Bangalore District Court
Smt.Shobha W/O. G.Maruthi 45 Yrs vs Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd on 16 August, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
AT BENGALURU
(SCCH:15)
MVC No.3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
THIS THE 16th DAY OF August 2016
Present: Rajanna Sankannanavar,
B.A., LL.B.,(Spl.)
XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge
& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.3176/2015
Petitioners: 1. Smt.Shobha W/o. G.Maruthi 45 yrs.,
2. Rekha Shindi W/o.Thippesh Shindi,
24 yrs., R/o.195/5, 1st main, 4th cross,
1st stage, 3rd phase, Rajajinagar
Bangalore 10.
3. Sri Vishwanath M. S/o. G.Maruthi 23 yrs.,
4. Smt.Shilpa Ede W/o. Raghavendra19 yrs.,
P.1,3,4 are R/o # 81/4 12th "A" Main
Road, Shivanagara, Rajajinagar
Bengaloure 5560010.
V/s
Respondent/s: 1.Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
#18/1(old No.125/A), 3rd Floor, Ashoka
Pillar Road, 1st Block, Jayanagar
Bengalure -11 (Innova Car bearing
Regn No.KA02/AC-5586)
2. Manjunath D.R. S/o. Bundaiah Raju
No. 49, 2nd Main Road, 6th Cross Road,
Srinivasanagar, Bengalure-091
(R.C. owner of Innova Car KA 02 AC 5586)
3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd,
Regional Office T.P.Hub, Krishi Bhavan,
6th Floor, Hudson Circle, Nrupathunga Road,
Bengalure-01
(Insurer of Lorry RJ 14/GB/5027)
(SCCH-15) 2
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
4. K.M.Veeresh S/o. K.M.Kotraiah
R/o/ No.565, Gandhi Colony Main Road,
Hospet Taluk-583201,Bellary District
(R.C.Owner Lorry RJ-14/GB-5027)
MVC No.3177/2015
Petitioner: Sri. P.Shankar Rao Shastri S/o. Parashuram
Shastri, 62 yrs., R/o.No.335/69, 41st Cross,
1st Main,8th Block, Jayanagar, Bengalure-082.
V/s
Respondent/s: 1.Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
#18/1(old No.125/A), 3rd Floor, Ashoka
Pillar Road, 1st Block, Jayanagar
Bengalure -11 (Innova Car bearing
Regn No.KA02/AC-5586)
2. Manjunath D.R. S/o. Bundaiah Raju
No. 49, 2nd Main Road, 6th Cross Road,
Srinivasanagar, Bengalure-091
(R.C. owner of Innova Car KA 02 AC 5586)
3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd,
Reginal Office T.P.Hub, Krishi Bhavan,
6th Floor, Hudson Circle, Nrupathunga Road,
Bengalure-01
(Insurer of Lorry RJ 14/GB/5027)
4. K.M.Veeresh S/o. K.M.Kotraiah
R/o/ No.565, Gandhi Colony Main Road,
Hospet Taluk-583201,Bellary District
(R.C.Owner Lorry RJ-14/GB-5027)
MVC No.3178/2015
Petitioner: Smt. Shakuntala Shastry W/o. P.Shankar
Rao Shastri, R/o..No.335/69, 41st Cross,
1st Main,8th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengalure-082.
(SCCH-15) 3
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
V/s
Respondent/s: 1.Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
#18/1(old No.125/A), 3rd Floor, Ashoka
Pillar Road, 1st Block, Jayanagar
Bengalure -11 (Innova Car bearing
Regn No.KA02/AC-5586)
2. Manjunath D.R. S/o. Bundaiah Raju
No. 49, 2nd Main Road, 6th Cross Road,
Srinivasanagar, Bengalure-091
(R.C. owner of Innova Car KA 02 AC 5586)
3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd,
Reginal Office T.P.Hub, Krishi Bhavan,
6th Floor, Hudson Circle, Nrupathunga Road,
Bengalure-01
(Insurer of Lorry RJ 14/GB/5027)
4. K.M.Veeresh S/o. K.M.Kotraiah
R/o/ No.565, Gandhi Colony Main Road,
Hospet Taluk-583201,Bellary District
(R.C.Owner Lorry RJ-14/GB-5027)
MVC No.3179/2015
Petitioner : Sri.Parasuram Babaji Waster S/o. Babaji
Waster, 59 years, No. 89, 1st Main Road,
1st stage, K.H.B.Colony,
Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru-079
V/s
Respondent/s: 1.Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
#18/1(old No.125/A), 3rd Floor, Ashoka
Pillar Road, 1st Block, Jayanagar
Bengalure -11 (Innova Car bearing
Regn No.KA02/AC-5586)
2. Manjunath D.R. S/o. Bundaiah Raju
(SCCH-15) 4
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
No. 49, 2nd Main Road, 6th Cross Road,
Srinivasanagar, Bengalure-091
(R.C. owner of Innova Car KA 02 AC 5586)
3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd,
Reginal Office T.P.Hub, Krishi Bhavan,
6th Floor, Hudson Circle, Nrupathunga Road,
Bengalure-01
(Insurer of Lorry RJ 14/GB/5027)
4. K.M.Veeresh S/o. K.M.Kotraiah
R/o/ No.565, Gandhi Colony Main Road,
Hospet Taluk-583201,Bellary District
(R.C.Owner Lorry RJ-14/GB-5027)
Sri. Girimallaiah Adv. for petitioner,
Sri. R.S.S. Adv. for Respondent No.1
Sri. B.C.S Adv for Respondent No.3
Sri. M.M.P.Adv for Respondent No.4
Respondent No.2 place is Ex-party.
