Bangalore District Court
Mr.Arokia Das. T.J vs Bajaj Allianz General on 23 March, 2021
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL & XV ADDL. JUDGE,
Mayo Hall Unit, (SCCH 19) Bengaluru.
Dated this the 23rd day of March 2021
Present: Sri. DYAVAPPA. S.B.,
B.A., LL.B.,
XV Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXIII A.C.M.M., Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
MVC No.6239/2019
Petitioner : Mr.Arokia Das. T.J.
S/o Jagadambu,
Aged 50 years,
R/at: No.38,
Ambha Bhavani Temple road,
Doddabettahalli,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bangalore560097.
(Pleader by Sri.B.S.Devaraju)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. ltd.,
Golden Heights, 4th floor,
No.1/2, 59th "C" cross,
4th M block, Rajajinagar,
Dr. Rajkumar road,
Bangalore - 560010.
2 SCCH - 19
MVC.No.6239/2019
Policy No.OG191701180100049249
Date of validity from:
26122018 to 25122019
(Pleader by Sri.Raghavendra Bhat)
2. Mr. Yogesh L.K.
S/o L.Krishnamurthy,
R/at No.54, Shri Ganesha Krupa,
Gangamma Circle,
Kalathur layout,
Jalahalli Post,
Bangalore - 560013.
(Pleader by Sri.Krishnareddy)
*****
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989 for claiming the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/.
2. The brief facts of the Petitioner's case are as under:
That on 25092019 at about 1000 a.m, he was riding a Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA02/HQ 5108 on extreme left side of HMT Main road,
3 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 Bangalore slowly and cautiously when reached near BEL circle, at that time one Car bearing Reg.No.KA04/MQ9127 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life came at high speed on wrong lane towards extreme left side and dashed to the Petitioner's motor cycle. As a result of forced impact, the Petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is further stated that, immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the M.S.Ramaiah Hospital wherein he treated as an inpatient and spent more than a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ towards medical, conveyance and nourishment expenses. It is further stated that, he was Carpenter by profession and was earning Rs.1,000/ per day. Due to accidental injuries, he is unable to lead a normal life as earlier and suffering from pain, deep mental shock and agony. It is further stated that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car 4 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 bearing Reg.No.KA04/MQ9127. Hence, the Jalahalli Traffic Police have registered criminal case in crime No.88 / 2019. The Respondent No.1 being Insurer and Respondent No.2 is being owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. Hence petitioner has filed this petition and prays for grant the compensation.
4. After Service of notices, Respondent No.1 appeared through their Counsel and filed written statement. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 has filed Memo of undertaking, but inspite of sufficient opportunity not filed their Written statement.
5. The brief averments of the written statement of Respondent No.1 as under:
The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and denied the entire averments of the petition. While admitting about issuance of Insurance policy in respect of 5 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 Car bearing Reg.No.KA04/MQ9127, this Respondent has restricted its liability to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contending that the driver of offending vehicle did not posses valid D.L. to drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident. Hence there is a violation of policy terms and conditions. Further taken contention that, the offending vehicle is falsely implicated in the alleged accident and the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the Petitioner and he was not wear helmet on the date of the accident. Further the Respondent has denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and disability caused to him and also expenses incurred towards medical and other charges. It is further stated that, claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
6. Based on the above pleadings, this Tribunal has framed the following:
6 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, on 25092019 at about 1000 a.m, when the Petitioner was riding a Scooter bearing rEg.No.KA02/HQ5108 on HMT Main road, Bangalore slowly and cautiously when reached near BEL circle, at that time one Car bearing Reg.No.KA 04/MQ9127 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life came at high speed on wrong lane towards extreme left side and dashed to the Petitioner's motor cycle. As a result of forced impact, the Petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Whether order or award?
