Bangalore District Court
Suresh Babu.N vs Girish Kumar K.V on 13 May, 2024
KABC020026912020
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
(SCCH.13)
DATED THE 13th DAY OF MAY 2024.
PRESENT
SMT. DIVYASHREE C.M., B.A.L, LL.M,
II Addl. Judge & ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No.463 OF 2020
Petitioner: Suresh Babu N.,
S/o R. Nagarajan
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.403,
Anjanadri Residency,
Bhogenahalli main road,
Bengaluru - 560103.
(By Sri.G. Vikram, Advocate.)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Girish Kumar K.V.,
S/o Venkatesh,
Aged about 23 years,
Residing at No.26, 8th main,
Opposite Muneshwar Temple,
Ganapathipura, Konanakunte,
Bengaluru - 560 062.
(Exparte)
SCCH13 2 MVC.463/2020
2. Venugopala B.K.,
S/o Kumara Swamy TD,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at No.14/5,
2nd cross, School Road,
Doddakalasandra,
Bengaluru 560 062.
(Exparte)
3. The Reliance General
Insurance, Having its branch
at No.782, Balaji Enclave,
2nd floor, Above Bata
Showroom, 16th main, 2nd stage,
BTM Layout, Bengaluru560075.
(By Sri. V. Shrihari Naidu,
Adv.)
4. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its office at No.1668,
RJB Towers, 27th main road,
PWD Quarters, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 102.
(By Sri.Keystone Partners
Advocates & Solicitors)
5. OLA Fleet Technologies Pvt.
Ltd., Having its Office at
3/4/5, Venkata Reddy Layout,
80 feet road, Koramangala,
Bengaluru - 560 095.
(By Sri. R & J Associates,
Advs.)
6. Kishor Kumar K.C.,
S/o Chinnappa K.E.,
Aged about 23 years,
Residing at Kogekodi Village,
Somavarapete Taluk,
Hanakodu Post, Somavarapete,
SCCH13 3 MVC.463/2020
Kodagu - 571236.
(Exparte)
7. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Having its Branch Office,
At Golden Heights, 4th floor,
No.1/2, 59th cross,
4th M Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru 560010.
(By Sri. Gururaj Salur, Adv.)
J U D G M E N T
This petition under Section 166 M.V.Act is filed seeking compensation of ₹.8,52,58,137/ for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in a road traffic accident.
2. It is stated that on 05.08.2019 about 00.50 hrs, when the Petitioner was proceeding on Toyota Etios Car bearing Reg.No.KA05AF 7554 from his residence towards K.R.Puram Railway Station, at that time, the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the Car bearing No.KA51AB9408. As a result, the driver of the Car bearing No.KA05AF7554 lost control and toppled. Due to the impact, Petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
SCCH13 4 MVC.463/2020Immediately after the accident he was taken to Jeevika Hospital, Marathahalli, Bengaluru. Thereafter he was advised to Sakara World Hospital wherein he took treatment as an inpatient and underwent major surgery. He is suffering from permanent disability and unable to lead normal life as earlier. It is claimed that Petitioner has spent huge amount for treatment, medicines, conveyance and other charges. At the time of accident, Petitioner was aged 42 years, he was working as Regional Sales Manager in Madura Coats Private Limited, Bengaluru and was earning ₹.2,33,495/ p.m. Due to accidental injuries he has lost his earning capacity and income. As the accident was caused due to negligence of the drivers of the offending cars, it is requested to award compensation from the Respondents.
3. In response to the petition notice, the Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.7 have appeared before the court through their counsels and filed the written statements. The Respondent No.1, 2 SCCH13 5 MVC.463/2020 and 6 have not appeared before the court and they were placed exparte.
