Bangalore District Court
Ramprasad vs The United India Ins.Co.Ltd on 30 January, 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BANGALORE (SCCH-16)
PRESENT: SRI. SATISH J.BALI,
B.Com., LL.M.,
X Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes
(SCCH-16) Bangalore.
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY 2016.
MVC.No.35/2012
****
PETITIONER: Ramprasad
S/o Jaypaul,
Aged about 18 years,
R/at No.77, NR Tower, 3rd Floor
100ft right Road, BSK 3rd stage
5th Block, Bangalore-85.
(By Pleader Sri.B.K.Vasudevamurthy.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. The United India Ins.Co.Ltd.,
Regional office, Krishi Bhavan,
Hudson Circle, Bangalore.
(policy No.161 900/
31/10/02/00007491)
(By Pleader Sri.Somanna.)
2. T.J.Naik &C0
GAT No.1801,3,4,
A/P Kurkumbh
Daund-Dist, Pune, Maharastra
(Exparte)
2 MVC.35/12
SCH-16
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident happened on 22-7-2011.
2. The case of the petitioners, as set-out in the petition is as follows:
That on 22-7-2011 at about 2.20 a.m. the petitioner being cleaner-cum-loader of Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42- B-8440 was proceeding on BB road and when the vehicle reached near Kogilu cross junction, all of a sudden the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and jumped the red signal. Due to over speed, the driver lost control over the vehicle and dashed against another goods Truck bearing No. KA.05/D.4561. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, petitioner was shifted to Sushrusha Nursing Home, wherein, he took treatment as inpatient. The petitioner has stated that he spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses.3 MVC.35/12
SCH-16
3. It is stated that the petitioner was working as cleaner-cum-loader and earning Rs.6,000/-p.m.. Due to the accidental injuries, he is disabled and is not in condition to work as before.
4. It is stated that that the Yelahanka Traffic police have registered a case against the driver of lorry in Cr.No.112/11 for the offence punishable under Sec.279 and 338 of IPC. The respondents, being insurer and owner of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. On all these grounds, petitioner prayed for awarding the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to him.
5. In response to the notice, both respondent Nos.1 and have appeared before this Tribunal through their counsel. The respondent No.1 filed the written statement by denying the age, income, avocation, injuries sustained by the petitioner and involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. The respondent No.1 further contended that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of goods truck are not made as parties to this petition and they are necessary parties to the 4 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 proceedings. It is also contended by the respondent No.1 that the petitioner traveled in the goods lorry as a gratuitous passenger and the petition is not maintainable. On all these grounds, respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.
6. The 2nd respondent has filed his objection by admitting the accident and also petitioner who was working as cleaner-cum-loader of Tipper lorry No.MH-42/B.8440. The respondent No.2 denied that the driver of Tipper lorry No.MH- 42/B.8440 drove it in a rash and negligent manner. It is also denied that the petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the accident. It is contended that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of goods Truck NO.KA.05/D.4561 are not made as parties to this proceedings. The respondent No.2 denied the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner. It is contended by the respondent No.2 that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective DL as on the date of accident and there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, on all these grounds, respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.
5 MVC.35/12
SCH-16
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessor in office has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he met with an RTA that occurred on 22-7-
2011 at about 2.20a.m.on BB road, Kogilu Cross junction, Yelahanka, Bangalore and the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper lorry bearing No.KA.42/B.8440 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
8. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined Dr.Somashekar S.A of Bowring and Lady Curzeon hospital as PW-2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.12 documents. The Mahadeva Swamy, Head Constable of Upperpet police station is examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R.1. The respondent No.1 and 2 have not led any evidence on their behalf.
