Bangalore District Court
K.Rani vs Jaheerabbas Imomin on 20 November, 2025
SCCH 15 1 MVC No.2166/2021
KABC020140432021
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-15
Present : RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES
M.com., LL.M.,
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
MVC No.2166/2021
Dated : This the 20th day of November 2025
PETITIONER/S : 1. Smt. K. Rani
W/o K. Dhananjaya Naidu,
Aged about 56 years.
2. Sri. K. Dhananjaya Naidu,
S/o Late Abbi Naidu,
Aged about 66 years.
Both are R/at
No.1-11, Erracheruvupalli village
Temple side, Puthalapatlu
Mandalam, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh - 517124.
Presently R/at
No.55/3, Sourahunase main road,
Varthur, Bengaluru - 560 087.
(By Sri. M. Bheema Reddy, Adv)
VS
SCCH 15 2 MVC No.2166/2021
RESPONDENT/S: 1. Jaheerabbas Imomin,
S/o Imamsab Momin, Major,
Sathyamarg Anjaneya Nagar Mall
Maruti Extention,
Belagavi - 590016.
(RC owner of Milk tanker
bearing Reg.No.KA-22-D-0138)
(By Sri. C.V.S. Mani, Adv)
2. HDFC Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
R/by Manager,
No.25/1, 2nd floor,
Building No.2,
Shankaranarayana Building,
No.1, M.G. Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Insurer of Milk tanker
bearing Reg.No.KA-22-D-0138
Policy No.2317203632387500 000
valid from 24.09.2020 to 23.09.2021)
(By Sri. Y.P. Venkatapathi, Adv)
:JUDGMENT:
This petition emanates from the Motor Vehicle Accident dated 19.03.2021 wherein the petitioners have sought for compensation with respect to the death of Sri Rajesh due to the impact of the accident.
2. Succinctly stated the facts germane to the lis involved SCCH 15 3 MVC No.2166/2021 in this petition are briefly summarized as follows:
It is the case of the petitioners that the Petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the father of deceased Rajesh who died in the Road Traffic Accident on 19.03.2021 due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the respondent's milk tanker. It is submitted that on 19.03.2021 at about 11.45 a.m., deceased Rajesh was riding a Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN- 20-X-2763 near Thalapulapalli village, on Chittoor - Kadapa NH- 40 road, by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, at that time, respondent's Milk tanker bearing Reg.No.KA-22-D-0138 (herein after referred to as the offending vehicle) came from piler side to Chittoor side in a great speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of Rajesh, due to the impact, Rajesh sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
Consequently, on 19.03.2021 FIR No.0037/2021 was registered with the Puthalapattu Police station under Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC and under Sec.134(A) & 134(B) of MV Act and charge sheet was filed under Sec. 279 and 304(A) of IPC and under SCCH 15 4 MVC No.2166/2021 Sec.134(A) & 134(B) of MV Act against the driver of the offending vehicle.
The Petitioners submit that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the milk tanker. It is submitted that the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 35 years and was software engineer earning Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. at the time of accident and he was the sole bread earner and had good future prospects. Due to untimely death of the deceased the Petitioners have lost love, affection and support which has caused mental agony to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,00,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% p.a in the interest of justice and equity.
3. In pursuance of service of the notice issued, the Respondent No.1 and 2 appeared through their Counsels and filed Objections to the claim petition.
The Respondent No.1 has filed written statement submitting as follows:
It is submitted by the respondent No.1 that the alleged accident never took place due to the negligence on the part of SCCH 15 5 MVC No.2166/2021 driver of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that the offending vehicle is insured with respondent No.2. It is submitted that the amount claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, excessive, arbitrary, unreasonable and without any legal basis. Hence, on these grounds, Respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
4. The Respondent No.2 has filed written statement submitting as follows:
The respondent No.2 admitted that it has issued insurance policy to the offending vehicle. Without prejudice the liability of the respondent No.2 if any is subject to the validity of driving license and terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driver of the said offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. It is submitted that the amount claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, excessive, arbitrary, unreasonable and without any legal basis. Hence, on these grounds Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
5. Vide order dated 30.11.2021 the following issues were SCCH 15 6 MVC No.2166/2021 framed by this Tribunal :-
ISSUES
1) Whether the Petitioners prove that deceased K. Rajesh S/o K. Dhananjaya Naidu sustained injuries due to rash and negligent act of driving of milk tanker bearing Reg.KA-
22-D-0138 dated:19.03.2021 at about 11.45 a.m., and succumbed to injuries?
