was shifted to Sapthagiri Hospital and later he was shifted to Hemavathi Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. As per the discharge summary marked at Ex.P7 the petitioner was inpatient from 28-01-2024 to 05-02-2024 and 26-02-2024 to 02.03.2024 and sustained left tibia mid 3rd fracture with bone deep abrasions over left foot dorsem and toes with loss of skin soft tissue extension tendons abrasion of tarsal and metatarsal bones and plalnyx great toe proximal phalynx fracture and he underwent left tibia CRIF with IMIL nailing left foot wound debridement. By considering the nature of the injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident Rs.65,000/- may be awarded to the petitioner under this head.SCCH-25 17 MVC No.1657/2024
b) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced medical bills as per Ex.P8, amounting to Rs.3,19,534/-.
These bills are supported by the medical prescriptions marked at Ex.P.9. The medical bills are not seriously disputed by the respondent and no grounds are made out to disbelieving these bills. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in combined with the alleged injuries the petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement of the same by rounding of the same i.e., Rs.3,19,600/-.
c) Loss of income during laid up period: The petitioner has stated that he was working as Uber driver and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. In this regard petitioner has produced copy of bank statement, car loan statement and delivery note as per Ex.P10 to 12. The driving license of the petitioner is also produced at Ex.P.15. As per Ex.P.15, the petitioner has the driving license to drive LMV, MCWG and also transportation vehicle and the petitioner has the badge also. This substantiates the contention of the petitioner that he was SCCH-25 18 MVC No.1657/2024 working as Uber driver. The account statement produced at Ex.P.10 also establishes the payments received by the petitioner by the Uber. By this the profession of the petitioner is established. But, the account statement failed to establish the monthly income of Rs.40,000/- per month. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 ACJ 2028 between Susheela and others V/s. Ram Swaroop and others wherein it is held as follows;
"3. In respect of an accident which occurred on 14.10.2012 and the death of husband/father of the claimants, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (For short `MACT') has awarded the compensation at Rs.10,27,500/- with interest, through its Award dated 08.11.2013. The High Court has enhanced the same through its judgment dated 18.01.2018 to Rs 12,98,500/- with interest @7.5% per annum. The MACT while arriving at its conclusion had taken into consideration that in the absence of documents to prove the salary, the salary of an unskilled worker could betaken at Rs.6,500/- per month. The High Court has maintained the same and thereafter granted the compensation.SCCH-25 19 MVC No.1657/2024
4.Though learned counsel for respondent- Insurance Company vehemently contends that in the absence of documents, the MACT and the High Court were justified, we note that the MACT, infact, has taken into consideration the evidence of PW-3, namely Ramesh Kumar who tendered his evidence to state that the deceased was being engaged by him as a driver to drive the 18 wheels truck-trolley. To establish that he is the owner of the vehicle, the documents exhibited at P-3 and P-4 were produced. Shri Ramesh Kumar had stated that he was paying to the deceased Rs.23,500/-, which includes the daily allowance plus medical allowance. The driving license of the deceased was produced and marked as Exhibit P-5.
5.From the said documents, though they do not refer to the actual salary which was being paid, keeping in view the factthat the accident had occurred in the year 2012 and there was demand for drivers who would drive such heavy-duty vehicles and also the nature of duty involved, even if the salary as stated is stated to be little on exaggerated side, we can still assume it to be Rs.20,000/- per month including daily allowance. If that is done and 40% of the same is awarded towards `future prospects', the same would in a sum of Rs.28,000/-. 1/4th of the said amount is deducted towards `personal expenses' and on taking it on annual basis and applying the appropriate multiplier of `15', the compensation would be in a sum of Rs.37,80,000/- towards loss of SCCH-25 20 MVC No.1657/2024 dependency. Towards the conventional heads' a sum of Rs.70,000/- is awarded. Thecompensation would be in a sum of Rs.38,50,000/-. The High Court, as noted, has awarded the compensation of Rs.12,98,500/-.
