Bangalore District Court
2 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 vs Petitioner/S By Sri.Nagaraj on 11 January, 2022
1 M.V.C.No.3426/2019
SCCH 7
KABC020148102018
BBEFORE THE COURT OF THE IX ASCJ. SMALL
CAUSES AND ADDL. MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-7)
DATED THIS 11th DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE: SRI.UMESH S. ATNURE,
B.Com.LL.B.(Spl)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT7, Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No.3426/2018
Kumari Sandya,
D/o. Suresh Singh,
Aged about 12 years,
R/at No.12/A,
Ramachandrapuram,
Bengaluru North,
Sri Rampuram,
Bengaluru 560 021.
Since petitioner being minor
Reptd. By her father &
Natural guardian,
Sri. Suresh Singh
Petitioner/s
2 M.V.C.No.3426/2019
SCCH 7
VERSUS
1) Sri. N. Muddappa,
S/o Late N. Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 83 years,
R/at. No.63, Fort 'B' Street,
Kalasipalyam,
Bengaluru - 560 002.
(Owner of Bus bearing Reg.
No.KA01AC8100)
2) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
No.52, 1st Floor, Vinay Complex,
Vanivilas Road, Opp: National College,
Basavabagudi, Bengaluru 560 004.
(Policy No.67190031170200013666, valid
from 16.2.2018 to 15.3.2019)
Respondent/s
===
Petitioner/s by Sri.Nagaraj, Advocate
Respondent No.1 by Sri. G.V.D., Advocate
Respondent No.2 by Sri. R.S.S., Advocate
===
Date of filing of Petition : 26.06.2018
===
:JUDGMENT:
1. This claim petition filed by minor petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles At 1989 claiming compensation of 3 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 Rs.80,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident occurred on 30.05.2018.
2. It is the case of petitioner that on 30.05.2018 at about 11.30 a.m., the minor petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on the Honda Activa Motor cycle bearing registration No.KA01HP4676 from Rajajinagar 6th Block towards Ramachanrapura, near Siddartha Trading Company, Rajajinagar Entrance, Bengaluru at that time suddenly the driver of a Civil Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC 8100 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and dashed to the motor cycle. Due to the impact, minor petitioner fell down on the road and driver of said bus drove the same on both legs of minor petitioner and she sustained crush injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Suguna hospital, Bengaluru for first aid treatment and also taken treatment as an inpatient from 30.05.2018 to 11.06.2018. Due to the injuries sustained in 4 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 the accident she has sustained crush injury to left leg with degloving injury with TypeIII C compound injury to left leg, degloving injury right ankle and fracture of right shaft femur, blunt abdominal injury with hemoperitoneum and she under went wound debridement of right foot and ankle and primary dressing, above knee amputation of left lower limb, external fixators for right femur fracture done under GA on 30.05.2018, diagnostic laproscopy and drainage done under GA on 02.06.2018 and wound debirdement with vac dressing done on 02.06.2018. Further removed external fixators and close reduction + internal fixation with Tens + SSG right leg and foot ankle done under GA on 06.06.2018. Further the petitioner submitted that, prior to the accident she was hale and healthy, aged about 12 years and she was studying in 7th standard at the time of accident. This accident is occurred due to negligence of the driver of Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100. Due to the 5 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 injuries sustained in the accident she permanently became disabled. The respondent No.1 being owner and the respondent No.2 being insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner prayed to allow the petition.
