Bangalore District Court
Ashok Kumar Sah vs Arun Sharma on 3 February, 2022
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT : Smt. PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH,B.A., L.L.B.
(Spl.) MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No.3346/2018 C/w. M.V.C.No.3347/2018
PETITIONER: Ashok Kumar Sah,
(in MVC 3346/2018) Son of Late Sajan Kumar,
Aged about 65 years,
presently residing at
154/6, Premkamal Residency,
Koramangala 8th Block,
Bangalore - 560 095.
Represented by his power of
Attorney Holder
Ms. Jena Sah
Daughter of Ashok Kumar Sah
Aged about 30 years,
154/6, Premkamal Residency
Koramangal 8th Block
Bangalore - 560 095.
(By Sri.Santhosh Devadas, Advocate)
PETITIONER : Jena Sah,
(in MVC 3347/2018) Daughter of Ashok Kumar Sah,
Aged 30 years,
Residing at
154/6, Premakamal Residency,
Koramangala 8th Block,
Bangalore - 560 095.
(By Sri.Santhosh Devadas, Advocate)
V/s
SCCH-1 2 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
Respondents: 1. Arun Sharma,
(Common in both Son of not known,
the cases) Major,
Shanthi Nikethan,
Mahindra Hills,
Nehru Nagar,
Secunderabad - 560 026.
(Owner & Driver BMW - 320D Car)
(Exparte)
2. Tata AIG Insurance,
Peninsula Business Park,
Tower A, 15th Floor,
G.K.Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai - 400 013,
Maharashtra.
(Insurer of BMW - 320D Car)
(By Sri.Ravi.S.Samprathi..Advocate)
3. Pankaj Joshi (Driver)
B404 Bren Celestia,
Sarjahpur Road,
Kaikondrahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 035.
(Driver & Owner of Fiat Linea)
(By Sri. V.P.K.......Advocate)
4. Bajaj Allianz GE Plaza,
Airport Road,
Yerwada,
Pune - 411 006.
(Insurer of Fiat Linea Car)
(By Sri.Janardhan ReddyAdvocate)
SCCH-1 3 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two petitions are filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained
by both the petitioners in the same accident.
2. In both the petitions, the petitioners have averred the
same facts with reference to the mode or occurrence of
accident as under:
On 28.09.2017 both petitioners were proceeding along
with Pankaj Joshi i.e., respondent No.3, in respondent No.3's
Fiat Linea car bearing reg.No.AP28D5419. The respondent
No.3 was driving the car. The petitioner in MVC No.3346/2018
is the father of petitioner in MVC No.3347/2018. The car was
proceeding on NH 44 as they were proceeding towards
Hyderabad from Bengaluru. When they were proceeding near
Penukonda in Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh, the BMW
car bearing reg.No.AP09CN0700 came in wrong side from
opposite direction and dashed to the car of the petitioners at
10.15 am.,
SCCH-1 4 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
3. Due to the impact both petitioners i.e., father
and daughter have sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident they have been shifted to
Penukonda Government Hospital. After initial assessment
and first aid they have been referred to specialty hospital
in Bengaluru.
4. The complaint was lodged by the respondent
No.3 and case is registered against the driver Arun
Sharma of BMW car.
5. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC
No.3346/2018 that the petitioner is 65 years old, he was
earning as a consultant, he has sustained severe multiple
fractures in both of his legs and one thigh, his right hand,
his left shoulder, ribs fracture and he has sustained head
and abdominal injuries. He was admitted to ICU and he
has underwent surgery with reference to fractures of both
legs. With reference to multiple fractures sustained by the
petitioner he has underwent three surgeries on different
dates. Due to multiple fractures he has left with
SCCH-1 5 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
permanent disability. He cannot use to lift arm. He has
taken treatment as inpatient in a Hospital for a period of
month and he has advised to take rest for more than 9
months on bed. As there is a high risk of urinary and
lung infection due to no mobility. He is in need of
continuous supervision for his physical condition.
6. Petitioner had to relay on the help and support
of his son for assistance with day to day living, including
taking decision of surgery which involves life and death
questions i.e., risk factor. Petitioner and his daughter are
sustained injuries therefore his son had been taking care
by attending doctors, consultation and other logistics at
hospital and home. His son stays abroad with his wife and
flew immediately after receipt of news of accident and had
to take two months leave from work in order to adequately
take care of the petitioner and his sister.
7. His wife was then 6 months pregnant he had to
leave her in a foreign country on her own, since she was
unable to travel with him as it was inadvisable to travel at
SCCH-1 6 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
such an advanced stage of pregnancy. Petitioner's son
arranged for travel for his mother in law to go abroad to
take care of his wife. She was a Government servant she
has to take an immediate long term leave and he managed
to get her a long term visa for family emergency. Petitioner
and his daughter were admitted in the specialty hospital
and it was very long distance from the rented house
premises. Therefore they have taken another house at
very short notice which was near the hospital. Thereby
they have incurred huge expenses in sum of
Rs.1,31,043/.
8. The petitioner being the consultant was self
employed, due to injury sustained in the accident he was
unable to attend his business and earn nothing therefore,
there is a loss to a tune of Rs.60 lakhs. Due to the long,
continuous treatment and multiple fractures, petitioner has
physically suffered therefore he has claimed Rs.15 lakhs
towards pain and sufferings and additional Rs.36 lakhs due
to diminished quality of his life. Petitioner has also taken
SCCH-1 7 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
follow up treatment after discharge and he has spent amount
for his transportation and other miscellaneous expenses.
Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,37,882/ is claimed towards
transportation charges. The total Rs.1,16,58,578/ is
claimed on various heads against the respondent No.1 to 4
as respondent No.1 being the owner, respondent No.2 being
the insurer of BMW car and respondent No.3 being the owner
and respondent No.4 being the insurer of the Fiat Linea Car
are liable to pay compensation.
9. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC
No.3347/2018 that in the said accident she has sustained
abrasion over her body, Shattered bones in her legs and she
underwent operation, she has sustained fracture in her left
hand. Due to injury sustained in the accident she was unable
to work and she did not attend his job for 3 months.
10. She is unable to take up work at full time, she re
joined her work place and was working part time with
intermittent sick leaves. Due to her physical limitation, she is
unable to work at the same rate that she had prior to the
SCCH-1 8 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
accident and she had to undergo lot of stress at work in view
of her physical condition. She has suffered a loss in her
quality of life, she is unable to attend her daily routine
activities, she has not fully recovered inspite of surgery and
subsequent physiotherapy treatment. Doctors have advised to
undergo further surgery. Therefore she was unable to return
to normal.
11. Her earning capacity was reduced due to injury
sustained by her. Her marriage prospects have been affected.
She has taken treatment for her fracture injury by
undergoing surgeries including wound debridement, closed
reduction and IML nailing tibia, ORIF etc., She was admitted
to ICU and after post surgery she was developed urinary
problems due to catheterization and also constipation at
hospital. She has to depend on care takers and domestic
help for assistance with her daily routine during her recovery
period.
12. She has required to further surgery for removal of
implants. She has spent Rs.4,20,790/ for hospital and
SCCH-1 9 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
medical charges. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., has settled
medical expenses upto Rs.2,02,500/ as per the Medical
Insurance Policy. She would incurred additional sum of Rs.6
lakhs towards surgery for removal of implants. Her brother
who was staying abroad by leaving his pregnant wife in
abroad came to India to take care of petitioner and her father
and his brother was forced to make arrangement to send his
motherinlaw to take care of his wife in abroad. Therefore
they have incurred travelling expenses of Rs.1,31,043/.
13. Petitioner has unable to work for 3 months, even
after rejoining work she was unable to work full time.
Therefore, she sustained loss of three months income and
even after rejoining she is unable to earn fully. Therefore,
there is a loss of earnings at Rs.6 lakhs.
14. Due to long treatment and multiple injuries
sustained by her, petitioner has claimed Rs.6 lakhs towards
pain and sufferings, Rs.8 lakhs towards for her diminished
job and marriage prospects. Petitioner has spent travelling
expenses for her treatment and for her follow up treatment
SCCH-1 10 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
and other miscellaneous charges and an amount of
Rs.1,68,522/ is claimed. The total of Rs.33,86,812/ was
claimed by the petitioner from respondents i.e., owner and
insurer of the two vehicles i.e., respondents No.1 to 4.
15. After service of notice of these two petitions, the
respondent No.1 remained absent and placed exparte.
Respondent No.2 to 4 have been appeared through their
respective advocates and filed written statements.
16. The brief facts of the written statement filed by
respondent No.2 are as follows:
Petition itself is not maintainable. The mandatory
requirements of Section 134(c) of M.V.Act are not complied
by the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1. He has not
furnished information about the place of accident,
particulars of the injured and name of the driver and address
on driving licence. The police have not complied with the
mandatory requirements of Section 158(6) of M.V.Act. The
driver of the vehicle have not holding valid and effective
driving licence to drive the BMW car. The BMW car bearing
SCCH-1 11 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
reg.No.AP09CN0700 is insured with the second
respondent but liability of the second respondent is subject
to terms and conditions of the policy. The occurrence of
accident and involvement of the BMW car are denied.
17. The entire averments in both petitions with
reference to age, occupation, income, injury sustained by the
petitioner are all denied. It is specifically contended that,
due to rash or negligent act of driving on the part of 3 rd
respondent accident occurred. The compensation claimed in
both petitions is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the
petition.
18. The brief facts of the written statement filed by
respondent No.3 are as follows:
The entire averments in the petition are denied in toto.
Petitioners i.e., father and daughter have joined the 3 rd
respondent who was going to Hyderabad to bring his family
from Hyderabad to Bengaluru, journey to Hyderabad from
Bengaluru started at about 7.20 am., the car reached
Bagepalli toll plaza at 9.15 am., the 3 rd respondent by
SCCH-1 12 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
observing the traffic rules was going at a normal speed, the
BMW car came in rash or negligent manner in high speed in
the wrong direction came and hit to the car of the 3 rd
respondent. Due to the said accident, 3rd respondent has
also suffered three fractures in toes of left foot and he was
asked to come to hospital on the following day for plaster to
his leg. After returning from Hyderabad to Bengaluru the 3 rd
respondent has taken treatment in Sakra Hospital. The
liability of the 3rd respondent is denied, driver got valid
driving licence and there was no negligent act committed by
him and prayed to dismiss the petition.
19. The brief facts of the written statement filed by
respondent No.4 are as follows:
The Fiat Linea car bearing registration No.AP28D
5419 owned by 3rd respondent is insured with the 4th
respondent, only due to rash or negligent act of driving on
the part of the driver of the BMW car accident occurred. The
4th respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The 3 rd
respondent is not complied with the mandatory
SCCH-1 13 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
requirements of section 134(c) of MV Act. The petitioners
have to prove the involvement of the Fiat Linea Car in the
accident, the driver had valid licence to drive the vehicle. The
liability of the insurance company is subject to terms and
conditions of the policy as 3rd respondent is required to have
been valid driving licence and having permit and FC and run
the Fiat Linea car. The averments in the petition with
reference to age, occupation, income of both petitions are
denied. It is specifically contended that compensation
claimed by both petitioners is exorbitant and prayed to
dismiss the petitions.
