Bangalore District Court
Shri Gangadhara S vs Shri Selvaraj S on 19 March, 2016
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., LL.B.,
XII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
Dated this the 19th day of March 2016
M.V.C.No.3500/2015
Petitioner Shri Gangadhara S.,
Son of Siddagangaiah,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at No.E47/1,
Shrigandhad Kaval,
Sallapuradamma Layout,
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru-560 091.
(Shri Lakshman Gowda, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents 1. Shri Selvaraj S.,
Son of Seliamuthu,
Residing at No.1/174, Mettusalai,
Periya Ayyam Palayam
Nallipalayam P.,
Namakkal Taluk,
Namakkal District,
Tamilnadu-637 003.
(RC owner of the Multi Axle Goods
Lorry bearing registration No.TN-
28-BB-8078)
(Exparte)
2 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015
2. The National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office, No.144,
Shubharam Complex,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru.
(I.P.
No.651300/31/14/6300017163
valid from 12.2.2015 to 11.2.2016)
(Shri M.Ramesh, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the damages of the vehicle bearing No.KA-19-D-2187 in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the claim petition are as under:
The petitioner being said to be the owner of the car bearing No.KA-19-D-2187 in his claim petition has alleged that, he is the RC owner of the Goods Carrying Vehicle Appe Auto bearing registration No.KA-19-D-2187. On 21.6.2015 around 10.00 p.m. at Tumkur to Bengaluru road (NH-4), near Madavara Village he was 3 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 parked the vehicle on the right side to patch the puncture of tyre, after that he was about to proceed towards Bengaluru, the driver of the Multi Axle Goods Lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-BB-87078 to take service road has drove the same in a reverse direction with reckless, rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against his vehicle. Due to the said impact his vehicle badly damaged. So, he was shifted the Goods Carrying vehicle APPE Auto to ACETEC Motors Private Limited at Peenya II Stage, Bengaluru for repair and the repairer was estimated the damage cost of Rs.1,26,739/- for replacing the damaged parts and the said repair charges is equal to cost of damaged vehicle. Hence, he could not repair the damaged vehicle. Thereby, he has incurred a sum of Rs.10,000/- for shifting of the said damaged vehicle to work shop from the place of accident and at the time of purchase of the said vehicle he had paid life time road 4 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 tax of Rs.42,000/-. The accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Goods Lorry bearing No.TN-28-BB-8078. Thereby, Madanayakanahalli Traffic police have registered the case against the offending vehicle driver, in their police station crime No.322/2015 for the offences punishable U/s. 279, 337 of IPC. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and prays for allow the claim petition.
3. In response of the notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear nor file his written statement, as he was placed exparte.
4.The respondent No.2 has appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement in which has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law or on facts and he has admitted about the issuance of the policy infavour of the first 5 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 respondent and its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The first respondent being the owner of the vehicle has entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not holding valid and effective driving license. So, the first respondent being the owner has contravened the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, he is not liable to pay the compensation and either the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory provisions u/s 134(c) and 158(6) of the M.V. Act in furnishing the better particulars and he has denied that the petitioner was about to proceed towards Bengaluru after patching the puncture of the tyre, the driver of the offending vehicle has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and took the vehicle in a reverse direction and dashed against the petitioner vehicle, due to the said impact, the petitioner vehicle was fully damaged and he was shifted for repair and estimated for Rs.1,26,739/- and he has also spent 6 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 Rs.10,000/- for shifting the damaged vehicle to ACETEC Motors Private Limited from the place of accident and he has alleged that there is one day delay in lodging the complaint reflects that the petitioner has falsely implicated the vehicle in order to get the compensation and policy was valid from 12.2.2015 to 11.2.2106 and he has denied the averments made in column Nos. 3 to 7, 8,9 and 21 of the claim petition and prays for reject the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he his vehicle bearing registration No.KA-
19-D-2187 was damaged in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.6.2015, at about 10.00 p.m. at Tumkur to Bengaluru road (NH-4) near Madavara Vilalge, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Tq. Bengaluru District on account of rash and negligent driving 7 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 of the Multi Axle Goods Lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-BB-8078 causing loss to the petitioner?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order?
6. The petitioner in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and he has not examined any witness on his behalf. The respondent No.2 has not examined any witness nor marked any documents in its favour.
7. Heard arguments on both side.
8. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Affirmative
Issue No.3: Partly Affirmative
8 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015
Issue No.4: As per the final order
for the following.