3. In response to the notice issued by this Tribunal, both respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared through their respective counsel and filed separate written statement
4. The respondent No.1 owner denied the entire petition averments. He admitted that, the Rajajinagar police have filed FIR in crime No.52/2018 U/s. 279 and 337 of IPC against his driver. However, he contended that it is a false case filed by police in order to help the victim, though there was no such accident caused by the driver of their Bus. The ambulance was dashed to the petitioner, but police have not filed any case against the driver of ambulance. The rider of motor cycle was not having valid and effective driving 6 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 licence and both petitioner and rider were not wearing helmet at the time of accident. The accident took place due to the negligence on the part of rider of motor cycle. The driver of this respondent is no way responsible for the cause of alleged accident and there is contributory negligence on the part of rider. Further the respondent No.1 admitted that he is the owner of Bus bearing registration No.KA01 AC8100 and insured with 2nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and his driver was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and also bus was having stage carriage permit and valid FC as on the date of accident. Hence, the 2 nd respondent has to indemnify him and pay compensation to the petitioner and he prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The 2nd respondent filed the written statement by denying the entire contention of the petitioner. Further the respondent No.2 contended that the driver of bus bearing 7 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 registration No.KA01AC8100 was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and the respondent No.1 knowing fully well handed over the vehicle to the driver, who was not having valid driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident and said bus was not having valid permit, route permit and FC as on the date of accident. Further contended that the permit of bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 valid from 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2018 issued by RTO, Tumkur and the said permit was replaced from bus bearing No.KA01AC 8100 to another vehicle bearing No.KA01AA6098 with effect from 29.01.2018 and as such the offending bus was not having valid permit as on the date of accident. Hence, under the contract of insurance, they are not obligated to indemnify the 1st respondent. Further the 2nd respondent admitted for having issued policy in respect of the bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 and the policy was 8 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 in force as on the date of accident and its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further contended that the petitioner sustained injuries due to collusion between scooter and KSRTC bus, but not by the said bus. The petitioner colluding with jurisdictional police has created false records and story about the manner and involvement of insured to get compensation and lodged a false complaint and insured bus in question is falsely implicated to have caused accident. This accident is occurred due to negligence on the part of rider of scooter, in which the petitioner was traveling as pillion rider and the rider of scooter was riding the same without having proper look out vehicles movement on the road and without noticing on coming vehicles and riding in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and not due to the negligence on the part of driver of insured bus. The rider and pillion rider/petitioner were not wearing ISI mark 9 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 headgear at the time of accident. The petition is bad for nonjoinder of proper and necessary parties to the petitioner as the owner and insurer of scooter are not made as parties to this petition. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, on all these grounds, the 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of above pleadings following Issues were framed.
:: I S S U E S ::
(1) Whether petitioner proves that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries ?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom ?
(3) What order or award?
10 M.V.C.No.3426/2019
SCCH 7
7. In order to prove the case of petitioner, the natural guardian/father of the minor petitioner examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P16 and got examined doctor who assessed the disability of the minor petitioner as PW.2, through PW.2 Ex.P.17 to Ex.P.19 are marked. On the other hand, the GPA of respondent No.1/owner examined himself as RW1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to R.7 documents. The respondent No.2 has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence, but filed memo along with the certified copy of the depositions of the RW.1 to 3 along with exhibits marked as per Ex.R1 to R13 in M.V.C.No.3944/2018 which is also arising out of the very same accident.
8. Heard the arguments of both counsels.
9. My findings to the above referred Issues are as under;
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order,
11 M.V.C.No.3426/2019
SCCH 7
for the following.......
:REASONS:
10. Issue No.1: In support of the case of the petitioner, the natural guardian/father of minor petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and in his examination in chief he reiterated the petition averments and and relied on the police documents as well as medical records. Ex.P.1 is FIR, Ex.P.2 is Complaint, Ex.P.3 is Spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is Sketch, Ex.P.5 is IMV report, Ex.P.6 is Charge sheet, Ex.P.7 is Wound certificate and Ex.P.10 is Discharge summary, Ex.P.17 are Inpatient records (4 in Nos.) and Ex.P.18 is OP record. In the crossexamination, PW1 deposed that he has not seen the accident and he got information from Suguna hospital about the accident. The scooter was belongs to his relative and there is no impediment to produce documents of said scooter and it was riding by one Rithu Sharma. He further deposed that at 12 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 the first instance he went to the hospital and then visited the accident spot. He admitted that, at the accident spot a slope turning point is there, but denied that due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle this accident is took place. Further he denied that this accident is not caused due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. From the evidence of PW1, it clearly goes to show that, there is no negligence on the part of rider of motor cycle. Further respondent No.1 insurer has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of their contention. By perusing the oral and documentary evidence of PW1, I am of the considered view that, this accident took place due to the negligence of driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100. Further by perusing the wound certificate as per Ex.P.7 and discharge summary as per Ex.P.10, it is clear that in this accident the petitioner has sustained injuries and she has taken treatment in the 13 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 hospital. Hence, I answered the Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
11. Issue No.2: In this case, the injured petitioner is a minor, represented by her natural guardian/father. The petitioner contended that, in this accident she has sustained grievous injuries. As per Ex.P.7 wound certificate issued by Suguna hospital, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:
(1) Crush injury to left leg with degloving injury with TypeIIIC compound injury, (2) Degloving injury to right ankle and fracture of right shaft femur.
(3)Blunt injury abdomen Hemoperitoneum, and doctor has opined that, injuries No.1 to 3 are grievous in nature and due to the injuries sustained in the accident she became permanently disabled and she is not in a position to do any work. In support of above contention, the 14 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 petitioner has got examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N., who treated the petitioner and assessed the disability of the petitioner as PW2. The PW2 deposed that for the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner under went wound debridement to right ankle and foot, primary dressing, above knee amputation of the left lower limb, external fixator stabilization for the right femur and diagnostic laproscopy and drainage, wound debridement with VAC dressing, external fixator removal and closed reduction and internal fixation with tens nail with split skin grafting to right leg and foot ankle and she was discharged with stable condition. PW2 further deposed that, the petitioner again admitted on 22.02.2019 for removal of tens nail and ankle manipulation. Further deposed that on examination of petitioner, it is found that the petitioner has above knee amputation stump of left lower limb, stiffness and deformed lower third of ankle, with wasting of thigh, calf muscle of 15 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 right lower limb and the petitioner has got physical disability of 85% to the left lower limb, 60% to the right lower limb and 49% to the whole body. In the cross examination PW2 deposed that he personally treated the petitioner. He denied that only after completion of treatment permanent disability can be assessed. Further denied that he assessed the disability of petitioner at premature stage. Further denied that in order to help the petitioner he assessed the disability on higher side.
12. As the petitioner is a minor, she is not a earning member.
From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that, the petitioner is still a student and studying in 7 th standard. In the accident the left leg is amputated and the petitioner has sustained crush injury to the right leg. Hence by considering the injuries sustained to the petitioner and relying the evidence of the doctor who treated the petitioner the whole body disability is considered at 49%. 16 M.V.C.No.3426/2019
SCCH 7
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the authority reported in 2020 ACJ 281 in between R.Kayathri Vs., Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corporation and another contended that in the above case the facts are similar to this case on hand, where in Hon'ble High Court of Madras was considered the notional income of the injured at Rs.15,000/ per month and applied the multiplier 18 as per the Salarala Varma case and multiplied by the percentage of the disability and prays to apply the same principles to this case on hand also. I have perused the authority relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts of the said case and present case on hand are very similar. In the above case the injured is 8 year old boy and his left leg is also amputated doctor assessed the disability at 55%. In this present case on hand the injured is girl aged about 12 years her left leg is amputated and the doctor who treated the petitioner 17 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 assessed the disability at 49% to the whole body. The facts and circumstances of the judgment relied by the petitioner counsel and the present case on hand are similar. Hence I am of the considered view that the same is applicable to the present case on hand. Hence relying of the above said authority the partial permanent disability is calculated as Rs.15,000 X 12 X 18 X 49/100 = Rs.15,87,600/. Further the petitioner has lost her left leg and also sustained crush injury to the right leg hence an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ is awarded under the head pain and sufferings. Further due to the amputation of the left leg the petitioner has lost her marriage prospects, hence an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ is awarded under the head loss of marriage prospectus. Further the petitioner has produced the hospital and medicine charges as per Ex.P.9 for an amount of Rs.4,49,110/ hence an amount of Rs.4,49,110/ is awarded for hospital and medicine charges. Due to the injuries 18 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 sustained in the accident the petitioner has lost amenities in her life hence an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ is awarded under the head loss of amenities. Hence the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads:
1. Partial permanent disability Rs. 15,87,600.00
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000.00
3. Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 1,00,000.00
4. Hospital and medicine expenses Rs. 4,49,110.00
5. Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000.00 Total Rs. 23,36,710.00 Hence the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation amount of Rs.23,36,710/.
14. While discussing Issue No.1 this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that due to the negligence of the driver of the Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 this accident is took place. Further it is clear that the respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said Bus. The respondent No.2 has admitted that as on the date of the accident the said bus was duly insured by them, 19 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 but their liability is subjected to terms and conditions of the policy.
15. Further the respondent No.2 specifically contended that, as on the date of accident, the Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was not having valid permit and thereby there is violation of terms and condition of the policy and as such they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. In support of this contention, the respondent No.2 filed memo along with the certified copies of the depositions of the witnesses who are examined in M.V.C.No.3944/2018 which the connected case arising out of the very same accident and got adopted the same in this case also. In M.V.C.No.3944/2018 the respondent No.2 got examined their Asst. Manager as RW1. In his examinationinchief, he deposed that the Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was holding permit bearing No.PSTS 109/9899 valid from 11.11.2013 issued by 20 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 RTO, Tumkur and said permit belongs to the Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was replaced to another vehicle bearing registration No.KA01AA6098 w.e.f. 29.01.2018 as such as on the date of accident the Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was not having valid permit. As such there is violation of policy condition and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. In support of the same, the respondent No.2 has produced Permit extract as per Ex.R.3, Replacement endorsement dated 10.11.2013 as per Ex.R.4 and Replacement endorsement dated 10.11.2018 as per Ex.R.5. By perusing Ex.R.3 Permit extract, it goes to show that the Bus bearing registration No.TN27Z4142 was having permit and permit was valid from 11.11.1998 to 10.11.2003. Further by perusing Ex.R.4, it goes to show that, the permit issued to Bus bearing registration No.KA02B8100 vide permit No.109/9899, which was valid up to 10.11.2013 21 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 for route Bangalore to Madhugiri and back was replaced to another vehicle bearing registration No.KA01AA8100 and valid from 29.01.2018. Further by perusing Ex.R.5, it clearly goes to show that, the permit issued to Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was replaced to Bus bearing registration No.KA01AA6098 w.e.f. 29.10.2018. Hence, it is clear that, as on the date of accident, the Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was not having valid permit. In the crossexamination of RW1, he deposed that, they have not verified the permit copy of the vehicle prior to issuing the policy. He denied that, he is falsely deposing that they have issued the policy to said vehicle, which was not having valid permit. He also denied that, they are liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and in order to escape from the liability by creating Ex.R.4 and Ex.R.5 he is deposing falsely. He has also denied that, the Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was 22 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 having valid permit from 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2018. Further he denied that in order escape from the liability he is deposing falsely.
16. The respondent No.1 GPA holder examined himself as RW1 in this case. In his examinationinchief he deposed as per the contentions taken by him and he got marked GPA as per Ex.R.1, Certified copy of Interim order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.34265 34279/2015 as per Ex.R.2, certified copy of petitioner in W.P. No.3847838502/2015 as per Ex.R.3, certified copy of Endorsement of Renewal Permit as per Ex.R4, certified copy of endorsement of renewal of permit as per Ex.R.5, certified copy of endorsement of renewal and replacement as per Ex.P6, certified copy of oder passed in W.P.No.3426534279/2015. The RW1 is crossexamined by the respondent No.2. In his crossexamination, RW1 deposed that, his father is the owner of the Bus bearing 23 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 No..KA01AC8100 and the said Bus was involved in the accident on 30.05.2018 he denied that as on the date of the accident the said Bus was not having valid permit. He admitted that as per the records produced by them the permit issued to Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC 8100 is replaced to Bus No.KA01AA6098. Further he deposed that they are having totally 9 buses and they have obtained separate permits to each Bus. He further deposed that the Bus bearing No.KA01AC8100 was not having separate permit but the permit issued to the said Bus was replaced. Further he admitted that the said permit was for the route Madhugiri to Bangaluru and even after replacement of the permit the earlier permit conditions are applicable. Further he deposed that as on 24.08.2011 the permit issued to Bus No.KA02B8100 was replaced to Bus No.KA01AC8100 and said permit was valid from 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2018.
24 M.V.C.No.3426/2019
SCCH 7
17. From the evidence of RW1 and Ex.R.4 and Ex.R.5, it clearly goes to show that the permit which issued to Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was transferred to another vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration No.KA01AA6098 w.e.f. 29.01.2018. Further by perusing Ex.R.4, it clearly goes to show that as on the date of accident, the Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was not having valid permit and so also from the evidence of RW1, it is very much clear that as on the date of accident, the Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was not having valid permit. Hence, it is clear that as on the date of accident the offending Bus was not having valid permit.