4. The Respondent No.3insurer of Car bearing No.KA05AF7554 has filed its written statement denying the petition averments. It has denied the issuance of policy in respect of offending vehicle bearing No.KA05AF7554 and its validity as on the date of accident. However, its liability is subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. It has also contended that the owner of the offending vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. It is contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. It has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective DL and it had no valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident. It has denied the negligence of the driver of vehicle bearing No.KA51AB9408 in causing the accident. Further it has contended that the compensation claimed by Petitioner is highly excessive and arbitrary.
SCCH13 6 MVC.463/2020It has also denied the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, avocation and income of the Petitioner, and the future expenses claimed by him, expenses incurred by him and disability suffered by him. On these grounds, it has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. The Respondent No.4 has filed its written statement denying the petition averments. It has contended that there is no cause of action against the Respondent No.4 and it is not a proper or necessary party. Further it has contended that the Petitioner has not produced any single document showing that any booking was made by him through the Uber mobile application of the Respondent No.4. Further it has contended that the compensation claimed by Petitioner is highly excessive and arbitrary. It has also denied the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, avocation and income of the Petitioner, and the future expenses claimed by him, expenses incurred by him and disability suffered by him. On these grounds, it has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
SCCH13 7 MVC.463/20206. The Respondent No.7insurer of Car bearing No.KA51AB9408 has filed its written statement denying the petition averments. It has denied the driver of Car bearing No.KA51AB9408 was not at fault in causing the alleged accident, but the accident was a result of sole negligence driver of Uber Car bearing No.KA05AF7554 who was driving the car without having valid and effective driving licence. It has admitted the issuance of policy in respect of offending Hundai Xcent car bearing No.KA51 AB9408 and its validity as on the date of accident. However, its liability is subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. It has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective DL and it had no valid permit at the time of accident. It has also contended that the owner of the offending vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further it has contended that the Petitioner himself endangered his life by not wearing the seat belt, therefore he is solely SCCH13 8 MVC.463/2020 negligent and non using seat belt amounts to "volenti non fit injuria", thus this Respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. It has also denied the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, avocation and income of the Petitioner, and the future expenses claimed by him, expenses incurred by him and disability suffered by him. On these grounds, it has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following Issues were framed :-
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained injuries when he was traveling in Car bearing No.KA 05AF7554 on 05.08.2019, near M.D.Pura Ring Road, in front of Nagarjuna Apartments, Bengaluru District, only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said car?
2. What compensation Petitioner is entitled?
3. What order?
8. In order to prove the claim, Petitioner is examined as PW1, doctor is examined as PW2 and one witness is examined SCCH13 9 MVC.463/2020 as PW.3 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.57 respectively.
9. On the other hand, the Respondent No.3 has examined its officials as RW1 and RW2 and got marked three documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. Further, official of Respondent No.7 is examined as RW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.R.4 and 5. The authorized signatory of Respondent No.4 company is examined as RW.4 and got marked the documents at Ex.R.6 to Ex.R.9
10. I have heard the counsel on both sides and have perused the material on record.
11. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative. Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative. Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
R E A S O N S
12. ISSUE NO.1: In order to prove his claim, Petitioner is examined as PW.1 and he relied on the police and medical records and SCCH13 10 MVC.463/2020 he has deposed that on 05.08.2019 about 00.50 hrs, when the Petitioner was proceeding on Toyota Etios Car bearing No.KA05AF7554 from his residence towards K.R.Puram Railway Station, at that time, the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the Car bearing No.KA51AB9408. As a result, the driver of the Car bearing No.KA05AF7554 lost control and toppled. Due to the impact, Petitioner sustained grievous injuries. It is stated that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent act of the drivers of the offending vehicles.