COMMON-JUDGMENT
Petitioners of MVC.3176/2015 have filed the present
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against
the respondents together for relief of compensation sum of
Rs.42,00,000/- and with interest at 12% P.A., in view of
death of deceased by name G.Maruthi S/o. Gaddappa in a
road traffic accident And
(SCCH-15) 5
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
1(a). A Petitioner-P.Shankar Rao Shastri of MVC No.
3177/2015 has filed the present petition under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents together
for relief of compensation sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and with
interest, in view of sustained injuries in a road traffic
accident And
1(b). The petitioner-Shakuntala Shastry of MVC No.
3178/2015 has filed the present under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent together for
relief of compensation sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with
interest, in view of injury sustained by the petitioner in a
road traffic accident.
1(c). The petitioner-Parasurama Babaji Waster of
MVC No. 3179/2015 has filed the present under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent together
for relief of compensation sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with
interest, in view of injury sustained by the petitioner in a
road traffic accident.
2. Whereas, the present four petitions filed by the
respective petitioners under out of arising one Crime
Number of Kallambella Police station under Crime
(SCCH-15) 6
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
No.04/2015. Therefore, this tribunal has passed a
common judgment all together.
The facts of the petitions are as follows:
3. On 8/9-01-2015 at about 2.30 A.M., the
petitioners were traveling in Innova Car bearing Reg.
No.KA-02-AC-5586. the driver of said car was driving in
rash and negligent manner, in spite of repeated requests
to go to slow, when the said Innova Car so proceeding on
Sira-Tumkur NH-04 Road, near Chikkanahalli,
Kallambella Hobli, at that time, one lorry bearing No. RJ-
14/GB-5027 driven by the driver proceeding ahead of the
Innova Car, at the time of accident, the Lorry Driver
abruptly without giving any indication took sudden left
turn, since the Car Driver was driving the vehicle at a high
speed, lost control over the vehicle and dashed against
hind portion of the lorry, In the result, one G.Maruthi
succumbed to the injuries on the spot and the respective
petitioner of MVC No. 3177, 3178 and 3179/2015
sustained grievous injuries, the injuries sustained by
petitioners are permanent in nature. 2nd Respondent is the
(SCCH-15) 7
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
owner of the Innova car bearing Reg.No. KA-02/AC-5586
and 1st respondent is the insurer of said vehicle. 4th
Respondent is the owner of the Lorry bearing Reg. No.RJ-
14/GB-5027 and 3rd respondent is the insurer of said
vehicle. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence,
petitioners of all petitions have prayed to award
compensation as prayed in the petitions.
4. After issuance of notice to the respondents of
MVC.No.3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015, in that
respondent No.2 is placed ex-party and respondent No.1, 3
and 4 were appeared through their respective counsel and
filed the written statement. The facts of the written
statement are as follows:
5. In the written statement of 1st respondent: admits
that, 2nd respondent is the owner of the Innova Car vehicle
bearing No. KA-02/AC-5586, further admits he is the
insurer of the said vehicle and denied all other allegations
made in the petition and contended that the driver of said
Innova car was not have driving licence for driving the
vehicle at the time of accident, further contended that, on
(SCCH-15) 8
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
the date of the accident, the Innova was being driven in a
reasonable speed and careful manner and there was no
rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of Innova,
further contended, the accident was due to negligence on
the part of driver of lorry bearing No.RJ-14/GB-5027
alone. Hence, 1st respondent prays to dismiss the petition.
5(a). In the written statement of 3rd respondent:
admits that, 4th respondent is the owner of the Lorry
bearing No. RJ-14/GB-5027, further admits he is the
insurer of the said lorry and denied all other allegations
made in the petition and contended that the driver of said
Lorry was not have driving licence for driving the vehicle at
the time of accident, further contended that, accident was
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its
driver without maintaining the distance with on going lorry
and dashed against the hinder portion of the lorry. Hence,
3rd respondent prays to dismiss the petition.
5(b). In the written statement of 4th respondent:
admits that, he is the owner of Lorry bearing No.RJ-
14/GB-5027, further admits 3rd respondent is the insurer
of said vehicle and denied all other allegations made in
(SCCH-15) 9
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
the petition and contended that the driver of said Innova
car drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
hind portion of said lorry, further contended the driver of
said lorry was holding the effective D.L.Under
D.L.No.KA350060004468 valid from 31.01.2006 to
28.12.2016 and policy was also in force. Hence, 1st
respondent prays to dismiss the petition.
6. On the pleadings of both the parties, my learned
predecessor was framed issues as follows:
ISSUES IN MVC NO.3176/2015
1. Whether the petitioner are proves that
deceased G.Maruthi was died in a road
traffic accident on 89.01.2015 at about
2.30 a.m. on Sira-Tumkur NH-4 road, near
Chikkanahalli, Kallambella Hobli, Sira
taluk due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the Innova Car bearing
Registration No. KA-02/AC-5586 and
Lorry bearing regd. No. RJ-14/GB- 5027?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
whom?
3. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC NO.3177/2015
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has
sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in
(SCCH-15) 10
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
column No.11, in a road traffic accident on
8/9.01.2015at about 2.30 a.m. on Sira-Tumkur
NH-4 road, near Chikkanahalli, Kallambella
hobli, Sira taluk due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Innova Car bearing
Registration No. KA-02/AC-5586 and Lorry
bearing regd. No. RJ-14/GB- 5027
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
whom?
3. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC NO. 3178/2015
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has
sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in
column No.11, in a road traffic accident on
8/9.01.2015at about 2.30 a.m. on Sira-Tumkur
NH-4 road, near Chikkanahalli, Kallambella
hobli, Sira taluk due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Innova Car bearing
Registration No. KA-02/AC-5586 and Lorry
bearing regd. No. RJ-14/GB- 5027
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
whom?
3. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC NO. 3179/2015
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has
sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in
column No.11, in a road traffic accident on
8/9.01.2015at about 2.30 a.m. on Sira-Tumkur
NH-4 road, near Chikkanahalli, Kallambella
hobli, Sira taluk due to the rash and negligent
(SCCH-15) 11
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
driving of the driver of the Innova Car bearing
Registration No. KA-02/AC-5586 and Lorry
bearing regd. No. RJ-14/GB- 5027
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
whom?
3. What order or award?
07. In order to proving the above said issues,
petitioner No.1 in MVC.3176/2015 has been herself
examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 12, petitioner
in MVC.3177/2015 is examined as PW-2 and got marked
Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.15, petitioner in MVC.3178/2015 is
examined as PW-3 and got marked Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.19
and petitioner in MVC.3178/2015 is examined as PW-4
and got marked Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.22 on behalf of petitioners
of MVC No.3177, 3178 and 3179/2015 a doctor examined
as P.W.5 and got marked as Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.38, on the
other hand on behalf of respondent No.1 a witness by
name Shankar A.C. Deputy Manager of Legal has been
examined as R.W.1 and on behalf of Respondent No.3 a
witness by name R.Vijayalakshmi has been examined as
R.W.2 and got marked Ex.R.1.
(SCCH-15) 12
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
08. Heard arguments of both the sides on merits of
the case and perused the record.
09. Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above
said issues in MVC No.3177/2015 are answered in the;
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Rs.08,56,000/-from the
Resp.No.1 and 3 (50:50)
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following
09(a). Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above
said issues in MVC No.3177/2015 are answered in the;
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Rs2,68,000/- from the
Resp.No.1 and 3(50:50)
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following
09(b) Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above
said issues in MVC No.3178/2015 are answered in the;
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Rs.2,45,600/- from the
Resp.No.1&3(50:50)
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following
09(c) Now the findings of this Tribunal on the
above said issues in MVC No.3179/2015 are answered in
the;
(SCCH-15) 13
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative
Rs.1,05,000/- from the
Resp.No.1&3(50:50)
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following
REASONS
10. ISSUE No.2 in MVC.3176/2014:- Petitioners of
MVC.3176/2015 have filed the present petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents
together for relief of compensation sum of Rs.42,00,000/-
and with interest at 12% P.A., in view of death of
G.Maruthi S/o.Gaddappa and the respective petitioner of
MVC.3177, 3178 and 3179/2015 have filed the present
petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against
the respondents together for relief of compensation sum as
mentioned in their respective petition with interest in view
of injury sustained by them in a road traffic accident.
16. Herein there is no dispute with regard to
relationship in MVC No.3176/2015 as petitioner No.1 is
the wife of deceased G.Maruthi S/o. Gaddappa, 2nd and
4th Petitioner are the daughter of deceased G.Maruthi and
(SCCH-15) 14
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
petitioner No.3 is the son of deceased G.Maruthi, with
regard to same, the P.W.1 has produced Voter ID of 1st
petitioner and copy of ration card at Ex.P.12, by perusing
the same Ex.P.11 speaks that 1st petitioner is the wife of
deceased and Ex.P.12 shown as 1st and 3rd petitioner are
the wife and son of deceased G.Maruthi, the said
documents are undisputed document and it is clearly
shows that petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased
G.Maruthi, Petitioner No.3 son deceased G.Maruthi.
Further in corroboration of the same, PW-1 deposed as
herself as wife of deceased and 2 to 4 petitioner are the
children of deceased. Contrary to that, other side has not
denied the same and they have not produced any
documentary evidence to show that the said petitioners
are not legal representatives of the deceased.
11. Herein, the question arises for consideration is
that, whether the G.Maruthi S/o. Gaddappa was died in
the road traffic accident or not. In this context, firstly,
there is no dispute about the said G.Maruthi S/o.
Gaddappa has died in the accident. However, PW-1 has
(SCCH-15) 15
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
produced inquest mahazar at Ex.P.6 and PM report at
Ex.P.7. By looking to both documents are clearly shows
that G.Maruthi S/o. Gaddappa has died in the road traffic
accident. More over the other side i.e., Respondents No.1
to 4 also not disputed about death of G.Maruthi S/o.
Gaddappa in the road traffic accident.
12. Whereas, so for injuries of the respective
petitioner in MVC.3177, 3178 and 3179/2015 is
concerned, admittedly the said petitioners namely
examined as P.Shankar Rao Shastri S/o. Parashuram
Shastri as P.W.2, Shakuntala Shastry W/o. P.Shankar
Rao Shastri as P.W.3, Parasurama Babaji Waste @
Parasuram Rao Waster S/o. Babaji Waster as P.W.4, in
lieu of examination-in-chief Affidavit. In the affidavit
reiterated entire averments made of respective petition.
