Bangalore District Court
Sujatha Alias Siddaraju vs Somashekar on 3 June, 2025
KABC020346002023
IN THE COURT OF XIX ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
BENGALURU (SCCH-17)
PRESENT: SRI. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L., LL.M.,
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACJM,
BENGALURU.
Dated: This the 03rd day of June 2025
M.V.C.No. 7288/2023
Petitioners 1. Sri Sujatha @ Siddaraju
S/o Siddaiah,
Aged about 53 years.
2. Smt Jayakanthi
W/o Sujatha,
Aged about 48 years.
Both are R/at:
Sunnagatta village,
Kasaba hobali,
Channapatana taluk,
Ramanagara dist.
(By Sri. D Harsha, Advt., )
V/s
Respondents 1. Sri Somashekar
S/o Krishnegowda,
SCCH-17 2 MVC 7288/2023
Menasiganahalli village,
Alalasandra post,
Channapatana taluk,
Ramanagara Dist.
(By Sri. Naveen Kumar R D, Advt., )
2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
No.2-B, Unity Building Annexe,
P Kalinga Rao Road,
Bangalore 560027.
(By Sri. R Jaiprakash, Advt., )
JUDGMENT
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the petition filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of the death of Jagadeesh, in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
On 05-05-2023 at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased was proceeding by riding Scooter bearing No. KA.42.Y.4470 from Honganur to Channapatana road, at that time the driver of the Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298 came from Channapatana side near Gopi SCCH-17 3 MVC 7288/2023 clinic at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Scooter and caused the accident. Due to the impact, deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body.
Immediately the injured was shifted to Channapatna government hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given and shifted to MIMS hospital, Mandya, wherein the doctor after examination declared that the injured was already dead due to the accidental injuries. Thereafter postmortem was conducted and handed over the body to the petitioners and they have performed funeral and obsequies ceremonies.
Prior to the accident, deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 21 years and doing plumbing work and earning Rs.25,000/ per month and contributing his entire income for the maintenance of his family. Due to the untimely death of deceased the petitioners have suffered mentally and financially. SCCH-17 4 MVC 7288/2023
The respondent No.1 & 2 are the owner and insurer of the offending tractor are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, prays to award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest to the petitioners.
3. After service of notices, both the respondents have appeared before the court through their respective counsels and filed separate written statement.
The Respondent No.1- owner has appeared through his counsel and filed written statement by denying the cause and manner of accident and contended that, the deceased was riding the scooter in a zig zag manner and suddenly stopped the vehicle without any signals and caused the accident. Further contended that, the petition is bad for non joinder and proper parties as the owner and insurer of the bike were not made as party to the proceedings and the tractor was falsely implicated in the alleged accident even though there is no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the tractor. SCCH-17 5 MVC 7288/2023 Further this respondent has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is exaggerated and primarily intended to make illegal gain. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against him.
Respondent No.2 - insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement by denying the age, occupation and income of the deceased. Further it has denied the cause and manner of accident and the involvement of the offending tractor in the said accident. Further contended that, the deceased and the offending tractor driver were not having valid and effective DL at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was also not having permit at the time of accident. Hence the respondent No.2 - insurance company prays to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival contentions, the following issues were framed by this court: SCCH-17 6 MVC 7288/2023
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Jagadeesh died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05-05-2023 at about 8.30 p.m. on Honganur to Sathnur road, Honganur Gopi Clinic, Honganur due to the rash and negligence driving of the Tractor bearing Reg.
No. KA.42.T.8298 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
4. What order or award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the 1st petitioner is examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8.
On the other hand 2nd respondent has examined its official as RW.1 and Ex.R1 to R3 were got marked.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the material evidence that is available on record.
SCCH-17 7 MVC 7288/2023
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative,
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final orders
for the following.-
REASONS
ISSUE NO.1:
8. The petitioners to prove their claim have produced true copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, inquest report, PM report and charge sheet, which are marked under Ex.P.1 to 6.
9. As per the documents, Ex.P1 FIR is came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by 1 st petitioner who is the father of the deceased as per Ex.P2. In the Ex.P2, he has alleged the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298. After the registration of FIR the IO conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P3. As per the spot mahazar marked at Ex.P3 the vehicles involved in the accident were found in the SCCH-17 8 MVC 7288/2023 accident spot itself. The Ex.P3 mahazar also depicts the damages of the vehicle involved in the accident wherein a right side bumper of the tractor has got damaged and as the tractor ran over on the motor cycle, the said motor cycle of the deceased has got fully damaged. This evidentiates the veracity of the accident.