REASONS
9. Issue No.1:
The petitioner being said to be the owner of the Goods Carrying Vehicle Appe Auto bearing registration No.KA-19-D-2187 has approached the court on the ground that on 21.6.2015 around 10.00 p.m. he was parked the vehicle at Tumkur -Bengaluru Raod, near Madavara Village, to patch the puncture of the tyre, the driver of the offending vehicle has drove the same without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against his auto. Due to the said impact, his auto was badly damaged and got shifted the auto to ACETEC Motors Private Limitted at Peenya II stage, Bengaluru and estimated the damages of Rs.1,26,739/-. So, he did not repair the damaged vehicle as the said repair is more than the cost of the new vehicle and he 9 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 has also incurred an amount of Rs.10,000/- for shifting the said damaged vehicle to workshop from the place of accident and at the time of purchasing the said damaged vehicle he has paid life time road tax of Rs.42,000/-. Thereby the petitioner has filed the instant claim petition against the respondent.
10.Initially this case was pending before the Hon'ble Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in view of the orders dated 5.3.2015 this case has been transferred to this Tribunal.
11. The petitioner in order to prove his case has filed his affidavit as his chief-examination as PW1, in which has stated that on 21.6.2015 around 10.00 p.m. he was parked the Goods Carrying Vehicle Appe Auto bearing registration No.KA-19-D-2187 in front of Nadigar College, near Madavara Village, i.e., on Tumkur- Bengaluru Road, to patch the puncture of the tyre, the driver of the offending vehicle was came in a reverse 10 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 direction without giving any signal to the back side of the vehicle to enter the service road, without observing the traffic rules and regulations drove the same with reckless, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Goods Carrying vehicle. Due to the said impact his vehicle was fully damaged. So, immediately he was shifted to ACETEC Motors Private Limited, Peenya II stage, Bengaluru for repair, wherein repair was estimated for Rs.1,26,739/- including replacing the damaged parts and the said repair charges is more than the cost of new vehicle, so he did not repair the said damaged vehicle and he has incurred Rs.10,000/- for shifting the damaged vehicle to work shop from the place of accident and at the time of purchase of the said damaged vehicle, he has paid the life time road tax of Rs.42,000/- and now the vehicle is laying in front of his house without using. The accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Multi Axle 11 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 Goods Lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-BB-8078. Thereby Madanayakanahalli Police have registered the case against the offending vehicle driver, in their police station crime No.322/2015 for the offences punishable U/s. 279 and 337 of IPC. The PW1 in his cross- examination has admitted that his vehicle is 2011 model and he has purchased the said vehicle at the cost of Rs.1,25,000/-, but he has not having sale receipt and he has denied that the new vehicle cost is of Rs.1,40,000/- only and his vehicle was damaged only outer parts and not inner parts and IMV report reflects only front portion and door was damaged and he has denied that he has obtained estimation of the higher cost and estimation cost includes shock observes, switches and wheel assembly, which are not damaged in the accident and the vehicle is not repaired only with an intention to get more compensation and he has filed the false petition and has admitted that he has parked the vehicle in NH-4 road 12 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 and denied that there is a service road near the place of accident and there was no signal lights when he was parking the vehicle and the accident was occurred on his own negligence and it was not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver.
12. The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. Ex.P1 is the first information report and complaint reflects that 21.6.2015 he was proceeding towards Bengaluru in his Appe Auto bearing registration No.KA19-D-2187 on Tumkur-Bengaluru road, when he was reached near Madavara village, his vehicle tyre was punctured, so he took the vehicle towards extreme left side of the road, after patching the punctured vehicle he was about to proceed towards Bengaluru, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-BB-8078 has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in order to proceeding towards service road in a reverse manner 13 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 and dashed against his vehicle at about 10.00 p.m. As a result, his vehicle was badly damaged. The accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. So, based on the information Madanayakanahalli police have registered the case against the offending vehicle driver in their police station Cr.No.322/2015 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The learned counsel for the respondent has cross-examined the PW1 nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Though he has suggested that the accident in question was taken place on account of his negligence, and it was not taken place on account of offending vehicle driver, for which he has denied the same. If at all, the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, nothing is prevented to the respondent to examine the driver of the offending vehicle to prove that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the 14 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 petitioner. But the reasons best known to the respondent has not taken any steps nor examined either the offending vehicle driver nor the witnesses who are cited in the charge sheet to prove that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. In the absence of the materials on record, Ex.P1 is clear that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. That is the reason why the respondent is not examined either the offending vehicle driver nor the witnesses who are cited in the charge sheet and moreover Ex.P1 is remained unchallenged. Ex.P2 is the panchanama clearly reflects that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. That is the reason why the petitioner vehicle was damaged.Ex.P3 is the IMV report in which it is clear about the damages which was caused by the offending vehicle driver to the 15 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 petitioner vehicle. ExP4 is the charge sheet filed by the I.O. clearly reflects that the I.O. after conducting the investigation found that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver and the petitioner vehicle was damaged, thereby he has charge sheeted against the offending vehicle driver. So, the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are coupled with the oral evidence of PW1. The respondent has not led any rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has proved his case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver, thereby his vehicle has been damaged. Hence, I am of the opinion that the issue No.1 and 2 are answered as Affirmative.