PW-2 has produced medical certificate at Ex.P.13, PW-3
has produced medical certificate at Ex.P.16, PW-4 has
produced medical certificate at Ex.P.20, on perusal of
these documents, respective petitioner of MVC.No.3177,
3178 3179/2015 was sustained injuries in the said
accident. Now, herein, the say of petitioners is that, said
(SCCH-15) 16
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
injuries sustained by themselves are due to rash and
negligent manner and negligent driving of the driver of
Innova car bearing registration No.KA-02/AC-5586 and
Lorry bearing Reg. No.RJ-14/GB-5027. Per contra, the say
of Respondent No.1 is that, the accident was due to
negligence on the part of driver of lorry bearing No.RJ-
14/GB-5027 alone, as such, the say of Respondent No.3,
is the accident was due to negligence on the part of driver
Innova car bearing registration No.KA-02/AC-5586, on
looking to pleading of the parties, whereas question is
arise for consideration is whether the said accident is due
to rash and negligent manner by whom driver of vehicles
or driver of both vehicle. In this regard, PW-1 has
produced certified copy of first information at Ex.P.1 and
certified copy of FIR at Ex.P.2, Certified copy of spot
mahazar at Ex.P.3, Certified copy of spot sketch at Ex.P.5,
certified copy of IMV report at Ex.P.8 and certified copy of
charge sheet at Ex.P.9. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and 2, it is
speaks that on basis of first information submitted by 1st
petitioner in MVC.3176/2015, the Kallambell Police have
registered the case under crime No.04/2015 and submit
(SCCH-15) 17
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
FIR at Ex.P.2 to the concerned authority, Ex.P.3-Mahazar
disclosed that, after registering the case by concerned
police, they have visit the spot and conducted the mahazar
with regard to occurrence of accident in the presence of
Mahazaradar, Further Ex.P.8-IMV report speaks that
occurrence of accident is not due to mechanic defect of
both the vehicles. Further, Ex.P.5-hand sketch map, on
perusal of the same, it is clearly goes to show that the
accident was occurred in the negligent manner by the
driver of both vehicles, Further Ex.P.9-charge sheet, it is
speaks that, the investigation officer found as the rash
and negligence driving of driver of both vehicle and filed
charge sheet against the driver of both vehicle for the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 283, 304A
of IPC. Further, Ex.P.1-first information, Ex.P.2-FIR, Ex.P.3-
Mahazar, Ex.P.5-spot sketch, Ex.P.8-IMV report and
Ex.P.9-Charge sheet and oral evidence of P.W.1 to 4 are
clearly discloses that accident has occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the both vehicle. Contrary to that,
there is no any oral or documentary evidence. further
Resp.No.1 and 3 are not produced any material place
(SCCH-15) 18
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
before court to showing that neither accident was due to
negligence on the part of driver of lorry bearing No.RJ-
14/GB-5027 alone nor the accident was due to negligence
on the part of driver Innova car bearing registration No.KA-
02/AC-5586 alone. Hence, Issue No.1 of MVC.3176,
3177, 3178 and 3179/2015 is answered in the
Affirmative.
13. Issue No.2 in MVC.3176/2015:- In view of
findings assigned by this tribunal to the above issue No.1
the petitioners of MVC.3176/2015 are legal heirs of the
deceased, as such, they are entitled for compensation. So
far, in respect of quantum of compensation is concerned,
PW-1 has deposed deceased G.Maruthi, was aged about
50 years at the time of accident. At the same time, other
sides have not disputed the age of the deceased person.
However, PW-1 has produced Ration card at Ex.P.12. by
perusing the same, said Ex.P.1 issued by Govt. of
Karnataka on 20.06.2013, further it is speaks that the age
of deceased was 51 in the year 2013 and admittedly the
accident was occurred in the year 2015, it means, on the
(SCCH-15) 19
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
date of accident, the age of deceased is was 53 year.
Therefore this tribunal inclines towards Ex.P.12, as such
tribunal come to conclusion that the age of deceased was
53 at the time of accident. So, as per Sarala Verma and
others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and others case
the appropriate multiplier is 11.
14. P.W.1 has deposed that the deceased is her
husband, further she has deposed that they were
depending upon earning of the deceased, further she has
deposed that after death of her husband, they did not
have any source of income for their livelihood. Admittedly
on looking to the cause title of petition, the petitioners No.2
and 4 are the married daughter of deceased G.Maruthi,
further as per P.W.1 evidence Petitioner No.2 and 4 are the
married daughter they are residing with their respective
husband's house, under such they are not dependents of
deceased income, so also, Petitioner No.1 is the wife of
deceased and Petitioner No.3 is the un married son and as
per evidence of P.W.1, the petitioner No.3 is student,
contrary to that, there is no any material before court to
(SCCH-15) 20
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
disbelieve or discard the said version, thus, tribunal come
to conclusion that the petitioner No.1 and 3 are the
dependants and 3rd petitioner is unmarried and he has
student and there were no body to look after them and
they have no any source of income, except the income of
deceased person. Contrary to that, there is no material
place before court about the petitioners having source of
income. Hence this tribunal believes the evidence of P.W.1
and hold that the petitioners are the L.Rs and dependants
of the deceased. Accordingly they are entitled for
compensation under all heads.
15. Further P.W.1 has deposed as the deceased was
worked as Astrologer and was earning 30,000/-. Except
the pleading, there is no absolutely any document to show
that deceased was having income of Rs.30,000/-p.m. like
either Bank statement or any other mode for showing the
deceased had income of Rs.30,000/-p.m. Under such
circumstance, admittedly the accident was occurred in the
year 2015. In the absence of documentary evidence
regarding income of deceased, such circumstance, this
(SCCH-15) 21
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
tribunal inclines towards notional income of deceased.
Thus, in the year 2015 the scenario of income in the
society of a person who is worked on his either own skill
or Art or by under any mode, that person getting the
minimum income sum of Rs.7,000/-P.M. Therefore, this
Tribunal has come to conclusion that deceased was
earning a sum of Rs.7,000/-p.m.
16. Admittedly the deceased was aged 53 years at
the time of accident and his income per month is
Rs.7,000/- which comes per year as Rs.7,000x12=
84,000/-. Admittedly, the age of deceased was 53 at the
time of accident. Hence the question of adding 50%
amount towards future prospects doesn't arise. Further
petitioner No.1 and 2 are the dependents of the deceased
and deceased was married, As such, as per Sarala
Verma and others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and
others case, this tribunal opines that it is necessary 1/3rd
amount shall be deducted towards personal expenses in
the said amount of income i.e., 84,000/-. After deduction
(SCCH-15) 22
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
regarding personal expenses in total income of
Rs.84,000/- it's comes 58,800 /- p.a.