2) Whether the petitioners prove the age and earnings of the deceased as stated in the claim petition?
3) Whether the Petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased K. Rajesh S/o K. Dhananjaya Naidu?
4) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
From whom?
5) What Order or Award ?
6. In order to substantiate the claim petition, the claimants have examined petitioner No.1 as PW1 and examined two witnesses as PW.2 and 3 and relied upon Ex.P.1 to 48 documents.
SCCH 15 7 MVC No.2166/2021 The Respondent No.1 got examined himself as RW.1.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has relied on the following citations:
1. Civil appeal Nos.9196-97 of 2019, between Malarvizhi & others Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd., and another
2. MFA No.5865 of 2012 (MV), between The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Pushpalatha & others
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties in this case. Having perused the records my issue wise findings run as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative Issue No.4 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.5 : As per the Final Order for the following :
REASONS
8. Issue No.1: Before adjudication of the issue with respect to the compensation it is quintessential to adjudicate on the issue of rashness and negligence. It is the contention of the SCCH 15 8 MVC No.2166/2021 petitioners that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Milk tanker bearing Reg.No.KA-22-D-0138 / offending vehicle.
9. In this regard petitioner No.1 got examined as PW.1 and in her chief-examination she has deposed that on 19.03.2021 at about 11.45 a.m., deceased Rajesh was riding the Royal Enfield motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-20-X-2763 near Thalapulapalli village, on Chittoor - Kadapa NH-40 road, by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, at that time, respondent's Milk tanker bearing Reg.No.KA-22-D-0138/offending vehicle came from piler side to Chittoor side at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, due to the impact, Rajesh sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
10. The petitioners in support of their claim have in addition to describing the course of the accident in line with the facts mentioned in the complaint have relied upon Ex.P1 to 8 documents. Ex.P1 is the FIR registered against the driver of the offending vehicle on the basis of the complaint given by one Yogesh as per Ex.P2 on 19.03.2021 on the date of the accident, hence, SCCH 15 9 MVC No.2166/2021 there is no delay in lodging the complaint. Ex.P3 is the Statement of the witness. Ex.P4 is the Accident information report. Ex.P5 is the spot sketch which discloses that the spot of the accident is almost at the edge of the road from north towards south and road is sufficiently wide road NH-40 road and lorry has come to the extreme left side, resulting in the accident. Ex.P6 is the inquest report and Ex.P7 Postmortem report discloses that the deceased succumbed to the injuries due to the impact of the accident. Ex.P8 is the charge sheet filed after completion of the investigation which discloses that when the deceased was proceeding on NH-40 on the side of the road at the same time the driver of the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle, resulting in the accident and the driver fled from the spot after committing the accident. Hence, these documents satisfactorily point out that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
11. As far as the manner of the accident is concerned PW.1 is cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondents and in the cross-examination she has deposed that she has not seen the SCCH 15 10 MVC No.2166/2021 accident and her son was returning from Chittoor and denied that the accident has occurred due to her son's negligence. PW.1 has denied that accident took place in the middle of the road and stated accident has taken place at edge of the road and lorry came from the opposite direction. Except the suggestion that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the deceased, nothing much is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 to prove that the accident took place due to the negligence or rashness on the part of the deceased. PW.1 has clearly and categorically deposed about the manner of the accident. The fact that the driver of the offending vehicle has already been charge sheeted for the offenses under Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC and under Sec.134(A) & (B) of MV Act itself is strong circumstance to support the oral testimony of PW.1. The certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, IMV report and Spot mahazar also corroborate the oral testimony of PW.1. In view of medical records there is no dispute regarding the death occurred in the above accident. In view of the said discussion it is satisfactorily established that death occurred on account of rashness and negligence of driver driving the offending SCCH 15 11 MVC No.2166/2021 vehicle at the relevant time. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and in the 'Affirmative'.
