Bangalore District Court
In Mvc.No.2044/2014 vs In All The Petitions on 27 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.(SCCH-18)
Dated this 27th day of October 2016.
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
PETITIONER IN MVC.No.2044/2014:
Sri.Raju
S/o.Sri.Kannan,
Aged 20 years, Occ:Auto driver,
R/at Harijana Colony,
Devarachikkanahalli,
Near Anjaneya Temple,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore.
PETITIONER IN MVCNo.2045/2014:
Smt.Selvi,
W/o.Sri.Sathya Murthy,
Aged 20 years,
R/at No.93/E, 46/1,
Ramakishnanagara, II Cross,
Iliyas Nagar, Sarakkigate,
J.P.Nagar 6th Phase,
Bangalore-78.
PETITIONER IN MVCNo.2046/2014 :
Kum.Divya.S
2 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
D/o.Sri.Sathya Murthy,
Aged 2 years,
Since minor reptd.by her father
& natural guardian
Sri.Sathya Murthy,
S/o.Murugesh,
Age:26 years, Occ:Coolie,
R/at No.93/E, 46/1,
Ramakishnanagara, II Cross,
Iliyas Nagar, Sarakkigate,
J.P.Nagar 6th Phase,
Bangalore-78.
(By Pleader Sri.SML)
/Vs/
RESPONDENTS IN ALL THE PETITIONS:
1. Smt.Latha.S
W/o.Sri.Sukumar,
No.703/4, 6th Cross, 3rd Block,
Below Syndicate Bank,
Koramangala,
Bangalore-34.
(By pleader Sri.GRS)
2. The Manager,
Unite India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.351, 1st Floor, Opp.Pai Electronics Ltd.,
Bilekahalli, Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru-76.
(By pleader Sri.KRS)
3 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed these respective claim petitions
in MVC.No.2044/2014, MVC.No.2045/2014 and MVC.2046/2014
against the respondents U/S.166 of M.V.Act for seeking
compensation of Rs.10,0000/- each, for the injuries sustained by
them in a motor vehicle accident.
2. All these petitions are arising out of the same accident,
hence, both the petitions are clubbed and taken together and
common evidence is adduced.
3. The brief facts of the petitions are as under:
On 31-1-2014, at about 3.45 p.m. the petitioner in
MVC.No.2044/2014 was driving the auto bearing registration
No.KA-05-AE-2257 and the petitioners in MVC.2045/2014 and
2046/2014 were traveling in the said auto as passengers and
when the said auto reached near Meenakshi mall junction, on
Bannerghata main road, at that time, the driver of the car
bearing registration No.KA-03-P-5608 drive the same in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the auto. Due to the
4 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
said impact, the driver of the auto and inmates of the auto were
sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. Thereafter, the
public gathered at the spot have shifted the injured /petitioners
to Apollo hospital, Bangalore, wherein they have taken first aid
and thereafter, the petitioner in MVC.No.2044/2014 was
shifted to Shekar hospital, Jayanagar, Bangalore, wherein, he
has taken treatment as an inpatient. Further the petitioner in
MVC.No.2045/2014 and 2046/2014 were shifted to Eastern
hospital, Jayanagar, Bengaluru and thereafter they were
shifted to St.John hospital, Bengaluru, wherein, they have taken
treatment as inpatients. After discharge from the hospital and
as per the advice of the doctor, all the petitioners have taken
follow-up treatment as outpatients and till today, they are taking
treatment as outpatients.
4. The contention of the petitioner in
MVC.No.2044/2014 is that, he was hale and healthy at the time
of accident, aged about 22 years, working as an auto driver and
earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. Further the contention of the
5 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
petitioner is that, he has sustained grievous injures in the
accident and due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered
permanent disablement and he is not in a position to work as he
was doing earlier to the accident and also he has suffered lot.
5. The contention of the petitioner in
MVC.No.2045/2014 is that, she was hale and healthy at the
time of accident, aged about 20 years, working as a coolie and
earning Rs.10,000/-p.m. Further the contention of the
petitioner is that, due to the accidental injuries, she has
suffered lot and she has suffered permanent disablement and
she is not in a position to work as she was doing earlier to the
accident.
6. The contention of the petitioner in
MVC.No.2046/2014 is that, she was hale and healthy at the time
of accident, aged about 2 years. Further the contention of the
petitioner is that, due to the accidental injuries, she has
suffered lot and she has suffered disablement.
6 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
7. The contention of all the petitioners is that, they
have spent huge amount towards medical expenses and other
incidental charges. The contention of the petitioners is that,
the respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending car and the
respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle and the policy
was in force as on the date of accident. The accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending car and as such, both the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
Contending the above facts, the petitioners have filed these
petitions seeking for compensation as stated above with interest
and cost.
8. In response to the petition notice, the respondent
No.1 and 2 have appeared before the court through their
respective counsel and filed the objection statement.
9. The brief contents of objection statement of
respondent No.1 is as under:
7 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
The respondent No.1 contended that the petitions filed by
the petitioners are not maintainable either in law or on facts.
Further the respondent No.1 has denied the part contents of
petition in toto. Further the respondent No.1 has contended
that, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence on
the part of the driver of the auto. Further the respondent No.1
has admitted that, she is the owner of the alleged car and the
said vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the
policy was in force as on the date of accident and as such, if this
court grants the compensation, then the respondent No.2
Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioners. Further she denied the age, occupation and income
of the petitioners and injuries sustained by them and
disablement suffered by them and medical expenses incurred by
them. Contending the above facts, she prays to dismiss the
petitions as against her with cost.