16 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015
13. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being the RC owner of the Appe Goods Carrying auto bearing No.KA-19-D-2187 in his evidence has clearly stated that on 21.6.2015 at about 10.00 p.m. after patching the puncture of the tyre he was about to proceed towards Bengaluru, the driver of the offending vehicle has took his lorry in a reverse and dashed against his vehicle. Due to the said impact, his vehicle has been damaged as stated below;
1)Front body shape fully damaged
2)Both front sedate of head light and circuit damaged, Wind screen glass broken
3)Driver door along with cabin damaged
4)Steering handle damaged
5)Rear body damaged and separated from Engine,
6)Steering wheel, steering unit and suspension all damaged 17 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015
7)Dash board and its unit all broken and damaged.
14.So, immediately he was shifted the said damaged Auto to ACETEC Motors Private Limited at Peenya II Stage, Bengaluru for repair, wherein repairer was estimated the cost of Rs.1,26,739/- including replacing the damaged parts and the said repair charge is more than the cost of new vehicle,. Thereby he did not repair the damaged vehicle and he has incurred Rs.10,000/- for shifting the said damaged vehicle to work shop from the place of accident and at the time of purchase he had paid life time road tax of Rs.42,000/-. Now, the vehicle is laying in front of his house. PW1 in his cross-examination has denied that if the vehicle was sold prior to the accident, sale cost would be only Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- but he has stated that new vehicle cost of Rs.1,40,000/- and he was purchased the said vehicle for Rs.1,25,000/- as the said vehicle is 2011 18 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 model and he has denied that the estimation including the shock observer, switches and wheel assembly which are not damaged in the accident and he took the estimation for the higher cost and he has admitted that road tax paid prior to the purchase. Ex.P5 is the notarized copy of the RC reflects that as on the date of alleged accident the petitioner was owner of the goods carrying vehicle transport auto bearing registration No.KA-19-D-2197. Ex.P6 is the driving license of the petitioner in which it is clear that the petitioner was holding driving license to drive the goods carrying vehicle Appe Auto. Ex.P7 is the estimate made by the ACETEC Motors Private Limited at Peenya II Stage, Bengaluru in which they have shown the total costs of repair of Rs.1,26,739/-. Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 are reflects that as on the date of alleged accident the vehicle was having F.C. and emission testing certificate. Ex.P11 reflects about the damage of the vehicle which belongs to the petitioner 19 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 21.6.2015. Ex.P8 is the Insurance Copy of the Goods Carrying Vehicle Appe Auto bearing No.KA-19-D-2187 and it was existence from 23.12.2014 to 22.12.2015.
15.The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the court attention on the judgement of the Hon'ble' High Court reported in ILR 2000 KAR 2009 in between Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs.George Ninum, which reads like thus;
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (CENTRAL ACT NO.59 OF 1988) - SECTION 168 - Claim petition of a person claiming to be the owner of the car, for compensation for repair of the car was allowed rejecting the contention of the KSRTC that claimant's ownership of the car and Special Damages are not proved - HELD - In the absence of any material to show that the claimant was the owner of the car, the claim petition itself was not maintainable - Mere producing of documents is not sufficient to prove Special Damages. Such documents have be proved. Mere production of document is not a proof of its contents.
20 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015
16.On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the said decision claimant being said to be the P.A. holder represented the claim petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act claiming damages of Rs.50,000/- which includes the expenditure incurred for the treatment of the driver of the car and the said claim petition was came to be allowed in partly. Thus, Karnataka State Road Transport has challenged the said award before the Hon'ble High Court on three grounds viz., that the claimant was not the owner of the said car, there was no negligence on the part of the KSRTC driver and the damages claimed are not proved. Thereby, their lordship held that the respondent has not produced any materials to show that he was the owner of the car as on the date of the alleged accident and he was not whisper regarding the actual expenditure incurred by the alleged owner and the respondent has not examined the Mechanic who repaired 21 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 the car. Thereby the said appeal was came to be allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal was set aside.
17. In the instant case, Ex.P5 is clearly reflects that as on the date of alleged accident the petitioner was the owner of the Auto. Even it is not the case of the respondent that as on the date of alleged accident the petitioner was not the owner of the auto. If that is so, the matter would have different. Ex.P5 is clearly reflects that the petitioner was the owner of the Goods Auto. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his vehicle was badly damaged. So, immediately he was shifted the said damaged auto to ACETEC Motors Private Limited and repair was estimated was Rs.1,26,739/- and the said repair charges is more than the costs of new vehicle. Thereby he did not repair the damaged vehicle. So, question of examining the person who repaired the vehicle which belongs to the petitioner does not arise and moreover the respondent has not disputed the 22 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 estimation produced by the petitioner, but he has suggested the PW1 that he has obtained estimation for higher cost. Except this suggestion he has not at all disputed the estimation produced by the petitioner. So, non-denial of the estimation by the respondent, question of proof of said document does not arise. Therefore, I do respect to the decision relied by the learned counsel for the respondent. But the facts and circumstances of the present case and the above decision are different.