12. Issue No.3:
Re dependancy: It is stated in the Petition as well as in the evidence of PW.1 that the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are the mother and father of the deceased Rajesh. To prove their relationship with the deceased, PW.1 has relied on Ex.P32 to 34 i.e., the Aadhaar cards of the deceased and Petitioners. The same shows the relationship between the Petitioners and the deceased. Hence, they have a right to apply for compensation due to death of Rajesh in road traffic accident.
13. PW.1 in her cross-examination has deposed that he has two children and deceased got married at Tirupati, about 2 years back. However, due to family and personal problems the deceased obtained divorce from his wife and hence fact of the accident is not intimated to his wife. In addition Ex.P14 also produced to show that the petitioners and brother Yogesh are the surviving legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioners have also produced Ex.P25 SCCH 15 12 MVC No.2166/2021 which is the Order dated 07.05.2018 of Family Court, Tirupati which discloses that the marriage of the deceased with Haritha has been dissolved by decree of divorce.
14. The Petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the father of the deceased, being the legal representatives of deceased Rajesh have a right to apply for compensation. As the Petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Rajesh and having proved that the death of the Rajesh is been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, they are entitled for just compensation. Hence I answer Issue No 3 in the Affirmative.
15. Issue No.2 & 4: Computation of compensation under the various heads is assessed as follows:
1. Loss of dependency Age factor: In order to assess the compensation under the head of loss of dependency the age, avocation and income of the deceased needs to be ascertained. In the present case, the age of SCCH 15 13 MVC No.2166/2021 the deceased is shown as 35 years. Ex.P-34 is the Aadhaar card which shows that the date of birth of the deceased is 20.10.1985.
The alleged accident has taken place on 19.03.2021. Hence, by considering Ex.P34, the age of the deceased is taken as 36 years.
16. Income and avocation: As far as the income of the deceased is concerned it is submitted that he was working as a software engineer at Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Ltd., and drawing salary around Rs.1,00,000/- per month. In order to prove income and avocation of the deceased, the petitioners have got examined HR officer of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Ltd., company as PW.2 and she has produced appointment letter, final settlement, salary register particulars of the deceased at Ex.P38 to 43. PW.2 is cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and in the cross-examination she has deposed that the deceased was working in the maintenance department at Bidadi in their company and his salary was credited to his account and his last working day was 02.04.2019 and he resigned to job on 07.04.2019 and stated that she does not know which company deceased joined after his resignation from the earlier company. In SCCH 15 14 MVC No.2166/2021 addition, Unit HR Head of the said company is examined as PW.3 and he identified the Appointment letter, Full and final settlement, Resignation letter of deceased and pay slips of the deceased. PW.3 is cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and in his cross-examination PW.3 has deposed that deceased was working as an engineer for the past 14 months and his last working day is 01.10.2013 and at that time he was drawing the salary of Rs.57,745/- and deductions of Rs.17,326/- and he himself resigned to the job. The employment documents of the deceased discloses that initially he was working in Baroda Moulds and Dies company and resigned in the year 2009 and later he has joined another job as maintenance engineer and later joined United Breweries Ltd., Nelamangala and later his job was confirmed in the year 2013 and in the yer 2015 he was appointed as an Associate Maintenance and Ex.P40 - income tax returns of the assessment year 2019-20 which discloses that the deceased was having income of Rs.7,53,653/- per annum and further Ex.P41 is the income tax assessment year 2020-21 which discloses that he was having gross salary of Rs.10,469/-. However, on perusal of the Ex.P47 - salary SCCH 15 15 MVC No.2166/2021 slips of the deceased which discloses that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.32,683/- in the month of April 2013, July 2013 is Rs.34,425/-, August 2013 is Rs.46,522/- and October 2013 is Rs.57,745/-. The income returns for the assessment year 2018-19 as per ExP49 is 5,95,026/- and the income tax returns for the assessment year 2019-2020 discloses that his gross salary was Rs,7,53,633/-. Hence, taking into consideration these documents coupled with the evidence of PW.2 and 3 the deceased was having salary range between Rs.40,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month. Hence, based on evidence given by PW.3, salary of the deceased taken at Rs.60,000/- per month. Therefore, the Annual Income of the deceased would be 60,000 X 12 = 7,20,000/-.
17. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 would contend that the deceased had resigned to the job way back in the year 2019 and as on the date of the accident he was not employed and hence the notional income will have to be taken into consideration. However the fact that the deceased was working in the company and drawing good salary prior to his resignation is not disputed. The deceased had resigned SCCH 15 16 MVC No.2166/2021 to the job for better career prospects and the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he intended to go abroad for better prospects and since it was covid pandemic he has come down to his native place and later met with the accident. Hence though as on the date of the accident the deceased had left job however he was certainly earning more than the minimum wages and since he resigned for better career prospects it is but natural that he would have worked in an organization with more salary and perks than which he was earning earlier. Hence it is just and proper to consider his last employment salary as his income for the purpose of assessing compensation. Hence for the purpose of computation of claim, the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,20,000/-.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 has established the golden principles in considering compensation in cases of death. Relevant part of the judgment at paras 18- 19 is reproduced hereunder:
"18. The criteria which are to be taken into consideration for assessing compensation in the case of death are: (i) the age of the deceased at the time of his death; (ii) the SCCH 15 17 MVC No.2166/2021 number of dependents left behind by the deceased; and
(iii) the income of the deceased at the time of his death.
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in these decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
"Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active milk tankereer, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a SCCH 15 18 MVC No.2166/2021 Table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said Table with reference to the age of the deceased."
Moving forward with the issue of future prospects, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, held that Future prospects are to be awarded on the basis of:
(i) The nature of the deceased's employment; and
(ii) The age of the deceased.
Relying on Para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra), while determining the income, an addition of 40% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects should be made, where the deceased is self- employed and was below the age of 40 years.
19. At the time of the death of the deceased, he was survived by his parents. Hence while calculating the deductions towards the personal expenses, the number of dependents at the time of the death of the deceased is to be considered. As per the dicta of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), since the deceased was a bachelor, the deductions towards the personal expenses would be 1/2.
SCCH 15 19 MVC No.2166/2021
20. In this Petition, the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of accident. Hence, towards future prospects 40% of the income has to be added. So, 40% of Rs.60,000/- comes to Rs.24,000/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.84,000/- p.m. (Rs.60,000/- + Rs.24,000/- = Rs.84,000/-). Further, as per the principles laid down in decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) the multiplier applicable is 15. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that, if the deceased was bachelor, half of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
21. After deducting half of the income towards his personal expenses in Rs.84,000/- it comes to Rs.42,000/- (Rs.84,000/- - 42,000/-) and multiplier applied is 15, (Rs.42,000/- x 12 = 5,04,000/-, Rs.5,04,000/- x 15 = 75,60,000/-). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.75,60,000/- towards loss of dependency.
Medical expenses:
The petitioners have not produced any medical bills to show SCCH 15 20 MVC No.2166/2021 any expenses incurred in the hospital. Hence the actual medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the deceased or any hospital charges are taken as Nil.
22. 'Loss of Estate', Loss of Consortium' and 'Funeral Expenses' In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the conventional heads, namely, 'Loss of Estate', Loss of Consortium' and 'Funeral Expenses', amount of compensation is fixed as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-, respectively with an increase of 10% after a period of 3 years. It is further observed in the aforesaid Judgment amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. The said Judgment was rendered on 30.10.2017. By applying the said observation made in the aforesaid case, since, more than 6 years lapsed from the date of Order, the consortium fixed in the said case should be enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.48,400/-. Further, the loss of estate and funeral expenses also extended to Rs.18,150/- each. In view of the decision in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder SCCH 15 21 MVC No.2166/2021 Kaur and Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780, no compensation is to be granted under the head 'Loss of Love and Affection'.
In light of the above discussion, the claimants are awarded compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Head amount
1 Income per annum Rs.60,000X12 Rs.7,20,000/-
2 Future prospects 40% ie Rs.84,000/-
Rs.84,000/- pm.
