Bangalore District Court
Marcharla Pavan vs Bajaj All Gen Ins Co Ltd on 20 November, 2024
KABC020056892023
BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM &
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER - 2024
PRESENT: SRI.NARENDRA.B.R., B.Sc, L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT
MVC No.1211/2023
PETITIONERS:
1. Sri.Marcharla Pavan,
Aged 26 years,
S/o.Marcharla Pothalaiah.
2. Master Marcharla Thanvish,
Aged 10 months,
S/o.Marcharla Pavan,
Since minor Reptd, by his
father and natural guardian,
Sri.Marcharla Pavan,
Petitioner No.1 above,
Both are R/at #13, 8th Cross,
Someshwaranagar, Jayanagar 1st Block,
Bengaluru - 560011.
Permanent Address:
Meerjapuram Village,
Kothacheruvu Mandalam,
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.1211/2023
Ananthapur District,
Andhra Pradesh - 515133.
(By Sri.Girimallaiah, Adv.)
-Versus-
RESPONDENTS:
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Ltd., #1/2, Golden Heights, 4th Floor,
59th 'C' Cross, 4th 'M' Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560010.
(Insurer of Ertiga Car No.
AP-39-CN-4645).
2. Sri.K.Ravishankar, Major,
S/o.K.Srinivasa Murthy,
# 18-705, Garabavi Street,
Market Street, Dharmavaram,
Ananthapur District - 515671.
(R.C.Owner of Ertiga Car
No.AP-39-CN-4645).
3. Sri.Gopal, Major,
S/o.Adinarayanappa,
#1/1, 4th Cross, 4th Main,
Hongasandra, Balaji Layout,
Beguru Road, Bengaluru - 560068.
(R.C.Owner of Tavera Car bearing
No.KA-05-MF-0015).
4. Shriram General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
#3/5, 3rd Floor, S.V.Arcade,
Bilekahalli Main Road, Bilekahalli
Off B.G.Road, IIM Post,
Bengaluru - 560076.
(Insurer of Tavera Car
SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.1211/2023
No.KA-05-MF-0015).
(Resp.No.1 - By Sri.S.Maheswara, Adv.)
(Resp.No.2 - By Sri.C.N.Achutha Murthy, Adv.)
(Resp.No.3 - Exparte)
(Resp.No.4 - By Sri.K.M.Ravi, Adv.)
J U D G M E N T
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners claiming compensation of ₹.64,00,000/- with interest from the date of petition till its realization for the death of Smt.Sabareesha, W/o Marcharla Pavan, in a road traffic accident.
2. The petition averments in brief is that on 13.10.2022 at about 05.45 p.m., the deceased was travelling in Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-MF-0015 and when said car reached near KNR Construction between Shettigere Cross Road, NH-44 Road, Chickaballapura Taluk, as there was little rain, the car driver stopped the car on the left side of road with parking lights and traffic signal for removing the luggage from the top. At that time when the SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.1211/2023 deceased was taking luggage bag kept on the said car, Ertiga Car bearing Regn.No.AP-39-CN-4645 driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. Due to said accident, the deceased and another were thrown on the road and sustained severe injuries to their head and multiple fractures to their bodies and they were succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and she was doing Private Tuition besides household work and earning a sum of ₹.20,000/- per month. Due to the death of deceased, the petitioners lost their bread earning member of the family and put to lot of mental agony. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Ertiga Car by its driver. The respondent No.1 to 4, being the insurers and owners of the offending SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.1211/2023 vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioners.
3. In spite of service of notice, the respondent No.3 did not appeared before the tribunal and hence, they have been placed as exparte. Though respondent No.2 appeared before the tribunal, but not filed his written statement. The respondent No.1 & 4 appeared before the tribunal through their respective counsel and filed their separate written statement.