17. The petitioners are the L.Rs and petitioner No.1
and 3 are the only dependents of the deceased, in that 1st
petitioner is the wife, and 3rd petitioner is un-married son
and he has studying and Petitioner No.2 and 4 are
daughter of deceased. And 1st petitioner has lost her
husband and 2 to 4 petitioners have lost their father.
Further, petitioner No.1 and 3 they have lost dependency
and petitioner No. 1 to 4 are lost love and affection and
estate of the deceased. And they have spent amount for
transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Under
such Circumstance, they have entitle for loss of
dependency and same would be Rs.
58,800x11=6,46,800/-. Further the 1 to 4th petitioner is
further entitled for a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each
towards loss of love and affection, further 1 to 4
petitioners are entitled for a compensation sum of
Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and 50,000/-
towards transportation of dead body and funeral
(SCCH-15) 23
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
expenses. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for just and
reasonable compensation as under.
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 06,46,800/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection
(P-1 to 4, Rs.25,000/-each Rs. 01,00,000/--
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 60,000/-
(P-1 to 4, Rs.15,000/- each)
4. Transportation of dead body
and Funeral Expenses Rs. 50,000/-
Total: Rs.08,56,000/-
The petitioner are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of payment.
18. ISSUE No.2 in MVC No.3177/2015:- PW-2-
P.Shankar Rao Shastri (petitioner in MVC No.3177/2015)
has produced the wound certificate at Ex.P.13, discharge
summary at Ex.P.14, and on behalf of petitioner
Dr.R.Shashikanth Assistant Surgeon of Columbia Asia
Hospital Bengaluru who is one of the treated doctor of
P.W.2 and he has been examined as P.W.5 and produced
Inpatient file at Ex.P.23 and X-ray (2 in nos.) at Ex.P.26,
City scan films (3 in nos.) at Ex.P.27. On looking to the
Ex.P.23 and oral evidence of P.W.5, it is disclosed that, the
petitioner has sustained the injuries viz., TBI and Lung
Contusion with fracture of Mandible and fracture of 2nd rib
(SCCH-15) 24
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
and said injuries are grievous in nature, with regard to
these injuries, petitioner has underwent to surgery under
general anesthesia in an inpatient from 09.01.2015 to
17.01.2015, on looking to this, the petitioner has taken
treatment as an inpatient for 09 days in the columbia Asia
Hospital. As such, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5 and
documents are not in dispute and further there is no any
reason for either disbelieve or discard the evidence of
P.W.2,5 and Ex.P.13-wound certificate, discharge
summary at Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.23-Inpatient file.
19. Now, P.W.2 has produced inpatient bills (22
pages) amount sum of Rs. 1,56,713/-. Further, said an
inpatient bill is not in dispute and there is no any material
on record about contrary to those bills. So on looking to
these medical bills documents clearly goes to show that
the petitioner has spent total amount of Rs.1,56,713/- for
the treatment, which can be rounded to Rs.1,57,000/-.
20. Further, as per oral evidence of P.W.2 and 5 and
recitals of Ex.P.13-wound certificate, Ex.P.14-Discharge
summary, Ex.P.17-X-ray and Ex.P.23-Inpetian file
disclosed that petitioner has underwent treatment for 9
(SCCH-15) 25
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
days as an inpatient and underwent for surgery under
general anesthesia and X-ray examination, city scan
examination. As such, he has undergone pain and
sufferings and spent amount for diet and conveyance
during said period. As per opines of the P.W.5-Doctor the
injuries have permanent physical disability and there is no
any material for contrary to that. Hence, the tribunal
opinion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation sum
of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/-
towards diet and conveyance, further she is entitled for a
compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Further, P.W.5 has deposed petitioner has requires
another surgery for implant removal and tendon transfer
for claming which would cost approximately Rs.25,000/-.
Now doubt, there is no any evidence with respect of future
medical expense. However, it is true as the petitioner has
requires underwent surgery for removal of implant,
therefore the tribunal has inclined to the requirement of
future medical expenditure to the petitioner and same is
award compensation sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards future
medical expenses. Further P.W.5 deposed he has
(SCCH-15) 26
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
assessed disability of 20% to the face, however on looking
to the medical evidence which can be consider 5 % to the
whole body.
21. Whereas, so for age of petitioner is concern,
P.W.2 has deposed as his age was 62 years at the time of
accident, no doubt, in that, except medical record, there is
no any particular documentary to show that, the age of
petitioner, as such in the Ex.P.13-wound certificate is
shown the age of petitioner was 65 years at the time of
accident, in the absence of documents with regard to
either date of birth or age proof, then the tribunal inclines
towards medical records i.e., Ex.P.13-wound certificate in
this documents clearly shows that the age of the
petitioner was 65 years. Under such circumstance, this
tribunal comes to conclusion that the age of the petitioner
was 65 years as at the date of accident. Contrary to that
there is nothing on record to disbelieve the age of petitioner
is as 65 yrs., Hence, as per directions in the case Sarala
Verma and other V/s Delhi Transport corporation and
others, the appropriate multiplier is 7.
(SCCH-15) 27
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
22. Now the earning of petitioner is concerned, PW-2
has deposed in his chief examination that he was working
as astrologer and also doing agriculture work and she
was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- p.m., but there is no
any documentary evidence to showing as the petitioner
was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Under such
circumstance, admittedly the accident was occurred in the
year 2015. In the absence of documentary evidence
regarding income of deceased, such circumstance, this
tribunal inclines towards notional income of deceased.
