Bangalore District Court
Sri. C.N. Srinivasaiah @ Sreenivas vs United India Insurance Co on 28 December, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
(SCCH-11)
DATED THIS 28th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015
PRESENT: SRI. GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI, B.A,LL.B(SPL).
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM
M.V.C No.4161/2014
PETITIONER: Sri. C.N. Srinivasaiah @ Sreenivas,
S/o Murinarasimhaiah,
Aged about 62 Years,
No.174, Doddakrishnappa,
Badavane, Near Sun Rise School,
Nagasettyhalli,
Bangalore-560 094.
(By pleader - Sri. T.G.H )
- V/S -
RESPONDENTS: 1. United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
By its Manager, No.112, 1st Floor,
80 ft. Road, Near Canara Bank,
Sanjaynagar, Ashwathnagar Bus Stop,
Bangalore-560 094.
(By pleader - Sri. K.S.R)
2. Mr. M. Anjan Kumar,
S/o. K. Munirama,
No.24, Chetana,
Lottegollahalli, RMV 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 094.
(Exparte)
SCCH-11 2 MVC 4161/2014
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has filed this claim petition against the respondents claiming the compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.
2) It is averred that, on 12.2.2014 at about 8:00pm, petitioner was returning to his home at Devinagar, Bangalore after finishing his work and was crossing the Hebbal Ring Road at Devinagar Cross from south to north direction. At that time, the driver of Toyotta Innova car bearing No.KA-04-MC-6739 has driven the said vehicle from BEL Circle towards Chandrappa Layout Circle from west to east direction on Hebbal Ring Road and dashed to the petitioner. Due to said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries to his head and left leg. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted by the driver of said vehicle to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital Bangalore and after first aid treatment, as per directions of doctors, he shifted the petitioner to NIMHANS Hospital Bangalore and left the petitioner and absconded. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Victoria hospital, Bangalore wherein he was admitted as inpatient from 13.2.2014 to 15.3.2014 wherein petitioner was diagnosed and confirmed that, he has sustained Type II open fracture to SCCH-11 3 MVC 4161/2014 both legs to lower 1/3rd and other injuries. The petitioner has undergone CREF on 13.2.2014 and after discharge, petitioner has taken regular follow up treatment on OPD basis on every Wednesday and alternative Saturday. Petitioner has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards hospital charges, medicines, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges etc.
3) prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and he was aged about 62 years at the time of accident and he was working as painter and earning Rs.500/- per day. Due to the accidental injuries, petitioner could not attend to his work and lost his income during the period of treatment and future earning capacity. Due to the accidental injuries, he is getting often headache and giddiness and due to fracture of both bones of left leg, petitioner is unable to sit, squat, sit cross legged, stand for long period, walk for long distance, climb stairs, use Indian toilet. Petitioner has undergone tremendous shock, pain, mental agony etc and he has suffered permanent disability affecting his amenities in life. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle and jurisdictional police have registered case against the driver of offending vehicle in Cr.No.22/2014 for the offences punishable under section 279,337 of IPC and section 134 (a)(b) of Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of offending vehicle has left SCCH-11 4 MVC 4161/2014 the petitioner at NIMHANS Hospital and absconded and thereafter, family members of petitioner got information about the accident to the petitioner belatedly and thereafter, they were busy in providing treatment to the petitioner and for that reasons, there is delay of two days in lodging complaint before jurisdictional police which is due for bonafide reasons. Hence, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest and costs.
4) Though, notice is served upon the respondent No.2, he has not appeared and contested the claim petition. Hence, the respondent No.2 has been placed exparte.
5) The respondent No. 1 has filed written statement and denied the contents of claim petition. It is admitted that, offending vehicle bearing No.KA-04-MC-6739 was insured with respondent No.1. the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant, arbitrary, unreasonable and without any legal basis. There is no cause of action and alleged one is false. The respondent No1 may be permitted to filed additional written statement after receiving more information regarding alleged accident and other facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent No.1 may be permitted to contest the claim petition SCCH-11 5 MVC 4161/2014 under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act if respondent No.2 fails to co- operate with respondent No.1. If this tribunal passes an award in favour of petitioner, the rate of interest may be restricted to 6% per annum as per decision of Hon'ble High Court in Geetha's case reported in ILR 1987KAR 142. The accident has taken place due to negligence on the part of the petitioner who was crossing the road where there is no zebra lines or police signal and he has mainly contributed for the accident. The driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and said vehicle was not having fitness certificate and valid permit as on the date of the accident and respondent No.2 has violated terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The insured vehicle has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident at the instance of the petitioner and there is delay of two days in lodging the complaint which clearly establishes that, insured vehicle has been falsely implicated. The jurisdictional police have not intimated regarding alleged accident to either to the jurisdictional tribunal or insurer as required under section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act and insured has not intimated to the respondent No.1 as required under section 134(c) of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of claim petition with costs.