4. In the Written Statement, the respondent No.1 has denied the contents of claim petition specifically and categorically. The respondent No.1 also denied age, occupation and income, place, time and manner of accident. Further he has contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. This respondent has SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.1211/2023 admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Car under policy No.OG-20-9910-1827- 00013566 for the period 14.10.2019 to 13.10.2022 and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of policy. Further contended that the driver of vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Further contended that the alleged accident took place due to sole negligence of deceased and there was no negligence of driver of respondent No.2 since the deceased being self-negligent. The amount claimed by petitioners is highly exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
5. 4th respondent in his written statement has contended that this respondent has not issued any policy in respect of Tavera Car bearing Regn.No.KA- 05-MF-0015 as on the date of accident. Further his respondent has not issued policy No.10003/31/19/719599 from 29.09.2022 to 28.09.2023 SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.1211/2023 and date of alleged accident, no such policy was issued in favour of vehicle Tavera Car. The amount claimed by petitioners is highly exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned predecessor in office framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioners prove that the wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioner No.2 namely Sabareesha succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 13.10.2022 at about 05.45 p.m., at KNR Construction, Shettigere Cross Road, NH- 44 Road, Chikkaballapura Taluk, while she was taking luggage bag from her Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-MF-0015, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Regn.No.AP-39-CN-4645 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In support of the contentions of the petition, the Petitioner No.1/husband of deceased SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.1211/2023 got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 documents and closed his side of evidence. On the other hand, the respondent insurance company examined its Legal Manager as RW.1 and Senior Executive - TP Claims in 1st respondent company as RW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to 6(a) and closed their side of evidence.
8. Heard arguments on both side and perused the materials available on records.
9. This Tribunal answers the above issues as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per final order, for
the following:
//REASONS//
10. Issue No.1:- It is the case of the
petitioners that deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident that took place on SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.1211/2023 13.10.2022 at about 05.45 p.m., at KNR Construction, Shettigere Cross Road, NH-44 Road, Chikkaballapura Taluk, while she was taking luggage bag from the Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-MF-0015, due to the rash and negligent driving of Car bearing Regn.No.AP-39-CN-4645 by its driver and as a result, she succumbed to injuries on the spot.
11. The Petitioner No.1/husband of deceased Smt.Sabareesha got examined as PW.1. In his chief- examination, he has deposed that his wife was taking luggage from the car, due to the rash and negligent driving of car by its driver, the accident occurred. In order to prove the accident and negligence of the driver of car, the petitioners produced Ex.P1 First Information lodged by one of her relative by name Smt.SRM Govindamma, W/o.Late Subbarayadu of deceased with police on 13.10.2022. On the basis of first information lodged by relative of deceased, the police SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.1211/2023 registered a case as per Ex.P.1 for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC. In Ex.P.1, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of Ertiga car as well as Tavera car. In Ex.P.2, first information statement also, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of Ertiga car as well as Tavera car. In Ex.P.1 as well as P.2, negligence is alleged against the driver of tavera car also in the cause of accident. The driver or the owner of both cars does not appear to have challenged the FIR registered in the case. After registration of FIR, police went near the place of accident and drew up spot sketch and spot panchanama as per Ex.P.3 & 4 by narrating the place of accident. In Ex.P.3 also, there is mention about negligence on the part of driver of Ertiga car as well as Tavera car. Ex.P.4 sketch also depict the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of both SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.1211/2023 cars. Ex.P.5 is the IMV Report, wherein the damages caused to both the vehicles are mentioned. Ex.P6 - PM report, wherein mentioned that deceased Smt.Sabareesha died due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained. Ex.P.7 is the notice issued under Sec.133 of IMV Act and reply given to said notice. The I.O., after thorough investigation filed the Ex.P8 - charge sheet against the drivers of both the offending vehicles for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC U/s.177, 180 and 181 of M.V.Act. In the final report, allegations of negligence are made against driver of Ertiga car as well as Tavera car. In the final report, it is mentioned that the driver of Tavera car parked the vehicle negligently without proper indication and driver of ertiga car drove the vehicle negligently due to which accident is caused. In the final report, it is mentioned that there is negligence on the part of drivers of both SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.1211/2023 vehicles. The final report filed by the jurisdictional police does not appear to have been challenged by either driver or owner of both vehicles. The respondents not placed any satisfactory materials in order to controvert or rebut the documents furnished by petitioners related to the aspect of negligence. The documents furnished by petitioners disclose the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of both vehicles in the cause of accident. The respondents not placed any materials contrary to the said documents.