13. In support of his claim, Petitioner has produced copy of complaint at Ex.P.1, FIR at Ex.P.2, spot mahazar at Ex.P.3, spot sketch at Ex.P.4, Wound certificate at Ex.P.5, notice and reply at Ex.P.6 and 7, indemnity bond at Ex.P.8, IMV report at Ex.P.9 and chargesheet at Ex.P10. As per wound certificate he has sustained laceration over mid frontal area of scalp measured 6cm x 1cm x tissue deep, abrasion over the front of left knee, complain of neck pain. CT scan SCCH13 11 MVC.463/2020 brain and spine showed left nasal bone fracture, no traumatic brain injury, displaced fracture of C5 (5th cervical vertebra) pedicle transverse process involving the foramen transversarine and also superior articular process, chip fracture antero - inferior end plate of C5.
14. The first and Second Respondent are the RC owner and driver of the car bearing No.KA05AF7554 in which the Petitioner was traveling. They both have not appeared and have not taken any contention with regard to the negligence of the second Respondent. Third Respondent is the insurer of the offending car in which the Petitioner was traveling. It has denied the negligence of the second Respondent and contended that the other car bearing No.KA51AB9408. It has contended that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and based on the complaint given by the driver of the other car FIR was filed against the second Respondent alleging his negligence alone.
SCCH13 12 MVC.463/202015. During crossexamination of PW.1 it was suggested that it was also the negligence of the other car which was proceeding parallel to the insured car. Since the other car took sudden right turn and came in front of the insured car the accident took place. PW.1 has denied all the suggestions with regard to the negligence of the another car and stated that the driver of the car in which he was traveling was in high speed. He has stated that he did not noticed the other car before the accident, he only felt that his car got toppled and he sustained injuries.
16. The 5th Respondent is the aggregator and it has contended that it is not the necessary party. By the evidence of 5th Respondent and the documents produced by the Petitioner at Ex.P.45 which is the trip details through Uber clearly indicate that the Petitioner had traveled in the car bearing No.KA05AF7554 which was driven by the second Respondent. He has even got refund of the amount of the said trip in view of accident. It is proved that Petitioner was SCCH13 13 MVC.463/2020 traveling in the offending car bearing No.KA05AF7554 on the date of accident. Even the car has been seized and examined by the traffic inspector.
17. The 6th and 7th Respondents are the RC owner and insurer of the other car bearing No.KA51AB9408. 6Th Respondent has not appeared before the court and there is no defence of 6th Respondent with regard to negligence. The 7th Respondent who is the insurer has contended that it was the negligence of car bearing No.KA05AF7554 and it has relied on the police records. According to charge sheet the car bearing No.KA05AF7554 has been chargesheeted alleging negligence of its driver. During crossexamination by 7th Respondent PW.1 has admitted that it was the negligence of offending car bearing No.KA05AF7554 against which the chargesheet is filed.
18. Even though the Petitioner has made owners and insurers of both cars, the chargesheet is filed only against driver of car bearing No.KA05AF7554 and its owner SCCH13 14 MVC.463/2020 i.e., first and second Respondents. On perusal of IMV Report it is clear that the offending car has been damaged in the front and other car bearing No.KA51AB9408 has damaged only on its rear side. It is clear that car bearing No.KA05AF7554 had hit the other car from behind and got toppled. It appears that the first and second Respondent against whom the chargesheet has been filed have not at all challenged the FIR and charge sheet and they have not even appeared before this court denying the Petitioner's claim.
19. By the entire police records and the evidence on record it is clear that it was the negligence of second Respondent alone in causing the accident. There is no evidence of negligence of the driver of the other car.
20. Further third Respondent insurance company has alleged the negligence of the Petitioner in sustaining the severe injuries. It has contended that he was not wearing seat belt and it is his negligence due to which he sustained severe injuries and his contributory negligence must be considered.
SCCH13 15 MVC.463/2020It is true that it is the rule that one must wear seat belt while traveling in the car. During crossexamination of PW.1 by the third Respondent on suggestion with regard to seat belt, he has denied that he was not wearing seat belt and hence he sustained injuries. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was not wearing seat belt and since it is not proved that he was not wearing seat belt, the negligence of the Petitioner cannot be considered.