7. In order to prove the case, petitioner side three witnesses examined as PW.1 to 3. They have produced in all 24 documents marked as Ex.P1 to 24. Respondent side did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
7 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019
8. Heard the arguments of both side and perused the materials available on hand.
9. For the following reasons, I given the answer to the above Issues as under: Issue No.1: In the Affirmative, Issue No.2: In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. ISSUE No.1: It is specific case of the Petitioner that, on 25092019 at about 1000 a.m, the Petitioner was riding a Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA02/HQ5108 on HMT Main road, Bangalore and when reached near BEL circle, at that time driver of one Car bearing Reg.No.KA 04/MQ9127 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner came at high speed on wrong lane towards extreme left side and dashed to the Petitioner's motor cycle. As a result of forced impact, the Petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries, hence they prays for grant the 8 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 compensation. In the written statement denied the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle and stating that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the Petitioner.
11. The petitioner Sri.Arokia Das T.J. examined himself as PW.1 and filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination. In his chief affidavit, he has repeated the averments of the petition and further produced the Certified copy of the FIR marked as Ex.P.1, produced Certified copy of the Complaint marked as Ex.P.2, produced Certified copy of the spot sketch marked as Ex.P.3, produced Certified copy of the spot mahazar marked as Ex.P.4, produced Certified copy of IMV report marked as Ex.P.5, produced Certified copy of the Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act marked as Ex.P.6, produced Certified copy of the reply to the notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act marked as Ex.P.7, produced notarized copy of Indemnity bond marked as Ex.P8, produced Certified copy 9 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 of the Wound certificate marked as Ex.P.9, produced Certified copy of the Charge sheet marked as Ex.P10, produced two discharge summaries marked as Ex.P11 and 12, produced notarized copy of Aadhaar card marked as Ex.P.13, produced notarized copy of D.L marked as Ex.P.14, produced notarized copy of PAN card marked as Ex.P.15 and also produced 16 medical bills marked as Ex.P16. In the cross examination respondent counsel has specifically suggesting that due to negligent riding and dashed to the Car and there is no any fault of the driver of the Car, but same is denied.
12. one witness Mr.Mr.Mariyappa the Medical the attendant in Medical records dept., of Ramaiah Hospital is examined as PW.2 and filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced authorization letter marked as Ex.P.17, produced MLC copy marked as Ex.P18, produced copy of police intimation marked as Ex.P19, produced out patient records marked as Ex.P20 10 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 and also produced two inpatient records marked as Ex.P21 and P22. In the crossexamination, nothing has been eliciting about denial of treatment taken by the petitioner in the hospital.
13. Another one witness Dr.Veeresha U Mathad examined as PW.2 and filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination. In his chief affidavit, he has deposed about injuries sustained and also assessment of the disability of the petitioner. Further produced one medical examination report regarding assessment of permanent neurological disability marked as Ex.P23 and also produced one Neuro psychological assessment report marked as Ex.P24.
14. I have perused the documents produced by the petitioner it appears that the Jalahalli Traffic Police have registered the Criminal case in Crime No.88/2019 against the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA04/MQ9127 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279, 337 of IPC on the basis 11 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 of the complaint lodged by the Complainant. After submitting the FIR, the police have conducting the spot mahazar and prepared the rough sketch of the accident took place and seized the vehicles. After received the IMV report and Wound Certificate and after completion of the investigation, the I.O has submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279, 338 of IPC.
15. I have perused the Spot Mahazar and Spot sketch of the accident took place it disclose that, the Petitioner was riding his motor cycle on the left side of HMT Main road, from Gangamma Circle towards Mattikere and the offending vehicle Car bearing Reg.No.KA04/MQ9127 was also came on the same road at right side of the petitioner's motor cycle, when they reached near BEL Circle, there is a curve towards Kuvempu circle at that time, the driver of offending vehicle has suddenly took his vehicle to his left side and 12 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 dashed to the petitioner's motor cycle and caused the accident. Though the respondent taken contention that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, but in support of the said contention respondent has not produced any documents. After perusal of the Sketch it disclosed that if the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same with observing the left side vehicles on the road and proceed with proper care and cautious, definitely the accident could not be happened. The respondents have not examined the driver of the offending vehicle and also the owner or driver of the offending vehicle have not challenged the charge sheet submitted by the IO and the respondent counsel nothing has been eliciting in the cross examination of the petitioner about denial of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. The respondent has not denied the police documents 13 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 and hospital documents. Further there are no any contradictions or suspected the police documents to disbelieving the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. After perusal of the hospital records it disclosed that the petitioner was sustained accidental injuries and took the treatment in the hospital. Therefore it is proved that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the accident was occurred and as a result, the petitioner was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, I given the answer to the Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
16. Issue No.2: The Petitioner claiming compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/ with respect to road traffic accident and sustained injuries including pain and suffering. The Petitioner has stated that, due to accident he has sustained grievous injuries and also taken treatment in the hospital as inpatient and he cannot do his activities as earlier to the accident and also underwent deep mental shock pain and 14 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 suffering. Hence, prayed to award compensation amount.
