Bangalore District Court
Kumar: Dhruv R.Zaveri vs Prema R on 5 October, 2016
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 2933/2015
Petitioners: Kumar: Dhruv R.Zaveri,
S/o Romil D. Zaveri,
Aged about 11 years,
Residing No.114, Zaveri House,
6th phase, 8th main,
W.O.C. Road,
Bangalore -560 010.
Since minor, Representing
His natural father and
Guardian.
Sri Romil D.Zaveri,
S/o Dilip Zaveri,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing No.114, Zaveri House,
6th phase, 8th main,
WOC Road,
Bangalore -560 010.
(By Sri S.B., Advocate )
SCCH-1 2 MVC No.2933/2015
- V/s -
Respondents: 1. Prema R.,
S/W/D Ramadas,
No.38/6, 1st Floor,
Shanti Nivas, 2nd floor,
Shivanagar, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore -560 010.
.. Exparte
2. Bajaj Alliainz General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Golden Height, 4th floor,
No.1/2, 59th C-Cross,
4th M block,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore -560 010.
(By Sri V.S., Advocate )
JUDGMENT
The guardian of the minor petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for SCCH-1 3 MVC No.2933/2015 the injuries sustained by the minor petitioner in the road traffic accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:-
It is the case of the guardian of the minor petitioner that on 07.01.2015 at about 03.10 p.m. when the petitioner was returning from the School and was on his way to his home, near Carmel College and was crossing the road, at that time suddenly the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-02-HZ-1575 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Master Dhruv and due to the said accident the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body.
3. Immediately after the accident injured minor petitioner was shifted to Shanbog hospital, where he was given initial treatment and thereafter he was shifted to Fortis hospital and the guardian of the petitioner has spent around Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses SCCH-1 4 MVC No.2933/2015 and other incidental expenses. Out of total medical expenses the New India Assurance Co.ltd. have reimbursed a sum of Rs.51,699/-. The accident ws occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No. KA-02-HZ-1575. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent NO.2 is the insurer of the motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner .
4. In pursuance of the filing of this petition, this Court has issued notice against both the respondents. Respondent No.1 has not chosen to appear before the Court and he was placed exparte.
Respondent No.2 has appeared before the Court through his counsel and has filed written statement denying the petition averments. It is further contended that the complaint and FIR was lodged belatedly by two days from the date of alleged accident as such the insured vehicle is just falsely fixed in the accident. This SCCH-1 5 MVC No.2933/2015 respondent has denied the date, time and mode of accident, injuries sustained by the minor petitioner, expenses incurred by guardian of the minor petitioner etc.. The rider of the motor cycle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said offending vehicle at the time of accident and the respondent No.1 has handed over the possession of the vehicle to a person who was not holding valid and effective driving licence and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. It is further contended that the first respondent owner has not complied the statutory obligation under section 134(c) of M.V.Act and the concerned police have not complied the provisions of section 158(6) of M.V.Act. It is further contended that the second respondent reserves his right to amend its statement of objection and also to take over the defence of the insured in the event of the owner does not contest SCCH-1 6 MVC No.2933/2015 the proceedings under section 170 of M.V.Act. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Based on the pleadings this Court has framed the following:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she sustained grievous injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that that occurred on 7-1-2015 at about 3.10 p.m Near Carmel College, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, within the jurisdiction of Vijayanagar Traffic Police Station on account of rash and negligent riding of the Pulsar Motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-02-HZ-
1575 by its rider?
2. Whether the Respondent No.2 proves that the accident occurred on account of negligent act of petitioner ?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What order?
SCCH-1 7 MVC No.2933/2015
6. The guardian of the minor petitioner is examined as PW1 and two more witnesses is examined as PW-2 and 3 and have got marked documents Ex.P.1 to 15. On the other hand, the respondents have examined one witness as RW-1 and has got marked Ex.R.1 to R.6.
7. I heard the arguments of petitioner counsel and respondent counsel. Petitioner Counsel also filed written arguments.
8. After hearing the arguments, based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
1) Issue No.1 ... In the Affirmative,
2) Issue No.2 ... In the negative
3) Issue No.3 ... Partly in the Affirmative,
4) Issue No.4 ... As per final order
for the following:
SCCH-1 8 MVC No.2933/2015
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 and 2 : These two issues are inter- connected to each other and taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition.
10. It is the case of the guardian of the minor petitioner that on 07.01.2015 at about 03.10 p.m. when his son was returning from the School and was crossing the road, at that time suddenly the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-02-HZ-1575 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his son Master Dhruv and due to the said accident the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body.
11. It is the case of the guardian of the minor petitioner that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle . The guardian of the petitioner has also relied upon FIR, sketch, mahazar, IMV report, charge sheet as Ex.P.1, 6 SCCH-1 9 MVC No.2933/2015 to 9. The PW1 was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he did not witness the accident and the distance between school and the place of accident is two lanes and it is 10 minutes walkable distance. It is also elicited that his elder son has taken the injured to hospital and the rider of the motor cycle has stopped the vehicle at the spot but the rider has not helped to take the injured to hospital. It is suggested that the rider Karthik was not riding the vehicle at the time of the accident and the son of the insured was riding the motor cycle and he was not having the Driving License and on the same day he had applied for LLR and hence the said Karthik has been implicated and the said suggestion was denied.
12. On the other hand, respondents have examined Executive of TP claims as RW-1 and he contends that accident register extract issued by Shanbhag hospital which clearly states that the registration number of two SCCH-1 10 MVC No.2933/2015 wheeler which was involved in the accident is KA-02-HZ- 5747 and not the insured motor cycle baring No. KA-02- HZ-1575. The petitioners have falsely implicated the said vehicle in collusion with the insured and father of the minor petitioner has lodged complaint as such FIR and charge sheet were framed by the Police only on 09.01.2015 i.e., after 2 days from the date of alleged accident. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that their investigator has procured the documents and he has not conducted any investigation and he is giving evidence based on the records. He says he cannot tell about the mistake committed by the hospital authority in mentioning the vehicle number. He further says he do not remember the date of obtaining the MLC extract. He says while filing their written statement, they have raised the objections regarding the vehicle number. It is suggested that, they have not raised the said objections in their written SCCH-1 11 MVC No.2933/2015 statement and the said suggestion is denied. He admits the police have filed the charge sheet against the vehicle bearing no. KA-02-HZ-1575. It is suggested that, Police have investigated properly and thereafter they have filed the charge sheet and the said suggestion was denied. He admits that they have not challenged the charge sheet. It is suggested that, while recording the MLC details in the hospital, there is a chances of committing the mistake due to the tension and the said suggestion was denied. It is further suggested that, in order absolve their liability, he is giving false evidence before the Court and the same was denied. .
13. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in his arguments, he has contended that the Ex.R.3 is created after discharge since the petitioner was discharged against medical evidence. He contended that in Ex.P.15 SCCH-1 12 MVC No.2933/2015 history is clear that the very same vehicle was involved in the accident and Ex.R.3 cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, respondent counsel in his arguments he contended that the vehicle No. KA-02-HZ-5747 was involved in the accident and not the insured motor cycle and admittedly petitioner has taken first aid treatment at Shanbhag hospital and Ex.R.3 discloses the vehicle number as KA-02-HZ-5747 and the same is not insured with this respondent and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
14. The respondent counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 2013 Kar. 5439 and in this judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that :
Systematic attempt to commit fraud on the system and the Tribunal to seek compensation by making use of the dead body of an unknown person-Scrutiny of case records by the High Court-Held, SCCH-1 13 MVC No.2933/2015 Entire claim proceedings before the Tribunal is nothing but a make believe fraudulent claim which was initiated by making use of an unknown dead body for unlawful gain with active connivance and there was fraudulent claim in fixing the vehicle.
The respondent counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 2009 Kar.3562 ( Veerappa and another Vs.Siddappa and another) wherein Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court held that :
Fraud and justice never dwell together- an attempt on the part of the 1st respondent/owner to collude with the claimants with the fond hope of saddling the Insurance Company to pay compensation. -1st respondent/owner of the vehicle admitted the accident and had no objection for award of compensation - Held Even though the owner of the vehicle in unmistakable SCCH-1 14 MVC No.2933/2015 terms, has admitted the incident, that admission has no value in the eye of law. He has admitted something about which he has no knowledge and , which he has not seen. It is clear that the said admission is made with the sole object of getting compensation to the claimants as it is the insurance company which will pay, and not the owner. Though admission is the best piece of evidence, it cannot be accepted as gospel truth. The Court can insist on proof of facts, if the admission is not satisfactory.
The respondent counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2010 ACJ 1667, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that the Court has to take note of the evidence in tot and mere pleading of guilty is not enough.SCCH-1 15 MVC No.2933/2015
The respondent counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2000 ACJ 1032, in this judgment the Apex Court held that insurance company subsequently learnt that claimants were not involved in the accident which they described in claim petitions and they played fraud upon the Tribunal and insurance company. Whether appeal by insurance company against the award on the fresh plea of fraud would be maintainable- Held : No.
15. In keeping the principles referred supra, this Court has to appreciate the facts of the case. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1, he is not an eye witness to the accident. RW-1 is also giving evidence based on the records. The documentary evidence FIR which is marked as Ex.P.1 discloses that father of the minor petitioner has lodged the complaint on 09.01.2015 at about 16.35 hours, accident was taken place on 07.01.2015 and there is delay of 2 days and in the complaint it is SCCH-1 16 MVC No.2933/2015 mentioned that the rider of the motor cycle himself took the injured to Shanbhag hospital and he informed me over phone, immediately he went and met him and thereafter promised he will bear the expenses but later on he has refused to bear the expenses and hence, he has lodged the complaint. The reason for delay in lodging the complaint is given in the complaint itself. On perusal of the wound certificate which is marked at Ex.P.2, it is mentioned as history of R.T.A. and petitioner has relied upon Ex.P.15 M.L.C. of Fortis hospital. The injured was shifted to hospital on the same day at 9.30 p.m. and history is given as hit by two wheeler and vehicle number is also mentioned as KA-02-HZ-1575. Even though there was delay of two days in lodging the complaint, the M.L.C. extract was registered on the same day and vehicle number is given. On the other hand, respondent has relied upon the M.L.C. extract of Shanbhag hospital as Ex.R.3 and it reveals that history of R.T.A. hit by two SCCH-1 17 MVC No.2933/2015 wheeler mentioning the vehicle number as KA-02-HZ- 5747. In the immediate M.L.C. of Shanbhag hospital vehicle number is mentioned as KA-02-HZ-5747 instead of KA-02-HZ-1575 remaining registration number of the vehicle are same and both the vehicle numbers starts with KA-02-HZ. I have already pointed out discrepancy is with regard to the vehicle number. On perusal of the Ex.R.3, injured was brought by Harish, it is mentioned as Hareesh, friend and there is signature also. It is important to note that injured is minor and he has not given any history and so called friend has given the history. Hence, by relying upon Ex.R.3 this Court cannot come to a conclusion that the vehicle has been falsely implicated as contended by the respondent NO.2 counsel. It has to be noted that rider of the motor cycle has not been examined before the Court. He is the right person to speak with regard to the non-involvement of the vehicle and the petitioners have relied upon the IMV report SCCH-1 18 MVC No.2933/2015 which is marked at Ex.P.8 discloses that the front left side crash guard bend and remaining parts are in order, hence, it is clear that motor cycle sustained damage to the motor cycle and the accident took place on 07.01.2015 and within a period of 30 days vehicle was subjected to inspection. I have already pointed out if the rider is examined and given explanation regarding how the damages sustained to motor cycle the contention of the respondent would have been accepted. The rider of the motor cycle is not examined and he is the best person to speak regarding the non-involvement of the vehicle and there is no such denial. The respondent NO.2 has also contended that notice was issued to the respondent NO.1 and she has not responded to the notice issued by insurance company. Merely, non-responding to the notice, it cannot be held that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. The discrepancy is with regard to the vehicle number and not registration of the vehicle, under SCCH-1 19 MVC No.2933/2015 the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the evidence of RW-1 who is not an eye witness and he is giving evidence based on the records. After investigation Police have filed charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle and he has not challenged the same. The principles laid down in the judgment referred by the respondents are different from the facts of the case on hand and in those cases both Single Bench and Double Bench have come to the conclusion of fixing of the vehicle when fraud has taken place, hence, come to the conclusion that fraud and justice never dwell together and I do not find such circumstances in this case. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue NO.2 in the negative.
16. ISSUE No.3: It is the contention of the PW-1 that his son has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident . In order to substantiate his contention he has produced wound certificate which discloses that minor SCCH-1 20 MVC No.2933/2015 petitioner has sustained fracture of T.C. neck of femur right and the said injury is grievous in nature. Petitioner took treatment at Shanbhag hospital and then at Fortis hospital.
17. The guardian of the minor petitioner who has been examined as PW.1 in the cross examination he admits that his son was studying in 6th standard at the time of accident and he has appeared for the final exam and he got through in the examination. It is suggested that he has filed affidavit before the Court stating that he has got disability and the said suggestion was denied. He admits that he has not produced documents to show that he has spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The case sheet of Fortis hospital discloses that the minor petitioner was inpatient from 07.01.2015 to 09.1.15 i.e., for a period of 2 days. Petitioner underwent ORIF, T.C. neck of femur on 08.1.2015.
SCCH-1 21 MVC No.2933/2015
18. The guardian of the petitioner has examined doctor as PW-2 and he has reiterated the averments of the injury sustained by the minor petitioner and treatment taken by him. Petitioner has sustained fracture of neck of femur right and he underwent open reduction with internal fixation under general anesthesia and he was discharged on 09.1.2015. The radiological examination revealed fracture of neck of right femur showing implants and callus healing and based on the radiological findings and guidelines and gazette notification the petitioner suffers permanent physical disability of about 13.3% to whole body. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross- examination, he admits he has done MBBS, M.D. He has assisted the surgeon while conducting the surgery. He admits the patient was treated only for two days. It is suggested that, he has not produced authorization letter and the said suggestion was denied. He admits that he is SCCH-1 22 MVC No.2933/2015 not competent to assess the disability since he is not having M.S Ortho qualification and the same is denied. It is elicited that the fracture is in process of union and it will take 4 to 5 years for complete union. It is suggested that, 3 to 4 months is enough for union of the fracture since the petitioner is a minor and also he has suffered fracture only neck of femur and the said suggestion is denied. Witness says 3 to 4 months is enough but in this case it is not united and the same is in the process of uniting. It is suggested that, in order to help the petitioner he is giving false evidence before the Court even though the petitioner has not taken any follow up treatment with him and the said suggestion was denied. He admits that he has not produced the format B as per the guidelines. It is suggested that, the petitioner has written the exam in the month of March 2015 within a span of 2 months of the injury he has sustained in the accident and hence he is not having any disability and SCCH-1 23 MVC No.2933/2015 the same is denied. It is suggested that, the petitioner has suffered only one fracture in the neck of femur and hence the question of loss of muscle strength does not arise and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that, out of 9 components, he has taken 3 components and it should have been 1 or 2 and the same is denied. It is suggested that, he has not multiplied with 9 of stability component and the same is denied. It is suggested that, the petitioner is a minor and the disability of 5% will not come in the way of his functional disability and it is only a physical disability and the same can be cured in a short period and the said suggestion is denied. It is suggested that, petitioner is not having any disability and only in order to help the petitioner, he has assessed the disability on higher side and the same is denied.
19. Now let me appreciate both the oral and documentary evidence available before the Court. On SCCH-1 24 MVC No.2933/2015 perusal of the wound certificate the petitioner has sustained the fracture of neck of femur right and the disability assessed by the PW-2 to the extent of 13.3% is little higher on side and as the petitioner has sustained fracture of neck of femur right the disability can be assessed at 10% to whole body. The Apex Court in the Judgment 2013 ACJ 2445 (Mallikarjuna Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another). In this judgment the Apex Court observed that:
"If the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body Rs.3,00,000/, upto 60% Rs.4,00,000/-, upto 90% Rs.5,00,000/- and above 90% it should be Rs.6,00,000/- and for permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs.1,00,000/-. Further in the case Apex court has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, discomfort, loss of amenities in life due to permanent disability of 18%, Rs.25,000/- for discomfort, inconvenience and loss of income to parents, Rs.25,000/- for medical and incidental SCCH-1 25 MVC No.2933/2015 expenses and Rs.25,000/- for future medical expenses."
20. In view of the judgment referred supra and this Court had taken permanent disability sustained by the petitioner at 10% and injured is a student and is aged 11 years and has sustained injuries of fracture of neck of femur. Hence, I award Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, permanent disability.