12. The respondents placed nothing before the tribunal to disprove case of petitioner. In the absence of satisfactory materials to rebut the documents furnished by petitioners, said documents need to be considered for ascertaining the aspect of negligence in the cause of accident. So, the oral and documentary evidence placed by the SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.1211/2023 petitioners, it is clear that deceased died while she was taking luggage from the car, due to hit by offending vehicle and also due to negligence on the part of driver of Tavera car by parking the vehicle without proper indication. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of petitioner coupled with the documents produced before this tribunal, this tribunal is of the opinion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of driver of Car bearing Regn.No.AP-39-CN-4645 as well as Car bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015 and deceased succumbed to injuries. The negligence attributable to driver of Tavera car is 25% and remaining percentage of negligence is attributable to the driver of Ertiga car. Accordingly, Issue No.1 held in the Affirmative.
13. Issue No.2: In view of answering issue No.1 in the affirmative, the petitioners are SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.1211/2023 entitled for compensation. In order to assess the compensation, the Tribunal has to consider several factors like age, avocation, income of deceased, conveyance charges, funeral and obsequies, towards of loss of love and affection, etc. (A) Towards dependency and loss of future earnings:
(i) In the petition the age of the deceased Smt. Sabareesha, W/o.Macharla Pavan is shown as 22 years. In order to prove age of deceased, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.9 - Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card, wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 1999. The accident occurred on 13.10.2022. As per the document furnished by petitioners, the age of deceased was 23 years as on the date of accident. The respondents not furnished any materials contrary to the said document. The respondents not furnished any documents to disprove or disbelieve the age of deceased as appearing in SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.1211/2023 the document. In the absence of any rebuttal materials, the age, as appearing in the document, is to be taken into consideration. As per material placed on record, age of deceased as on the date of accident appears to be 23 years and same is taken into consideration. As per dictum of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma case the multiplier applicable in present case is '18'.
(ii) The petitioners contended that deceased Smt.Sabareesha was doing Private Tuition besides household work and earning a sum of ₹.20,000/- per month. In order to prove the occupation and income of deceased, the petitioners have not produced any documents. No satisfactory materials are placed by the petitioners to show the occupation and income of deceased. In the absence of satisfactory materials, notional income of the deceased is to be taken into consideration. By considering the facts SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.1211/2023 and circumstances of case, the notional income of deceased is considered as ₹.15,500/- per month. In Hem Raj V/s the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guess work in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. In view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble supreme court of India, the petitioners entitled for future prospects. In National Insurance Company Ltd V/s Pranaya Sethi and others case, the Hon'be Supreme Court held that, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary an addition of 40% of the established income should be warranted where the deceased was aged below 40 years. In the case on hand, deceased was aged about 23 years as on the date of accident. Hence, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.1211/2023 petitioners are entitled for additional 40% to the established income. The established income of the deceased was ₹.15,500/- and 40% of ₹.15,500/- is ₹.6,200/-. So, the total gross income of deceased was ₹.15,500/- + ₹.6,200/- = ₹.21,700/- per month. Deceased Smt.Sabareesha married, having husband and son. In order to prove the same the petitioners have produced notarized copies of Aadhaar cards marked at Ex.P9. The said document discloses the relationship of deceased with the petitioners. On perusal of the same it reveals that petitioners No.1 and 2 are husband and son of deceased respectively. No materials are placed by the respondents to controvert the said documents. No satisfactory materials are placed before the court in order to disprove the relationship of the deceased with the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 and 2 were depending upon the income of deceased. On perusal of materials on record, the deceased SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.1211/2023 appears to be contributing towards the family and the petitioners, though not entirely dependents, appear to be dependent on the deceased to some extent. So, as per dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Saral Verma case where number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/3rd has to be deducted from the gross income of deceased towards his personal expenses and remaining is to be taken as income for dependency. Thus petitioners are entitled to compensation of ₹.31,24,872/- towards loss of dependency which is calculated as follows:
Calculation Total (In ₹.)