18. The respondent No.2 - insurer of offending bus contended that the Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was not having valid permit at the time of accident and as such they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Now, the question is, whether violation of policy 25 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 condition absolves the liability of the insurance company - respondent No.2 is to be seen. What is the effect of violation of the condition of the policy by the RC owner is considered, in the recent full Bench Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2020(2) KCCR 1405 (New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Yellavva and another), wherein Their Lordships held that:
(3) "(i) The Insurer is liable to pay the third party and recover from the insured even if there is breach of any condition recognized under Section 149(2), even if it is a fundamental breach ( that is breach of condition which is the cause for the accident) and the insurer proves the said breach, in view of the mandate under Section 149(1) of the Act. But no such order can be passed against the insurer. If, on the facts and circumstances of a case, a finding is given by the Court that the third party (injured or deceased) had played any fraud or was in collusion with the insured, individually or collectively, for a wrongful gain to themselves or cause wrongful loss to the insurer".
Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, 26 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 as per the principles laid down by their Lordships in the case referred above, the respondent No.2 - Insurance company, at first, is required to pay the compensation to the petitioner and then recover the same from the respondent No.1, by initiating appropriate proceedings. From the above said authority, it clearly goes to show that, the even though the offending vehicle was not having permit, if it is insured and the policy was in force as on the date of accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, then recover the same from the owner of offending vehicle. In this case on hand also, the offending vehicle i.e. the Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 was not having valid permit, but it was insured by the respondent No.2. Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 being insurer is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner along 27 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization of entire compensation amount and recover the same from the respondent No.1 by due process of law. Hence, I answered the Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.3: For the above stated reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
Claim petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with cost of Rs.1,000/.
Petitioner is awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs.23,36,710/. (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs, Thirty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ten Only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the 28 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 date of petition to till the date of depositing of the compensation amount in the Court.
Respondent No.2 being insurer of Bus bearing registration No.KA01AC8100 is directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount in the Court within 02 month from the date of this judgment and recover the same from the respondent No.1.
Draw award accordingly.
:APPORTIONMENT:
Out of the compensation amount, 40% shall be released in favour of guardian/father of the minor petitioner through Epayment and after verifying the stay order from the Hon'ble Appellate Court. 29 M.V.C.No.3426/2019
SCCH 7 Remaining 60% shall be kept in F.D. in the name of minor petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank as per the choice of his guardian till she attains the age of majority.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 11.01.2022).
(Umesh S.Atnure) IX ASCJ & ACMM, Court of Small causes and Member MACT, Bengaluru.
: ANNEXURE :
List of Witnesses Examined for Petitioner/s.
PW1 : Suresh Singh PW2 : Dr. Nagaraj B.N
List of exhibited documents marked for Petitioner/s.
Ex.P1 : FIR
Ex.P2 : Complaint
Ex.P3 : Spot mahazar
Ex.P4 : Sketch
Ex.P5 : IMV report
30 M.V.C.No.3426/2019
SCCH 7
Ex.P6 : Charge sheet
Ex.P7 : Wound certificate
Ex.P8 : Prescriptions (17 in Nos.)
Ex.P9 : Medical bills (73 in Nos.)
Ex.P10 : Discharge summary (3 in Nos.) Ex.P11 : Xray films (2 in Nos.) Ex.P12 : Lab reports (3 in Nos.) Ex.P13 : Photographs (7 in Nos.) Ex.P14 : Marks card Ex.P15 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of PW1 Ex.P16 : Medical bills (4 in Nos.) Ex.P17 : Inpatient case record (4 in Nos.) Ex.P18 : OP record Ex.P19 : Xray films (12 in Nos.) along with report List of witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW1 : Pavan Jagadish List of exhibited documents marked for Respondent/s:
Ex.R1 : GPA Ex.R2 : Certified copy of interim order passed
in W.P.No.38478/2015 (respondent No.1 is 9th petitioner) Ex.R3 : Certified copy of interim order in W.P. No. 3847838502/2015 31 M.V.C.No.3426/2019 SCCH 7 Ex.R4 : Certified copy endorsement of renewal of permit Ex.R5 : Certified copy endorsement of renewal of permit Ex.R6 : Certified copy of endorsement of renewal and replacement of vehicle Ex.R7 : Certified copy of order passed in W.P.No.34265 34279/2015 Ex.R8 : Certified copy of endorsement of renewal and replacement of vehicle (Umesh S.Atnure) IX ASCJ & ACMM, Court of Small causes and Member MACT, Bengaluru.