SCCH-11 6 MVC 4161/2014
6) Petitioner himself examined as PW1 and also examined Dr.Ramachandra S/o Subba Setty as PW2 and got marked ExP.1 to 16 and closed the evidence. The respondent No.1 has examined Sri.Chandrashekhar.B S/o Byrappa as RW1 and closed the evidence.
7) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No1 and perused the evidence on record.
8) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed:
1. Whether petitioner proves that, he sustained grievous injuries due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle bearing No.KA-
04-MC-6739 on 12.2.2014 at about 8:00pm at Devinagar Cross, Hebbal Ring Road, Bengaluru when he was returning to his house after finishing work?
2. Whether respondent No.1 proves that, as on the date of the accident, the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and respondent No.2 violated terms and conditions of insurance policy?
3. Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom? SCCH-11 7 MVC 4161/2014
4. What order or award?
9) My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 Affirmative;
Issue No.2 Negative;
Issue No.3 Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is
entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,41,284/- with interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till complete
realisation, from respondent No.1.
Issue No.4 As per final order, for the following :
-:REASONS:-
10) Issue No.1: PW1 has stated in his evidence that, on
12.2.2014 at about 8:00pm, he was returning to his home at Devinagar, Bangalore and crossing Hebbal Ring Road at Devinagar Cross from south to north direction. He has also stated that, at that time, the driver of offending vehicle bearing No.KA-04-MC-6739 has driven the said vehicle from west to east direction in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed from BEL Circle towards Bhadrappa Layout Circle and dashed to him. He has stated that, due to said impact, he has sustained grievous injuries and accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle and jurisdictional SCCH-11 8 MVC 4161/2014 police have registered the case against the driver of offending vehicle in Cr.No.22/2014 for the offences punishable under section 279,337 of IPC and section 134(a)(b) R/W.187 of Motor Vehicles Act.
11) In the cross examination of PW1, he has stated that, on 12.1.2014, he was alone at the time of the accident. He has admitted that, there is no zebra line at the place of accident and he has not filed complaint to the police. He has stated that, he had seen Innova car at the distance of 10 feet and front portion of Innova car dashed to him and he was half conscious after the accident. He has denied the suggestion that, he is deposing falsely stating that, driver absconded from hospital and for that reasons, he could not file complaint immediately and he has filed afterthought complaint after two days against the driver of car and filed false claim petition. He has also denied the suggestion that, the accident has taken place due to his negligence as he tried to cross the road without observing movement of vehicles on the road and without following traffic rules and offending vehicle is noway concerned to the accident.
12) RW1 has stated in his evidence that, on 12.2.2014 at about 8:30pm to 8:40pm, he was driving Innova car bearing No.KA-04-MC-6739 on Hebbal Ring Road towards Goraguntepalya and there is no zebra cross SCCH-11 9 MVC 4161/2014 or police signal at the said place and petitioner suddenly came across the road by which he has sustained injuries. He has stated that, accident has taken place due to negligence of the petitioner and he is having driving licence to drive Innova vehicle.
13) In the cross examination of RW1, he has admitted that, he has not filed complaint to the police against the petitioner and he has not challenged charge sheet before competent forum. He has denied the suggestion that, since accident has taken place due to his negligence, for that reasons, he has not filed any complaint.
