Bangalore District Court
Smt. Malini V vs Sri Ashwath M.A on 12 July, 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BANGALORE (SCCH-16)
PRESENT: SRI. SATISH J.BALI,
B.Com., LL.M.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
(SCCH-16) Bangalore.
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JULY 2016.
MVC.No.2049/2014
****
PETITIONER: Smt. Malini V.,
W/o Kiran H.L.,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.42, 5th Cross,
7th Main, BSK 3rd Stage,
Bangalore - 85.
(Sri A.S. Girish, Advocate)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri Ashwath M.A.,
S/o Appanna Hegde M.S.,
R/at No.1151/6,
4th Main, 2nd Phase,
BEML Layout,
Ramachandra Building,
R.R. Nagar,
Bangalore - 98.
(Owner of Maxi Truck (Goods
Tempo) bearing No.KA-41-A-
6472)
(Sri K.G. Sudhakar, Advocate)
2. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.89, SVR Complex,
Hosur Main Road,
2 MVC 2049/2014
SCH-16
Madiwala, Bangalore.
(Insurer of Maxi Truck (Goods
Tempo) bearing No.KA-41-A-
6472)
(Sri Manoj Kumar M.R.,
Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident happened on 28-03-2014 at about 2.10 p.m., on 2nd Stage of Banashankari.
2. The brief facts of the petition averments are as under:
On above said date, time and place, the petitioner was proceeding in her Honda Activa bearing No.KA-05-HJ-2627 on 14th Cross, Banashankari 2nd Stage, from east to west and when she reached in front of Ashirwada Kalyana Mantap, at that time, the maxi truck bearing No.KA-41-A-6472 by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from opposite direction in a wrong lane and dashed to the petitioner's motor cycle because of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries to her left hand and other 3 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 bleeding injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Deepak Nursing Home, wherein first aid was given and then she was shifted to Apollo Hospital, wherein she was admitted as an inpatient. During the said period x- rays were taken which revealed that, the petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm middle 3rd and underwent surgery by inserting implants. The petitioner was discharged on 31-03-2014 with an advice for regular follow up.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that, she has spent merely Rs.1,00,000/- towards her medical expenses and other incidental charges. Prior to the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 31 years old and working as team leader in NTT Data, South End Circle, Bangalore and getting salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner was on leave. Hence, she has sustained loss of income. It is the case of the petitioner that, even after better treatment also petitioner not at all recovered from the injuries and suffering from pain, agony, not able to lift any weight, grip the articles, use key board to type and she is became permanently disabled. It is further submitted 4 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 that, the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the maxi truck and Banashankari Traffic Police have registered a case against him. The first respondent being the owner and second respondent being the insurer of the above said maxi truck, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
4. In response to the notice, both respondents appeared and filed their objections.
5. The respondent No.1 admitted that, he is the RC holder of the Goods Tempo Maxi Truck bearing No.KA-41-A- 6472 and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle as on the date of accident. It is submitted by the first respondent that, on the alleged date of accident, the driver of the above said vehicle was proceeding from Banashankari 2nd Stage to 14th Cross, Thyagarajanagar by driving the said vehicle by observing traffic rules and regulations, at that time the petitioner without observing the traffic rules came from opposite direction in a wrong lane suddenly with a negligent manner in her Honda Activa and dashed to the above said maxi cab. As a result, the petitioner sustained minor injuries 5 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 and caused damage to the vehicle. It is denied that, the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 denied the age, income and occupation and also injuries sustained by the petitioner. The respondent No.1 further denied the expenses incurred for treatment of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 contended that, the Banashankari Traffic Police have registered false case against him in Crime No.50/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and in CC 1463/2014 it was duly contested by him. It is contended that, as on the date of accident, the policy was in force. Hence, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation.