1/3rd of ₹.21,700/ ₹.14,467/-
(deduction of
₹.7,233/-)
₹.14,467 multiply by 12 ₹.1,73,604/-
₹.1,73,604/- multiply ₹.31,24,872/-
by 18 Multiplier
(B) Towards Consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses; Case on hand, the date of
SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.1211/2023
accident was on 13.10.2022. So, in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pranay Sethi case, the petitioners are entitled for additional 10% on conventional heads which is to be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. So the petitioner No.1 & 2 being the husband and son of deceased are entitled for ₹.48,400/- (each) towards loss of Spousal Consortium and Parental Consortium and also entitled for ₹.18,150/- towards loss of estate and ₹.18,150/- towards funeral expenses.
14. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
a. Towards dependency and loss ₹.31,24,872/-
of future income
b. Towards Consortium.
1. Spousal Consortium ₹.48,400/-
2. Parental Consortium ₹.48,400/-
c. Towards Loss of estate & ₹.36,300/-
Funeral Expenses
Total Compensation ₹.32,57,972/-
SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.1211/2023
The petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of ₹.32,57,972/-.
15. In MFA.No.100090 of 2014 C/w. MFA.No.25107 of 2013 between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Page No.7 at Para No.15 held as follows:
"However, the provisions of Section 149(1) of the Act to the extent they speak of interest payable on the compensation amount is in the nature of an exception to the general law enacted in 169 of the M.V.Act and therefore, the provisions of Section 34 of CPC to that extent become invocable on the general principles of construction of statutes namely the special law overrides the general law. Therefore, in the absence of any other law relating to interest on Judgments, the MACT has to follow the provisions of Section 34 of CPC, 1908. Thus, in the given circumstances of this case, interest at the rate of more than 6% could not have been awarded."
In view of ratio and dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above judgment, the petitioners are entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.1211/2023
16. The petitioners filed petition against the respondent No.1 to 4. It is already held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing Regn.No.AP-39-CN-4645 by its driver as well as driver of Car bearing registration KA- 05-MF-0015. Respondent No.4 contended that the vehicle bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015 is not duly insured with them and further, driver of said vehicle is not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The petitioners contended that policy bearing number 10003/31/19/719599 is issued by respondent No.4 pertaining to vehicle bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015. The respondent No.4 denied the aspect of issue of said policy in favour of Tavera car and furnished the policy cover which is marked as Ex.R.2. On perusal of Ex.R.4, it does not disclose the aspect of issue of policy with respect to vehicle bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015. The model of the SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.1211/2023 car to which the policy, as per Ex.R.2, is issued appears to be different. The petitioners not furnished any materials contrary to the said document. Ex.R.2 clearly discloses that respondent No.4 not issued policy to the offending car bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015. On consideration of the materials placed before the Tribunal, the car bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015 does not appear to have a valid insurance policy with respondent No.4, as on the date of accident. Apart from that, in the final report, it is stated that the driver of car bearing registration number KA- 05-MF-0015 is not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The final report is filed against the owner of car bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015 for the offence punishable under Sec.180 of IMV Act stating that he gave car to the person who do not possess valid driving licence. The petitioners not furnished satisfactory SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.1211/2023 materials to show that the driver of car bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015 is having valid driving licence to drive the car. In the final report, it is clearly mentioned that the driver of car bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015 does not have valid licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident. The said aspect is contrary to the terms of insurance, if the vehicle is having valid insurance policy. Thus, the materials on record disclose that the vehicle bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015 does not have valid insurance policy. Further, respondent No.4 does not appear to be liable, if there exist insurance cover, as contended by petitioners, since the driver of Tavera car does not possessed with valid licence and there appears violation of motor vehicle rules. As such, respondent No.4 is not liable to pay any compensation as contended by the petitioner. As the petitioners succeeded in SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.1211/2023 establishing that the accident was caused due to negligence on the part of driver of Ertiga car as well as Tavera car and as the petitioners held entitled for compensation, respondent No.1 and 2, being the insurer and owner of vehicle bearing registration number AP-39-CN-4645 is liable to pay 75% of compensation, jointly and severally and respondent No.3, being the owner of vehicle bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015, is liable to pay 25% of compensation amount to the petitioners. So, the respondent No.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay 75% of compensation amount and respondent No.3, being the owner of vehicle bearing registration number KA-05-MF-0015, is liable to pay 25% of compensation amount to the petitioners. Hence, Issue No.2 answered Partly in the Affirmative.
SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.1211/2023
17. Issue No.3: In view of the findings given on the above said issues, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following:
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioners Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of ₹.32,57,972/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Two only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
Respondent No.1 & 2 being the insurer and owner of the offending Ertiga Car bearing Regn.No.AP-39-CN-4645 are jointly and severally liable to pay 75% of compensation to the petitioners. Respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to deposit the said compensation amount within a SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.1211/2023 period of two months from the date of award.
Respondent No.3 being the owner of the offending Tavera Car bearing Regn.No.KA-
05-MF-0015 is liable to pay 25% of compensation to the petitioners and also deposit the said compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of award.
The petition against respondent No.4 is hereby dismissed.
Out of the total compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 being the Husband of deceased is entitled for 60% and petitioner No.2 being the minor son of deceased is entitled for 40% of the compensation amount. In total amount apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1, 60% of the amount shall be released in favour of petitioner No.1, and 40% of the amount shall be kept in FD.
40% of compensation amount allotted to the share of minor petitioner No.2 shall SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.1211/2023 be kept in FD in the name of minor petitioner No.2 in any of the Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank of his guardian's choice till he attain the age of majority. The guardian of petitioner is entitled to receive interest that accrues on FD periodically.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioners hereby directed to produce particulars of Bank Account of petitioners, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contained compulsorily photographs of petitioners, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioners shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest thereon by respondent, the SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.1211/2023 petitioners are entitled to receive amount as mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
Bank shall not advance loan on such FD, and shall not cause premature release of FD without permission from the Tribunal.
Bank shall release amount along with interest thereon in favour of petitioners on proper verification and identification or credit said amount to their account after expiry of three years period of deposit, without waiting for further order of court.
The advocate fee is fixed at ₹.1,000/-.
Office to draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 20th day of November 2024.) (NARENDRA.B.R) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.1211/2023 A N N E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
PW.1 : Sri.Marcharla Pavan LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:- Ex.P.1 : FIR Ex.P.2 : Complaint Ex.P.3 : Spot Panchanama Ex.P.4 : Sketch Ex.P.5 : IMV Report Ex.P.6 : PM Report Ex.P.7 : Inquest Report Ex.P.8 : Charge Sheet Ex.P.9 : Notarized copies of Aadhaar Cards Ex.P.10 : Birth Certificate LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:- RW.1 Sri.Prabhakar Naik RW.2 Kum.Ruchitha Renukesh LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:- Ex.R.1 Authorization letter Ex.R.2 Copy of Insurance Policy SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.1211/2023 Ex.R.3 Authorization letter Ex.R.4 Copy of Policy Ex.R.5 Office Copy of Notice Ex.P.6 Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P.6(a) Copy of Notice (NARENDRA.B.R) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU Digitally signed by NARENDRA NARENDRA BR BR Date: 2024.11.21 17:04:31 +0530