6.Hence, the appellants would be entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.25,51,500/- which shall be paid with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition being filed before the MACT. The amount shall be deposited by the Respondent No.3-Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, where upon the amount shall be disbursed to the claimants.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. In the above quoted judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed the income of heavy vehicle driver in the year 2012 at Rs.20,000/- and awarded the compensation. In the present case on hand, the petitioner was a Uber car driver but, not a heavy truck driver. By considering the same, no doubt that in the above quoted judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded the compensation by fixing the income of the driver of the heavy vehicle driver in the year 2012 at SCCH-25 21 MVC No.1657/2024 Rs.20,000/-. p.m. In the present petition, the accident is of the year 2024. By considering the same and also by relying on the judgment quoted above, the notional income of the petitioner as a Uber car driver in this case is fixed at Rs.22,500/- p.m. then the annual income comes to Rs.2,70,000/-.
As per the discharge summary marked at Ex.7 the petitioner was admitted to Hemavathi hospital for a period of 14 days. Thereafter usually the healing period has to be considered. Thereafter usually the healing period has to be considered for which in the absence of evidence, this court is of the opinion that in total four months period including 14 days inpatient period may be considered under this head as a loss of income. So, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.16,500 X 4 months = Rs.66,000/- during the laid up period.
d) Disability;- To prove the nature of injuries sustained by him the petitioner has examined Dr.S.Ramachandra, working as Senior consultant and SCCH-25 22 MVC No.1657/2024 DNB P.G. teacher at General Hospital, Jayanagar, as PW.2 and through him OPD and X-rays were got marked at Ex.P18 & 19. According to the evidence of this witness the petitioner sustained left tibia mid 3 rd fracture with bone deep abrasions over left foot dorsum and toes with loss of skin, soft tissue extensor tendons and abrasion of tarsal and metatarsal bones and phalanx great toe proximal phalanx fracture. The petitioner underwent left procedure of left tibia CRIF and left foot debridement. He examined the petitioner for assessment of disability.
Petitioner suffered permanent physical disability of the left lower limb at 50.45% and whole body disability at 25.22%. This aspect is not impeached during the course of cross-examination. No other expert evidence is lead by the respondents to impeach the credibility of the evidence of PW.2 doctor.
According to the petitioner he was a uber car driver. The fractures are in the left tibia and also there is an another injury in the left foot. The photographs marked SCCH-25 23 MVC No.1657/2024 at Ex.P.17 shows and reflects the actual injuries sustained by the petitioner. The said injury is at foot and for a driver the injuries and fracture in feet certainly affects on his profession. As per the evidence of PW.2 Doctor, the petitioner still has complaints in his day to day life. The disability caused to the petitioner at his feet, certainly affects on his occupation of Uber driver to greater extent. Hence, I hold that the petitioner sustained disability of 22% to the whole body.
The petitioner has produced his driving licence produced at Ex.P15 shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.05.1995, the accident was occurred on 27-01-2024, as on the date of accident petitioner was aged about 29 years. So, as on the date of the accident the petitioner was aged 29 years.
As per Sarala Verma's case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age of petitioner is '17'. Hence, I inclined to award future loss of income at Rs.16,500/- X SCCH-25 24 MVC No.1657/2024 12 X 17 X 22% =Rs.7,40,520/- which is the total loss of future income.
e) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE; As per Ex.P7 discharge summary, the petitioner took treatment as inpatient for a period of 14 days. As per wound certificate marked at Ex.P6 the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. By considering the nature of the injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident. Hence looking to the treatment taken by the petitioner and injuries sustained he is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards food and nourishment, conveyance.
f) ATTENDANT CHARGES: The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The petitioner has spent 14 days in the hospital and there is no evidence or pleading in this regard to show that the petitioner is in need of attendant. But by considering the nature of the SCCH-25 25 MVC No.1657/2024 fracture as discussed above, it may be considered to award attendant charges at Rs.1,000/- per day i.e., Rs.14,000/- in total as the petitioner has spent 14 days in the hospital.
g) Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life:
The petitioner admitted to the hospitals for the injuries sustained by him, which might certainly have deprived him of the basic comforts and enjoyment. The Ex.P13 photographs reveals the condition of the petitioner after the accident. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a reasonable sum of Rs.60,000/- under this head.
h) Future Medical Expenses: PW.2 stated that the petitioner needs two more surgeries for removal of implants. But PW.2 has not given any estimation.