21. The petitioner has produced Medi Assist India TPA Pvt. Ltd., Claim settlement Advice at Ex.P.3 which discloses that the Medi Assist India TPA Pvt. Ltd., has settled the claim upto Rs.51,669/-. The amount claimed is Rs.91,024/-. The difference amount is Rs.39,325/-. The petitioner has also produced Ex.P.4 Roopa Advertisers bill amounting to Rs.800/- and it comes to Rs.40,125/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.41,000/-. Hence, I award Rs.41,000/- towards medical bills. SCCH-1 26 MVC No.2933/2015
22. The petitioner was in the hospital for a period of 3 days in the hospital and he is aged 11 years and he has sustained fracture of femur and it may require 3 to 4 months to unite the fracture and the minor petitioner has to be looked after by his parents. Hence, I am of the opinion that the guardian of the minor petitioner have lost income and I award Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income of the parents during the period of treatment of the minor petitioner.
23. On perusal of the hospital records Ex.P.12 case sheet and discharge summary discloses petitioner was inpatient from 07.1.2015 to 09.01.2015 and he was subjected to surgery i.e, open reduction internal fixation. It is clear from the evidence of PW-2 that fracture of neck of femur showing callus healing and implants are also in situ and he requires one more surgery and hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner is in need of some amount for future surgery. For having taken note of the above facts SCCH-1 27 MVC No.2933/2015 into consideration, I award Rs.20,000/- for removal of implants.
24. The details of compensation, I propose to award are as under:
Sl. Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Medical expenses Rs. 41,000-00
2. Loss of income of the parents Rs. 25,000-00
during the period of inpatient
and period of treatment of
minor petitioner .
3. Permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000-00
4. Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000-00
(removal of implants)
Total Rs. 1,86,000-00
25. In all the minor petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,86,000/- as compensation . SCCH-1 28 MVC No.2933/2015
26. 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 petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. SCCH-1 29 MVC No.2933/2015
27. The respondents have also taken the contention that the rider of the motor cycle Mr.Karthik was fictiously impleaded as rider and the insured/owner was riding the vehicle and in order to substantiate the same no material is placed before the Court. In the cross- examination, it is suggested that the rider Karthik was not riding the vehicle at the time of the accident and the son of the insured was riding the motor cycle and he was not having the driving licence and on the same day he had applied for LL.R and hence, the said Karthik has been implicated and the said suggestion was denied. In order to prove the contention of the respondent, the respondents have not examined the Investigation Officer who is the right person to speak about the same, however, the respondent has not examined him before the Court. In the absence of cogent evidence respondent No.2 categorically admitted the issuance of policy and the same was valid. Admittedly the respondent No.1 is the SCCH-1 30 MVC No.2933/2015 owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of motor cycle bearing No. KA-02-HZ-1575, hence, both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, primary liability is fixed on respondent No.2 insurance company to satisfy the award. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
28. Issue No.4: In view of the discussions made above , I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The minor petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,86,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.1,66,000/- from the date of petition till realisation.SCCH-1 31 MVC No.2933/2015
The respondents No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and he is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount to which the minor petitioner is entitled, Rs.60,000/- with proportionate interest is to be released in the name of guardian of the petitioner and the remaining amount with proportionate interest shall be kept in F.D. in the name of minor petitioner till he attains the age of majority. Guardian of the minor petitioner shall not create any encumbrances on the F.D. amount. SCCH-1 32 MVC No.2933/2015
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 5th day of October 2016) (H.P.SANDESH,) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Romil D.Zaveri P.W.2 : Dr.Jayanth SH P.W.3 : Raghu Y.C.
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P-2 : Copy of wound certificate
Ex.P-3 : Letter issued by Medi Assist Pvt.Ltd.,
Ex.P-4 : Bill issued by Roopa Advertisers
Ex.P-5 : Copy of wound certificate
Ex.P-6 : Copy of sketch
Ex.P-7 : Copy of mahazar
Ex.P-8 : Copy of IMV report
SCCH-1 33 MVC No.2933/2015
Ex.P.9 Copy of charge sheet
Ex.P.10 Authorisation letter
Ex.P.11 O.P.Slip
Ex.P.12 Case SHEET
Ex.P.13 X-ray
Ex.P.14 Authorisation letter
Ex.P.15 Attested copy of M.L.C. extract
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW-1 Prerana V.N. Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 Authorisation letter
Ex.R.2 Copy of policy
Ex.R.3 M.L.C. register extract
Ex.R.4 Letter addressed to the insured
Ex.R.5 Postal receipt
Ex.R.6 Postal acknowledgement.
(H.P.SANDESH)
Member, Prl., M.A .C.T. Bangalore