20. From the above said pleadings of the parties,
following issues have been framed by my predecessor in
office:
ISSUES IN M.V.C.NO.3346/2018
1.Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained
grievous injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that
occurred on 28.09.2017 at about 10.15 a.m, at NH -
44 road, Bangalore to Hyderabad, Kambalapalli
Cross, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapuram, Andhra
Pradesh, within the jurisdiction of Chilamathur police
station on account of rash and negligent driving of
the Fiat Linea Car bearing registration No.AP28D
SCCH-1 14 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
5419 and another vehicle BMW car bearing
reg.No.AP09CN0700 by its drivers?
2. Whether the 3rd and 4th respondent prove that the
accident has occurred on account of negligent act of
driver of BMW car ?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, how much and from whom?
4. What order ?
ISSUES IN M.V.C.NO.3347/2018
1.Whether the Petitioner proves that she sustained
grievous injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that
occurred on 28.09.2017 at about 10.15 a.m, at NH -
44 road, Bangalore to Hyderabad, Kambalapalli
Cross, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapuram, Andhra
Pradesh, within the jurisdiction of Chilamathur police
station on account of rash and negligent driving of
the Fiat Linea Car bearing registration No. AP28D
5419 and another vehicle BMW car bearing
reg.No.AP09CN0700 by its drivers?
2. Whether the 3rd and 4th respondent prove that the
accident has occurred on account of negligent act of
driver of BMW car ?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, how much and from whom?
4. What order ?
21. In support of the petitioner's case, petitioner in
M.V.C.No.3347/2018 is examined as PW.1 on her own
behalf as well as on behalf of petitioner in MVC
SCCH-1 15 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
No.3346/2018 who is none other than her father and
Doctor is examined as PW.2 and got marked in all 39
documents as Ex.P.1 to 39. In support of the respondents
case, Senior Executive of 4th respondent Insurance
Company is examined as RW.1 and got marked one
document as Ex.R.1.
22. Heard arguments of both the sides.
23. For the reasons stated in the subsequent paras, I
answer the above Issues are as follows:
1) Issue No.1 in both the cases ... In Affirmative,
2) Issue No.2 in both the cases ... In Affirmative,
3) Issue No.3 in both the cases ... accordingly
4) Issue No.4 in both the cases ...As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
24. ISSUE No.1 AND 2 IN BOTH PETITION:
Issue No.1 and 2 in both petitions are with reference
to negligent act of driving on the part of BMW car. In the
first issue burden is casted on petitioner and in second
issue burden of proof is casted on respondent No.3 and 4.
SCCH-1 16 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
To avoid repetition of discussion of evidence, these two
issues are taken together for discussion.
25. It is the case of the petitioners in both the
petitions that only due to rash or negligent act of driving on
the part of the BMW car bearing reg.No.AP09CN0700
accident has occurred. The respondent No.3 and 4 in the
written statement have also taken contention that due to
rash or negligent act of driving on the part of BMW car
driver accident occurred. The respondent No.3 is driver of
car wherein both petitioners were travelling and respondent
No.3 is owner cum driver of Fiat Linea car. Even though
respondent No.2 has taken contention that there is a
negligent act on the part of respondent No.3 he has not
chosen to adduce any evidence.
26. To prove the rash or negligent act on the part of
driver of BMW car, the petitioners relied on evidence of
PW.1 who is none other than the petitioner in MVC
No.3347/2018 she deposed on her own behalf as well as on
behalf of petitioner in MVC No.3346/2018 as a Power of
Attorney Holder.
SCCH-1 17 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
27. During the course of crossexamination of PW.1
she was unable to say what was the distance they have
travelled on that day from Bengaluru till the scene of
offence and she is unable to say the other details of scene
of offence, the width of the road, number of lane available
on spot and other particulars. The petitioners have also
relied on police records. The respondent No.3 has lodged
complaint on the date of accident itself. The police records
relied by petitioners are Ex.P.2 - FIR and complaint as it is
in Telugu language its translation is produced as per
Ex.P.2(a) and another copy of complaint is marked at
Ex.P.8(a), Ex.P.5 is the charge sheet, Ex.P.6 is the
statement of witness recorded by Investigating Officer
during investigation and ExP.6(a) are the translation of
witness statement recorded by Investigating Officer. Ex.P.7
and Ex.P.7(a) are the spot sketch and translated copy of the
spot sketch.
28. From going through the above referred police
records it is clear that, on the basis of complaint lodged by
respondent No.3 case is registered against the driver of the
SCCH-1 18 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
BMW car. On completion of investigation charge sheet is
filed against the driver of the BMW car Arun Sharma. From
going through the charge sheet at Ex.P.5 it is clear that
during the investigation, the Investigating Officer has
recorded further statement of complainant and statements
of 2 witnesses who were available in the land situated by
side of the scene of offence. By visiting hospital he has
recorded the statement of both petitioners in both
petitions.
29. Ex.P.7 and 7(a) are the spot sketch prepared at
the time of conducting spot panchanama. It is the specific
case of the respondent No.3 in the complaint that, the
BMW car came in a wrong side and dashed to the
respondent No.3's car. From Ex.P.7 and 7(a) it is clear
that, car of respondent No.3 wherein petitioners were
travelling was proceeding from Bengaluru side to
Hyderabad side i.e., south to north. As it is a National
High way there is a median in between the road. As scene
of offence is shown towards western side of the road i.e.,
western edge. As BMW car came from opposite direction its
SCCH-1 19 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
normal way is eastern after divider but it came to the
western side after divider i.e., extreme left side and dashed
to the car of the respondent No.3. From Ex.P.7 scene of
offence can be located and which probablises the facts
narrated in the complaint. On completion of investigation
the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet only against
the driver of BMW car and complainant is not made as
accused. If there is a contributory negligence on the part
of complainant respondent No.3 then he will be made as an
accused No.2. Considering the scene of offence and
admitted fact that accident occurred on National High way
Bengaluru to Hyderabad and BMW car came in wrong side
and dashed to the car of respondent No.3. Therefore, it is
proved by petitioners as well as respondent No.3 and 4
that only due to rash or negligent act of driving on the part
of driver of the BMW car accident occurred.