6. The respondent No.2 denied the involvement of the above said maxi truck in the accident and also denied that, the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle. The respondent No.2 denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and also the expenses incurred by the petitioner for her treatment. It is submitted that, the above said maxi truck was falsely implicated in collusion with the police and respondent No.1. The complaint was lodged at belated stage after 2 days of 6 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 accident which reveals that, the above said vehicle was falsely implicated. It is contended that, the medical records does not indicate as to the involvement of the above said vehicle in the accident and there was no impediment for husband of the petitioner to lodge the compliant immediately after the accident, since the jurisdictional police station was just 0.5 kilometer away from the spot of accident. The respondent No.2 denied its liability on the ground that, the above said vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. It is contended that, the hospital authorities of Deepak Hospital or Apollo Hospital have not intimated about the accident to the jurisdictional police and as per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, the respondent No.1 is under obligation to intimate about the accident and jurisdictional police under obligation to supply necessary vehicle documents and there is a violation of Section 134(C) and 158(6) of M.V. Act. The respondent No.2 further contended that, the driver of the insured vehicle by name Prabhu without having valid and effective driving licence has drove the vehicle and implicated one Mr. Mahadev, son of Made Gowda as soon as the material time of accident, as the said Prabhu did not possessed valid and 7 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 effective driving licence at the time of accident. The respondent No.2 further contended that, there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy, as the driver of the insured vehicle did not possessed valid and effective driving licence. The respondent No.2 further contended that, the petitioner has played fraud and effectively misrepresented to the concerned authorities and manipulated the records as to implicate the vehicle as well as Mr. Mahadev M., son of Made Gowda as a driver, who was not driver on the date of accident. It is also contended that, the accident was due to the contributory negligence of both maxi truck and motor cycle of the petitioner, as such the negligence is also attributed to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 admitted that, the above said maxi truck was covered under the policy as on the date of accident. The respondent No.2 further contended that, the petitioner has colluded with 6 wheeler which was proceeding in the middle of the road, without following traffic rules and regulations and therefore the free flow of traffic movement was obstructed and dashed against the 6 wheeler. It is contended that, the petitioner is only responsible for the accident. The respondent further 8 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 contended that, the petitioner did not know the art of driving the two wheeler nor she possessed valid and effective driving licence. Hence, on all these grounds, the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings and propositions of law, my Predecessor in office has framed the following issues.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she met with an RTA that occurred on 28-03-2014 at about 2.10 p.m., front of Ashirwada Kalyana Mantapa, 14th Cross BSK 2nd Stage and the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Maxi Truck (Goods Tempo) bearing No.KA-41-A-6472?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
8. The petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The doctor was examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.P17 to Ex.P19. The respondent No.1 has examined as RW1 and got marked documents at Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The official of the respondent 9 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 No.2 company was examined as RW2 and got marked Ex.R4 to Ex.R7. The Panel Investigator of respondent No.2 company was examined as RW3.
9. I have heard the arguments and perused materials on record.
10. By considering the evidence on record and because of my below discussed reasons, I answer the above issues in the following:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS ISSUE NO.1:
11. The respondent No.2 has disputed the involvement of the maxi truck bearing No.KA-41-A-6472 in the alleged accident and contended that, there is a delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint and also the driver of the said maxi truck was falsely implicated. It is further objections of the respondent No.2 that, the petitioner had no valid and effective driving licence and so also the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. By looking to the objections of respondent No.1 in para No.3. The respondent No.1 has not disputed the 10 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 involvement of the above said maxi truck bearing No.KA-41- A-6472 and also Honda active of petitioner bearing No.KA-05- HJ-2627 in the accident. The respondent No.1 contended that, the accident took place, when the petitioner without observing traffic rules came from opposite direction in a wrong lane suddenly with negligent manner and dashed to the above said maxi truck. Therefore, even though respondent No.2 has disputed the involvement of the above said maxi truck in the accident, but the objections of respondent No.1 makes it very clear that, the above said maxi truck and Honda active of the petitioner were involved in the accident.
13. Another circumstances which fortifies the above said conclusion, as the evidence of respondent No.1 who was examined as RW1. In the cross examination RW1 has admitted that his driver was arrested and enlarge on bail and against him, the charge sheet was filed. It is also admitted by the RW1 that, the driver of the offending vehicle has pleaded guilty. During the course of cross examination of RW1 had admitted that, after the accident, the driver of the above said offending vehicle has intimated him about the accident at 3.00 p.m., and when he rushed to the spot of accident, both 11 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 vehicles were at the spot and victim was taken to hospital. This evidence of RW1 makes it very clear that, the above said maxi truck and Honda active of the petitioner were involved in the accident.
14. After coming to the conclusion that, the above said 2 vehicles were involved in the accident. Now, it is to be ascertain whose fault the accident took place.
