Bangalore District Court
Sneha.R vs Bmtc on 6 August, 2024
KABC020034192019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: This the 6th day of August, 2024
M.V.C. NO. 758 OF 2019
Petitioner/s:
Miss. Sneha R.,
D/o Raju,
Aged about 18 years,
R/a New #1531, Old # 34,
Anjaneya Temple Street,
Near Santoshi Matha Temple,
Arekere, Hulimavu,
Bengaluru560 076
Since the petitioner is suffering
with impaired memory represented
by her mother/Next Friend
Mrs. Padma, W/o. Raju
Aged about 45 years,
(By Sri S. J. Krishnaji Rao Advocate)
Vs
SCCH-24 2 MVC 758/2019
RESPONDENT/S
The Managing Director,
B.M.T.C.
K.H. Road, Double Road,
Shanthi Nagara,
Bengaluru560027
(RC owner of Bus bearing Reg
No.KA57F0601)
(By Sri. Dhanaraj, Advocate) )
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: That on 08122018 at about 8.15 a.m., the petitioner was travelling in BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA 57F0601. The driver of the said bus was driving at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without closing the door of the bus and suddenly applied the brakes in front of Shahi Garments Gate in reckless manner. Due to sudden jerk, the petitioner fell down from the bus and sustained severe head injuries. Immediately the petitioner SCCH-24 3 MVC 758/2019 was shifted to Fortis Hospital wherein C.T Scan and X rays were taken and underwent surgery for right parieto occipital craniotomy of extradural hematoma an subdural hematoma evacuating with duraplast on 08122018. Then the petitioner was shifted to Nano hospitals on 13 12218 for further treatment wherein she has taken treatment as an inpatient from 13122018 to 2812 2018. So far the petitioner has spent Rs.11, 00,000/ towards hospitalization, conveyance, medical treatment, attendant and other incident expenses. The petitioner was aged about 18 years. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy. The petitioner was studying in 2nd PUC at Loyola Composite PU College, Bengaluru. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner could not resume her college till this date and she is unable to recognize relatives, speak and she is not oriented to time, place and she is not in a condition to give coherent, reliable statement and also suffering with impaired memory.
3. Along with the petition, the petitioner has filed IA no I under Order XXXII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec.151 of CPC to appoint the mother of the petitioner as legal guardian and permit the next friend to represent the petitioner by adducing her evidence. Accordingly SCCH-24 4 MVC 758/2019 permission was granted to represent the petitioner by her mother as a next friend.
4. The Respondent - The Managing Director, B.M.T.C. has filed written statement and contended that on 08122018 the night halt BMTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA57F601 was proceeding from Kempegowda bus stand towards Anekal at about 8.15 a.m. when they came near BDL bus stand on Bannerghatta Road, at that time the petitioner in her attempt to get down from the moving bus in a negligent manner slipped down from the front door of the bus and sustained grievous injuries. It is further contended that the petitioner herself was responsible for the said accident and the driver of the BMTC bus is no way responsible for the said accident. It is further contended that the petitioner mother has made a requisition before the BMTC department for interim compensation and the BMTC department has paid Rs.3,00,000/ to the injured through his mother M Padma vide cheque bearing No.572599 drawn on Syndicate Bank, K.H Road, Bangalore dated 17122018 as interim compensation to the injured and Rs.1,65,000/ deposited in Nano Hospital through cheque bearing No.57315 dated 27022018 on behalf of the injured for her treatment.
SCCH-24 5 MVC 758/20195. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on 08122018 at about 8.15 A.M. in front of Shahi Garments, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru, she has sustained injuries in the RTA caused by the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA57F0601 on his rash and negligent driving?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
6. In support of the case, the mother/natural guardian of the petitioner is examined as PW.1 and examined four witnesses as P.W.2 to 4 and Pw6. Since the Pw1 did not tender for cross examination, the father of the petitioner was examined as Pw5 by discarding the evidence of Pw1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and closed their side. On the other hand, the respondent has examined its driver at BMTC as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1.
SCCH-24 6 MVC 758/20197. Heard argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent and perused the entire materials placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In Partly affirmative, Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
9. Issue no 1: In order to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the mother/natural guardian of the petitioner is examined as PW.1. Though PW.1 has given her evidence in chief and tender for cross examination in part but thereafter she failed to present before the court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed IA No.7 u/o 32 Rule 11 CPC to discharge/retire the mother from the guardian ship and filed IA No.8 u/o 32 Rule 4 CPC to permit the petitioner to represent the case through her father as next friend. The said applications were allowed vide order dated 16012024 and accordingly the evidence given by the mother of petitioner as PW.1 was discarded and the evidence of the father of petitioner was recorded as PW.5.