10. It is important to note that, as per the FIR it is alleged that the driver of the tractor bearing No. KA-42-T-8298 came from Channapatna side and while trying to overtake the another vehicle came to the right side portion of the road and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased who was coming from opposite side. Thus, it is found that as per Ex.P3 mahazar, the right side bumper of the the tractor bearing No. KA-42-T-8298 has got damages, which evidentiates that the driver of the the tractor bearing No. KA-42-T-8298 came to his wrong side I..e, right side portion of the road without observing the vehicles coming from the opposite side and caused the accident. If, the driver of the tractor bearing No. SCCH-17 9 MVC 7288/2023 KA-42-T-8298 not came to the wrong side of the road, the alleged accident was not going to be caused. Thereby the Ex.P3 mahazar helped the petitioners to prove the alleged negligence of the driver of the tractor bearing No. KA-42-T-8298.
11. The respondent No.1 owner of the tractor bearing No. KA-42-T-8298 even though filed written statement by denying the negligence of the driver of Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298 but does not chosen to examine its driver in support of their defence.
12. Ex.P5 is the postmortem report and Ex.P4 is the inquest where both these documents discloses that the deceased succumbed due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of penetrating injury sustained to right lung and heart caused to him in the said accident.
13. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is expected to prove the incident SCCH-17 10 MVC 7288/2023 on basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view taken by this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed that, it is 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 are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105, where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka considering the fact that the rider of the offending vehicle was not examined to prove any contributory negligence on the part SCCH-17 11 MVC 7288/2023 of scooterist held that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the rider of the offending van.
14. In view of the ratio laid down in the authorities referred to above and applying the settled principle of law to the case at hand, which is further supported by the oral and documentary evidence adduced by PW-1, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident leading to this case indeed occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of offending Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298 resulting in deceased sustaining injuries.
15. Ex.P6 is the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298 for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 & 304 (A) of IPC. The investigating officer as per Ex.P6 charge sheet opined that the driver of offending Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298 driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. No other evidence is placed by the respondents to show the contributory negligence by the deceased. During the SCCH-17 12 MVC 7288/2023 course of cross-examination of PW.1, nothing has been elicited so as to disprove the case of the petitioners.
16. The official of respondent No.2 insurance company examined as RW.1. As admitted by the RW1. In the cross-examination he is not an eye witness to the accident, but deposing the evidence on the basis of documents whereas the documents like crime records point outs the negligence of the driver of the tractor bearing No. KA-42-T-8298. As such, the evidence of the RW.1 failed to establish the contributory negligence of the deceased.
17. As per well settled position of law the standard of proof in claim petition like present one, is only preponderance of probabilities. Looking to the oral as well as documentary evidence of the petitioners there are sufficient materials to show that Jagadeesh died in the accident dated 05-05-2023 which is caused by the driver of the Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298. Accordingly issue No.1 answered in the affirmative. SCCH-17 13 MVC 7288/2023
ISSUE NO.2
18. As held herein above, the petitioners have proved that Jagadeesh died on 05-05-2023 due to the injuries sustained in RTA, which is caused by respondent No.1.
19. As contended in the petition the petitioners are the parents of the deceased Jagadeesh. The respondents do not specifically deny the relationship of petitioners with deceased. The petitioners to prove their relationship with the deceased, have produced the notarized copies of Aadhar cards of petitioners which are marked under Ex.P7. During the course of recording the evidence the notarized copies of Aadhar cards are compared with the original documents and found correct. The respondents do not dispute the Aadhar cards produced by the petitioners. The respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence to disprove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
SCCH-17 14 MVC 7288/2023
20. In the absence of contradictory evidence the evidence of the petitioner is to be accepted and it is considered that, petitioners are the parents of deceased being the dependents are entitled for compensation. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 :
21. The issued No.1 & 2 are answered in the affirmative by holding that the deceased Jagadeesh died in the RTA dated 05-05-2023 caused by the negligence driving by the driver of Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298 and the petitioners are entitled for the compensation.
22. Now the quantum of compensation is to be decided. In the voter ID card of the deceased Jagadeesh produced at Ex.P8, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 20-03-2000 and the accident was occurred on 05-05-2023. If it is considered, as on the date of the accident the age of the deceased was 23 years. SCCH-17 15 MVC 7288/2023
23. As stated in the petition deceased was working as a plumber and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. To prove the said fact, the petitioners have not produced any documents. Such being the case, it is just and necessary to consider the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.16,000/- p.m. as the accident is of the year 2023.