30. It is the specific case of the petitioners that in
the said accident they have sustained grievous injuries.
For that the petitioners have relied on Ex.P.3 Wound
certificate of petitioner in MVC No.3346/2018, Ex.P.17
SCCH-1 20 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
Discharge summary, Ex.P.18 medical bills. From these
documents it is clear that the petitioner in MVC
No.3346/2018 has sustained multiple fractures which are
described as grievous injuries. Ex.P.20 wound certificate
of PW.1 and Ex.P.21 discharge summary and Ex.P.23
medical bills. From these documents it is clear that in the
accident PW.1 petitioner in MVC No.3347/2018 sustained
grievous injuries hence, petitioner proved that due to
negligent act of driving on the part of driver of BMW car
and in the said accident they have sustained grievous
injuries. Hence, Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in the
Affirmative in both petitions.
31. ISSUE No.3 IN BOTH CASES: In these two
petitions, the petitioners have claimed travel expenses of
brother of PW 1 and mother in law of brother of PW 1,
amounting to Rs.1,31,043/. In support of the said
claim, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.10 - Print Out
of Travel Receipts.
SCCH-1 21 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
32. It is the specific case of the petitioners in both
the cases that brother of PW 1 is living in Belgium and his
wife was then pregnant for 6 months. PW 1's brother had
travelled to Bengaluru as soon he got news about the
accident, leaving his pregnant wife as she was not in a
position to travel. After travelling to India, he looked after
the needs of both his father and sister at hospital. In view
of his continued stay in Bengaluru, he had to make
alternative arrangements to ensurer his wife's well being,
who was alone in a foreign country. Therefore, his
motherinlaw was travelled to Belgium to take care of his
wife. The travelling charges of PW1's brother and his
motherinlaw are claimed.
33. It is the further case of the petitioners that as
the petitioner in MVC No.3346/2018 was in ICU for a
long time, therefore, they had to take temporary rented
accommodation near the hospital to be able to attend
both the petitioners. Therefore, they have spent extra
amount for accommodation near the hospital. Therefore,
on the head of pain and suffering, compensation of Rs.51
SCCH-1 22 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
lakhs and Rs.6 lakhs, respectively is claimed by the
petitioners.
34. The learned advocate for the petitioners'
vehemently argued that at the time of awarding just
compensation, the Tribunal should, to the extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. Therefore, the petitioners
are entitled for all those consequential inconvenience and
monetary expenses incurred by them for the travel of PW
1's brother from Belgium to Bengaluru and his motherin
law from Bengaluru to Belgum to take care of PW1's
brothers pregnant wife. As their rented house is situated
away from the hospital, they have taken an another
rented premises near the hospital and prayed to award
compensation on these heads also.
35. In the light of the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, now the question is
whether the petitioners are entitled for travelling expenses
incurred by PW 1's brother and his mother in law, is
required to be awarded, is to be seen.
SCCH-1 23 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
36. In the decision relied on by the learned
advocate for the petitioners reported in (2011) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 343 (Rajkumar Vs Ajay Kumar and another),
in Para No.5, his Lordship has discussed about the
general principles relating to compensation in injury
cases. For better appreciation, reproduction of Para No.5
and 6 is necessary, which reads thus:
"5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that
the award must be just, which means that
compensation should, to the extent possible,
fully and adequately restore the claimant to
the position prior to the accident. The object
of awarding damages is to make good the
loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far
as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and
equitable manner. The Court or the Tribunal
shall have to assess the damages objectively
and exclude from consideration any
speculation or fancy, though some conjecture
with reference to the nature of disability and
its consequences, is inevitable. A person is
not only to be compensated for the physical
SCCH-1 24 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
injury, but also for the loss which he suffered
as a result of such injury. This means that he
is to be compensated for his inability to lead a
full life, his inability to enjoy those normal
amenities which he would have enjoyed but
for the injuries, and his inability to earn as
much as he used to earn or could have
earned.
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages(Special damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation,
nourishing food, and miscellaneous
expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which
the injured would have made had he not been
injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) future medical expenses
SCCH-1 25 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
Nonpecuniary damages(General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma
as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects
of marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life(shortening of
normal longevity).
In the routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under
heads (i), ((ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious
cases of injury, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the evidence
of the claimant, that compensation will be
granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v)
and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of
expectation of life."
37. The principle laiddown by their Lordships in
the above referred judgment are followed in the
subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in S Perumal Vs
SCCH-1 26 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
V.Ambika and another in Civil Appeal No.2377/2015,
arising out of SLP (C) No.7213/2014, dated 24.02.2015.
In para No.14 of the said judgment, Para No.5 and 6 of
the judgment in Rajkumar Vs Ajaykumar and another,
referred supra, are reproduced. Their Lordships have
also referred to another Apex Court judgment reported in
2012 ACJ 28 (Govind Yadav Vs New India Assurance Co.,
Ltd.,) and their Lordships observed that the Principles
laiddown in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs New
India Assurance Co., Ltd., and Rajkumar Vs Ajaykumar
must be followed by all the Tribunals and High Courts
while determining the quantum of compensation payable
to the victims of the accident, who are disabled either
permanently or temporarily.