15. The petitioner has reiterated the petition averments in her affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief as PW1. She has deposed regard the manner of accident, injuries sustained by her, treatment taken by her and also expenses incurred for her treatment. She stated that, due to the accidental injuries, she did not attend his duties from 01-04- 2014 to 21-04-2014 and she was availed sick leave from 05- 05-2014 to 09-05-2014 and there is a loss of pay for 9 days in the month of April 2014 and 5 days in the month of May 2014. The PW1 in her cross examination stated that, she had seen the offending vehicle coming from opposite direction and when the accident took place, she has to go to straight towards Banashankari II Phase. She has stated that, she was conscious after the accident and narrated the manner of 12 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 accident at Deepak Nursing Home and also to her husband at Apollo Hospital. The PW1 stated that, she has not seen the registration number of the vehicle which hit her, but she clearly stated that, she has seen the driver of the said tempo who ran from the place immediately after the accident.
16. The PW1 has produced copy of complaint marked at Ex.P2 which reveals that, on 30-03-2014 the complaint was lodged, whereas the alleged accident took place on 28-03- 2014. There is a delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint. As per the averments of the complaint, the accident took place when the petitioner was proceeding from Ashirwada Kalyana Mantapa towards Tyagarajanagar, at that time, the maxi truck bearing No.KA-41-A-6472 came from opposite direction in a wrong lane and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR came to be lodged as per Ex.P1 by the jurisdictional police against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and read with Section 134 (A) & (B) of M.V. Act in their Crime No.50/2014. The sketch marked at Ex.P4 reveals that, when the accident took place, the petitioner who was proceeding towards Thyagarajanagar 13 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 from 2nd Stage of Banashankari, at that time, the driver of the maxi truck bearing No.KA-41-A-6472 came from opposite direction in a wrong lane and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner. The driver of the above said maxi truck is expected to drive his truck on the left side of the road, but instead he came on the right side and dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner which was proceeding on the proper side of the road. The panchanama as per Ex.P5 reveals that, the accident took place in front of Ashirwada Kalyana Mantapa at 2nd Stage of Banashankari. Further panchanama reveals that, the width of the road was 40 feet. Such being the case, when the road was having width of 40 feet, the driver of the maxi truck is not expected to drive his vehicle on a wrong lane. The IMV report as per Ex.P6 reveals that, the front right side door of the maxi truck was damaged. The front left side safety guard, shock absorber cover were damaged in respect of Honda active of the petitioner. The RW2 official of the respondent No.2 company stated that, there was a delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint and the damages caused to the front portion of the Honda active which clearly reveals that, the petitioner was responsible for the accident. It is also 14 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 deposed by the RW2 that, at the materials time of accident one Mr. Prabhu was the driver of the insured vehicle and he did not possessed valid and effective driving licence, the driver was implicated. He has produced true copy of policy at Ex.R4, investigation report at Ex.R5, MLC extract at Ex.R6, DL extract at Ex.R7. On perusal of the MLC extract which is primary document reveals that, on 28-03-2014 at about 2.15 p.m., the accident took place. Further, the RW2 in his cross examination has admitted that, as per Ex.P4 the sketch, offending vehicle came completely on the right side and as per the IMV report the front right side of offending vehicle is damaged. The RW2 has also admitted that, except investigation report marked at Ex.R5, they have no other document to show that, at the time of accident one Mr. Prabhu was driving the offending vehicle. In this regard, it is pertinent to note the evidence of RW1, who in cross examination stated that, at the time of accident one Mr. Mahadev was the driver of the offending vehicle. Except the investigation report, the respondents have not produced any documents to show that, the said Prabhu was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The owner 15 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 himself has stated that, one Mr. Mahadev was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. It is also to be noted that, the police after thorough investigation have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle by name Mahadev, son of Madegowda. Though, the respondent by examining the investigator tried to impress upon the court. As per the investigation report one Mr. Prabhu was the driver of the offending vehicle, but she in her cross examination clearly admitted that, there are no documents to show that, the driver has been falsely implicated. She has also admitted that, she has not made any efforts to contact the driver of the offending vehicle. I have perused the investigation report marked at Ex.R5. On careful perusal of the investigation report, the investigator has not met the driver of the offending vehicle, but only on the say of the respondent No.1, she has deposed that, one Mr. Prabhu was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. This makes very clear that, only on the say of respondent No.1, the investigator has filed report stating that, Mr. Prabhu was the driver of the offending vehicle. The investigator has not made any efforts to trace out the where about of the said Mr. Prabhu. Moreover RW1 has 16 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 clearly stated that, at the time of accident one Mr. Mahadev was the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, only on the basis of the investigation report it cannot be come to the conclusion that, at the time of accident one Mr. Prabhu was driving the alleged offending vehicle. The charge sheeted was filed against one Mr. Mahadev who was shown to be driver of the offending vehicle. The police records produced by the petitioner makes it very clear that, one Mr. Mahadev was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The respondent rightly relied upon the investigation report which cannot be believed for the reasons stated supra.
17. The respondent No.2 company has not made any efforts to examine the driver of the offending vehicle. He is the proper person to speak regarding the circumstances under which the accident took place. In the absence of his evidence, the court cannot come to the conclusion that, the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner herself. Especially when the sketch reveals that, the accident took place when the driver of the offending vehicle came on wrong lane and caused the accident. Therefore, with the help of above said police records, the petitioner has proved that, the 17 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the maxi truck bearing No.KA-41-A-6472. The wound certificate marked at Ex.P7 reveals that, the petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm so also the case sheet of Apollo Hospital. Therefore, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the maxi truck bearing No.KA-41-A-6472, the petitioner sustained injuries and accordingly I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative ISSUE No.2:
18. This issue is in respect of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner and the liability to pay the same.
19. The wound certificate of the petitioner marked at Ex.P7 and inpatient record marked at Ex.P17 reveals that, the petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm middle 1/3rd. The inpatient record reveals that, the petitioner underwent surgery for the said fracture. She was an inpatient in Apollo Hospital from 28-03-2014 to 31-03- 2014 for a period of 4 days. She underwent ORIF for the above said fracture in Apollo Hospital. Considering the injuries and also the surgery underwent by the petitioner a 18 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head pain and sufferings.
20. The inpatient record of Apollo Hospital reveals that, the petitioner was an inpatient from 28-03-2014 to 31-03- 2014 for a period of 4 days. During the said period, the petitioner has to spent considerable amount on her conveyance, attendant charges and nutritious food. Considering the fact that, the petitioner was an inpatient for a period of 4 days in the hospital, a sum of Rs.4,000/- is awarded under the head attendant charges, extra nutritious food and including conveyance charges.
21. The petitioner has produced medical bills as per Ex.P9 worth of Rs.10,690/- and prescriptions as per Ex.P11. I have carefully perused the said medical bills. The medical bills are in accordance with the prescriptions. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for medical expenses of Rs.10,690/-.
22. The petitioner has produced her salary certificates marked at Ex.P12 for the month of February, April, May and June 2014. I have carefully perused all these salary certificates. The salary of the petitioner was varied from month to month. This aspect is clearly admitted by the PW1 19 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 in her cross examination, who stated that as there is a variation in her shift allowance, her salary also varying from month to month. She has not produced the salary certificate for the month of March 2014. She has produced certificate as per Ex.P13 stating that, she availed sick leave of 5 days in the year 2014 and 15 days privilege leave which is paid leave in the year 2014. It is to be noted that, though the petitioner has availed privilege leave for a period of 15 days in the year 2014. But as per Ex.P13 they are paid leave. Ex.P13 though does not reveal that, the petitioner has availed 5 days sick leave due to accidental injuries, but she has sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm. Hence, it can be safely come to the conclusion that, the petitioner availed 5 days of leave due to the accidental injuries. It is also to be noted that, the petitioner was an inpatient for a period of 4 days, when she was hospitalized. The salary certificates of the petitioner marked at Ex.P12 reveals that, the salary of the petitioner was varied from month to month. Hence, under such circumstances, it is fit to take average salary for the above said 4 months. When average salary of the above said 4 months is taken it comes to Rs.36,185/-. Hence, the loss of 20 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 income for a period of 5 days comes to Rs.6,030/- for which the petitioner is entitled under the head loss of income during the laid up period.
23. The PW1 in her cross examination admitted that, she continued job even after the accident from April 2014 to December 2014. She also admitted that, she has not continued in NTT Date Global IT Company due to incapacity to work after the accident. Hence, even though the PW2 doctor was examined before the court and he has deposed that, the petitioner has sustained whole body disability of 5%. But as she continued in service even after the accident, the disability aspect cannot be considered. Hence, the loss of income due to disability cannot be awarded in this case. This view of mine is supported by the rulings reported in 2010(2) AIR KAR 592 (Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., vs N.M.Rajaprakash and another), ILR 2010 KAR 2439 (Subash vs The New India Ins.Co.Ltd., and others) and 2011 ACJ 1 Rajkumar vs Ajaya Kumar and another) Hence, the petitioner has continued in the job, question of awarding compensation under the head loss of income due to permanent disability will not arise.
21 MVC 2049/2014
SCH-16
24. The petitioner was aged about 31 years as on the date of accident and she has sustained Fracture of both bones of left forearm middle 1/3rd. She might have suffered lot of pain, loss of amenities and comforts in life. Therefore, considering the age, nature of injuries, this tribunal is of the opinion, that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities and future happiness.
25. The evidence of PW2 reveals that, the petitioner has to undergo surgery for removal of implants which may cost of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. But PW2 is not a treated doctor and Ex.P8 was produced to show the estimation of the said surgery. As per Ex.P8 the cost of surgery was Rs.55,000/-, while as per the evidence of PW2, the cost of future surgery is Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. The evidence of PW2 is not in accordance with Ex.P8. But, however petitioner has to undergo surgery for removal of implants. Hence, considering the cost of the present treatment a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded for future medical expenses.
26. There are no grounds to award compensation under any other heads. So the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under these following heads:- 22 MVC 2049/2014
SCH-16 1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000-00 2 Attendant charges, extra Rs. 4,000-00 nutritious food and conveyance expenses 3 Medical expenses Rs. 10,690-00 4 Loss of income during laid Rs. 6,030-00 of period
5. Loss of future income due to Nil permanent disability
6. Loss of future amenities and Rs. 15,000-00 happiness
7. Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000-00 Total Rs. 95,720-00 In total, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.95,720/-.
Interest:
27. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others), with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para 13 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that Insurance Company is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment and also by following the principles laid down in (2011) 4 SCC 481 :
(AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy). In view of the 23 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 above judgments with regard to the rate of interest, and also it is settled law that while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the rate of interest at 9% cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Liability:
28. The respondent No.2 has admitted that, it had issued a policy in respect of the above said offending maxi truck which was in force from 24-01-2014 to 23-01-2015. As on the date of accident, the policy was in force. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioner with interest at 9% p.a. However, primary liability is fixed on respondent No.2 who is the insurer of the maxi truck bearing No.KA-41-A-6472. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.
ISSUE No.3:-
29. In view of my above findings, the petition deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: 24 MVC 2049/2014
SCH-16 ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.95,720/- (Rupees ninety five thousand seven hundred and twenty only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-) from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 -Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the said compensation amount awarded, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 75% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the 25 MVC 2049/2014 SCH-16 petitioner through A/c payee cheque on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 12th day of July 2016) (SATISH.J.BALI) MEMBER:MACT, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of Petitioner:
PW1 Smt. Malini V. PW2 Dr. Surendranath Shetty
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P4 True copy of Spot Sketch
Ex.P5 True copy of Spot panchanama
Ex.P6 True copy of IMV Report
Ex.P7 True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P8 Estimation for future surgery
Ex.P9 5 Medical bills amounting to Rs.10,690/-
Ex.P10 2 Prescriptions
26 MVC 2049/2014
SCH-16
Ex.P11 IP Bills receipt for Rs.7,672/-
Ex.P12 4 Pay slips
Ex.P13 Leave detail
Ex.P14 Certificate issued by the employer dated 06-03-
2015
Ex.P15 Resignation acceptance letter
Ex.P16 Notarized copy of driving licence
Ex.P17 Hospital inpatient record
Ex.P18 X-ray
Ex.P19 Clinical notes
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of Respondents:
RW1 Sri Ashwath M.A. RW2 Sri A. Raghavendra RW3 Smt. Kalavathi L.
List of the documents marked on behalf of Respondents:
Ex.R1 Xerox copy of RC Book
Ex.R2 DL Extract
Ex.R3 True copy of Policy
Ex.R4 True copy of Policy
Ex.R5 Investigation report
Ex.R6 MLC Extract
Ex.R7 DL Extract
(SATISH.J.BALI)
MEMBER:MACT, BENGALURU .