9. I have heard the arguments and perused materials on record. The respondent No.1 has filed written arguments along with rulings as below:
1.2012(1) KCCR 260 (B.Vijaya Kumar vs Mallikarjuna and others) 6 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 2.2009 ACJ 524 (United India Ins.Co.Ltd., vs Salauddin Abdulkhadar Manihar and another) 3.2009 ACJ 1643 (National Ins.Co.Ltd., vs Mintu Dobnath and another ) 4.2015 AAC 2481(HYD) (The oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., Visakhapatnam vs Kolusu Adilaxmi & others)
10. By considering the evidence on record and because of my below discussed reasons, I answer the above issues in the followings:
Issue No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE Issue No.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE Issue No.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
REASONS ISSUE NO.1:
11. The petitioner has come up with the case that on 22-7-2011 at about 2.20 a.m. the petitioner was traveling as cleaner-cum-loader of Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42-B-8440 on BB road and when the vehicle reached near Kogilu cross junction, all of a sudden the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and jumped the red signal, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against another goods Truck bearing No.KA.05/D.4561. The petitioner has reiterated the petition averments in his examination-in-chief affidavit and stated about the injuries 7 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 sustained by him, involvement of offending vehicle and also spending of amount towards medical expenses. The petitioner has stated that he was earning Rs.6,000/-p.m. as cleaner- cum-loader under respondent No.2. He further stated that the jurisdictional police have filed a criminal case against the driver of offending vehicle in Cr.No.112/11 for the offence punishable under Sec.279 &338 of IPC.
12. Apart from his oral evidence, PW-1 has also produced the copy of FIR, statement, charge sheet, sketch, mahazar, IMV report, wound certificate discharge summary, medical bills, Lab reports , OPD card and x-ray film at Ex.P.1 to P.12.
13. The respondent No.1 in its written statement admitted that it had issued policy in respect of vehicle bearing No.MH-42/B.8440. The only contention of the respondent No.1 is that the petitioner is a gratuitous passenger and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation.
14.The petitioner also examined the doctor Sri.S.A.Somashekar, orthopedic Surgeon at Bowring and lady Curzeon hospital as PW-2. He has stated as a result of 8 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 accident, the petitioner has sustained fracture dislocation of left ankle and swelling over left ankle.
15. The Mahadeva Swamy, Head Constable of Upper police station is examined as RW-1. He got marked Ex.R.1- case diary.
16. PW-1 was cross examined by the respondents counsel, wherein he has stated that since from last one year, he is working in Tipper lorry as loader and unloader. He has stated that this accident occurred in the early morning, at about 2.a.m. on 22-7-11. He has further stated their Tipper lorry was proceeding from Hebbal to Devanahalli. He has further stated that he was seating in the cabin of Tipper lorry and the goods lorry came from Yelahanka. PW-1 further stated that at the time of accident, they were proceeding to unload the mud. It is stated by PW-1 that the goods lorry was small and it dashed to the front side of the Tipper lorry. It was suggested that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper lorry by its driver and the said suggestion was denied. He has stated that he has sustained injuries to the left leg and admitted to the hospital on the very same day of the accident.
9 MVC.35/12
SCH-16
17. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, the respondent No.1 has stated that the petitioner has not produced any documents to show his age. A suggestion was put to PW-1 that the loading of mud in the Tipper lorry is prohibited and the said suggestion was denied. PW-1 stated that his statement was recorded by the police.
18. The doctor who was examined as PW-2 stated that the petitioner was treated as inpatient at Shushrusha Nursing home on 22-7-2011 to 2-8-2011. On examination of petitioner, they found the dislocation of left ankle and surgery was conducted. PW-2 further stated that the open reduction and internal fixation was done by fixing plate and screws. He has produced the OPD card and x-ray as per Ex.P.11 and P.12.