38. In the recent judgment of the Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.735/2020 arising out of SLP (C)
No.15504/2019 (Kajal Vs Jagadish Chand), their
Lordships have once again referred to the principles
laiddown by the Division Bench of the Apex Court in the
case of Rajkumar Vs Ajaykumar and another and in para
SCCH-1 27 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
No.16 of the said judgment, Para 6 of the case of
Rajkumar Vs Ajaykumar and another are reproduced. In
Para 17 of the said judgment their Lordships referred to
another decision of the Apex Court in K.Suresh Vs New
India Assurance Co., Ltd., and recited Para No.2 that
"just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a
windfall, and simultaneously, should not be pittance".
39. Applying the principles laiddown in the case of
Rajkumar Vs Ajaykumar and another, referred supra,,
their Lordships have proceeded to assess the
compensation with reference to expenses relating to
treatment, hospitalisation, medicines and transportation
charges.
40. In the light of the above said principles
laiddown by the Apex Court, just compensation required
to be determined in the petitions filed under Section 166
of the MV Act in injury cases, will be awarded only under
following three category (i) expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing
food and miscellaneous expenses. Under category (ii)(a),
SCCH-1 28 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
loss of earning which the injured would have made had
he not been injured, comprising loss of earning during the
period of treatment and under category (iv) damage for
pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence injury,
would be awarded.
41. It is only in serious case of injury, where there
is specific medical evidence, then compensation on the
other heads like loss of future earning on account of
permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of
expectation of life, loss of amenities including loss of
prospects of marriage may be awarded, but not on any
other heads.
42. Now the question is whether travelling
expenses incurred by PW 1's brother and his mother in
law will include in the word "transportation" used in the
category (i) of the heads, under which compensation is
awarded, is to be seen.
43. Under category (i) of Pecuniary Damages
(Special Damages), expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing
SCCH-1 29 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
food and miscellaneous expenses are included. The word
"transportation" cannot be separated. It is required to be
read in continuation with other words used in that clause
ie., treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, nourishing food
etc. Therefore, the transportation cost of the victim is
alone included in category (i) of Pecuniary Damages
(Special Damages), but not transportation charges of any
other person, other than the injured.
44. In the above referred paragraph No.5 in the
case of Rajkumar Vs Ajaykumar referred supra, their
Lordships have clearly observed that the Court or the
Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and
exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy,
though some conjecture with reference to the nature of
disability and its consequences, is inevitable. Therefore,
under the head "transportation charges", none of the
petitioners are entitled for travelling expenses of PW1's
brother and his mother in law, as claimed by them.
SCCH-1 30 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
45. From going through the heads of compensation
to be awarded in personal injuries cases as referred in the
case of Rajkumar Vs Ajaykumar and another referred
supra, it is clear that it does not include additional
accommodation charges incurred by the PW1's brother
and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled claim rental
expenses incurred for additional accommodation under
just compensation.
46. It is the case of the petitioners that as their
rented premises is located far away from the hospital,
they have taken additional accommodation near the
hospital and thereby, they have incurred expenses by
paying high rents as within short time, they were required
to make arrangements. However, as discussed above, just
compensation under the head pain and suffering does not
include the expenses incurred for additional
accommodation. Therefore, the arguments advanced by
the learned advocate for the petitioners that the
petitioners have incurred consequential travelling
expenses of brother of PW 1 and his motherinlaw and
SCCH-1 31 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
that they have incurred extra rent for additional
accommodation near the hospital, are not acceptable one.
47. In MVC No.3346/2018 petitioner Ashok Kumar
Sah has claimed total compensation of Rs.1,16,58,578/
on various heads. To prove what are the injuries
sustained by the petitioner in the said accident, petitioner
relied on oral evidence of his daughter PW.1 as power of
attorney holder and Ex.P.3 wound certificate, Ex.P.4
discharge summary, Ex.P.9 medical bills.
48. From going through the above said medical
records produced by the petitioner it is clear that as per
Ex.P.4 discharge summary diagnosis are made as
under:
Left femur shaft m/3 1/3 fracture (closed)
Open type 1 fracture left tibia
Segmental fracture right tibia and fibula (closed)
Left proximal humerus fracture (closed)
Right 5th proximal phalanx fracture
Left parietal SDH with SAH
9th rib fracture left side.
SCCH-1 32 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
49. From Ex.P.4 Discharge summary it is clear
that in Columbia Asia Hospital petitioner has taken
treatment as inpatient from 28.09.2017 to 17.10.2017 and
he underwent surgery like closed reduction on fixed skin
traction and intramedullary nail fixation left femur,
debridement left leg and closed reduction by fixed skin
traction, intramedullary nail fixation left tibia. From
discharge summary and from Ex.P.27 inpatient records
produced by PW.2 of petitioner it is clear that petitioner
has underwent several investigations during treatment.
Considering the above said nature of injury sustained by
petitioner and length of treatment taken as inpatient and
surgery underwent by him an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ is
awarded to the petitioner towards Pain and sufferings.
50. As per Ex.P.4, petitioner has taken treatment as
an inpatient from 28.09.2017 to 17.10.2017 for a period of
20 days. Therefore, compensation of Rs.20,000/ is
awarded to the petitioner towards food and nourishment
and attendant charges.
SCCH-1 33 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
51. It is the case of the petitioner that he has
incurred medical expenses. As per Ex.P.9 petitioner has
produced medical bills. Sl.No.1 of Ex.P.9 is the corporate
bill and Sl.No.2 is patient bill. From Sl.No.1 and 2 of
Ex.P.9 it is clear that both bills are with reference to the
inpatient bill for same period from 28.09.2017 to
17.10.2017. The both bills printout have taken
simultaneously with reference to petitioner.