17. The Petitioner has produced wound certificate and two Discharge summaries and also produced medical bills. The counsel for the Respondent nothing has been elicited to deny the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and also not disputed about wound certificate and also Hospital documents. I have perused the Wound certificate and discharge summaries it disclosed that the Petitioner was sustained following injuries: Bilateral temporo paraito temporal SAH. The doctor has opined that the above injury is grievous in nature, but as per the discharge summary the petitioner has taken only conservative treatment and there is no any fracture injuries. Therefore, after perusal of hospital documents, I am of the opinion that, Petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of 15 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 Rs.20,000/ as reasonable compensation under the head of pain and suffering.
18. The Petitioner has produced medical bills, which are marked as Ex.P16. The Respondent have not denied the said medical bills, though they have taken contention in the objections that, the Petitioner has not taken treatment and also not incurred said medical bills amount and there is no any contradictions to disbelieve the medical bills. Hence, considering the treatment taken by the Petitioner in the hospital, the Petitioner is entitled to claim medical bill amount of Rs.83,852/ under the head of medical expenditure.
19. The Petitioner has not produced document for the expenditure of food, transportation and other charges. However, as per discharge summaries issued by M.S.Ramaiah hospital which are marked as Ex.P11 and 12 it disclosed that Petitioner has took the treatment as an 16 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 inpatient at M.S.Ramaiah Hospital from 2509 2019 to 04102019 and also on 25092019 i.e. in total for about 10 days. Therefore, after considering the nature of injury and period of treatment taken in the hospital, this tribunal has award reasonable transportation and conveyance charge of Rs.10,000/ as compensation amount under the head Transportation, conveyance charges.
20. The Petitioner stated that at the time of accident he was Carpenter by Profession and earning a sum of Rs.1,000/ per day and due to injuries sustained in the accident, he was suffering from pain, shock, mental agony and unable to carry on his day to day activities which he used to do prior to the accident. To prove the disability, the Petitioner got examined one witness Doctor Sri. VeereshaUMathad, the Senior Consultant Neurosurgeon, Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru as PW.3. In the affidavit the doctor has deposed that, "the Petitioner was 17 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 complaining of headache, giddiness, poor memory unable to do physical work. On examination his higher mental functions were abnormal, memory impaired. His neuropsychological assessment was done on 24112020 showed impairment of planning, organizing, problem solving. Cognitive skills are poor. His memory and other lobe function tests are impaired. He has IQ of 69 which in the range of moderately below average IQ." Further deposed that, the Petitioner has a permanent global neurological disability of 40%. But in the Cross examination the doctor has admitting that, "ನನನನ ನನನರರನರ ಸರರರಯಲಲ ಸರಸಷಲಸಸಸ ಆಗರನತರತರನರ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ. ಮನನಸಕ ಮತನತ ಮನನಶನಸತಸ ಕನರತಎತರ ನನನನ ತರಜರನಗರನವವದಲಲ. ಅರರದನರರಗರ ನನನನ ಯನವವದರರ ಚಕತರತ ಕರನಟಸರನವವದಲಲ ಮತನತ ನನನನ ಕರರವಲ ನನನನತರಯ ಪಪಮನಣವನನನ ನದರರಸನವ ಸಲನವಗ ಅರರದನರರನನನ ಪರರಕರಕ ಮನಡರನತರತರನರ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ. ಮನರರನರಗ ತರಜರನ ಮತನತ ಮನನಸಕ ನರರರನರಗ ತರಜರನ ಬರರರರ ಬರರರರ ಯನಗರನತನತರರ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ. ಡನ. ರಯಎತ ಇವರನ ತಮಮ ವರದಯಲಲ ತಳಸರನವಎತಹ Bhatia's performance test of intelligence test ಪರರಕರಕಯ ಕನರತಎತರ ಕರರಎದಪ ಸಕನರರದ ಮನಗರಸನಚಗಳ ಅಧಸನಚನರಯಲಲ ತಳಸರನವವದಲಲ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ.