14) Petitioner has produced true copy of FIR and complaint which are marked as ExP.1 and 2 and as per said documents, on 12.2.2014 at about 8:00pm, when petitioner was crossing Hebbal Ring Road, near Devinagar cross from south to north direction, at that time, driver of Innova car bearing No.KA-04-MC-6739 has driven the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner endangering human life with high speed and dashed to the petitioner. The alleged accident has taken place on 12.2.2014 at about 8:00pm and FIR is registered on 14.2.2014 at about 2:00pm and there is delay of two days in lodging the complaint and in the complaint filed by son of petitioner, he has stated that, driver of offending vehicle SCCH-11 10 MVC 4161/2014 admitted the petitioner to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital wherein first aid treatment was given and thereafter, driver of said vehicle brought the petitioner to Victoria Hospital Bangalore and from there, he admitted petitioner to NIMHANS Hospital Bangalore and admitted the petitioner to the said hospital and thereafter, he absconded and for that reasons, complaint has been filed belatedly. Petitioner has produced true copy of panchanama and hand sketch map which are marked as ExP.3 and 5 and as per said documents, petitioner was crossing Hebbal Ring Road from south to North direction and when he reached edge of road at Devinagar Cross, at that time, driver offending vehicle came from west to east direction towards Chandrappa Layout Circle and dashed to the petitioner. Petitioner has produced true copy of wound certificate wound issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore and as per said document, injury No1 is grievous in nature and injury No2 and 3 are simple in nature. Petitioner has also produced true copy of motor vehicle inspection report which is marked as ExP.6 and as per said document, front bumper scratched to offending vehicle and brake system of said vehicle was in order and accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects. Petitioner has produced certified copy of charge sheet which is marked as ExP.7 and as per said document, the police have filed charge sheet against the SCCH-11 11 MVC 4161/2014 driver of offending vehicle for the offences punishable under section 279, 338 of IPC and section 134(b) of Motor Vehicles Act.
15) On perusal of oral evidence of PW1 and RW1 and documentary evidence on record, it discloses that, the accident has taken place on 12.2.2014 at about 8:00pm and this fact is admitted by RW1 in his evidence who has stated that, on 12.2.2014 at about 8:30pm to 8:40pm, he was driving Innova car bearing No.KA-04-MC-6739 on Hebbal Ring Road towards Goraguntepalya and there is no zebra cross or police signal at the said place and petitioner suddenly came across the road by which he has sustained injuries. This evidence on record goes to show that, the offending vehicle has been involved in the accident which cannot be ruled out. Even he has also admitted in chief examination that, he has taken petitioner to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital and from there, he has taken petitioner to NIMHANS Hospital and went to his work. This goes to show that, driver of offending vehicle went away after admitting the petitioner to NIMHANS Hospital and after coming to know about admission of his father, son of petitioner has filed complaint to the police station on 14.2.2014 at about 2:00pm and delay has been explained in the complaint and delay is not a ground to reject the claim petition as held in the decision of Honble Supreme Court reported in Ravi V/s Badrinarayan SCCH-11 12 MVC 4161/2014 2009 ACJ 911. on perusal of police documents and oral evidence of PW1 and RW1, they reveal that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle. So I answered issue No1 in the affirmative.
16) Issue No.2: respondent No1 has taken contention that, as on the date of the accident, driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and respondent No.2 has violated terms and conditions of insurance policy. But this contention of respondent No.1 is not acceptable. Because, police have registered the case against the driver of offending vehicle and after investigation, they have filed against him for the offences punishable under section 279, 338 of IPC and section 134(b) of Motor Vehicles Act and they have not filed under section 3 R/W.S.181 of Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent No.1 has not placed any materials on record to show that, as on the date of the accident, driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and it has not adduced evidence of licensing authority. In the absence of any materials on record, I hold that, contention taken by the respondent No.1 is not acceptable. So I answer issue No2 in the negative.
SCCH-11 13 MVC 4161/2014
17) ISSUE NO.3: PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, he sustained open fracture left leg - tibia exposed, lower third, lacerated wound 10x4 cms left lower third interior aspect, lacerated wound cover vertex 1 x 2 cms. and another lacerated measuring 2 x 1 cms. abrasion over right fore head. He has also stated that, he was admitted to the M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore when the first aid treatment was given and after he was shifted to NIMHANS hospital, Bangalore and then he was shifted to Victoria hospital, Bangalore wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 13.02.2014 to 15.03.2014. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has admitted that, he has not produced medical bills of Rs.1,00,000/-, he has produced medical bills, which are available with him and medical expenses are borne by him. The petitioner has produced 30 medical bills, which are marked as Ex.P.11 and some other medical bills are marked as Ex.P.13 and as per the said documents, the petitioner has spent Rs.54,463.66ps. So, I hold that, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.54,464/- under the head of Medical Expenses.