19. It is to be noted that apart from the said oral evidence, the petitioner has also produced the above said police records, which reveals that on 22-7-2011 at about 2.20 a.m. i.e, in the early morning, the driver of Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42/B.8440 drove it in a rash and negligent manner at Kogilu Cross junction and dashed against the Goods Truck bearing No.KA.05/D.4561, which was going on 10 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 the main road. The said fact is revealed in the complaint marked as Ex.P.2. Further it is stated in the complaint, that the driver of Goods Truck bearing No.KA.05/D.4561 and the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident and were admitted to the Shushrusha Nursing Home for treatment. After the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet as per Ex.P.3 against the driver of Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42/B.8440. The sketch at Ex.P.4 reveals that the driver of Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42/B.8440 came from Kogilu cross towards Bazaar and at that time, Goods Truck bearing No.KA.05/D.4561 was proceeding towards Devanahalli. The police have prepared the sketch at the spot, which reveals that due to the rash and negligent driving of Tipper lorry by its driver, this accident took place. The spot panchanama was conducted as per Ex.P.5. As per case of the petitioner, the Tipper lorry dashed against the goods truck. On perusal of IMV report at Ex.P.6, it reveals that the front wind shield glass damaged, cabin four sides damaged, cabin both doors damages, dash board damaged, steering connecting rods and universal joints damaged, right head light assembly and indicator assembly damaged, driver seat 11 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 damaged and both sides body and rear door damaged in respect of Goods Truck bearing No.KA.05/D.4561. In respect of Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42/B.8440 cabin left door damaged, front left wheel mud guard and front bumper damaged. It is to be noted that the left portion of Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42/B.8440 was dashed and damaged, because of which right portion of Goods Truck bearing No.KA.05/D.4561 was damaged. The spot sketch also reveals the direction in which both vehicles were proceeding at the time of accident.
20. On behalf of the respondents, S,Mahadeva Swamy, Head Constable of Upperpet examined as RW-1. He has produced the station diary as Ex.R.1. It is quite clear that in the wee hours of 21-7-2011, the accident between the Goods Truck bearing No.KA.05/D.4561 and Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42/B.8440 were took place, in which the driver of goods truck and the cleaner/petitioner sustained injuries in the accident. Though, the respondent No.1 contended that the accident in question was due to the rash and negligent driving of Goods Truck bearing No.KA.05/D.4561 by its driver, the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident. The 12 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 respondent No.1 also contended that the petitioner was never cleaner-cum-loader under respondent No.2. But the respondent No.2 in his written statement has admitted that the petitioner was cleaner-cum-loader in the Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42/ B.8440. It is also admitted the 2nd respondent that the said Tipper lorry met with an accident near Kogilu cross with the Goods Truck bearing No.KA.05/D.4561.
21. The counsel for the respondent No.1 in the cross- examination tried to elicit from the mouth of PW-1 that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of Goods Truck nothing has been revealed from the cross-examination of PW-1. It is to be noted that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of Tipper lorry and the said charge sheet has not been challenged by the driver or owner of Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42/B.8440. When such being the case, in the absence of any contra materials, the above oral as well as documentary evidence of the petitioner has to be believed. There are no materials to brush aside the oral as well as documentary evidence of the petitioner. Hence, this tribunal can safely come to the conclusion that the accident in 13 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 question was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42/B.8440 by its driver and because of the said accident, the petitioner sustained injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative ISSUE No.2:
22. This issue is in respect of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner and the liability to pay the same. As per the petition averments and also from the evidence of PW-1, he was working as cleaner-cum-loader in the Tipper lorry bearing No.MH-42/B.8440. While discussing issue No.1, this tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was cleaner-cum-loader under respondent No.2/owner of Tipper lorry. The petitioner has stated that he sustained dislocation of left ankle, swelling over left ankle and abrasions all over the body.
23. The petitioner has also examined the doctor, S.A.Somashekar as PW-2. He has stated that from 22-7-2011 to 2-8-2011, the petitioner was inpatient at Shushrusha Nursing home. He was diagnosed to have bimalleolar fracture dislocation of left ankle and treated surgically in the form of 14 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 open reduction and internal fixation using plate and screws for fracture of lateral malleolus and malleloar screw and K wires for fracture of medial malleolus. PW-2 further stated that the petitioner walks with pain and limping. He has surgical scars either side of left ankle and wasting of the calf in seen. PW-2 further stated that recent x-ray of the petitioner shows the union of fractures both medial and lateral malleolus with diastalsis of tibia fibular syndemosis with implant in situ. PW-2 assessed the disability of left lower limb at 33% and that of whole body disability at 17%. Having regard to the above said injuries sustained by the petitioner, this tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.35,000/- under the head pain and sufferings.
24. As the petitioner had been in the Shushrusha Nursing home as an inpatient for a period of 12 days, from 22-7-2011 to 2-8-2011. Hence, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner towards attendant charges, extra nutritious food and transportation and conveyance charges.