52. During the course of cross examination of PW.1
she has clearly admitted that, his employer Goldman
Sacsh Company's Insurance Company has paid
Rs.6,66,000/ towards medical expenses of his father and
in the further crossexamination she further admitted that
my employer Goldman Sacsh Company Insurance
Company has paid Rs.2,02,500/ towards medical
expenses. In view of the above said admission it is clear
that the insurance company has paid the bill at Sl.No.1. In
Ex.P.9 Sl.No.1 it is mentioned as Corporate bill and
Insurance company is mentioned as United India
Insurance Co., Ltd., and payor name is Medi Assist
SCCH-1 34 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
Insurance TPA Pvt., Ltd., therefore, under sl.No.1
petitioner is not entitled for compensation on the head of
medical expenses i.e., Rs. 8,46,977/. What has paid by
petitioner apart from the payment received by hospital
authority from the insurance company is mentioned in
Sl.No.2 bill of Ex.P.9 for which petitioner is entitled.
Sl.No.3 to 26 are the bills for having paid the amount
towards hospital authority at the time of taking follow up
treatment on different dates and physiotherapy bill paid at
Sl.No.29 bill, for which petitioner is entitled.
53. At Sl.No.30 and 31 petitioner has claimed
Rs.1,599/ and Rs.1,579/ respectively for purchase of
Lenovo HW01 Smart Band with Heart Rate Monitor and
Dr.Trust NL 50D Pulse Oximeter. These 2 instruments are
not related to the injury sustained by the petitioner in the
accident. Therefore, under those bills petitioner is not
entitled for an amount. Under Sl.No.32 petitioner has
claimed Rs.3,360/ as per the receipt it is clear that he has
paid that amount towards eye glasses, it is not the case of
petitioner that in the said accident he has sustained any
SCCH-1 35 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
eye injury. Therefore under this receipt petitioner has not
entitled for any compensation amount. Sl.No.36, 37 are
with reference to amount paid towards nursing services
invoice which cannot be included in the medical expenses,
therefore those 2 bills which excluded. In Ex.P.10
petitioner has claimed flight travel charges under invoices.
In view of above said reasons petitioner is not entitled for
those amount and also amount mentioned in Ex.P.11 and
12. Under Ex.P.13 Sl.No.1 and 2 petitioner has claimed
an amount for having purchase of some goods through
Amazon and under sl.No.3 of Ex.P.13 petitioner has
purchased ResMed. Australia with all Standard Accessories
and with Philips Full Face Mask for that an amount of
Rs.60,000/ is claimed, for which petitioner is not entitled.
By excluding the above referred bills and invoices produced
by the petitioner, petitioner is entitled for medical bills
claimed under Sl.No.2 to 29, 33 to 35 of Ex.P.9. The total
of which comes to Rs.1,04,180/ therefore an amount of
SCCH-1 36 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
Rs.1,04,180/ is awarded to the petitioner towards
Medical Expenses.
54. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has
sustained permanent disability in view of injury sustained
by him. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and
he was earning nearly Rs.1,00,000/ per month. To
substantiate the same petitioner has produced Ex.P.26
income tax return for the year 2017 18. The income tax
return was submitted in the month of June 2019 prior to
the occurrence of accident i.e., 28.09.2017, it cannot be
said that same is created to get a higher compensation. As
per Ex.P.26 income tax return submitted by petitioner he
has shown his annual gross salary of Rs.11,95,081/ out
of it Rs.1,21,928/ is paid towards the tax. Therefore his
annual income comes to Rs.10,73,153/. From Ex.P.26
petitioner proved that prior to the accident even though he
was 65 years old was earning by doing consultancy.
55. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the
injury sustained in the accident he has left with permanent
SCCH-1 37 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
disability. PW.2 doctor issued disability assessment report
as per Ex.P.30. Considering the mobility and stability
components he has assessed percentage of disability of
whole body at 57%. During the course of cross
examination of PW.2 it is suggested to him that due to old
age, petitioner is suffering from restriction of movements in
his limbs same is also included at the time of assessment
of disability, same is denied by PW.2 during the course of
cross examination. Even though in chief examination
affidavit he has not stated anything about percentage of
disability but he has produced Ex.P.30 disability report of
petitioner.
56. It is further case of the respondent that
petitioner was suffering from old age ailments prior to the
accident. Same is denied by PW.2 during the course of
crossexamination. PW.2 has deposed that he has
calculated the percentage of disability by applying Central
Gazette Guildlines of 2018 and also previous guidlines and
he has calculated upper and lower limb disability by taking
90% towards shoulder joint, elbow and wrist joint, with
SCCH-1 38 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
reference to upper lower limb. He has admitted that as per
the 2018 guildelines he has required to take 30% to each
joint, he has taken 90% for 3 joints. After calculation there
will be no difference in percentage of disability. He further
explained and there are several injuries to the limbs, he
has taken 90% together. Considering the entire evidence of
PW.2 and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner
percentage of disability is taken as 30%. As I already
stated above prior to the accident even though petitioner
was 65 years old he was earning Rs.10,73,153/ per
annum. Therefore his monthly income comes to
Rs.89,429/.
57. The 30% of Rs.10,73,153/ comes to
Rs.3,21,946/. As per the 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarala Verma
Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation), the multiplier applicable
to the present case in hand as petitioner is 65 years old as
on the date of accident is '5'. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled for compensation of Rs.16,09,730/
SCCH-1 39 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
(Rs.3,21,946/ x 5) towards loss of future income due to
permanent disability.
58. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained
by the petitioner, it might not be possible for the petitioner
to do anything for a minimum period of 2 months.