18) Petitioner has produced discharge summary issued by Victoria hospital and as per the said document, he was admitted in the said hospital on 13.12.2014 and discharged on 15.12.2014. He has totally admitted in the said hospital for 3 days. He was also taken treatment in the M.S. Ramaiah Hospital for one day. The petitioner was totally SCCH-11 14 MVC 4161/2014 admitted in the hospital for four days. During the period of hospitalisation, the petitioner would have spent some amount towards food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges and his family members who attended him would have also spent some amount towards food and other incidental charges. Considering the period of hospitalization and cost of living, I feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs.5,000/- under the head of food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. Hence, petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- under the head of food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges.
19) The petitioner was admitted in the hospital for the period of 4 days and during the period of hospitalization, he would have lost some income and his family members who attended her would have also lost some income. Considering the income and avocation of the petitioner, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of 5,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period.
20) As per the evidence of PW.1, he sustained open fracture left leg - tibia exposed, lower third, lacerated wound 10x4 cms left lower third interior aspect, lacerated wound cover vertex 1 x 2 cms. and another lacerated measuring 2 x 1 cms. abrasion over right fore head. He SCCH-11 15 MVC 4161/2014 has stated that, he has sustained type II open fracture both bones left leg lower 1/3rd and other injuries and closed reduction and external fixator on 13.02.2014 and he has also taken follow-up treatment in OPD on every Wednesday and alternative Saturday. He has also stated that, due to the accidental injuries, he is suffering from headache and giddiness and he unable to unable to sit, squat, sit cross legged, stand for long period, walk long distance, climb stairs, use Indian toilet and he has suffered permanent disability. As per the evidence of PW.2, on 09.09.2015, he examined the petitioner and petitioner ahs difficulty to stand on left leg, to walk on the plain surface, always limps and walker and walks with the support of the walker and walks slowly and to walk on the slope, to sit cross legged, squat on the floor, climb on the stairs and kneel. He has also stated that, petitioner has restriction of range of movements at 23% and he has also loss of muscle power and he has suffered whole body disability at 19% and 38.2 to the left lower limb. Due to the accidental injuries, petitioner has to undergo deep pain and suffering and he has suffered physically throughout her life and he unable to do his routine activities due to the accidental injuries. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of pain and agony. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the said head. SCCH-11 16 MVC 4161/2014
21) The petitioner has difficulty to stand on left leg, to walk on the plain surface, always limps and walker and walks with the support of the walker and walks slowly and to walk on the slope, to sit cross legged, squat on the floor, climb on the stairs and kneel as per the evidence of PW.2. Even as per the evidence of doctor, petitioner has restriction of movement and loss of muscle power and he has suffered whole body disability. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner is unable to enjoy amenities in life as earlier and he has to depend upon others for his daily routine activities. He has suffered physically and mentally. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the said head.
22) As per the evidence of PW.1, prior to the accident, he was working as Painter and he was aged about 62 years amendment earning Rs.500/- per day. In the cross-examination of PW.2, he has admitted that, he has not produced documents to show that, he was earning Rs.500/- per day. As the the evidence of PW.2, petitioner has suffered 38.2% disability to the left lower limb and 19% to the whole body. In the cross-examination of PW.2, he has admitted that, he has not treated the SCCH-11 17 MVC 4161/2014 petitioner personally and he has no personal knowledge about the accident and he has not issued wound certificate to the petitioner. He has stated that, he has conducted clinical examination and X-ray and he has not seen the follow-up records. He has admitted that, health condition of the petitioner has been improved periodically. As per the evidence of PW.2, petitioner has suffered whole body disability at 18%. Since petitioner is aged about 62 years as per the medical records, the multiplier applicable to the facts of the case is '7' as per the decision of AIR 2009 SC 3104 (Sarla Verma). As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Rajesh and others V/s Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403, there shall be any addition towards future prospectus after the age of 60 years. Hence there cannot be any addition to the future prospectus as such petitioner is aged about 62 years. If notional income of the petitioner is taken at Rs.5,000/-, there shall not be any deduction towards personal expenses as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Rajkumar V/s Ajaykumar, 2013 ACJ page No.1. Then loss of income will be as under:
Rs.5,000x12x19x7/100=79,800/-.
So I hold that, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.79,800/- under the head of loss of income. SCCH-11 18 MVC 4161/2014
23) On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.2, petitioner has to undergo one more operation for correction of partial non-union of left tibia by bone grafting. But, he has not produced cost of removal of implants. On perusal of the recent X-ray, which is marked as Ex.P.15, the implants are in situ and petitioner needs one more surgery. Considering the cost of medical expenses, I feel it jut and proper to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of future medical expenses, which shall not carry any interest. So, I hold that, petitioner is entitled for any compensation under the head of Future Medical expenses.