18.The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the Court attention on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court reported in 2005 ACJ 1332 in between the Harkhu Bai and others Vs. Jiyaram and others reads like thus;
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 166 -
Claim application - Damage to property -
Estoppel - Truck 'B' was damaged in accident due to negligence of driver of truck 'A' -
23 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015Owner of truck 'B' received compensation in full and final settlement of his claim from his insurance company - Whether the owner of truck 'B' can claim compensation from insurance company of truck 'A' - Held: no.
19.On careful perusal of the said decision, in the said decision the petitioner being said to be the owner has filed the claim petition for seeking damages and in the said claim petition Tribunal has rejected the said claim on two grounds. Firstly no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle driver and secondly owner of the vehicle has received the claim amount from the Insurance Company. But the Tribunal finding reversed in appeal and held that driver of truck A was rash and negligent and responsible for the accident.
20.In the instant case the petitioner has proved through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash 24 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Therefore, I do respect to the decision relied by the learned counsel for the respondent but the facts and circumstances of the present case and above decision are different.
21.Ex.P7 is the estimation issued by the ACETEC Motors Private Limited in which it is clear that ACETEC Motors, estimated the damages of the vehicle of Rs.1,26,739/- and the petitioner in his evidence has clearly stated that he was shifted the vehicle to the work shop and incurred a sum of Rs.10,000/-. So, if the estimation and towing charges are taken into consideration it comes to Rs.1,36,739/- (Rupees one lakh thirty six thousand seven hundred and thirty nine only)
22.Admittedly though the petitioner has stated in his claim petition that he has paid life time road tax of Rs.42,000/-. But in his cross-examination has admitted 25 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 that prior to the purchase the vendor of the vehicle had paid the life time road tax. That itself goes to show that the petitioner has not paid the lifetime road tax of Rs.42,000/-. So, question of considering the said amount does not arise.
23.The respondent has not at all disputed the estimation on the ground that the petitioner has concocted the estimation and placed it before the court, but he has suggested the PW1 that he has obtained the estimation at higher cost only. Thus, this Court drawn its attention on the judgement of the Hon'ble High court passed in MFA No.5670/2006 in between the National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Sri H.S. Nagaraj and another. On careful perusal of the above said judgment, in the said judgment the insurance company has challenged the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the claimant has received the amount as surveyed by the surveyor as full and final settlement and he is not entitle 26 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 the balance amount and he cannot raise a claim at a later point of time. Since the claimant has admitted during his cross examination that the surveyor's report was true and correct, there was no scope for the Tribunal to award the balance amount. But his lordship held that it is not in serious dispute that the bill of the garage which was produced in evidence was not a concocted document. It presupposes that the appellant has spent the amount that was claimed as costs to the repair of the vehicle on account of the accident and the Tribunal cannot be said to be in error.
24. In the instant case the respondent ha snot disputed the estimation on the ground that the petitioner has concocted the estimation. Therefore, the principles laid down in the said judgement is applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for Rs.1,36,739/- as damages.
27 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015
25.The respondent No.2 in its written statement has admitted about the issuance of the policy in respect of the offending vehicle in favour of the first respondent and the policy was valid from 12.2.2015 to 11.2.2016. The accident was occurred on 21.6.2015. So, one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident, the policy was in existence.
26. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has taken up the contention that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. But the reasons best known to the respondent No.2 has not placed any materials on record nor examined any authority i.e., RTO or ARTO to show that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and Ex.P4 is the final report filed by the I.O., nowhere discloses that the offending vehicle driver was 28 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. If at all the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving licence the I.O., would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle driver for the offence punishable under Section 181 of MV Act. So on record there is no material to show that the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. So, one thing is clear from the oral and documentary evidence that as on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. Thus, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme 29 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 Court reported in 2012(5) KAR LJ 292 from the date of the claim petition till its realization. In the result, the issue No.3 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
27. Issue No.4:
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed, with costs. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,36,739/-
together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 8% 30 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015 p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, the entire amount shall be released to him by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of March 2016.
(P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Sri Gangadhara 4.2.2016 List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner: 31 SCCH-8 MVC 3500/2015
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR Ex.P2 True copy of spot mahazar Ex.P3 True copy of IMV report Ex.P4 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P5 Notarised copy of RC Ex.P6 Notarised copy of driving license Ex.P7 Estimation Ex.P8 Insurance policy Ex.P9 FC Ex.P10 Emission test certificate Ex.P11 Six photographs with CD
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
None List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Nil (P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.