Therefore petitioner is entitled for loss of 2 months income
during treatment and laid up period. As I already stated
above his monthly income is Rs.89,429/ and 2 months
loss of income comes to Rs.1,78,858/. Therefore petitioner
is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,78,858/ towards
Loss of income during treatment and rest period.
59. The Petitioner has claimed that he has spent
more than lakhs for transportation. In view of my above
said observations with reference to travelling expenses,
petitioner's son and motherinlaw of his son and
petitioner is not entitled an amount spent towards rent of
accommodation made to near the hospital. The petitioner
is entitled only Transportation expenses of himself to
attend the hospital for follow up treatment. Considering
SCCH-1 40 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
the said facts, the compensation of Rs.5,000/ is awarded
to the petitioner towards transportation charges.
60. PW.2 doctor has not stated nothing about the
requirements of removal of implant fixed to the petitioner
at the time of surgery. In the absence of specific medical
evidence and considering the age of the petitioner there is a
possibility that doctor has not advised for removal of
implants. Therefore compensation is not awarded towards
Future Medical Expenses.
61. The details of compensation, to which the
petitioner is entitled to is as under:
Sl. Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 1,20,00000
2. Medical expenses Rs. 1,04,18000
3. Food and nourishment, Rs. 20,00000
attendant charges
4. Transportation charges Rs. 5,00000
5. Loss of income during Rs. 1,78,85800
treatment period
6. Loss of future income due Rs. 16,09,73000
to permanent disability
at 30% of Rs.10,73,153/
SCCH-1 41 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
Rs.3,21,946/ x 5 =
Total Rs. 20,37,76800
62. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.20,37,768/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of the petition till realisation.
63. In M.V.C.No.3347/2018 petitioner Jena Sah
has claimed total compensation of Rs.33,86,812/ for the
injuries sustained by him in the accident. To prove the
what are the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the
accident, the petitioner relied on her own oral evidence
and Ex.P.20 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.17 and 21
discharge summaries and Ex.P.23 medical bills, Ex.P.33
and 34 inpatient records produced by PW.2.
64. From going through the wound certificate at
Ex.P.20 and discharge summary at Ex.P.21 it is clear
that, petitioner has sustained open type 2 tibia shaft
fracture (comminuted), left hand middle and ring finger
comminuted metacarpal shaft fracture. She has taken
SCCH-1 42 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
treatment as inpatient from 28.09.2017 till 07.10.2017.
As per Ex.P.17 discharge summary she was again
admitted on 09.07.2019 for removal of implants surgery
and discharged on 12.07.2019. Considering the nature of
injury sustained by the petitioner and length of treatment
taken by her and gravity of the injury, compensation of
Rs.60,000/ is awarded to th petitioner towards Pain and
sufferings.
65. From Ex.P.17 and 21 discharge summaries it
is clear that, initially petitioner has taken treatment as an
inpatient for a period of 10 days i.e., from 28.09.2017 to
07.10.2017 and second time for implant removal surgery
she has taken treatment as inpatient from 09.07.2019 to
12.07.2019 for a period of 4 days. In all petitioner is
taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 14 days.
Therefore, compensation of Rs.14,000/ is awarded to
the petitioner towards food and nourishment and
attendant charges.
SCCH-1 43 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
66. It is the case of the petitioner that she has spent
medical expenses for her treatment for that she relied on
Ex.P.23 medical bills. Sl.No.1 of Ex.P.23 is the patient bill
and sl.No.2 is the corporate bill, from this it is clear that
both bills are with reference to the inpatient bill for same
period from 28.09.2017 to 07.10.2017. Therefore, under
Sl.No.2 which is corporate bill and insurance company is
mentioned as United India Insurance Co., Ltd., and payor
name is Medi Assist Insurance TPA Pvt., Ltd., therefore,
petitioner is not entitled for compensation on the head of
medical expenses under Sl.No.2 bill. Sl.No.1 and 2 are of
Ex.P.23 is with reference to first admission and Sl.No.4 of
Ex.P.23 is with reference to second admission for implant
removal operation. Sl.No.4 is corporate bills dated
08.11.2017 and Insurance company name is mentioned as
Medwell Ventures Private Limited. Therefore under this
bill also petitioner had not paid an amount to the hospital
authority. Therefore petitioner is not entitled for an amount
under Sl.No.1 and 4 bills of Ex.P.23. Remaining bills are
with reference to amount paid by petitioner to the hospital
SCCH-1 44 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
authority therefore, petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the head of medical expenses at bills Sl.No.1, 3 and
5 to 26. The total of these bills comes to Rs.50,166.82 ps.,
by rounding of the same to Rs.50,170/ is awarded to the
petitioner towards Medical Expenses.
67. It is the case of the petitioner that, due to injury
sustained in the accident she has sustained permanent
disability there is a loss of her earning capacity, to
substantiate the same she relied on evidence of PW.2.
PW.2 in the chief examination assessed disability on the
basis of stability and mobility components with reference
to upper as well as lower limb and assessed percentage of
disability at 16% towards whole body. During the course
of crossexamination of PW.1 she has clearly admitted
that now she is working and earning even though
petitioner has produced her Form No.16 at Ex.P.15 and
Income Tax returns for the year 2017 18 as per Ex.P.22.