15 MVC.35/12
SCH-16
25. The petitioner has produced the medical bills as per Ex.P.9 to the tune of Rs.50,400/-. It is not in dispute that immediately after the accident, the petitioner was admitted to the Shushrusha Nursing home at Yalahanka,Bangalore. The petitioner incurred total medical expenses to the tune of Rs.50,400/-. The advance receipt has also been produced. Hence, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.50,400/- to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
26. It is the duty of this tribunal to assess the loss of future income due to permanent disability. As per the discharge summary at Ex.P.8, the petitioner was admitted to the Shushrusha Nursing home at Yalahanka,Bangalore on 22-7-2011 and discharged on 2-8-2011. The petitioner was inpatient for a period of 12 days at Shushrusha Nursing home. The petitioner examined the Doctor who assessed his disability. Pw-2 examined the petitioner only on 19-3-2013 for assessment of disability. He noticed the fracture of bimalleolar fracture dislocation of left ankle and treated surgically in the form of open reduction and internal fixation using plate and screws for fracture of lateral malleolus and malleloar screw and 'K' wires for fracture of medial malleolus. 16 MVC.35/12
SCH-16 PW-2 further stated that recent x-ray of the petitioner shows the union of fractures both medial and lateral malleolus with diastalsis of tibia fibular syndemosis with implant in situ. PW-2 assessed the disability of left lower limb at 33% and that of whole body disability at 17%. Pw-2 has produced the OPD card and x-ray at Ex.P.11 and P.12.
27. PW-2 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not treated the petitioner and on the basis of wound certificate and discharge summary, he has assessed the disability of the petitioner. A suggestion was put to PW-2 that there is no disability sustained by the petitioner and the said suggestion was denied. Though, the suggestion was made to the effect that there is only 10% disability, but, PW-2 denied the said suggestion and admitted that the fracture is united. It is to be noted that as per the admission of PW-2 himself that he is not a treated doctor of petitioner. Hence, such being the case, evidence of PW-2 has to be assessed cautiously. PW-2 has opined the whole body disability of the petitioner at 17%, which is permanent. But he has admitted that the fracture are united. Hence, under such circumstances, that the disability assessed by PW-2 at 17% to the whole body 17 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 appears to be on higher side. Hence, by considering the avocation of the petitioner and the difficulties he had, the whole body disability of the petitioner may not be more than 12%. Therefore, I determine the whole body disability of the petitioner as 12%.
28. With respect to the future loss of earnings, the petitioner has stated that he was working as cleaner-cum- loader in the tipper lorry and earning Rs.6,000/-p.m. The petitioner has not produced any documentary proof to that effect. In the absence of documents to show his income and avocation, this tribunal has to assess notional income of the petitioner. Therefore, even if he is considered as a coolie, he would have earned a sum of Rs.5,000/-p.m., and 60,000/p.a.
29. As per petition averments, the petitioner was aged about 18 years at the time of accident. The petitioner has not produced any documents with regard to his age. In the wound certificate , age of the petitioner is mentioned as 18 years and so also in the discharge summary. As per the petition averments, the petitioner's avocation is cleaner-cum-loader. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary proof, the age of the petitioner has to be considered as 18 years on the basis 18 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 of medical documents at Ex.P.7 and P.8. Due to 12% disability, annual loss of income would be Rs.7,200/-p.a.. Since the petitioner is aged 18years, at the time of accident, multiplier applicable for his age is 18. If Rs.7,200/- is multiplied by 18, it would be Rs.1,29,600/- and it is rounded off to Rs.1,30,000/-. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- under the head loss of future income due to permanent disability.
30. As I have already discussed above, the petitioner has sustained fracture dislocation of left ankle l and swelling over left ankle, it may requires at least 3 months to heal of said fracture. He might have prevented from doing any work and earning any income for the period of 3 months. Therefore, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of income during the period of taking treatment.
31. The petitioner is aged about 18years as on the date of accident and he has sustained fracture dislocation of left ankle and swelling over left ankle. He might have suffered lot of pain, loss of amenities and comforts in life. Therefore, considering the age, nature of injuries sustained by the 19 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 petitioner and percentage of disability, this tribunal is of the opinion, that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and future happiness.