21. By considering all the above materials, evidences and documents I hold that the Petitioner has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident while traveling in the car bearing No.KA05AF7554 on 05.08.2019 at 00.50 hours only due to the negligence of second Respondent. There is no negligence of driver of Car bearing No.KA51 AB9408. With all the above observations, I have answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
22. ISSUE NO.2 : Petitioner states that he was aged about 42 years as on the date of accident. Due to the accident he has SCCH13 16 MVC.463/2020 sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was taken to Jeevika hospital, and later admitted to Sakra World Hospital, wherein he was treated as an inpatient and underwent surgery. He has stated that at the time of accident, he was working as Regional Sales Manager in Madura Coats Private Limited,and was getting salary of ₹.2,33,495/ per month. Due to the accidental injuries he is unable to do the said work and suffered loss of income and he need future treatment. He has lost his normal life as earlier and suffering huge loss of future income.
23. PW2 Dr. Maheshwarappa B.M., Senior Consultant and head at Sakra Institute of Rehabilitation Sciences, Sakra World Hospital, Bengaluru, has deposed that from the date of accident Petitioner was treated by him and have issued the Discharge summary and has also signed the same. He deposed that the Petitioner has sustained injuries i.e., traumatic tetraplegia (C45 PIVD) with cord contusion (ICD Code M50.0) Asia A, Neurogenic bowel and bladder recovering and Tupe II respiratory failure and he underwent SCCH13 17 MVC.463/2020 C45 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with iliac graft done under GA done, implants: Zephir plate 22.5mm with 4 screws, percutaneous tracheostomy done under GA and tracheostomy decannulation. The disability to the whole body was calculated at 93%. PW2 has produced OPD assessment form and Disability Certificate dated 27.02.2023 at Ex.P.46 and 47.
24. During crossexamination, PW2/ doctor has admitted that Petitioner's GCS score was normal when he was brought to their hospital. Witness voluntaries that since he had no head injuries the GCS score was normal. He had only nasal bone fracture and nasal bone fracture was treated conservatively. Further admitted that initially he had sustained only one fracture i.e., C5 fracture. It is admitted that there was loss of sensation in the upper and lower limbs. He denied the suggestion that the upper limb of the Petitioner became normal gradually. He says that there was some improvement in shoulder and elbow and admitted that neck control was improved.
SCCH13 18 MVC.463/2020Further he voluntaries that he was made to sit on the wheel chair, but he can fall on either side.
25. Further PW.2 has admitted that now the Petitioner can move his neck and he can lift his both hands with shoulder and elbow support, but there is no wrist and finger movements. Further he denied the suggestion that according to the discharge summary, he was not treated for Quadriplegia and he was diagnosed only for Quadriparesis. He has admitted that he has assessed the disability after the discharge to the extent of 90%. He denied the suggestion that there is lot of improvement after discharge i.e., after physiotherapy and further treatment. He denied that 1/3rd of the limb disability shall be considered to the whole body.
26. Petitioner had come to the court on a wheel chair and withstood the cross examination. He is able to speak and move his neck, but he cannot use his upper and lower limbs freely. He operated the wheel chair with difficulty only by pressing some button.
SCCH13 19 MVC.463/2020He was not able to sit constantly on the chair and one attender must be needed at all the time for his every needs. He is unable to do work as earlier. Even though there is no head injury, due to displaced fracture of C5 pedicle and the CT report shows also a clip fracture of anteroinferior end plate of C5, he has lost sensation in both upper and lower limbs. According to doctor there is only improvement in neck and shoulder level and also in neck control. By considering all the medical and other evidences, evidence of doctor and all medical records, I hold that the functional disability of the Petitioner is 100%.
27. Petitioner has stated that he was aged about 42 years, in support of his age he has produced his Aadhaar card at Ex.P.33, which shows his date of birth as 20.03.1977. As per which as on date of accident his age is considered as 42 years. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 14.