She has not produced subsequent year Income Tax
returns or Form No.16. During the course of cross
SCCH-1 45 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
examination she has deposed that in the month of
January 2018 she has joined her service. Therefore only
based on evidence of PW.2 who has assessed physical
disability which is not functional disability, it cannot be
said that there is a loss of earning capacity of the
petitioner. The petitioner has not produced materials to
show that there is reduction of her earnings in view of the
injury sustained in the accident. Therefore petitioner is
not entitled for compensation on the head of loss of future
earning capacity but based on the evidence of PW.2
doctor and her own evidence as there is a restriction of
movements in her left hand finger as well as leg, she is
entitled for compensation on the head of loss of
amenities. Considering the age of the petitioner and she
is unmarried, the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/ is
awarded to the petitioner towards loss of amenities.
68. Considering the physical discomforts required
to be faced by her during her life time and there is a scar
in the left hand as deposed by the PW.2 therefore,
SCCH-1 46 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ is awarded to the
petitioner towards Loss of Marriage Prospects.
69. From going through the bills produced by the
petitioner it is clear that, even after discharge from the
hospital she has taken follow up treatment based on the
documents OLA and UBER as per Ex.P.24 compensation
cannot be granted.
70. Considering the follow up treatment taken by
her, compensation of Rs.5,000/ is awarded to the
petitioner towards Transportation Charges.
71. From Ex.P.15 Form 16 and Ex.P. 22
Income Tax Report, it is clear that prior to the accident in
the year 2017 18 financial year, petitioner has earned
gross salary of Rs.14,04,604/ per annum, after
deducting income tax monthly income comes to
Rs.1,17,050/. Considering the nature of injury sustained
by the petitioner and answer given by PW.1 during the
course of cross examination it might not have possible for
her to attend her work for a period of 2 months.
SCCH-1 47 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
Therefore, Rs.2,34,100/ is awarded to the petitioner
towards loss of earning during the treatment and rest
period.
72. As already petitioner has underwent implant
removal surgery therefore she is not entitled for
compensation on the head of future medical expenses.
73. The details of compensation, to which the
petitioner is entitled to is as under:
Sl. Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 60,00000
2. Medical Expenses Rs. 50,17000
3. Loss of amenities Rs. 2,00,00000
4. Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 1,00,00000
5. Loss of Income during the Rs. 2,34,10000
period of treatment
6. Food and nourishment, Rs. 14,00000
attendant charges
7. Transportation charges Rs. 5,00000
Total Rs. 6,63,27000
SCCH-1 48 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
74. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.6,63,270/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of the petition till realisation.
75. In view of my findings on Issue No.1 and 2 in
favour of petitioners and respondent No.3 and 4 by
holding that due to rash or negligent act of driving on the
part of driver of the BMW car accident occurred, the
respondent No.1 being the Owner and respondent No.2
being the Insurer of the BMW car bearing reg.No.AP07
CN0700 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation and respondent No.3 and 4 are not liable to
pay any compensation. Therefore, Issue No.3 in both the
cases is answered accordingly.
76. ISSUE NO.4 IN BOTH THE CASES: In view of
the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
M.V.C. No.3346/2018 :
SCCH-1 49 MVC No.3346-3347/2018The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2 and dismissed against the respondents No.3 and 4. The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.20,37,768/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner. 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 total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled, 50% with proportionate interest shall be kept in F.D. in his name in any nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of 2 years and remaining 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.SCCH-1 50 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
M.V.C. No.3347/2018 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2 and dismissed against the respondents No.3 and 4. The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.6,63,270/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner. 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 total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled, 50% with proportionate interest shall be kept in F.D. in her name in any nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years and remaining 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner .SCCH-1 51 MVC No.3346-3347/2018
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in each case. Original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.3346/2018 and its copy in another case. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 3rd day of February 2022) (PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt. Jena Sah P.W.2 : Dr.R. Shashikanth
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 Power of attorney executed by the petitioner in MVC 3346/2018 Ex.P.2 FIR & Complaint in Telugu language Ex.P.3 Wound certificate Ex.P.4 Discharge Summary Ex.P.5 Chargesheet Ex.P.6 5 Witness statement Ex.P.6(a) 5 Translated copy of witness statements SCCH-1 52 MVC No.3346-3347/2018 Ex.P.7 Spot sketch Ex.P.7(a) Translated copy of spot sketch Ex.P.8 Complaint Ex.P.8(a) Translated copy of Complaint Ex.P.9 35 Medical bills Ex.P.10 Computer generated Flight Ticket dated 15.11.2017 Ex.P.11 Mail transaction dated 07.10.2017 Ex.P.12 Rent receipt dated 07.10.2017 Ex.P.13 Tax invoice dated 31.08.2018 Ex.P.14 Appointment letter Ex.P.15 Form 16 IT returns for the assessment year 201718 Ex.P.16 Letter dated 07.11.2017 along with annexure Ex.P.17 Discharge Summary Ex.P.18 3 Medical bills Ex.P.19 Citi bank statement Ex.P.20 Wound certificate of Jena Sah Ex.P.21 Discharge Summary dated 07.10.2017 Ex.P.22 ITR 5 of year 20172018 Ex.P.23 27 Medical bills Ex.P.24 25 Travel bills Ex.P.25 Lenskart bill dated 12.10.2017 Ex.P.26 ITR of Ashok Sah for the Assessment year 201718 Ex.P.27 Inpatient records of Ashok Kumar Sah Ex.P.28 MLC Register SCCH-1 53 MVC No.3346-3347/2018 Ex.P.29 Police Intimation Ex.P.30 Disability assessment report Ex.P.31 12 - Xrays Ex.P.32 4 CT scan films Ex.P.33&34 2 inpatient records of Jena sah Ex.P.35 MLC Register Ex.P.36 Police intimation Ex.P.37 Disability assessment report Ex.P.38 18 - Xrays Ex.P.39 2 CT Scan films Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
R.W.1 : Sri. Chaitresh D Habbu Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Policy copy
(PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH)
Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes &
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T.
Bangalore.
*SR*