24. As per Sarala varma's case the proper multiplier applicable to the age of deceased is 18. Since the deceased was a bachelor 50% of the income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, then the total loss of dependency would be Rs.17,28,000/- (Rs.16,000/- X 12 x 18 = Rs.34,56,000/- minus half of the income i.e., (34,56,000 - 17,28,000/-) = Rs.17,28,000/-).
25. In Civil Special leave petition (Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "While determining the income, in case the deceased was self- SCCH-17 16 MVC 7288/2023 employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
26. As per the above decisions 40% out of loss of dependency has to be granted towards future prospects which would Rs.6,91,200/-.
27. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM:
In Magma General Insurance company Limited Vs. Nanuram (2018) 18 SCC 130, the Hon'ble Apex court has observed "Consortium" is a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, SCCH-17 17 MVC 7288/2023 solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse".
28. The Petitioners are the Parents of the deceased and they have lost their loving daughter. Therefore they are entitled to a sum of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 10% hike every three years from 2017 as per Pranay Sethi Case) under the head of loss of consortium.
29. Further I inclined to award Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses (this amount is calculated as per Pranaya Sethi case with enhanced rate at 10% after three years).
The petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 17,28,000/-
2. Loss of future prospects Rs. 6,91,200/-
3. Loss of consortium Rs. 48,000/-
4. Love and affection Rs. 50,000/-SCCH-17 18 MVC 7288/2023
5. Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/-
6. Transport of dead body Rs. 16,500/-
Total Rs. 25,50,200/-
30. Liability:- In the petition it is alleged that the respondent No.1& 2 are the owner and insurer of the Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has not stated any thing about the issuance of policy. But examined its official as RW.1 and produced the insurance policy marked at Ex.R2. On perusal of the same the offending Tractor bearing No. KA.42.T.8298 was insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company and the policy was valid as on the date of accident.
31. The Respondent No.2 insurance company contended that the driver of the Tractor bearing No. KA-42-T-8298 did not had a valid DL to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident. In order to prove the same, they got examined its official as RW.1 and produced Ex.R1 to 3. As per Ex.R3 extract of driving licence one SCCH-17 19 MVC 7288/2023 Ramesha had the driving licence to drive MCWG, LMV and tractor at the time of accident. Thus, it evidentiates that the driver of the offending tractor was having valid driving licence to drive the said tractor at the time of accident.
32. Yet another arguments was canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 insurance company that the driver of the tractor was driving Tractor bearing No.KA-42-T-8298 along with a trailer, but the driver did not possessed the driving licence to drive the tractor with trailer. As such, the respondent No.2 cannot indemnify the liability of respondent No.1.
33. By keeping the said arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 insurance company it is established that as per Ex.R3 the driver of offending vehicle had the driving licence to drive the tractor at the time of accident. The complaint and also mahazar produced by the petitioner shows that at the time of accident, the said tractor was attached with SCCH-17 20 MVC 7288/2023 trailer. The trailer was attached to the tract at the time of accident. But it is very important to note that the accident was caused by the tractor and not by the trailer.
In the judgment reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 - Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held has follows:
"60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight"
of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)
(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form''. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above quoted judgment has held that the light motor vehicle SCCH-17 21 MVC 7288/2023 u/Sec.2(21) of MV Act includes a transport vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500Kg and also motor Car or Tractor or a Road roller "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500Kg and in the same decision it is held that the Driver's licence given for LMV could be used for a Transport vehicle if "unladen weight"
does not exceed 7500Kg. A person holding license for LMV-TR can drive a vehicle upto 7500kg unladen weight. In the light of the ratio laid down in the decision reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 3668[Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd and others], a driver who possesses a Light Motor Vehicle license can drive any class of vehicle which comes under LMV category. That is to say no separate endorsement is required to drive transport vehicle or a Tractor.
In the recent judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.841/2018 between M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Ramba Devi and others held that, a person with a driving licence for light motor SCCH-17 22 MVC 7288/2023 vehicles (LMV) is entitled to drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicles having unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 Kgs. Thereby once again the Hon'ble Supreme Court held its earlier decision in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., thereby it is held that the transport vehicles, the gross weight of which do not exceed 7,500 Kgs are not excluded from the definition of LMV.
34. In this case, the driver of the offending Tractor bearing No.KA-42-T-8298 had the driving licence to drive the tractor. But the said tractor was attached with trailer. Thereby, merely because the trailer is attached to the tractor whether the person holding the licence to drive tractor can drive the tractor along with trailer has to be looked into. In this regard, Sec.2 (46) and Sec. 2 (48) speaks about trailer and unladden weight.