SCCH-24 7 MVC 758/201910. The PW.5 has deposed that on 08122018 at about 8.15 a.m., the petitioner was travelling in BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA57F0601 and the driver of the said bus was driving the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without closing the door of the bus and suddenly applied brake in front of Shahi Garments Gate in reckless manner. Due to sudden jerk, the petitioner fell down from the bus and sustained severe head injuries. P.W.1 further deposed about the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment taken and the amount spent for treatment etc.
11. In support of the claim and to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the PW.5 has relied upon Ex.P1 to 7 which are the police records such as F.I.R, Complaint, Spot mahazar, Sketch, IMV Report, Charge Sheet and Wound certificate etc.
12. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Sri Mahesh R., case has been registered against the driver of offending vehicle in Crime No.132/2018 of Hulimavu Traffic Police Station for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 of IPC and u/Sec.134 (A&B) R/W 187 of IMV Act. After completion of investigation, the SCCH-24 8 MVC 758/2019 investigating officer has filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and u/Sec.134(A&B) R/W 187 of IMV Act.
13. It is categorically contended both in the written statement and in the evidence of Rw1 that at the time of accident the driver of the BMTC bus was driving the bus in careful manner and on correct side of the road by sounding the horn, hence, the driver of bus was in no way responsible for the accident and the petitioner in her attempt to get down from the moving bus slipped down from the bus and fell down on the road and sustained injuries. In support of the contention, they have examined the driver of the offending vehicle as RW.1. The learned counsel for respondent has further relied upon the judgment passed in CC No.2150/2019 as Ex.R1 in the case registered against the driver of the said vehicle.
14. On perusal of the Ex.R1, it is true that after full pledged trail, the driver of the offending vehicle who was accused in the said case was acquitted. But on going through the observation made in the said judgment, the accused was acquitted only for the reason that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused SCCH-24 9 MVC 758/2019 beyond all reasonable doubt. But in the present case it is sufficient if the petitioner proves her case with preponderance of probabilities of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver. Hence, the mere fact that accused was acquitted in the criminal court, that will not sufficient to hold that the driver has not contributed negligence. Further the judgment passed by the criminal court has no binding effect on this Tribunal. This court has to decide the case independently in reference to the materials placed on record.
15. If the police records and the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6 so also the evidence of RW.1 and the averments of the written statement is perused, it is not in dispute that petitioner was traveling in the offending vehicle and RW.1 was the driver of the said vehicle. If the evidence of the PW.6 and the averments of the complaint and charge sheet is perused, the offending vehicle was rushed with passengers hence the petitioner was standing in the foot board as there was no seat in the bus to sit and the driver of the bus suddenly applied brake result of which the petitioner who was standing in the foot board fell down and sustained injury.
SCCH-24 10 MVC 758/201916. If the evidence of RW.1 is perused, he has admitted that at the time of accident the door of the bus was not in good condition. At first the bus was rushed with passengers and secondly, the door of the bus was not in good condition. Under such circumstances, the driver and conductor of the said bus ought to have taken all precautionary measures for the safety of the passengers. They ought not to have run the bus without repairing the door of the bus or they ought not to have allowed the passengers in excess of the seating capacity. Hence, it can be said that the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of offending vehicle is the sole cause for accident. Hence, only the complaint was lodged by the police official who was examined as PW.6 and accordingly case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle and after investigation charge sheet was filed against him. If really, the accident in question was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, then the driver or conductor of the offending vehicle could have lodged the complaint against the petitioner. If the averments of the complaint are perused, soon after the accident the driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the scene of occurrence. If really, the driver was not at fault, there was no necessity for him to run away from the spot. Hence, the SCCH-24 11 MVC 758/2019 materials placed on record clearly and clinchingly proves the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
17. Issue No.2: The father/next friend of the petitioner has given evidence to the effect of petitioner sustained grievous injuries. As observed supra, the petitioner has produced medical documents i.e., Wound certificate and Discharge summaries which are marked at Ex.P.7 and Ex.P8. On going through the medical documents, it reveals that petitioner has taken primary treatment as inpatient at Fortis Hospitals from 0812 2018 to 13122018 and again she has taken treatment as an inpatient at Nano Hospitals from 13122018 to 28 122018. Though the petitioner has produced discharge summary of Nano Hospital for the period 03072019 to 05072019 but on perusal of the said document, for the second time she got admitted at Nano Hospital for the viral fever and severe De hydration from which she was suffering. Hence, whatever the treatment taken by the petitioner during the period 03072019 to 05072019 and the medical expenses incurred by her for the said treatment has to be excluded. As per wound certificate, SCCH-24 12 MVC 758/2019 the petitioner has sustained head injury which is grievous in nature.
18. Dr.Veeresha U Mathad, Senior Consultant Neurosurgeon at Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, is examined as PW3 and through him Clinical notes, CT scan Brainplain report with one film and Neuro Psychological Assessment report dated 21072022 are got marked as Ex.P.15 to 17. PW.3 deposed that he has not treated the patient personally. PW.3 further deposed that he examined the petitioner at outpatient department at Unity left Line Hospital, Bengaluru for neurological disability assessment and he examined the petitioner on 29072022. PW.3 further deposed that petitioner was apparently doing well both at home and in her college before the accident. It is deposed by Pw3 that he examined the petitioner and her higher mental functions are impaired, her memory is also impaired, speech is slow. PW.3 further deposed that petitioner is able to look after own affairs without assistance, but unable to carry out all previous activities due to head injury, hence falls in category 2. Pw.3 further deposed that the petitioner has suffered permanent neurological disability of 4070% due to head injury which is Moderate disability, that the SCCH-24 13 MVC 758/2019 petitioner is not able to continue her studies due to brain injury.
19. Admittedly Pw3 is not a treated doctor. Pw.3 has admitted that as per Ex.P.8/discharge summary page no.3 "patient responded well to the given medications and patient recovered well. Further the PW.3 himself in his evidence in chief has deposed that the petitioner has slight disability and she is able to look after her own affairs without the assistance. Though the PW.3 has deposed that the IQ level of the petitioner is 69 which is below the average and her IDEAS score is 11 but there is no material to say what was the IQ level and IDEAS score of the petitioner earlier to the accident. It is true that if the transfer certificate as per Ex.P12 produced by the petitioner is perused, she has discontinued her I PUC studies from 08122018. The accident in question was occurred on 08122018. Even PW.3 has also opined that petitioner cannot continue her studies with her neurological disability. Hence, it can be said that due to the head injury sustained by the petitioner, she has discontinued her studies. The learned counsel for respondent while cross examining the PW.5 has suggested that since petitioner was not willing to continue the studies, she left the college. But this court is not agreeing SCCH-24 14 MVC 758/2019 with the said contention of the respondent for the reason that if really the petitioner intended to discontinue the studies, she would either have not joined the 1 st PUC or would have discontinue the studies after her completion of 1st PUC and no one would discontinue their studies in the middle of the academic year by wasting the hard earned money paid by them towards fees, books and other expenses .
20. Though the PW.3 has deposed that petitioner has neurological disability at 4070% but he has not stated inaccurate what exactly the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner. Hence, considering the fact that PW.3 is a non treated doctor so also the fact that petitioner can do her daily activities without any assistance, this court inclines to take the disability of petitioner at 30%.
21. Hence, considering the nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment taken this court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads.
22. Towards pain and sufferings, petitioner shown to have sustained head grievous injury. Hence taking in to SCCH-24 15 MVC 758/2019 consideration the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner and time taken for treatment and sufferings during the treatment it is reasonable to hold that petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.60,000/ towards pain and suffering.
22. So far as medical expenses incurred by the petitioner is concerned, Pw5 has produced 53 medical bills for Rs.6,57,042/ at Ex.P.9. As observed supra, the said medical bills includes sum of Rs.3,296/ which is the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner from 0307 2019 to 05072019 during which she has taken treatment as inpatient for viral fever and Dehydration. Hence, sum of Rs.3,296/ is to be deducted from Rs.6,57,042/. Hence, the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner towards the treatment for accidental injuries comes around Rs.6,53,746/.
23. It is admitted by PW.5 that the respondent has given sum of Rs.4,65,000/ towards interim compensation to meet the medical expenses. The PW.5 has deposed that he has utilized the said amount for the medical expenses of the petitioner. Hence, sum of Rs.4,65,000/ is to be deducted from the compensation amount going to be awarded to the petitioner.
SCCH-24 16 MVC 758/201924. Pw.5 has stated that petitioner was studying in Ist PUC at Loyola Composite PU college, Bengaluru. Pw.5 has not stated anything about the earning capacity of the petitioner.
25. The petitioner has contended that she is aged about 18 years as on the date of accident. Petitioner has produced Ex.P12/Transfer certificate of the petitioner which shows her date of birth as 25051999 that means she was aged about 19 years. Hence considering the Transfer certificate of the petitioner this court has taken the age of the petitioner as 19 years.
26. PW.5 has given evidence to the effect that his daughter/ petitioner who was aged about 19 years at the time of accident was student and was very active in day today activities. One cannot dispute as the petitioner has produced the transfer certificate that at the time of accident the petitioner was studying in Ist PUC. In a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2023 ACJ 585 between G. Vivek Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd & Ors., In the said case, injured was minor aged about 12 years studying in 8th standard. The mishap occurred on 24052011 while he was traveling in the bus. Because of the injuries sustained in the accident right leg of the SCCH-24 17 MVC 758/2019 injured was amputed. He has suffered 97% permanent disability in relation to the right lower limb, left lower limb and post traumatic amputation. In the said case the court has applied multiplier of 15 to calculate the loss of income, taking the notional income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/ per month and added 50% towards future prospects and award compensation under the head loss of future income, it has awarded sum of Rs.26,00,000/ towards cost of new prosthesis and for its maintenance.
27. In (2020) 4 ACC 413 between Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors., In the said case, injured was aged about 12 years attending school met with an accident, she suffered serious injuries resulting in brain damage left with very low IQ and severe weakness in all four limbs. There was disability 100%. In the said case, the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court had taken notional income of petitioner at Rs.15,000/ per annum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not proper way of assessing future loss of income. It is further held that "the young girl after studies could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs.15,000/ per annum. Each case has to decide on its own evidence, but minimum wages payable to a skilled work man can be considered as the income of the SCCH-24 18 MVC 758/2019 petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has added 40% future prospect and applied multiplier 18.
28. In MFA No.25028/2010 (MVI) between Miss.Priyanka Pradeep Gavade Vs. The Divisional Manager, The New India assurance Co.Ltd. In the said case, the petitioner was aged about 7 years met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. She was in the hospital for a period of two months. As she was aged about 7 years it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that full time attendance presence would have been necessary to take care of the petitioner in the hospital. Hence, the Hon'ble High Court has awarded sum of Rs.25,000/ under the head conveyance charges and attendant charges. As claimant was a female child considering the deformity suffered by her, the disability and disfigurement suffered by her which effects her marriage prospects adversely, sum of Rs.3,00,000/ awarded towards loss of marriage prospects. In the said case, the claimant has suffered 50% permanent physical disability in relation to whole body at 50%. By referring the observation made in Kajal case referred above the Hon'ble High Court has awarded sum of Rs.14,66,000/ towards loss of earning capacity.
SCCH-24 19 MVC 758/201929. Coming to the case in hand, at the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 19 years. As per the evidence of PW.3 who is non treated doctor the petitioner has neurological disability of 4070% but this court has assessed the disability at 30%. The accident in question has occurred in the year 2018. During the year 2018 the minimum wages of skilled labour was Rs.404/ Further as observed by the hon'le Apex court in Divya / The National Insurance reported in Civil Appeal no 7605 of 2022 "where the age of the victim happens to be up to 15 years the multiplier should be 15. The Hon'ble Supreme court held that the selection of multiplier 15 for the age group up to 15 years by the three judge Bench in Reshma Kumaris case is having a sound basis. It is common knowledge that the age group of 21 to 25 years is regarded as the commencement of normal productive years as referred specifically by the two judge bench in Sarala Verma's case at paragraph 39. True that in Sarala Vera case the same multiplier viz 18 is selected for the age group 15 to 20 years. . In this case, the petitioner was aged about 19 years hence the multiplier 18 is to be applied.
30. From the evidence of Pw5 and as borne out by medical records, petitioner has taken treatment for several SCCH-24 20 MVC 758/2019 times. Further she has taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 20 days.
31. If Kajal's case (supra) is referred when the petitioner was in the hospital her parents were attending the petitioner by leaving their work and as per the evidence of PW.5 they have engaged attendant for a period of nearly 3 months to look after the petitioner. Though petitioner has not proved that they have engaged attendant for a period of three months to look after the petitioner, but there is every reason to believe that the petitioner was looked after by her parents while she was in the hospital so also after her discharge by leaving their work. Hence, the court has to award compensation towards attendant's charges. Hence this court inclines to award compensation under the head attendance charges, conveyance and other incidental expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/.