18 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 ಸನಮನನನವನಗ ತಲರಗರ ಪರಟನಸ ಬದದಎತಹ ರರನರಗಗಳನನನ ಮದಲನ Glassgow Coma Scale (GCS) ಪರರಕರಕಯನನನ ಮನಡಬರರಕನಗನತತದರ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ. ಅರರದನರರನನನ Glassgow Coma Scale (GCS) ಪರರಕರಕಗರ ಒಳಪಡಸದನಗ GCS ಪಪಮನಣವವ E3, V5, M6 ರಷನಸ ಇತನತ. ಅರರದನರರ Verbal and motor response ಸಹರವನಗತನತ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ. ಅರರದನರರಗರ ಯನವವದರರ ಶಸತಸಚಕತರತ ಆಗರನವವದಲಲ ಕರರವಲ ವರವದನಕರಯ ಚಕತರತ ಕರನಡಲನಗರನತತದರ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ. ಅರರದನರರನ ಆಸಸತರಪಯಎದ ಬಡನಗಡರ ಆದನಗ ಅವರ GCS ಪಪಮನಣವವ E4, V 5, M6 ರಷನಸ ಇತನತ. ಅರರದನರರನ ಆಸಸತರಪಯಎದ ಬಡನಗಡರ ಆದನಗ ಅವರ Haemodynamics ಸಹರವನಗತನತ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ. ಅರರದನರರಗರ speech, cranial, motor, sensory and bladder ಗರ ಸಎಬಎದಪಟಸಎತರ ಯನವವದರರ ನನನನತರ ಇರನವವದಲಲ ಎಎದರರ ಸರ. ಅರರದನರರನ ಮನನಸಕ ನರರರನರಗಕರಕ ಸಎಬಎದಪಟಸಎತರ ಚಕತರತ ಪಡರಯಲನ rehabilitation ಚಕತರತಯನನನ ಪಡರದನ ಕರನಎಡರನವವದಲಲ ಮತನತ ಆ ಕನರತಎತರ ನನನನ ದನಖಲರಯನನನ ನರನರಡರನವವದಲಲ. " Further in the Cross examination of the Petitioner he clearly understanding the questions and given the answer to all the questions put by the Respondent counsel and also on court question the Petitioner has given the answer that," ನನಗಗ ಪಪಶಗಶಗಳಳ ಅರರ ಆಗರಳತತದಗ ಮತಳತ 19 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 ತಳದಳಕಗಕಕಡಳ ಉತತರ ಕಗಕಟಟರಳತಗತತನಗ". Therefore after perusal of the evidence of the doctor and also the evidence of the Petitioner it is clear that there is no any disability with respect to the neurological and neurobehavioral of the Petitioner. After perusal of the Cross examination of the Petitioner and doctor one thing is clear that, the Petitioner is not having any abnormal mental functions and also memory impaired. Further as per the discharge summary on systemic examination No Focal Neurological Defect to the petitioner. The doctor has assessed the disability only on complaining by the Petitioner with respect to the headache, giddiness and poor memory and unable to do physical work. But, to prove the physical disability the doctor has not deposed any thing and also the Petitioner has not examined any treated doctor. Hence. mere the Petitioner has complaining the headache, giddiness, and poor memory is not sufficient to considered the disability with respect to the neurological and 20 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 neurobehavioral of the Petitioner. After perusal of the chief affidavit of the doctor one thing is clear that, the doctor has not followed the proper procedure and guidelines of the Central gazette notification and there is no base to asses the disability of the Petitioner. Further the Petitioner is not sustained fractural injuries and also he was not underwent any surgery. Though the Petitioner has examined the doctor but, not helpful to prove the physical disability of the Petitioner. Therefore the question of disability caused to the petitioner does not arised. Hence, under such circumstances, the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under the head loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability. However, the Petitioner was taken the treatment as inpatient in the hospital for more than 10 days. In support of the treatment he has produced hospital documents and medical bills. Therefore, this Tribunal has award reasonable compensation of Rs.20,000/ 21 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 under the head loss of income during laid up period.