24) The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that, petitioner was crossing the road, even there is not police signal or zebra line and the accident taken place due to his negligence and there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. He has submitted that, due to the contributory negligence of the petitioner, this accident taken place. He has relied upon the decision of Koosappa Poojari V/s K. Sadabba and others, ILR 2004 KARNATAKA 1104, in which is held that, petitioner is crossing roadway at any place other than which is meant for prdestrain crossing, he cannot claim any specific precedence and the responsibility for causing the accident and he has to share the negligence SCCH-11 19 MVC 4161/2014 along with the driver. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
Moreover whenever a pedestrian is crossing over a roadway at any place other than which is meant for pedestrian crossing, they cannot claim any specific precedence and the responsibility for causing the accident more often than not will have to be shared by the pedestrian along with the vehicle driver. In view of this, it cannot be said that it was only the driver of the vehicle in question who was solely responsible for the accident. It has also to be noted that, there is no evidence forthcoming to show that it was the pedestrian crossing or whether there were any zebra crossing. In view of the fact that the claimant had crossed the road where he was not supported to cross certain degree of contributory negligence will have to be attributed to him.
In the said decision, Hon'ble High Court has referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Pramod Kumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri V/s Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and others, 2002 (6) SCC 455, wherein it is held that, A finding of contributory negligence turns on a factual investigation whether the plaintiff contributed to his or her own loss by failing to take reasonable care of his or her person or property. What is reasonable care depends on the circumstances of the case. In many cases, it may be proper for a plaintiff to rely on the defendant to perform its duty. But there is no absolute rule. The duties and responsibilities of the defendant are a variable factor in determining whether contributory negligence exists and, if so, to what degree. In some cases, the nature of the duty owed may exculpate the plaintiff from a claim of contributory negligence, in other cases, the nature SCCH-11 20 MVC 4161/2014 of the duty may reduce the plaintiff's share of responsibility for the damage suffered.
In this case also, the petitioner was crossing the road negligently without observing movement of the vehicle at the place, which is not pedestrian crossing and he has also contributed negligence to some extent which is also caused for the accident. So, I feel it just and proper to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner to the extent of 10% and awarded the compensation to the petitioner.
After deducting, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.71,820/- under the head of loss of income.
25) Petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads which is calculated as under:
1) Towards Medical expenses Rs. 54,464/-
2) Towards food, Conveyance, Rs. 5,000/-
nourishment and attendant
3) Towards loss of income Rs. 5,000/-
during laid up period
4) Towards loss of pain & agony Rs. 40,000/-
5) Towards loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/-
6) Towards loss of income Rs. 71,820/-
7) Future Medical Expenses Rs. 25,000/-
TOTAL Rs.2,41,284/-
SCCH-11 21 MVC 4161/2014
26) Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the
owner of the offending vehicle and as on the date of accident, the insurance policy was inforce as on the date of accident. So, the respondent No.1 is liable to indemnify the respondent No.2. So I hold that petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,41,284/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition from respondent No.1, till complete realisation. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.2 partly affirmative.
27) ISSUE No.3: In view of answers to issues No.1 & 2, I proceeding to pass the following:
O R D E R The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,41,284/- (after deducting 10% towards contributory negligence) along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation from respondent No.1. (future medical expenses shall not carry any interest).
The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to deposit the entire amount with accrued interest, within one month, from the date of this award.SCCH-11 22 MVC 4161/2014
In case of deposit of the awarded compensation by the respondent No.1, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited in F.D in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for the period of 5 years, failing to furnish the particulars, the same shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bangalore.
Remaining amount of Rs.1,41,284/- shall be released to the petitioner through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 28th day of December, 2015.) (GANAPATHI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM A N N E X U R E WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER:
PW.1 - Srinivasaiah @ Srinivas
PW.2 - Dr. S. Ramachandra
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 - True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 - True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 - True copy of Panchanama
SCCH-11 23 MVC 4161/2014
Ex.P.4 - True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P.5 - True copy of Hand sketch map
Ex.P.6 - True copy of IMV report
Ex.P.7 - True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.8 - True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P.9- Discharge summary
Ex.P.10- Transfer out form
Ex.P.11- 30 Medical bills
Ex.P.12- OPD card
Ex.P.13- One Medical bill
Ex.P.14- OPD card
Ex.P.15- One x-ray
Ex.P.16- Inpatient record
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 Chandrashekar .B.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS :
- NIL -
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM