Bangalore District Court
Naveen .A vs Umesh .C.S on 13 March, 2024
KABC020142852019
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
(SCCH-23)
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF MARCH - 2024
PRESENT: Sri. Aalok. A.N
(B.B.A. LL.B),
XXI ADDL. SCJ & ACMM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
MVC. No.3381/2019
Petitioner : Master. Naveen. A,
S/o Armugam,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at No.39, Rose Garden,
J.P.Nagar, 6th Phase,
Bengaluru South-78
(By Advocate: Sri.R.V. Anand)
Sri. L. Manjunath
v/s
Respondent/s : 1. Sri. Umesh. C.S,
S/o Parameshappa,
Sadara Street,
Koratagere Taluk,
Tumkur District.
(Insured of Bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-06-C-4211)
(By Advocate: Sri. B.N. Nagaraj)
SCCH-23 2 MVC-3381/2019
2. The Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office,
Leo Shopping Complex,
No.44/45, Residency Road,
Bengaluru-25.
(Insurer of Bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-06-C-4211)
(By Advocate: Sri. S.R. Murthy)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed under section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief case of the petitioner in the nutshell:
It is the case of the petitioner that on ill fated day i.e.., on 12.01.2019 at about 4.00 p.m, the petitioner was traveling as passenger along with parents and other co.passengers in a bus Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-4211 from Bengluru to Mail Maravattur Temple, when the said bus reached near Ambur to Vellor NH road, Vadaputhupattu Sugar Mill, near Anandas Hotel, at that time the driver of bus drove the same in rash and negligent manner endangering human life and dashed against the water Tanker lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-63-Z-2885 which was parked by putting parking lights with safety precautions. Due to the said impact the petitioner and other passengers of the bus have sustained grievous injuries. Soon after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Gudiyatham Hospital and then he SCCH-23 3 MVC-3381/2019 was shifted to CMC Hospital, wherein he was treated as inpatient he was discharged with an advised to take follow-up treatment. It is further pleaded that, petitioner has spent more than Rs.3.50 lakhs towards medical, conveyance, nourishment.
It is specifically urged that at the time of accident he was aged about 15 years and was studying 9th Standard and was very brilliant student in the class and due to the accidental injuries he unable to attend classes regularly thereby he sustained loss of academic year and the petitioner has suffered both physically and emotionally. It is further urged that the accident happened because of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. Further the respondent No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-4211 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, as such prayed to grant a compensation amount.
3. After service of notice respondent No.1 spurred in rush to the Court by filing written statement rather objections to the main petition contending that, the petition itself is not maintainable either law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. The respondent No.1 admitted that he is the RC owner of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-4211 and was duly insured with the 2nd respondent and same was in force as on the date of accident. It is further submitted that the driver of the bus also possess valid and effective driving licence and the bus is having SCCH-23 4 MVC-3381/2019 valid Permit. Further denied all the allegation made in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. After service of notice, respondent No.2 spurred in rush to the Court by filing written statement rather objections to the main petition contending that the petition itself is not maintainable either law or on facts. The respondent No.2 denied the issuance of insurance policy in respect of bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-4211. However the liability if any is pleaded to be subject to the terms & conditions of the policy. Non- compliance of section's 134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act is pleaded. This respondent specifically and empathically denied the occurrence, mode and manner of accident and also involvement of the vehicle in the accident. The petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Negligence on the part of the driver of the insured bus is denied by this respondent. Per contra it can be safely gathered that the driver of water tanker bearing Reg.no.TN-63-Z-2885 was parked on the road without putting indication and due to negligent act of the driver of the water tanker the accident occurred and the driver of the water tanker is solely responsible. Without prejudice to the said contention it is averred that the driver of the bus did not possess valid & effective DL as on the date of accident. Despite knowing the said fact the owner thereof had handed over its possession to such a driver. Further it is urged that as on the date of accident the insured bus did not holding valid and effective Permit and FC.
SCCH-23 5 MVC-3381/2019On account of willful breach of the terms & conditions of the policy by the insured, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify him. Further denied all the allegation made in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of above pleadings the following issues were framed :
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioner proves that, on 12.01.2019 at about 4.00 p.m, on Ambur to Vellore NH road, Vadaputhupattu Sagar Milol, Near Anandhs Hotel, he has sustained injuries in the RTA caused by the driver of the Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-4211 on his rash and negligent driving ?
2) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom ?
3) What order or award ?
6. On behalf of the petitioner, the mother who is the natural guardian of the petitioner was examined as PW.1. Ex's.P1 to 14 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. The MRT of Christian Medical College, Vellore was examined as PW.2. Ex.P.15 to 17 were marked through him. Further Dr.Nagaraj. B.N, Otrhopedic surgeon was examined as PW.3. Ex.P18 and 19 were marked through him. In order to prove the defence, the respondent No.2 got examined the Assistant Manager of SCCH-23 6 MVC-3381/2019 respondent No.2 insurance company as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1 to 3 documents.
7. Heard erudite counsel for the petitioner and respondents counsel on merits. Perused the entire materials placed on record.
8. This tribunal answers to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.1: The petitioner has knocked the doors of justice with a relief to grant a compensation of an amount to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- together. The case of the petitioner lies an narrow compass as to claiming of compensation amount for injuries sustained by him in a Road Traffic Accident. Before dwelling into analyzing the disputed facts in issue it is relevant to have the birds eye of the case of petitioner in a nutshell.
10. It is the case of petitioner that, on 12.01.2019 at about 4.00 p.m, the petitioner was traveling as passenger along with parents and other co.passengers in a bus Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-4211 from Bengluru to Mail Maravattur Temple, when the said bus reached near Ambur to Vellor NH road, Vadaputhupattu Sugar Mill, near Anandas Hotel, at that SCCH-23 7 MVC-3381/2019 time the driver of bus drove the same in rash and negligent manner endangering human life and dashed against the water Tanker lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-63-Z-2885 which was parked by putting parking lights with safety precautions. Due to the said impact the petitioner and other passengers of the bus have sustained grievous injuries. Soon after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Gudiyatham Hospital and then he was shifted to CMC Hospital, wherein he was treated as inpatient he was discharged with an advised to take follow-up treatment. It is further urged that, petitioner has spent more than Rs.3.50 lakhs towards medical, conveyance, nourishment. It is specifically urged that at the time of accident he was aged about 15 years and was studying 9th Standard and was very brilliant student in the class and due to the accidental injuries he unable to attend classes regularly thereby he sustained loss of academic year and the petitioner has suffered both physically and emotionally. It is further urged that the accident happened because of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. Further the respondent No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-4211 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, as such prayed to grant a compensation amount.
11. In support of the case of the petitioner, the mother who is the natural guardian of the petitioner stepped into the witness box and filed her affidavit-in-lieu of oral examination- in-chief as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 documents.
SCCH-23 8 MVC-3381/2019The MRT of Christian Medical College, Vellore was examined as PW.2. Ex.P.15 to 17 were marked through him. Added more the doctor who assessed the disability is examined as PW.3 and through him Ex.P.18 & 19 are marked. On the other hand in order to substantiate the defence of the respondents and to demolish the case of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 counsel has cross examined PW.1 to 3 at length.
12. On the other hand the respondent No.1 & 2 have distinctly filed the written statement and taken contention in tandem that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the accident happened because negligent parking of the water tanker bearing Reg.No.TN-63-Z-2885 without putting any indication. Further denied all the allegations hence prayed to dismiss the petition as against them. In support of these contentions the respondents did not choose to lead any evidence.
13. This issue revolves round the sphere and ambit as to the alleged rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The factum of negligence has to be proved like any other matter in issue.
14. Before dwelling into analyzing the factum of alleged negligence it is relevant to have the conceptual aspects pertaining to factum of negligence. There are four basic elements that a person has to fulfill in order to do a negligent act. These elements are as follows:
SCCH-23 9 MVC-3381/2019Duty: For committing a negligent act, there must be some duty on the part of the defendant. Here it is important to understand whether the defendant has taken legal duty of care towards the plaintiff.
Breach of Duty: After fulfilling the first criteria the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has breached the legal duty imposed on him/her. It talks about the breach of duty on the part of the defendant which he/ she is expected to do as he/ she has some legal duty towards the plaintiff.
The action of causing something: It means that the damage caused to the plaintiff is due to the act of the defendant. Here the defendant may do an act which is not expected from him/her or the defendant may be negligent in not doing an act which was expected from him/ her.
Damages: At last what matters is, there must be some damage/injury that is caused to the plaintiff and this damages should be the direct consequence of the defendant's act.
Negligence means a breach of duty caused by omission to do something which has reasonable man guide by those consideration which ordinarily regulated conduct of human affairs would do which a prudent man would not do. In common prevalence negligence connoted to the want of proper care and the rashness conveys the idea of recklessness or the doing of an act without due consideration.SCCH-23 10 MVC-3381/2019
15. Reverting back to the factual matrix the petitioner in order to prove the factum of negligence had got marked the FIS from which a criminal law was set into motion as per Ex.P.2 and the FIR was filed as per Ex.P.1. The criminal law was set into motion on the delay of accident itself. When such being the case there is absolutely no iota of doubt in the mind of this court with regard to the involvement of the vehicle. One of the document which sheds light pertaining to the factum of negligence is Ex.P.3 and 4 being the Spot mahazar and Spot sketch respectively. This court gave anxious consideration with astuteness to the above said documents. On close perusal of the above said documents, it speaks in volumes as to the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the bus.
16. It is specifically urged by the respondent No.2 that the water tanker lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-63-Z-2885 was parked without any indication and parking light. In order to substantiate the above said factum, the respondent No.2 counsel has relied on the decisions reported in :
1) 2017 ACJ 2360 in the case of ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., V/s Rajendra Singh and others.
2) 2018 ACJ 275 in the case of Manjit Kaur and Others V/s Jagtar Singh and others
3) 2019 ACJ 159 (KAR) in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins.Co.Ltd., V/s Savitha and others.SCCH-23 11 MVC-3381/2019
4) 2020 ACJ 1816 in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd., V/ s Mansi Swapnil Deokar and Others.
5) 2020 ACJ 2148 (SC) in the case of Jumani Begum V/s Ram Narayan and others
6) 2020 ACJ 2955 in the case of National Ins.Co.Ltd., V/s Rajbala and others
7) 2021 ACJ 1831 in the case of HDFC Ergo Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., V/s Varsha Suresh Sontakke and others
8) 2022 ACJ 721 in the case of K. Anusha and others V/s Regional Manager, Shriram Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
17. The pith and substances of these decisions is that the vehicle is parked without putting any indication or safety precautions some amount of the contributory negligence has to be taken for the act of the driver of the vehicle. In the instant case on hand, it is specifically and positively urged by the petitioners that the lorry was parked putting indication with safety precautions. It is the respondent No.2 has taken specific defence that it was not parked with specific indication and safety precaution. When such is the case the onus of proof u/s 102 of Indian Evidence Act shifts on the respondent No.2 to prove the same. Though the respondent No.2 has examined the Assistant Manager as RW.1, but during the course of cross- examination it was elicited that he is giving evidence based on SCCH-23 12 MVC-3381/2019 records and it is also forthcoming that there is no private investigation done in this case. It is also not out of the context to mention that there is no counter complaint lodge by the respondent No.1 against the lorry driver. When such is the case beyond any stretch of imagination it cannot be conceded that, it is a case of negligence on the part of the water tanker lorry.
18. Further, if the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a slow speed than, he would have definitely avoided the accident. Added more, the factum of dashing the stationary vehicle from the hind side speaks itself as to the negligence on the part of the bus driver. Further more even a chargesheet was also filed as against the driver of the bus as per Ex.P.5. There is no qualm in the preposition of law that an chargesheet is not a sole document on which the factum of negligence has to be decided. In the instant case on hand, having regard to the other circumstances and other documentary proof it is crystal clear that there was absolutely negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in which the petitioner was proceeding as inmate of the said bus.
19. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is expected to prove the incident on basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view taken by this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme SCCH-23 13 MVC-3381/2019 Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed that, it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105, where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka considering the fact that the rider of the offending vehicle was not examined to prove any contributory negligence on the part of scooterist held that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the rider of the offending van. Even here in this case the driver of the bus is not examined to show that there was no negligence on his part and even otherwise the IO, as already observed, has clearly opined that the accident occurred only due to the fault of the driver of the bus and he was charge sheeted. Consequently this tribunal hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the bus. On assessing entire evidence the light of oral and documentary proof, the preponderance of probability tilts infavour of petitioner herein. Hence, this Tribunal answers Issue No.1 'In the Affirmative'.
SCCH-23 14 MVC-3381/201920. ISSUE NO.2 : As already held herein above, the petitioner proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which is caused by the vehicle belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent no.2. Hence the petitioner is entitle for compensation. This Court has already held Issue No.1 in the affirmative which makes it more than obvious that the petitioner is entitled for compensation. Needless to state the quantum of compensation which is awarded has to be proportionate to the nature of the injuries and the compensation has to be awarded by keeping in mind the pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages suffered by the injured-claimant. By pecuniary damages this Court is referring to the actual loss sustained by the petitioner, which can be determined in terms of money, by taking into account the oral or documentary evidence. Whereas for non-pecuniary damages this Court is referring to the losses that the claimant has though suffered, but will not be able to prove for the reason that it can neither be calculated in terms of the money nor can it be proved leading documentary evidence. Perhaps the non- pecuniary damages can be figured out by looking into the facts of each case by taking into account the nature of injuries and the aftermath. It is required to be reminded to oneself that compensation in a case arising out of injury can never be granted on mathematical precision and invariably a good amount of guesswork is involved while determining the compensation in such cases.
SCCH-23 15 MVC-3381/201921. Perhaps unlike in a fatal case, in a case involving bodily injury the victim is left to suffer throughout his life and hence it becomes the bounden duty of the tribunal to award compensation to a victim of permanent disability so as to bring in sustainability and also to ensure that victim is not pushed to poverty.
22. This issues revolves round the sphere and ambit as to the quantum of compensation. The mother of petitioner has got exhibited the Aadhar card of the petitioner at Ex.P13 wherein his date of birth is reflected as 29.06.2004. The accident occurred on 12.01.2019. This indicates that he was aged 14 years 6 months 14 days as on the date of accident.