Thus, in the year 2015 the scenario of income in the
society of a person who is worked on his either own skill
or Art or by under any mode, that person getting the
minimum income sum of Rs.7,000/-P.M. Therefore, this
Tribunal has come to conclusion that deceased was
earning a sum of Rs.7,000/-p.m. As such, On Looking to
medical evidence and nature of injury sustained by the
petitioner, the Tribunal opines that petitioner was under
bed rest for a period of 3 months and lost his earning in
the said 3 months. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.7,000 x 3= 21,000/- towards loss of
(SCCH-15) 28
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
past 3 months earning and Loss of future earning can be
calculated as Rs.7,000x12x7x5%100 = 29,400/-which can
be consider sum of Rs.30,000/-.
23. Thus, petitioner of MVC No.3177/2015 is entitled
for just and reasonable compensation as follows:
Pain and Sufferings Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of past earnings
7,000x3=21,000/- Rs. 21,000/-
Medical Expenditure Rs. 1,57,000/-
Future Medical Expenditure Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of Future Income Rs. 30,000/-
(7,000x12x7x5%100)
Towards diet and conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/-
-----------------------
Total: Rs.2,68,000/-
24. ISSUE No.2 in MVC No.3178/2015:- PW-3-
Shakuntala Shastry W/o. P.Shankar Rao Shastri
(petitioner in MVC No.3178/2015) has produced the
wound certificate at Ex.P.16, discharge summary at
Ex.P.17 and on behalf of petitioner Dr.R.Shashikanth
Assistant Surgeon of Columbia Asia Hospital Bengaluru
who is one of team of treated doctor of P.W.3 and he has
(SCCH-15) 29
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
been examined as P.W.5 and produced Inpatient file at
Ex.P.29 and X-ray and MRI Scan films at Ex.P.30. On
looking to the Ex.P.29 and oral evidence of P.W.5, it is
disclosed that, the petitioner has sustained the injuries
viz., Right Distal 3rd Ulna Shaft fracture and fracture of
Lateral Malleolus-left Ankle and said injuries are grievous
in nature, with regard to these injuries, petitioner has
underwent to surgery under general anesthesia in an
inpatient from 09.01.2015 to 12.01.2015, on looking to
this, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for
04 days in the columbia Asia Hospital. As such, the
evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5 and documents are not in
dispute and further there is no any reason for either
disbelieve or discard the evidence of P.W.3,5 and Ex.P.16-
wound certificate, discharge summary at Ex.P.17 and
Ex.P.29-Inpatient file.
25. Now, P.W.1 has produced inpatient bills (22
pages) at Ex.P.18 amount sum of Rs. 1,05,549/-. Further,
said an inpatient bill is not in dispute and there is no any
material on record about contrary to those bills. So on
looking to these medical bills documents clearly goes to
(SCCH-15) 30
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
show that the petitioner has spent total amount of
Rs.1,05,549/- for the treatment, which can be rounded to
Rs.1,06,000/-.
26. Further, as per oral evidence of P.W.3 and 5 and
recitals of Ex.P.16-wound certificate, Ex.P.17-Discharge
summary, Ex.P.19-X-ray films (7 in nos) and Ex.P.29-
Inpetian file disclosed that petitioner has underwent
treatment for 4 days as an inpatient and underwent for
surgery under general anesthesia and X-ray examination,
city scan examination. As such, she has undergone pain
and sufferings and spent amount for diet and conveyance
during said period. As per opines of the P.W.5-Doctor the
injuries have permanent physical disability and there is no
any material for contrary to that. Hence, the tribunal
opinion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation sum
of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/-
towards diet and conveyance, further she is entitled for a
compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Further, P.W.5 has deposed petitioner has requires
another surgery for implant removal and tendon transfer
for claming which would cost approximately Rs.45,000/-.
(SCCH-15) 31
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
Now doubt, there is no any evidence with respect of future
medical expense. However, it is true as the petitioner has
requires underwent surgery for removal of implant,
therefore the tribunal has inclined to the requirement of
future medical expenditure to the petitioner and same is
award compensation sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards future
medical expenses. Further P.W.5 deposed he has
assessed disability of 22.45% to the whole body, the
disability assessed by doctor is on higher side, however
on looking to the medical evidence which can be consider
10 % to the whole body.
27. Whereas, so for age of petitioner is concern,
P.W.1 has deposed as his age was 58 years at the time of
accident, no doubt, in that, except medical record, there is
no any particular documentary to show that, the age of
petitioner, as such in the Ex.P.16-wound certificate is
shown the age of petitioner was 60 years at the time of
accident, in the absence documents with regard to either
date of birth or age proof, then the tribunal inclines
towards medical records i.e., Ex.P.16-wound certificate in
this documents clearly shows that the age of the petitioner
(SCCH-15) 32
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
was 60 years. Under such circumstance, this tribunal
comes to conclusion that the age of the petitioner was 60
years as at the date of accident. Contrary to that there is
nothing on record to disbelieve the age of petitioner is as
60 yrs., Hence, as per directions in the case Sarala Verma
and other V/s Delhi Transport corporation and others, the
appropriate multiplier is 9.
28. Now the earning of petitioner is concerned, PW-3
has deposed in his chief examination that he was working
as tailoring work and she was earning a sum of
Rs.15,000/- p.m., but there is no any documentary
evidence to showing as the petitioner was earning a sum
of Rs.15,000/-. Under such circumstance, admittedly the
accident was occurred in the year 2015. In the absence of
documentary evidence regarding income of deceased, such
circumstance, this tribunal inclines towards notional
income of deceased. Thus, in the year 2015 the scenario of
income in the society of a person who is worked on his
either own skill or Art or by under any mode, that person
getting the minimum income sum of Rs.7,000/-P.M.
Therefore, this Tribunal has come to conclusion that
(SCCH-15) 33
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
deceased was earning a sum of Rs.7,000/-p.m. As such,
On Looking to medical evidence and nature of injury
sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal opines that
petitioner was under bed rest for a period of 2 months and
lost his earning in the said 2 months. Hence, the petitioner
is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,000x2=14,000/-
towards loss of past 2 months earning and Loss of future
earning can be calculated as Rs.7,000x12x9x10%100 =
75,600/-.
29. Thus, petitioner of MVC No.3178/2015 is entitled
for just and reasonable compensation as follows:
Pain and Sufferings Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of past earnings
7,000x2=14,000/- Rs. 14,000/-
Medical Expenditure Rs. 1,06,000/-
Future Medical Expenditure Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of Future Income Rs. 75,600/-
(7,000x12x9x10%100)
Towards diet and conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/-
-----------------------
Total: Rs.2,45,600/-
(SCCH-15) 34
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
30. ISSUE No.2 in MVC No.3179/2015:- PW-4-
Parasurama Babaji Waster @ Parasuram Rao Waster
(petitioner in MVC No.3179/2015) has produced the
wound certificate at Ex.P.20, discharge summary at
Ex.P.21, and on behalf of petitioner Dr.R.Shashikanth
Assistant Surgeon of Columbia Asia Hospital Bengaluru
who is one of the treated doctor of P.W.4 and he has been
examined as P.W.5 and produced Inpatient file at Ex.P.34
and X-ray (1 in nos.) MRI scan films(2 in nos) at Ex.P.35.
On looking to the Ex.P.20 and oral evidence of P.W.5, it is
disclosed that, the petitioner has sustained the injuries
viz., Fracture of the right side 3rd rib with minimal
Haemothorax and Fracture of the left hand 4th Metatarsal
displaced fracture of shaft and said injuries are grievous
in nature, with regard to these injuries, petitioner has
taken treatment under conservatively in an inpatient from
09.01.2015 to 12.01.2015, on looking to this, the petitioner
has taken treatment as an inpatient for 09 days in the
columbia Asia Hospital. As such, the evidence of P.W.4
and P.W.5 and documents are not in dispute and further
there is no any reason for either disbelieve or discard the
(SCCH-15) 35
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
evidence of P.W.4,5 and Ex.P.20-wound certificate,
discharge summary at Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.34-Inpatient file.
31. Now, P.W.4 has produced inpatient bills (7 pages)
amount sum of Rs. 51,211/-. Further, said an inpatient
bill is not in dispute and there is no any material on record
about contrary to those bills. So on looking to these
medical bills documents clearly goes to show that the
petitioner has spent total amount of Rs.51,211/- for the
treatment, which can be rounded to Rs.52,000/-.
32. Further, as per oral evidence of P.W.4 and 5 and
recitals of Ex.P.20-wound certificate, Ex.P.21-Discharge
summary, Ex.P.35-X-ray and Ex.P.34-Inpetian file
disclosed that petitioner has underwent treatment
conservatively for 4 days as an inpatient and X-ray
examination, city scan examination. As such, he has
undergone pain and sufferings and spent amount for diet
and conveyance during said period. As per opines of the
P.W.5-Doctor the injuries have permanent physical
disability and there is no any material for contrary to that.
Hence, the tribunal opinion that the petitioner is entitled
for compensation sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and
(SCCH-15) 36
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
sufferings, Rs.10,000/- towards diet and conveyance,
further she is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-
towards loss of amenities. Further P.W.5 deposed he has
assessed disability of 4% to the whole body, admittedly,
the petitioner taken treatment conservatively, as such on
looking to the medical evidence which can be consider 2 %
to the whole body.
33. Whereas, so for age of petitioner is concern,
P.W.4 has deposed as his age was 59 years at the time of
accident, no doubt, in that, except medical record, there is
no any particular documentary to show that, the age of
petitioner, as such in the Ex.P.20-wound certificate is
shown the age of petitioner was 60 years at the time of
accident, in the absence of documents with regard to
either date of birth or age proof, then the tribunal inclines
towards medical records, the tribunal inclined to medical
records i.e., Ex.P.20-wound certificate in this documents
clearly shows that the age of the petitioner was 60 years.
Under such circumstance, this tribunal comes to conclusion
that the age of the petitioner was 60 years as at the date
of accident. Contrary to that there is nothing on record to
(SCCH-15) 37
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
disbelieve the age of petitioner is as 60 yrs., Hence, as
per directions in the case Sarala Verma and other V/s
Delhi Transport corporation and others, the appropriate
multiplier is 9.
34. Now the earning of petitioner is concerned, PW-4
has deposed in his chief examination that he was working
as astrologer and also doing agriculture work and she
was earning a sum of Rs.45,000/- p.m., but there is no
any documentary evidence to showing as the petitioner
was earning a sum of Rs.45,000/-. Under such
circumstance, admittedly the accident was occurred in the
year 2015. In the absence of documentary evidence
regarding income of deceased, such circumstance, this
tribunal inclines towards notional income of deceased.
Thus, in the year 2015 the scenario of income in the
society of a person who is worked on his either own skill
or Art or by under any mode, that person getting the
minimum income sum of Rs.7,000/-P.M. Therefore, this
Tribunal has come to conclusion that deceased was
earning a sum of Rs.7,000/-p.m. As such, On Looking to
medical evidence and nature of injury sustained by the
(SCCH-15) 38
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
petitioner, the Tribunal opines that petitioner was under
bed rest for a period of 1 month and lost his earning in the
said 1 month. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.7,000x1= 7,000/- towards loss of past
1 months earning and Loss of future earning can be
calculated as Rs.7,000x12x9x2%100 = 15,120/-which can
be consider sum of Rs.16,000/-.