However, by looking to the nature of injuries sustained the treatment taken, the petitioner is entitle for Rs.55,000/- under this head.
SCCH-25 26 MVC No.1657/2024
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
a. Towards pain and agony Rs. 65,000/- b. Towards medical expenses Rs. 3,19,600/- c. Towards loss of income during Rs. 66,000/-
laid up period d. Towards disability Rs. 7,40,520/- e. Towards food, nourishment and Rs. 40,000/-
conveyance f. Towards attendant charges Rs. 14,000/- g. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 60,000/- h. Towards future medical expenses Rs. 55,000/-
Total Rs.13,60,120/-
22. Liability:- According to the petitioner the respondent is the owner cum insurer of the BMTC Bus bearing No. KA-57-F-5098.
23. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in in MFA No.1749 of 2023 (MV-D) between The Divisional Manager Vs. Mahadevaiah.M. and another, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnatkaa held that the amount awarded under the head of future prospectus SCCH-25 27 MVC No.1657/2024 does not carries any interest as it is the amount yet to become due. The said case is of granting the compensation in death cases but, the present case on hand is filed by claiming the compensation for the injury sustained by the petitioner. No amount is awarded under the head of loss of future prospectus. Hence, the above quoted judgment relied by the respondent is not applicable to the case on hand. But, the amount is awarded under the head of future medical expenses which is also the amount yet to become due and awarded for the use of future medical expenses. Hence, the amount awarded under the head of future medical expenses also not carries any interest. Accordingly, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation and the amount awarded under the head of future medical expenses shall not carries any interest. SCCH-25 28 MVC No.1657/2024
ISSUE NO.3:
24. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.13,60,120/- (Rupees Thirteen lakh sixty thousand one hundred twenty only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses), from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The respondent is directed to deposit their share of compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
Out of total compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner, 75% of the same to be released in favour of petitioner through E- payment on his proper identification and remaining 25% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in his name.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
SCCH-25 29 MVC No.1657/2024Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of April, 2025) (Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) C/c. XXIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Sri Ranganatha K. PW.2 Dr. S. Ramachandra
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 : FIR and complaint
Ex.P2 : Spot mahazar
Ex.P3 : Spot sketch
Ex.P4 : IMV report
Ex.P5 : Charge sheet
Ex.P6 : Wound certificate
Ex.P7 : Discharge summaries
Ex.P8 : Medical bills
Ex.P9 : Medical prescriptions
Ex.P10 : Online copy of bank statement
Ex.P11 : Car loan statement
Ex.P12 : Delivery note
SCCH-25 30 MVC No.1657/2024
Ex.P13 : Lab report
Ex.P14 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card
Ex.P15 : Notarized copy of DL
Ex.P16 : Notarized copy of RC
Ex.P17 : Photos with CD
Ex.P18 : OPD card
Ex.P19 : X-ray
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 : Sri Yethiraj M.P. List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R1 Copy of complaint given by RW.1 Ex.R2 Acknowledgment given by Chikkabanavara P.S. Ex.R3 Statement given to BMTC accident Section by RW.1 Ex.R4 Statement given by the conductor to BMTC accident section Ex.R5 Trip sheet Ex.R6 Log sheet Ex.R7 Certified copy of judgment in CC No. 3529-2024 (Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) C/c. XXIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.
Digitally signed KANCHI by KANCHI MAYANNA MAYANNA GOUTAM GOUTAM Date: 2025.04.17 13:55:05 +0530