23. In order to demonstrate the pecuniary loss suffered by the parents of the petitioner due to the injuries sustained by the minor petitioner, the next friend of the petitioner has led oral and documentary evidence. The PW.1 in her oral evidence has asserted on oath that immediately after the accident, the minor petitioner was shifted to the hospital. She further deposed with regard to the amputation of the right hand of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has got examined Dr. Nagaraj. B.N, Orthopedic Surgeon, SOADS Hospital, Bengaluru, who assessed the disability of the petitioner. He deposed that the petitioner sustained crush injury to the right upper limb with above elbow auto amputation and in the CMC Vellore Hospital his right should dis articulation and stump closure and later discharged on 23.01.2019. The petitioner has supported the said SCCH-23 16 MVC-3381/2019 contention by producing Ex.P.16 and 17 which are the Out patient and inpatient records, medical bills and photographs ; and the petitioner has also examined PW.3 who has clearly deposed that indeed the minor petitioner underwent treatment as stated by the PW.1. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that he has spent substantial amount towards the treatment and incidental charges like nourishment of the minor and has produced Ex.P.6, 10 - medical bills in support of the same. Further on perusal of the medial bills marked at Ex.P6 total 10 bills is amounts to Rs.1,16,152/-. Further in the inpatient records, it is clearly mentioned that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature and in the said document it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner was managed right upper limb. By keeping these facts in mind the compensation has to be determined.
24. While determining the compensation this court has to look into the pain and sufferings, medical expenses, diet, food, nourishment, attendant and conveyance charges and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life that the minor petitioner has suffered, which are discussed herein below.
25. ATTENDANT CHARGES, FOOD, NOURISHMENT & TRAVELLING EXPENSES: The period of hospitalization of (12.01.2019 to 23.01.2019 and from 23.01.2019 to 01.02.2019 at Christian Medical College, Vellore) 21 days is proved. Thus having regard to the age of the petitioner and also the nature of SCCH-23 17 MVC-3381/2019 injuries sustained by him, he unavoidably required the service of an attendant for nursing and care. He must also have been given diet food as suggested by the doctor. For that the petitioner's family members might have spent some amount towards attendant charges, food, nourishment & travelling expenses. Accordingly considering the rate of inflation and rise in the price index, the same is quantified at Rs.2,000/- per day. Hence Rs.42,000/- (21 X 2,000) is awarded under this head.
26. PAIN & SUFFERINGS : The petitioner has relied upon Ex.P-16 & 17 which are the out patient record and inpatient record, which reveal that the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature. According to the petitioner he has obtained treatment at Christian Medical College, Vellore. Further the record discloses that the petitioner has underwent upper limb with above elbow auto amputation and the right shoulder disarticulation. The petitioner being the 15 years adolescent has lost his dominant hand and because of this he may suffer huge pain and embarrassment in the society. Considering the nature of the injuries mentioned in discharge summary, it can be said that the petitioner must have underwent enormous amount of physical pain and sufferings, for which, an amount of ₹.1,00,000/- can be held to be just and proper compensation under this head.
27. TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENSES: As per the bills marked at Ex.P65, the PW.1 has spent Rs.1,16,152/- towards SCCH-23 18 MVC-3381/2019 medical expenses. Nothing worthwhile was elicited during the course of her cross-examination, so as to doubt the genuineness of these bills. Hence the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,16,152/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,16,000/- towards medical expenses.
28. TOWARDS DISCOMFORT, INCONVENIENCE AND LOSS OF EARNINGS TO THE PARENTS DURING THE PERIOD OF HOSPITALIZATION : Looking into the nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, a maximum of 5 months would have been required for recovery. Hence the petitioner's parents could not have attended their work for those long period of 5 months. Therefore this Tribunal deems it expedient to take note of loss of income of parents during the course of treatment and rest of the petitioner. The same is quantified at Rs.10,000/- p.m. and a sum of Rs.50,000/- (10,000 X 5) is awarded as compensation for discomfort, inconvenience and loss of income to the parents during the period of hospitalization of the minor petitioner.
29. TOWARDS PERMANENT DISABILITY: The next friend of the minor petitioner has alleged that due to injuries sustained in the accident, the minor has become permanently disabled and he lost his right hand at younger age and was unable to concentrate his education. Further it is urged that the petitioner is not in a position to do the activities which he used to do prior to the accident. In order to establish that minor petitioner has suffered physical disability, the petitioner has got SCCH-23 19 MVC-3381/2019 examined Dr. Nagaraj. B.N, Orthopedic Surgeon as PW.3, who has deposed in his evidence that the minor petitioner underwent treatment wherein during the course of treatment, the petitioner sustained crush injury to the right upper limb with above elbow auto amputation and in the CMC Vellore Hospital his right should disarticulation and stump closure and later discharged on 23.01.2019. In his evidence the PW.3 has specifically mentioned about that, the petitioner is underwent right upper limb with above elbow amputation and petitioner has right shoulder disarticulation. The PW.3 also answered that the petitioner underwent right shoulder dis-articulation and stump closure and was unable to do any work, write and underwent mental depression. The PW.3 in his affidavit he deposed that petitioner has sustained 90% of shoulder disarticulation, 10% to the right dominate hand and 100% disability to the whole body. In the affidavit filed by the next friend of the petitioner it is stated that the petitioner was aged about 14 years and was studying in 9th std. At the time of accident and he was a bright, active and brilliant student. Further PW.1 stated that due to the accidental injuries her son has become permanently disabled and he lost his right hand at younger age and was unable to concentrate his education and unable to play with other children and still her son is getting severe pain at fracture site. Certainly by losing his right hand the petitioner will feel inconvenience, hardship and discomfort, frustration and very importantly disappointment by comparing SCCH-23 20 MVC-3381/2019 himself with his classmates or friends. It is pertinent to note that while assessing the disability specially in the case of child victim it is very important to note that for a child the best part of his life is yet to come.
30. Hence, the compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop life style which will offset to some extent, the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability. At this point, this Tribunal would like to rely on the following judgment reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 between Rajkumar V/s. Ajaykumar and another, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows;
Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability SCCH-23 21 MVC-3381/2019 then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a SCCH-23 22 MVC-3381/2019 clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
By applying the said precedent to the present case on hand, in this case the petitioner sustained injuries. The petitioner was amputed with his right hand and the evidence discloses that he is facing huge difficulties. For a student right hand is important limb of his body and for a student the right hand place very important role to build up his carrier. Now as the petitioner lost his education career in his life, he has to look after for alternative skills for his future. It is also a set-back for his sports activity. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the disability has to be taken upto 70% by considering the future and age of the petitioner.
SCCH-23 23 MVC-3381/201931. The petitioner counsel stoutly urged that the petitioner is also entitled for future prospects and in this regard the petitioner counsel has relied on the decisions of AIR 2020 Supreme Court 776 in the case of Kajal V/s Jagadish Chand and others and 2022 ACJ 1006 in the case of Ayush V/s Branch Manager, Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd., and Another. This court gave anxious consideration to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in these two decisions. In the decision reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 776 in the case of Kajal V/s Jagadish Chand and others it was held in paragraph No.20 as here under :
"20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs.15,000/- per annum. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs.4846/- per month. In our opinion this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs.6784.40/- per month, i.e., 81,412.80 per annum. Applying the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs.14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs.14,66,000/-."SCCH-23 24 MVC-3381/2019
32. Applying the said principles to the facts of the instant case, in the case on hand also the petitioner had sustained amputation of right hand. His functional disability will be 70% as discussed above. In the above cited decision the minimum wages to the skilled workmen is taken into consideration and 40% of future prospects was added. In the instant case on hand the minimum wages of a skilled workmen at that relevant point of time is Rs.395/- per day.
33. TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
(i) The petitioner has alleged that due to injuries sustained in the accident, he has become permanently disabled and he is not in a position to work and earn his livelihood as he was doing earlier. The factum of disability and loss of future earning is exhaustively discussed above. This tribunal after assessing the materials placed on record had held that the petitioner had suffered the 70% of disability.
It is clear that though the petitioner has not suffered any adverse effect on his mental faculty, but his physical condition is such that he needs assistance of some person to do his daily chores. Further the assertion made by petitioner in his chief examination affidavit shows that he has sustained upper limb with above elbow auto amputation and the right shoulder SCCH-23 25 MVC-3381/2019 disarticulation. Hence taking into consideration the nature of the injuries and also keeping in mind the fact that according to PW.3, the petitioner has suffered right hand amputation, this court holds that the son of PW-1 has suffered 100% whole body disability. As such the functional disability is assessed at 70%.
(ii) The PW-1 in her evidence has contended that as on the date of her examination before the court her son was aged about 14 years. Interestingly the minor petitioner is a student. If the age of the minor petitioner as on the date of accident is 14 years., as per table given in Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ SC 1298), the multiplier would be '13'
(iii) The notional income of the minor petitioner as noted above prior to the accident is Rs.395/- per day (Rs.11,850/- per month).
In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 4424, the claimant is entitled to addition of future prospects to the tune of 40% as the claimant was aged less than 40 years of age at the time of accident. In this regard on the same SCCH-23 26 MVC-3381/2019 point of law the petitioner also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2022 ACJ 2048 in the case of Jagadish Suvarna V/s K.T. Rajashekar and others, wherein also the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had taken future prospects.
Added more, in the decision reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 776 in the case of Kajal V/s Jagadish Chand and others it was held in paragraph No.20 as here under :
"20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs.15,000/- per annum. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs.15,000/- per annum is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs.4846/- per month. In our opinion this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs.6784.40/- per month, i.e., 81,412.80 per annum. Applying the multiplier of 18 it works out to Rs.14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs.14,66,000/-."SCCH-23 27 MVC-3381/2019
Therefore, the income of the petitioner after addition of future prospects comes to Rs.16,590/- per month.
(iv) If the age of the petitioner was 14 years as on the date of accident, as per the table given in Sarla Verma case, the relevant multiplier would be '13'. The annual income of the petitioner would be ₹1,99,080/- (16,590 x 12). Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of ₹.18,11,628/- (1,99,080 x 13 x 70/100) which is rounded off to Rs.18,12,000/- towards loss of future income.
34. LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS: The disability referred above would have necessarily caused physical deformity with which the petitioner has to live the rest of his life. Hence a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded under this head.
35. LOSS OF PROSPECTS OF MARRIAGE : The petitioner had contended that due to the injuries sustained by him, he is unable to find a bride for marriage in future days. The evidence of doctor witness goes to show that the petitioner has lost his right hand. In this view of the matter the petitioner is rendered permanently incapable of doing any work in future which would thus affect his future prospects both professionally and personally. Obviously the matrimonial prospects of the victim/petitioner who suffered grievous accidental injuries, would also be severely affected. To put it differently the marital SCCH-23 28 MVC-3381/2019 prospects of the petitioner are bleak. If a person chooses to be a bachelor throughout his life, it is his wish. Whereas if a person is compelled to remain so because of an unfortunate accident then that will lead to mental agony. In this regard the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2021 ACJ 2645 in the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance, Company V/s Akash and another wherein it is held for loss of marriage prospects to the tune of Rs.5,00,000. The accident & resultant amputation of right hand would definitely hamper the petitioner's prospect of getting any employment in future. Someway or the other the amputation would affect his future prospects both professionally and personally. Obviously the matrimonial prospects of the victim/ petitioner who suffered accidental injuries, that too amputation at the age of 14 years, would severely be affected. Since the petitioner is suffering from right upper limb amputation and is aged only 14 years, this court deems it fit to award compensation under this head and the same is fixed at ₹3,00,000/-.
36. FUTURE MEDICAL AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES : In his evidence affidavit the doctor witness has deposed that the petitioner needs custom made prosthesis as per his requirements the cost of it is variable. True it is that no estimation is produced to show the cost of prosthesis. But in this context what deserves notice is that with technological SCCH-23 29 MVC-3381/2019 advancement the quality of artificial limbs has improved and these advanced artificial limbs do come at substantive price. Further like any other machinery they also require maintenance throughout the lifetime of the petitioner. Considering all these factors, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under this head, which shall not carry any interest.
37. The calculation table stands follows :
1 Attendant charges, extra nutritious : 42,000-00 food & conveyance charges 2 Pain & sufferings : 1,00,000-00 3 Medical expenses : 1,16,000-00 4 Discomfort, inconvenience & loss of : 50,000-00 income to the parents during the period of hospitalization 5 Towards Loss of future earning : 18,12,000-00 capacity on account of permanent disability 6 Loss of future amenities & happiness : 60,000-00 7 Loss of prospects of marriage : 3,00,000-00 8 Future medical and other incidental : 2,00,000-00 expenses Total 26,80,000-00
38. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
39. In the written statement of the respondent No.2- insurance company admitted the issuance of insurance to the SCCH-23 30 MVC-3381/2019 offending bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, but in view of the specific contention of the respondent No.2 that respondent No.1 has violated the policy conditions, as the respondent No.1 has handed over the offending bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211 which is insured with respondent No.2 to the driver who did not possess a valid a subsisting driving license to drive a offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211 as on the date of accident.
40. Precisely, it is the specific case of the respondent No.2 that the driver of the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, did not possessed a valid driving license and hence was not competent to drive the offending bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, and secondly the respondent No.1 has allowed unauthorized person to drive the offending bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, which is in gross violation of the insurance policy.
41. In order to discharge the burden cast on it, the respondent No.2 company has examined its Executive as RW-1 where the RW-1 has specifically stated on oath that the driver of the respondent No.1 did not possessed a valid driving license at the time of accident. Further the RW.1 has produced copy of policy wherein it specifically establishes that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was covered with valid licence.
42. This apart the respondent No.1 has not made any other efforts to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle SCCH-23 31 MVC-3381/2019 bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, possessed a valid driving license on the date of the accident to drive the bus in the public road.
43. Further, ordersheet discloses that, respondent.no.2 on 28.02.2023 has also filed application u/s 169(2) of IMV Act praying to direct the respondent No.1 to produce the RC and FC in respect of bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-4211 as well as the DL of the driver of the said vehicle. The order sheet dated 20.03.2023 discloses that the respondent no.1 did not choose to produce those documents as such an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent.no.1 that, bus bearing Reg.No.KA-06-C-4211 did not have valid permit and fitness and the driver did not posses DL as on the date of accident. The owner i.e. the respondent No.1 even though appeared before this court has failed to produce necessary evidence to show that the driver the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, was having a valid licence at the time of accident to drive the bus.
44. The above facts make it clear that the respondent No.1 had more than one opportunities to produce the driving license of driver of the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, but he did not bother to produce the same, which makes it obvious that the driver of the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, does not possess a driving license.
SCCH-23 32 MVC-3381/201945. Now it is relevant to dwell to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said provision makes it clear that any particular fact which is within the knowledge of a party, he has the burden of proving the same. The said provision reads as under :
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.--When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
The essence of the said provision is that the respondent No.1 who is the owner of the the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, has the burden of proving any fact which is specially within his knowledge. In fact the illustration (b) appended to the section 106 of Indian Evidence Act , A is charged with traveling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
Applying the said provision to the facts at hand, the burden of proving that the the driver of the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, was having driving license shifted on the respondent No.1, but the respondent No.1 has failed to discharge the said onus. On the other hand the SCCH-23 33 MVC-3381/2019 respondent No.2 by examining RW.1 has discharged the burden cast on it.
46. Now the next moot question to be ascertained is regarding fixation of liability i.e., who should be made liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner?. Precisely, it is the specific case of the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.1 has handed over the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, to a person who has not having valid driving license. For the reasons discussed as supra , it is established that the driver of the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.KA-06-C-4211, was not having valid licence at the time of the accident.
47. Now the next question that arises, whether this Tribunal can direct the respondent No.2/Insurance company to pay the award amount together with interest and then recover the same from the insured/respondent No.1. It is relevant to note that the Doctrine of 'Pay and Recover' was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 between National Insurance Company V/s Swaran Singh, wherein the liability of the Insurance company was examined in cases of breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of the driver or invalid driving license of the driver and held that in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the award amount to the third party and recover the same from the insurer. Hence it is clear that the statutory liability is on the SCCH-23 34 MVC-3381/2019 Insurance company as per Sec.149 of IMV Act, to pay the compensation first to the claimant and thereafter the insurance company may recover the same from the owner of offending vehicle.
48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna & another V/s Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd & others, reported in 2018 ACJ 2163 held that the Tribunal can issue direction of 'Pay and Recover' to the Insurance Company. Our own Hon'ble High Court in C.BalaKrishna V/s C.Muniraju & another reported in 2017 ACJ 1168 has held that Insurance company is required to establish breach of policy conditions by evidence and even where it succeeds in proving that the driver did not have a valid driving license, it is still liable to pay compensation amount and the only right which can be bestowed upon the Insurance company is the right of recovery and hence the Insurance company was directed to pay compensation and then recover the same. In the recent decision reported in 2018 ACJ 690 (Pappu & others V/s Vinod Kumar Lamba & another) also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the vehicle was duly insured would not perse make the Insurance company liable. However the Apex Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from owner of the vehicle.
49. It is relevant to rely on the decision in Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 rendered on 16.11.2021 in the case of Kurvan SCCH-23 35 MVC-3381/2019 Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali & another v/s Shyam Kishore Murmu and Another. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ordered for Pay and Recovery in the case that the owner of the vehicle had given the vehicle to the driver who was not possessing valid DL as on the date of accident. The principles laid down in the above said decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 relied on the decision reported in (1) MFA-3297/2019 between Smt. Adilakshmamma and Others v/s Sri. Raju B and another. This court gave anxious consideration to the principles laid down by the constitutional courts in the above said decision. The principles laid down therein is not applicable to the case on hand, having regard to the peculiarity of facts and circumstances and having regard to the dictum laid down in the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 between National Insurance Company V/s Swaran Singh, these decisions cannot be made applicable to the case on hand.
50. The next aspect to be pondered upon now is, what is the effect of the driver of the offending vehicle not possessing a driving license at the time of accident. In H.K. Shivaramu Vs. H.S.Shivaramum other rendered by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 4.12.2020 wherein in a similar set of facts the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held thus:
SCCH-23 36 MVC-3381/201910. On the basis of the evidence of the parties and the materials available on record, i.e., Ex.P2 - charge sheet the Tribunal has rightly held that the rider of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and fastened the liability on the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - the rider and the owner of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
In view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of YELLAVVA (supra), even though there is violation of policy conditions, when it is not in dispute that as on the date of the accident the offending vehicle was covered by the insurance policy, the insurance company has to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same.
The essence of the said decision is that even where the driver of the offending vehicle was found to be driving without a valid driving license and the insurance company pleads that there is violation of policy conditions, if the vehicle had a valid and subsisting insurance policy, then the insurance company has to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from owner and rider.
51. In fact the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relied upon the decision of Hon'ble full bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs Yallavva reported in ILR 2020 Kar SCCH-23 37 MVC-3381/2019 2239 equivalent (2020) 2 KCCR 1405 wherein the Hon'ble High court has reaffirmed the principles relating to pay and recover by relying upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 cited supra held thus:
34. On a reading of the same, it becomes clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down two tests. The breach of a policy condition, for example, by disqualification of the driver to hold a driving licence or invalid driving licence has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. In other words, in order to avoid the liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of policy regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. Thus, burden of proof of establishing breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle is on the Insurance Company. The above is the first test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Then, there is another test enunciated. Even after proving breach of a policy condition regarding a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period on the part of the insured, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid his liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches is/are so "fundamental" as found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. This is having regard to the "rule of main purpose" or "main purpose rule" i.e., even if there is a proof of the driver of a motor vehicle not being duly licenced at the time of the accident, the said fact must be a cause for the accident. In other words, the breach was so fundamental as to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The doctrine of fundamental breach has been incorporated in Section 149 of the Act by the Hon'ble SCCH-23 38 MVC-3381/2019 Supreme Court in order to give effect to the main purpose rule. Thus, the exclusion clause or the defence of an insurer so as to avoid liability has been read down to the extent to which it is inconsistent to the main purpose of the contract. The above is the second test to be applied.
Thus, there has to be a finding of fact, as to, whether, the owner or the insured had taken reasonable care. Hence, the Tribunal will have to decide the dispute, as to, whether, the insurer has proved its defence. While adjudicating the said claim if the Tribunal concludes that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with Section 149(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party as per the award of the Tribunal having regard to the mandate of section 149(1) of the Act."
(emphasis supplied by me) The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 cited supra has categorically held that to avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. Further at para 110 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or SCCH-23 39 MVC-3381/2019 invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
(emphasis supplied by me)
52. No doubt the respondent No.2 has proved that the driver of respondent No.1 did not possess license, but the above decision makes it clear that the respondent No.2 was required to prove that the insured was negligent or did not exercise reasonable care which is not proved. Thereby fortifying the view taken by this court that the respondent No.2 should make good the compensation amount to the petitioner and then proceed against the respondent No.1 i.e., the owner to recover the same.
53. For the foregoing reasons this court finds no hesitation in holding that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount to the petitioner with liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1.
SCCH-23 40 MVC-3381/201954. Therefore following the ratio laid down in the decisions cited supra, this Tribunal intends that it is just and proper to direct the insurer i.e., Respondent No.2 to pay the amount together with interest @ 6% p.a, from the date of claim petition till realization of entire award amount to the petitioner herein. However the respondent No.2 is at liberty to recover the award amount together with the interest so paid, from the insured/ Respondent No.1 in appropriate execution proceedings as held in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd V/s Nanjappan & others, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. With this observation, issue No.2 is answered as 'Partly in the affirmative'.
55. ISSUE NO.3 : In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act 1988, is hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms :
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.26,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pay the aforesaid award amount together with interest to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order, with liberty to recover the same from the insured/respondent No.1 in appropriate execution SCCH-23 41 MVC-3381/2019 proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd V/s Nanjappan & others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224.
Out of the above said compensation amount awarded to the petitioner, 70% of the award amount with accrued interest shall be paid to the petitioner through NEFT/RTGS by way of E-payment on proper identification and due verification and further 30% of the award amount shall be kept in FD in favour of petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled bank for a period of 3 years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and printout taken by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of March - 2024) (Aalok. A.N) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s: PW.1 : Smt. Selvi PW.2 : Sri. Muthukumar. S PW.3 : Dr. Nagaraj. B.N SCCH-23 42 MVC-3381/2019 List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P.1(a) Translation of FIR
Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.2(a) Translation of Complaint
Ex.P.3 True copy of Spot Sketch
Ex.P.3(a) Translation of Spot Sketch
Ex.P.4 True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) Translation of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5 True copy of Chargesheet
Ex.P.5(a) Translation of Chargesheet
Ex.P.6 10 Medical bills amounting to Rs.1,16,152/- in
total
Ex.P.7 to 11 4 photographs along with 1 CD
Ex.P.12 Study Certificate of the minor petitioner
Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of the Minor
petitioner (Original compared and returned) Ex.P.14 Advance receipts (7 in Nos) Ex.P.15 Authorization letter Ex.P.16 1- Out patient record (Attested copies are produced and the reason for production of attested copies is mentioned in the authorization letter) Ex.P.17 2-Inpatient records (Attested copies are produced and the reason for production of attested copies is mentioned in the authorization letter) Ex.P.18 Clinical Note Ex.P.19 X-ray SCCH-23 43 MVC-3381/2019 List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 : Sri. Veera Gonsalves List of documents marked for the respondent/s:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 Policy copy
Ex.R.3 Letter issued to respondent No.1 along with postal
acknowledgment.
(Aalok. A.N)
XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACMM, Bengaluru.