21. The Petitioner also sought for expenses towards future medicine for further treatment. In the chief examination affidavit the Petitioner has deposed that the doctors have advised him to continue life long medication. The doctor has not stated any thing about future medication of the Petitioner. In the cross exam admitting that, personally he has not given treatment to the Petitioner. Neither the Petitioner nor the doctor have produced any estimation for future medication. Therefore, by considering the nature of injury and evidence of the doctor, this Tribunal has award reasonable compensation of Rs.10,000/ under the head future medical expenses. (Which does not carry any interest).
22. The Petitioner has sustained grievous injury as stated in the wound certificate and also took treatment as an inpatient for about 10 days.
22 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 Therefore after considering the nature of injury this tribunal has award the amount of Rs.20,000/ as reasonable compensation under the head of loss of amenities.
23. Considering oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence, it is just and proper to grant compensation as follows;
Sl.
Under the heads of Amount
No.
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,00000
2. Medical expenses Rs. 83,85200
3. Transportation, Nourishment, Rs. 10,00000
Conveyance and attendant
charges.
4. Towards loss of income during Rs. 20,00000
laid up period
5. Towards future medication Rs. 10,00000
6. Towards loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,00000
Total Rs. 1,63,85200
The Petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.1,63,852/. It is rounded
off to Rs.1,64,000/.
23 SCCH - 19
MVC.No.6239/2019
24. Interest:
In so far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, in MFA.No.103557/2016 (between Sriram General Insurance Co. ltd., V/s Smt. Lakshmi & others, dd 20032018) the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru has held that as per Sec.34 of CPC the rate of interest that can be awarded on Judgments cannot be more than 6% p.a. and that since Sec.149 of M.V. Act provides for the interest on Judgments, the interest to be awarded in claim Petitions has to be 6% p.a. and not more than that. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
25. Liability As already observed above, Respondent No.1 is the Insurer and Respondent No.2 is the owner of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA04/MQ 9127. As discussed in the issue no.1 it is proved 24 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. Hence, Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Further the Respondent No.1 being Insurer of the offending vehicle is primarily held liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the Petitioner. Accordingly, I answered to the Issue No.2 in the Partly Affirmative.
26. Issue No.3: for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The claim petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby Partly allowed with cost as hereunder.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,64,000/ with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
25 SCCH - 19
MVC.No.6239/2019
The Respondent No.1 & 2 jointly
and severally liable to pay
compensation to the Petitioner.
Further, Respondent No.1 being insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation together with 6% interest within 60 days, from the date of this order.
After deposit, entire compensation amount with interest shall be release in favour of the Petitioner with proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 23 rd day of March 2021) (DYAVAPPA. S.B.) XV ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
A N N E X U R E:
List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 : Mr. Arokia Das T.J.
PW.2 : Mr.Mariyappa
PW.3 : Dr.VeereshaUMathad.
26 SCCH - 19
MVC.No.6239/2019
List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1: Certified copy of the FIR Ex.P2: Certified copy of the Complaint Ex.P3: Certified copy of the spot sketch Ex.P4: Copy of the spot mahazar Ex.P5: Certified copy of IMV Ex.P6: Certified copy of the Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P7: Certified copy of the reply to the notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P8: Notarized copy of Indemnity bond Ex.P9: Certified copy of the Wound certificate Ex.P10: Certified copy of the Charge sheet Ex.P11 &12 : Two discharge summaries Ex.P13: Notarized copy of Aadhaar card Ex.P14: Notarized copy of D.L Ex.P15: Notarized copy of PAN card Ex.P16: 16 medical bills Ex.P17: Authorization letter Ex.P18: MLC copy Ex.P19: Copy of police intimation Ex.P20: Out patient record Ex.P21& P22 : Two inpatient records Ex.P23: Report regarding assessment of permanent neurological disability Ex.P24: Neuro psychological assessment report 27 SCCH - 19 MVC.No.6239/2019 List of Witnesses examined for Respondent:
Nil List of Documents marked for Respondent:
Nil (DYAVAPPA. S.B.) XV ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.