(Rs.60,000/- + Rs.24,000/- =
Rs.84,000/-)
3 Multiplicand Deduction towards Rs.42,000/-
personal expenditure 1/2th of
Rs.84,000/-
Rs.84,000/- = 42,000/-
4 Multiplier (As per Sarla Rs. 5,04,000/-
Verma) applied is 15, (Rs.42,000/-
x 12 = 5,04,000/-,
5
Loss of dependency (A) Rs.75,60,000/-
Rs.5,04,000/- x 15
6
Funeral expenses (B) Rs. 18,150/-
7
Loss of estate (C) Rs. 18,150/-
8
Medical expenses incurred for the ===
treatment of deceased (D)
9
Loss of consortium (E)
SCCH 15 22 MVC No.2166/2021
48,400/- X 2
Rs. 96,800/-
Total Compensation awarded Rs.76,93,100/- (A+B+C+D+E) In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the petitioners are awarded compensation amount of Rs.76,93,100/-.
23. Regarding rate of interest: As far as the rate of interest is concerned the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. RAJASTAN VS. SMT. LAXMI reported in 2018 (4) AKR 808 has held that in case of motor accident claims rate of interest awarded is 6% per annum and the Hon'ble High court has been consistently granting 6% interest in Motor Vehicles Accident Claims and Compensation cases. Hence the rate of interest is set at 6% per annum in this case.
24. Regarding Liability: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending Milk tanker bearing Reg.No.KA-22-D-0138. There is no dispute about SCCH 15 23 MVC No.2166/2021 the validity of the Policy at the time of the accident. In this case, the Respondent No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award amount. The Respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the Respondent No.1 and has to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 and 4 are "Partly in the Affirmative".
25. Issue No.4: From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation of Rs.76,93,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition. In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.1 and 2 U/S 166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.76,93,100/-
SCCH 15 24 MVC No.2166/2021 along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount. The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the Petitioner.
The Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
The compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are apportioned among them are as shown below:
50% each to the Petitioner No.1 and 2 After deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.2, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 and 2 50% each of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.1 and 2 by way of E-payment and after their proper identification and the remaining 50% each of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 and 2 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a SCCH 15 25 MVC No.2166/2021 period of 3 years of their choice.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 20th day of November 2025) (RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES) XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACJM,Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 Smt. K. Rani P.W.2 Smt. Geetha P.W.3 Sri. Ningappa
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 FIR
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P2(a) Translated copy of Ex.P2
Ex.P.3 Case diary
Ex.P3(a) Translated copy of Ex.P3
Ex.P.4 Accident information report
Ex.P.5 Spot sketch
Ex.P.6 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P6(a) Translated copy of Ex.P6
SCCH 15 26 MVC No.2166/2021
Ex.P.7 PM report
Ex.P.8 Charge sheet
Ex.P.9 to 13 Statements and translated copies of
and 9(a) to Ex.P9 to 13
13(a)
Ex.P.14 Family member certificate
Ex.P.15 Death certificate
Ex.P.16 Relieving certificate
Ex.P.17 Appointment letter
Ex.P.18 & 19 Offer letters
Ex.P.20 Confirmation letter
Ex.P.21 & 22 Relieving letters
Ex.P.23 Appointment letter
Ex.P.24 Offer letter
Ex.P.25 Copy of order in FCOP No.154/2017
Ex.P.26 RC
Ex.P.27 & 28 Authorization certificates
Ex.P.29 Permit
Ex.P.30 Policy
Ex.P.31 Tax receipt
Ex.P.32 to 34 Aadhaar cards
Ex.P.35 DL
Ex.P.36 Passport
Ex.P.37 Marks cards with certificate and
Provisional certificate
Ex.P.38 Appointment letter
SCCH 15 27 MVC No.2166/2021
Ex.P.39 Final settlement
Ex.P.40 & 41 Form No.16
Ex.P.42 Salary register
Ex.P.43 Certificate
Ex.P.44 Appointment letter
Ex.P.45 Full and final settlement
Ex.P.46 Resignation acceptance letter
Ex.P.47 Pay slips
Ex.P.48 ID
Ex.P.49 Income tax returns
Ex.P.50 Certificate
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 Jaheer Abbas Momin Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
-Nil-
(RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES) XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACJM,Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.