32. PW.2 has stated that the petitioner has to under go one more surgery for removal of implants which may cost approximately Rs.30,000/-,in the private hospital. No estimation is forthcoming, in the records. It is not in dispute as per opinion of the doctor regarding conducting of one more surgery of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner requires one more surgery for removal of implants. Hence, it is just and proper to hold that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses including surgery charges. There are no grounds to award compensation under any other heads. So the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under these following heads:-
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 35,000/-
2 Attendant charges, nutritious
Rs. 10,000/-
expenses & transportation
charges
3 Medical expenses Rs. 50,400/-
4 Loss of future income due to Rs. 1,30,000/-
permanent disability
5 Loss of income during laid of Rs. 15,000/-
period
6 Loss of future amenities and Rs. 10,000/-
happiness
20 MVC.35/12
SCH-16
7 Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs. 2,60,400/-
In total, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,60,400/-.
Interest:
32. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others), with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para 13 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that Insurance Company is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment and also by following the principles laid down in (2011) 4 SCC 481 :
(AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy). In view of the above judgments with regard to the rate of interest, and also it is settled law that while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the rate of interest at 9% cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 21 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 Liability:
33. While answering issue No.1, it was come to the conclusion, that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Tipper lorry bearing No.MH.42/B.8440 by the driver of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 insured the Tipper lorry with the respondent No.1 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The respondent No.1 contended that the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger in Tipper lorry bearing No.MH.42/ B.8440. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation. The respondent No.1 has also taken up the said contention in his written arguments. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the ruling reported in 2012 (1) KCCR 260 (B.Vijaya Kumar vs M.B.Mallikarjuna and others) wherein, it is held that the petition is not maintainable as it is cooked up story. In another ruling reported in 2009 ACJ 524 (United India Ins.Co.Ltd., vs Salauddin Abdulkhadar Manihar and another), 2009 ACJ 1643 (National Ins.Co.Ltd., vs Mintu Dobnath and another) and 2015 AAC 2481(HYD) (Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., Visakhapathnam vs Kolusu Adilaxmi & others) 22 MVC.35/12 SCH-16 In all these rulings, our Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Hyderabad High Court has held that where the petitioner travels as gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to the said position of law. But, it is to be noted that as per Ex.P.1,P.2 and Ex.R.1, which is a case diary reveals that the petitioner was traveling as cleaner-cum- loader in the Tipper lorry bearing No. MH.42/B.8440. Therefore, as per the policy issued by the respondent No.1, separate premium has been paid to cover the risk of five employees. The petitioner being cleaner-cum-loader at Tipper lorry is also covered under the said policy. Therefore, the said policy was in force as on the date of accident. The respondent No.1 being the insurer and respondent No.2 being owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioners with interest at 9% p.a. However, primary liability is fixed on respondent No.1. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative. 23 MVC.35/12
SCH-16 ISSUE No.3:-
34. In view of my above findings, the petition deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,60,400-/- (Rs. Two lakhs sixty thousand four hundred only)- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.1 -Insurance Company and is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the said compensation amount awarded, 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the petitioner through A/c payee cheque on proper identification and verification. 24 MVC.35/12
SCH-16 Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
******* (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of January 2016) (SATISH.J.BALI) MEMBER:MACT, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
PW-1 : Ramprasad
PW-2 : Dr.S.A.Somashekar
Documents marked on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P.1 : FIR
Ex.P.2 : Statement
Ex.P.3 : charge sheet
Ex.P.4 : Sketch
Ex.P.5 : Mahazar
Ex.P.6 : IMV report
Ex.P.7 : wound certificate
Ex.P.8 : discharge summary
Ex.P.9 : 2 medical bills
Ex.P.10 : Lab reports
Ex.P.12 : X-ray films
Ex.P.13 : OPD card
Ex.R.14 : 1x-ray
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
RW-1 : MAhadevaswamy.S Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Station Diary -
(SATISH.J.BALI)
MEMBER:MACT, BANGALORE.