SCCH13 20 MVC.463/202028. Petitioner has stated that he was working as Regional Sales Manager in Madhura Coats Private Limited, and was earning ₹.2,33,495/ per month. He has produced IT returns for the year 20202021 and 20212022, Annual Salary review, Copy of letter of employer regarding promotion and incentive, Service certificate, IT returns for the year 20172018, 20182019, 20192020 at Ex.P.13, Ex.P.28 to 31. The Petitioner has examined the Executive, Administration Department, Madhura Coats Private Limited as PW.3 and he has produced Authorization letter, Appointment Letter dated 01.04.2011, Appointment Letter dated 20.06.2019, Annual Salary review letter, Salary slips, Service Certificate, Appraisal Letters, Provident fund details, Full and Final Settlement and Form NO.16 at Ex.P.48 to Ex.P.57.
29. According to IT returns of the assessment year 20212022 he had annual income only ₹6,01,010/ and there is no details of source of income. According to annual salary review with effect from 01.07.2019, his total remuneration was SCCH13 21 MVC.463/2020 ₹2,16,828/ per month and this is according to the employer. Petitioner has produced pay slips for the subsequent months, but there is no bank account statement showing this monthly income from 01.07.2019, hence this income is not considered for calculation of loss of future earnings. As per Ex.P31 and Ex.P.57 his annual income from salary was ₹19,02,929/ and the same is considered for calculation. According to Ex.P.57 total tax payable was ₹2,10,860/ and after deducting income tax his annual income comes to ₹16,92,069/.
30. Since the disability is 100% and Petitioner is aged between 40 and 50 years, 30% of future prospects is added. Then the monthly income would be ₹21,99,690/. On the basis of these, Loss of future earnings due to permanent disability will be as ₹.21,99,690 x 14 x 100% = ₹.3,07,95,660/.
31. Pain and sufferings: So far as the compensation under nonpecuniary damages are concerned, considering the fact that the Petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and SCCH13 22 MVC.463/2020 was inpatient for a period of more than 3 months which caused him to immeasurable mental agony and pain, I am of the opinion that an amount of ₹.3,00,000/ would be just and fair compensation under the head pain and sufferings.
32. Loss of amenities of life: For loss of amenities of life undoubtedly Petitioner is sure to suffer in his day today activities and face hardships as he is unable to walk, move his upper and lower limbs and on wheel chair for his rest of the life. He is depending upon other for his every needs and day to day activities. Hence, Petitioner is awarded ₹.2,00,000/ under loss of amenities of life.
33. Medical expenses: Under the pecuniary damages, expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines, the Petitioner has relied on medical bills for ₹14,166/ at Ex.P.12, ₹.1,03,194/ at Ex.P.15, ₹.5,64,694/ at Ex.P.19, physiotherapy charges for ₹.52,000/ at Ex.P.23, 59 bills towards consumables for ₹.1,77,797/, SCCH13 23 MVC.463/2020 Medicine purchase expenses for ₹.61,589/ at Ex.P.27, IP bill of ₹2,16,167/ is produced at Ex.P.36. Medical bills also include bills of Rehabilitation Center. By considering all bills Petitioner is awarded ₹.11,89,607/ under Medical Expenses.
34. Future medical expenses: PW2 doctor has stated that the Petitioner needs nursing care throughout 24/7 and he will have to undergo physiotherapy for the rest of his life and also have to continue medications for the rest of his life. But he has not produced any estimation. In the absence of clear estimation of the future expenses, it would be reasonable to award ₹.5,00,000/ towards Future medical expenses.
35. Conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges: According to Ex.P.11, 16 to 18, 35, 37 - Discharge summaries shows that Petitioner was treated as an inpatient at CMC hospital, Vellore from 27012020 to 21032020, from 19042022 to 19072022 at Chandigarh Rehab Center, from 05082019 to 26092019 at Sakra World Hospital and from SCCH13 24 MVC.463/2020 24102019 to 27102019 at Sakra World Hospital i.e. for more than 200 days. Petitioner has produced 7 Receipts for the ride by Car aggregators total amount of ₹.1,978/, 2 Receipts amounting to ₹.45,000/ along with bank statement showing payment for nursing charges, 29 receipts for total amount of ₹.6,47,770/, 32 receipts for Transportation expenses total amounting to ₹.17,686/ at Ex.P.24, 6 Air tickets and bills for ₹.62,647/ at Ex.P.25. These bills totally amounts to ₹.7,75,081/ and for food and nourishment and attendant charges during inpatient expenses will be in addition to that.
36. By considering health condition of the Petitioner it is clear that he will be required a paid transportation every time to visit hospital and he will be required an attender 24/7. Hence, considering all the above bills, Petitioner is awarded ₹.9,00,000/ under the head of conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges also by considering the receipts for payment discussed above.
SCCH13 25 MVC.463/202037. Future Attendant Charges: Petitioner will be required an attender for the rest of his life to take care of him 24 x 7. Hence considering the requirement, Petitioner is awarded attendant charges at ₹.15,000/ per month for 10 years. Petitioner is awarded ₹.15,000 x 12 x 10 = ₹18,00,000/ towards future attendant charges.
38. Loss of marital life and whole body disfiguration: Considering 100% physical disability and whole body disfiguration it will be reasonable to award ₹5,00,000/ to the Petitioner under this head.
39. Loss of earnings during laid up period: By the evidence of PW.1 and the documents produced by the Petitioner it is clear that he was paid salary even after the accident for six months he got full salary and for the next six months he was paid half salary which is till November2020. Hence, no compensation is awarded towards loss of income during laid up period.
40. Thus the compensation awarded under the various heads are as under:
SCCH13 26 MVC.463/2020Sl. Nature of Compensation Amount No.
1. Loss of future earnings ₹.3,07,95,660/
2. Pain and Sufferings ₹. 3,00,000/
3. Loss of amenities ₹. 2,00,000/
4. Medical expenses ₹. 11,89,607/
5. Future medical expenses ₹. 5,00,000/
6. Conveyance, Food, ₹. 9,00,000/ Nourishment & Attendant Charges
7. Future Attendant charges ₹. 18,00,000/
8. Loss of marital life and ₹. 5,00,000/ disfiguration Total ₹.3,61,85,267/
41. Liability: Police have filed the chargesheet alleging that the driver of the offending car had no DL and owner of the car i.e., first respondent is also chargesheeted. But on perusal of DL of the 2nd respondent driver, it is clear that he had valid DL for LMV and LMV cab. Hence, Respondent No.3 - insurance company is liable to be indemnify the claim. Hence, Respondent No.1 being the insured and Respondent No.3 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation. However, Respondent No.3 insurer is liable to pay the compensation to SCCH13 27 MVC.463/2020 the Petitioner with interest @ 6% p.a. There is no liability against Respondent No.2 and 4 to 7. With these observation I answer Issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
42. ISSUE NO.3 : In view of the above discussion, reasons stated and findings given to Issue Nos. 1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act is allowed in part with cost only against Respondent No.1 and 3.
Petition against Respondent No.2 and 4 to 7 is dismissed.
Petitioner is awarded compensation of ₹3,61,85,267/ together with interest @ 6% p.a. (Future medical expenses and future attendant charges do not carry interest) from the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal.
Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the aforesaid amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount a sum of ₹.50,00,000/ shall be SCCH13 28 MVC.463/2020 kept in FD in the name of Petitioner in any nationalized bank of Petitioner's choice for a period of 2 years. Remaining amount with interest shall be released in favour of the Petitioner through Epayment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at
₹.1,000/.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court dated this the day of 13 th May 2024.) (DIVYASHREE C.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACMM Member, MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner :
PW.1 : Suresh Babu N.
PW.1 : Dr. Maheshwarappa B.
PW.2 : Mohammed Siraj
List of documents marked for Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of FIR Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of complaint Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of spot mahazar SCCH13 29 MVC.463/2020 Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of spot sketch Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of notice Ex.P.7 : Certified Copy of reply Ex.P.8 : Certified Copy of Indemnity bond Ex.P.9 : Certified Copy of IMV Report Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of chargesheet along with statement of witnesses Ex.P.11 : Emergency Department Transfer form/Discharge summary of Sakra World Hospital Ex.P.12 : Medical bills of Sakra World Hospital Ex.P.13 : IT Returns for the year 202021 & 202122 Ex.P.14 : Receipts for the ride by car aggregators Ex.P.15 : Medical Bills Ex.P.16 : Discharge summary of CMC Hospital, Vellore Ex.P.17 : Discharge Summary of Sakra World Hospital Ex.P.18 : Discharge Summary of Chandigarh Spinal Rehabilitation Ex.P.19 : Medical Bills Ex.P.20 : Receipts Ex.P.21 : Bank Statement Ex.P.22 : Nursing Attendants Expenses Ex.P.23 : Physiotherapy Charges Ex.P.24 : Transportation Expenses SCCH13 30 MVC.463/2020 Ex.P.25 : Air Ticket Bills of Himachal Bhavan along with copies of Boarding Pass Ex.P.26 : Bills towards consumables Ex.P.27 : Medicine Purchase Expenses Ex.P.28 : Annual Salary Review Ex.P.29 : Copy of Letter of Employer regarding promotion and incentive Ex.P.30 : Service certificate Ex.P.31 : IT returns for the year 201718, 201819, 20192020 Ex.P.32 : Copy of PAN Card of the Petitioner Ex.P.33 : Copy of Aadhaar Card of the Petitioner Ex.P.34 : Disability Certificate Ex.P.35 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.36 : IP Bill (Receipt not produced) Ex.P.37 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.38 : IP Bill Ex.P.39 : DL Extract of Respondent No.2 Ex.P.40 : DL Extract of Respondent No.6 Ex.P.41 : B Register Extract of KA51AB 9408 Ex.P.42 : Online copy of B Extract of Car bearing No.KA05AF7554 Ex.P.43 : Copy of Insurance Policy of Car bearing No.KA05AF7554 Ex.P.44 : Copy of Insurance Policy of Car bearing No.KA51AB9408 Ex.P.45 : Trip details of Uber cab SCCH13 31 MVC.463/2020 Ex.P.46 : OPD Assessment Form Ex.P.47 : Disability certificate dated 27.02.2023 Ex.P.48 : Authorization Letter Ex.P.49 : Appointment letter dated 01.04.2011 Ex.P.50 : Appointment letter dated 20.06.2019 Ex.P.51 : Annual salary review letter Ex.P.52 : Salary slips Ex.P.53 : Service certificate Ex.P.54 : Appraisal Letters Ex.P.55 : Provident Fund details Ex.P.56 : Full and final settlement Ex.P.57 : Form No.16 List of witnesses examined for Respondents :
RW.1 : Roshini
RW.2 : Thrishi Subbaiah
RW.3 : Ruchitha Renukesh
RW.4 : R. Krupakaran
List of documents marked for Respondents :
Ex.R.1 : Authorization Letter Ex.R.2 : Copy of policy Ex.R.3 : Authorization Letter Ex.R.4 : Authorization Letter Ex.R.5 : Copy of policy Ex.R.6 : Authorization Letter SCCH13 32 MVC.463/2020 Ex.R.7 : Terms & Conditions Ex.R.8 : Service Agreement Ex.R.9 : Certificate Under Sec.65B (DIVYASHREE C.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACMM Member, MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by C M DIVYASHREE CM DIVYASHREE Date:
2024.05.15 11:55:46 +0530