(46) "trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. (48) "unladen weight" means the weight of a vehicle or trailer including all equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle or trailer when working, but excluding the SCCH-17 23 MVC 7288/2023 weight of a driver or attendant; and where alternative parts or bodies are used the unladen weight of the vehicle means the weight of the vehicle with the heaviest such alternative part or body;
35. In this case, the driver of the tractor had the driving licence to drive the tractor. The front engine portion of the tractor dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. Even though the trailer was attached to the tractor, the accident was caused by the tractor. No evidence is available to hold that the total unladden weight of the trailer and tractor exceeds 7500 Kgs.
Thereby, by applying the above precedent the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA-42-T-8298 was having driving licence to drive LMV and also tractor as such, he was having valid licence to drive Tractor bearing No. KA-42-T-8298.
36. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 200721-2019 between Chidanandaiah and another SCCH-17 24 MVC 7288/2023 V/s. Shivalingappa Mallappa Biradar and Others, wherein it is held as follows;
"22. On perusal of the above judgment where the accident was occurred when the injured persons were traveled in the trailer, which was connected with the tractor driven by the driver. Therefore, in that case the tractor was insured and trailer was not insured. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court not fastened the liability on the owner. There is no second thought in respect of principle laid down in the case of Dhondubai (supra) where the facts of these cases are different. Since in this case though trailer was connected with tractor, but the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver which was driven by the driver of the tractor and the tractor was hit on the motorcycle and caused the death and trailer is nothing to do with the accident that the accident caused by the tractor and not by the trailer. Therefore, the said case is not applicable to this case, wherein this case tractor was insured with insurance company.
Therefore, the Trial Court rightly fastened the liability on the insurance company as tractor was duly insured with respondent No.2. Therefore, I answered point No.1 in favour of claimants as against the Insurance Company."
By applying the said precedent in this case the accident was caused by the engine of tractor bearing No. SCCH-17 25 MVC 7288/2023 KA-42-T-8298 and the trailer of the said tractor is nothing to do with the accident. Therefore, as the accident was caused by the engine bearing No. KA-42-T-8298 the owner and insurer of the said tractor engine is liable to pay the compensation.
37. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 23805-2012 between Sadashiva and others V/s. Dyavakka and others. In the said case, the offending vehicle was a construction equipment vehicle (JCB). As such, the driving licence to drive the said type of vehicle is specially required. In this case, the offending vehicle is tractor. As such, in my humble opinion the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is not applicable to the present case on hand.
38. Further the respondent No.2 insurance company taken another defence that the insurance policy produced at Ex.R2 shows that the policy was issued for the SCCH-17 26 MVC 7288/2023 agricultural tractors and the accident is in the road as such, the insurance company is not liable. In this regard, if we perused the Ex.R2 the sub type of the vehicle is mentioned as Agricultural Tractors. Thereby the tractor bearing No. KA-42-T-8298 is duly insured with the respondent No.2 company. The tractor to travel in the road also the said insurance policy is valid hence, the contention urged by the respondent No.2 cannot be acceptable as there is no evidence is available to hold that the said tractor was used for some other purpose.
39. In this view of the matter the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability to pay compensation. Therefore the respondents are jointly & severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% p.a. The Respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1. Accordingly, this issue answered in the affirmative.
SCCH-17 27 MVC 7288/2023
ISSUE NO.4:-
40. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.25,50,200/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs fifty thousand two hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,. from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The respondent No.2 - insurance
company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 & 2 are entitled for the compensation at the ratio of 60:40.
Out of total compensation awarded to
the Petitioner No.1 & 2, 50% shall be
SCCH-17 28 MVC 7288/2023
released in favour petitioner No.1 & 2 on
their proper identification and remaining 50% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in their names.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 03 rd day of June, 2025).
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM) XIX ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Sri. Sujatha @ Siddaraju.
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 FIR
Ex.P2 Complaint
Ex.P3 Spot mahazar
Ex.P4 Inquest report
Ex.P5 PM report
SCCH-17 29 MVC 7288/2023
Ex.P6 Charge sheet
Ex.P7 Notarized copies of Aadhar cards
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of voter ID card of
deceased
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW.1 Sri Bikaram Singh Rana.
List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Insurance policy
Ex.R3 Extract of driving license
(KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM)
XIX ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
BENGALURU.
Digitally signed
by KANCHI
KANCHI MAYANNA
GOUTAM
MAYANNA Date:
GOUTAM 2025.06.09
17:27:32
+0530