32. So taking in to consideration the monthly income of the petitioner having considered by this tribunal as Rs.404/ per day and Rs.12,120/ p.m when the neurological disability is assessed at 30%, by referring the observation made in the aforesaid rulings if 40% is added towards future prospects it comes to Rs.16,968/. When SCCH-24 21 MVC 758/2019 the age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 18 years, as observed supra if 18 multiplier is applied , the loss of future income due to disability comes to Rs.16,968/x 30% x 18 x 12 =10,99,526/. Hence this Tribunal holds that petitioner is entitled for Rs.10,99,526/ towards future loss of income due to disability including future prospect.
33. By considering the age of the petitioner and the percentage of neurological disability suffered by the petitioner, there may be loss of amenities and discomfort to the petitioner. Further because of the head injury sustained by the petitioner, she has to discontinue her studies and there is loss of academic carrier of the petitioner. Further because of the neurological disability of the petitioner, which may effects her marriage prospects adversely, hence this court inclines to award compensation under the head loss of amenities, discomfort, loss of academic carrier and marriage prospect to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as under:
Sl.No Heads Amount Rs.
1. Towards pain & sufferings Rs. 60,000/
2. Towards Attendant charges, Rs. 50,000/
conveyance and other
incidental charges
SCCH-24 22 MVC 758/2019
3. Medical expenses Rs.6,53,746/
4. Loss of Future Income Rs.10,99,526/
5. Loss of amenities, discomfort , Rs. 1,00,000/
loss of academic carrier and
marriage prospect
Total Rs. 19,63,272/
Therefore this court holds that petitioner is entitled for Rs.19,63,272/ (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Two only).
34. As regarding liability is concerned, the Respondent being the RC owner cum insured of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Hence by fastening liability on the respondent this court directs the respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment of entire amount. Accordingly Issue No. 3 is answered.
35. Issue No.3: In the light of findings given on Issue No.1 and 2, my finding on this issue is as per the following final order.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
SCCH-24 23 MVC 758/2019The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.19,63,272/ (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Two only).
As respondent has paid interim compensation of Rs.4,65,000/, the said amount is deducted from the compensation of Rs.19,63,272/. Hence it comes to Rs.14,98,272/ (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Two only) and thus the Respondent is liable to pay the said compensation to the petitioner and is directed to deposit the same along with interest within two months from the date of award.
Rs.14,98,275/ shall also carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
As petitioner has caused in ordinate delay in disposal of the case, this court vide order dated 31/10/2023 had eschewed the interest from 22/8/2022 to 11/1/2024.
Hence interest on the compensation SCCH-24 24 MVC 758/2019 amount for the period 22/8/2022 to 11/1/2024 is to be excluded.
On deposit of the said amount and interest, 40% of compensation payable to the petitioner shall be deposited in her name in any nationalized bank of the choice of petitioner for a period of 3 years and the remaining 60% shall be released to the petitioner through Epayment on proper identification.
Advocates' fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 6th day of August 2024.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of petitioner: Pw.1 Mrs. Padma Pw.2 Raghu Y C Pw.3 Dr.Veeresha U Mathad Pw.4 Ananda Theertha N M SCCH-24 25 MVC 758/2019 Pw.5 Raju Pw.6 Mahesh R List of documents marked on behalf of petitioner: Ex.P1 True copy of FIR Ex.P2 True copy of complaint Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P4 True copy of Sketch Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report Ex.P6 True copy of charge sheet Ex.P7 True copy of wound certificate Ex.P8 Discharge summaries ( 3 in nos) Ex.P9 Medical bills (53 in nos) Ex.P10 Prescriptions (30 in nos) Ex.P11 Lab reports (38 in nos) Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of School Transfer certificate of Sneha R (compared with original, tallied and returned) Ex.P.13 Authorization letter Ex.P.14 Inpatient record Ex.P15 Clinical notes (two pages) Ex.P16 CT scan Brainplain report one film Ex.P.17 Neuro psychological assessment report dated 21072022 Ex.P.18 Authorization letter Ex.P.19 One Inpatient case sheet SCCH-24 26 MVC 758/2019 List of witness examined on behalf of respondents RW.1 Yamanappa Basava Madar List of documents marked on behalf of respondents: Ex.R1 Certified copy of judgment passed in CC No.2150/2019 on the file of MMTC court, Bengaluru.
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.