36. Thus, petitioner of MVC No.3179/2015 is entitled
for just and reasonable compensation as follows:
Pain and Sufferings Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of past earnings
7,000x1=7,000/- Rs. 7,000/-
Medical Expenditure Rs. 52,000/-
Future Medical Expenditure Rs. Nil
Loss of Future Income Rs. 16,000/-
(7,000x12x9x2%100)
Towards diet and conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/-
-----------------------
Total: Rs.1,05,000/-
The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of payment. Under
(SCCH-15) 39
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
these reasons, I answer issue No.2 of M.V.C.No.3177,
3178 and 3179/2015 in the affirmative.
LIABILITY
37. There is no dispute about respondent No.2 is
owner and respondent No.1 is insurer of Innova Car
KA02/AC-5586, at the same, there is no dispute about
respondent No.4 is owner and respondent No.3 is insurer
of Lorry bearing Regd. No. RJ-14/GB-5027, As such, the
accident was occurred and G.Maruthi S/o. Gaddappa was
died and respective petitioner of MVC No.3177, 3178 and
3179/2015 are sustained injuries due to negligent driving
by the driver of Innova Car KA02/AC-5586 and driver of
Lorry bearing Regd. No.RJ-14/GB-5027 and in their 50:50
contributor negligent driving the accident was occurred.
Therefore, 2 and 4th respondents have vicariously and
respondent No.1 and 3rd contractually 50:50 liable to pay
the compensation to the petitioners of all the petitions.
Further, the Respondent No.1 and 3 have taken contention
that the both driver of said Innova car and lorry not
holding affective D.L., the say of Respondent No.1 and 3
are not acceptable one, because of, firstly in the Police
(SCCH-15) 40
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015
records there is no recital regarding driver of both vehicle
have not holding the D.L. at the time of accident, secondly,
the Resp.No.1 and 3 are not produced any material place
before court to showing that, said driver of both vehicle
were not holding effective D.L. at the time of accident.
Hence, respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation as calculated in the above table with
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
Therefore, I answer issue No.3 in the affirmative.
38. Issue No.3 in MVC.3176, 3177, 3178 and
3179/2015: from the above discussions, this Tribunal
proceeds to pass the following order.
ORDER
The Petitions are MVC. No.3176/2015, 3177/2015, 3178/2015 and 3179/2015 under Section 166 of MV Act filed by respective petitioner against the Respondent No.1 to 4 are hereby allowed in part with costs.
The respondent No.1 and 3 are liable of 50:50 each to pay Rs.8,56,000/- to the petitioners in MVC.No.3176/2015 and (SCCH-15) 41 MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015 Rs.2,68,000/- to the petitioner in MVC.No.3177/2015, Further sum of Rs.2,45,600/- to the petitioner of MVC No.3178/2015 and further sum of Rs.1,05,000/- to the petitioner of MVC No.3179/2015 with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
Hereby directed Respondent No.1 and 3to deposit the 50:50 compensation amount before the court within one month from the date of Award.
The petitioners No.1 to 4 in MVC No.3176/2015 are entitled to share as 40:15:30:15 in the compensation amount;
After deposit the entire compensation amount in all petitions, in that, 40% shall be released in favour respective petitioners through account payee cheque with proper identification. The Balance amount of 60% and interest shall be deposited in the name respective petitioners in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of 3 years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/- each case;
Draw award accordingly.
(SCCH-15) 42MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015 Office is directed to keep the original copy of the Judgment in MVC No.3176/2015 and the copy thereof keep in MVC No.3177/2015, 3178/2015 and 3179/2015. (I have personally typed on the my Lap-top, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in open court of this 16th day of August 2016) (RAJANNA SANKANNAVAR) XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
PW1: Shobha PW2: P.Sahankar Rao Shastri PW3: Shakunthala Shasthri PW4: Parasuram Babji Waster PW5: Dr.S.Shashikanth
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
RW1: Shankar RW2: R.Vijayalakshmi
LIST OF DOCUMENTS Marked ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : FIR with report
Ex.P.3 : Spot panchanama
Ex.P.4 : Seizure panchanama
Ex.P.5 : Spot sketch
Ex.P.6 : PM report
Ex.P.7 : Inquest report
Ex.P.8 : IMV
Ex.P.9 : Charge sheet
Ex.P.10 : College certificate
Ex.P.11 : Voter ID
Ex.P.12 : Ration card
Ex.P.13 : Wound certificate
Ex.P.14 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.15 : Medical bills (13 in nos.)
(SCCH-15) 43
MVC. 3176, 3177, 3178 & 3179/2015 Ex.P.16 : Wound certificate Ex.P.17 : Discharge summary Ex.P.18 : Medical bills(7 in nos.) Ex.P.19 : X-ray (7 in nos.) Ex.P.20 : Wound certificate Ex.P.21 : Discharge summary Ex.P.22 : Medical bills Ex.P.23 : IP receipt Ex.P.24 : MLC extract Ex.P.25 : MLC intimation Ex.P.26 : X-ray (2 in nos.) Ex.P.27 : 3 CT scan films Ex.P.28 : Disability assessment sheets Ex.P.29 : IP receipt Ex.P.30 : X-ray (2 in nos.) Ex.P.31 : MLC extract Ex.P.32 : MLC intimation Ex.P.33 : Disability assessment sheets Ex.P.34 : IP record Ex.P.35 : X-ray & MRI scan film Ex.P.36 : MLC extract Ex.P.37 : MLC intimation Ex.P.38 : Disability assessment sheets LIST OF DOCUMENTS Marked ON BEHALF OF Respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Policy (Rajanna Sankannanavar) XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge & Member MACT, Bengaluru.