10. The brief contents of objection statement of
respondent No.2 is as under:
8 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
The respondent No.2 has contended that, the petitions
filed by the petitioners are bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties as the owner and insurer of vehicle bearing reg.No.KA-
01-C-7890, KA-05-AF-2257 and KA-51-8032 are not arrayed as
respondents in the petitions. Further the respondent No.2 has
admitted the issuance of policy to the alleged vehicle and the
liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned
in the policy. Further he contended that, as on the date of
accident, the driver of the alleged car was not having valid and
effective driving license to drive the said vehicle. Further he
contended that, alleged accident has occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the auto i.e. petitioner in
MVC.No.2044/2014. Further the respondent No.2 has denied
the age and income of the petitioners and injuries sustained by
them and disablement suffered by them and medical expenses
incurred by them. Further he contended that, the
compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and
it has no rational to the injuries. Contending the above facts,
9 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
the respondent No.2 prays to dismiss all the claim petitions as
against him with cost.
11. On the basis of above pleadings, the following common
issues were framed in all the cases:
1. Whether petitioner proves that the accident
that occurred on 31-1-2014 at about 3.45 p.m.
in front of Shashi Distiller on Bannerghatta
Main Road, Bengaluru, was caused due to rash
and negligent driving of the Car bearing reg.
No.KA-03-P-5608 by its driver and dashed
against the petitioner's Auto bearing reg.
No.KA-05-AE-2257, due to which he/she fell
down and sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether 2nd respondent proves that the
driver of the Car bearing reg. No.KA-03-P-5608
was not holding valid and effective driving
licence as on the date of accident?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, for what amount and
from whom?
4. What order or award?
12. In order to prove their case, the petitioner in
MVC.2044/2014 has examined himself as Pw-1 and got marked
the documents as Ex.P.1 to 19 and the petitioner in
10 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
MVC.No.2045/2014 has examined herself as PW-2 and got
marked the documents as Ex.P.20 to 25. Further to prove the
case of the petitioner in MVC.No.2046/2014, natural guardian
i.e. the father has examined himself as PW-3 and got marked
the documents as Ex.P.26 to 31. Further the petitioner in
MVC.2045/2014 and 2046/2014 have examined
Dr.Sharavanan.B.E. as PW-4 and got marked the documents as
Ex.P.32 to 35. Further the petitioner in MVC.No.2044/2014
has examined the laboratory in-charge of Shekar hospital as
PW-5 and got marked the document as Ex.P.36. Further to prove
disablement, the petitioner in MVC.2045/2014 and 2046/2014,
have examined Dr.Mahadev Kumar.P as PW-6 and got marked the
documents as Ex.P.37 to 46. Further to prove the disablement,
the petitioner in MVC.No.2044/2014, has examined
Dr.Shashikumar as PW-7 and got marked the documents as
Ex.P.47 to 49.
13. To disprove the case of the petitioners and to prove
the defence, the respondent No.2 insurance company has
11 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
examined its official as RW-1 and got marked the documents as
Ex-R-1 to 3.
14. Heard the arguments of counsel for the petitioners and
respondents.
15. My answers to the aforesaid common issues in all the
cases are as follows:
Issue No.1 in all the cases: In the affirmative
Issue No.2 in all the cases: In the negative
Issue No.3 in all the cases: In the partly
affirmative.
Issue No.4 in all the cases: As per final order
for the following:
R E A S O N S
16. Issue No.1 in all the cases:-. This issue is common in
all the cases and as such, this issue is taken for common
consideration.
17. During the course of argument, the learned counsel
for the petitioners argued by reiterating the contents of
petition and also evidence put forth by PW-1 to 7. Further he
12 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
argued that, the defence of the respondent No.2 is that, the
accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending car, On the other hand, the accident
has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the auto bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AE-2257. To prove the said
fact, though, the respondent No.2 has examined its official as
RW-1, but he is not an eyewitness to the accident. On the other
hand, on perusal of copy of police investigation papers produced
by the petitioners it shows that, the accident has occurred
mainly due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car
bearing registration No.KA-03-P-5608. Further he argued that,
to prove the occupation and income, the petitioner in
MVC.No.2044/2014 and 2045/2014 have produced the proper
documents. Further he argued that, to prove the disablement
suffered by the petitioners, they have examined the doctors as
PW-6 and 7 and as per the version of the doctors, the petitioner
in MVC.2044/2014 has suffered disability to the extent of
17.5% to the whole body and the petitioner in MVC.2045/2014
13 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
has suffered disability to the extent of 31.86% to the whole
body and the petitioner in MVC.2046/2014 has suffered
disability to the extent of 6.29% to the whole body. Further he
argued that, the petitioner in MVC.No.2044/2014 has suffered
disability to the extent of 17.5% to the whole body, but he was
working as an auto driver and as such he has suffered disability
to the extent of 100%. Further he argued that, the petitioner
in MVC.No.2046/2014 is aged 3 years and as such, she has lost
her bright future career. Further he argued that, the
petitioners have proved their case as contended in the petitions
by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, he
prays to allow all the petitions.
18. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for
the petitioners has relied upon the following citations:
1. 2011 ACJ 2436 (SC) (Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd.,).
2. 2014 ACJ 2550 (SC) (Kiran Vs. Sajjan Singh and others)
14 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
3. 2014 ACJ 627 (SC) (Syed Sadiq and others Vs.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,)
4. 2015 ACJ 721 (SC) (Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir and others)
19. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement
filed by the respondent No.2 and also evidence put forth by
RW1. Further he argued that, on perusal of evidence of
Pw-1 to 3 coupled with copy of police investigation papers
produced by the petitioners, it shows that, the accident has
occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the
auto i.e. petitioner in MVC.No.2044/2014. Further he argued
that, to prove the disablement suffered by the petitioners,
though, they have examined the doctors as PW-6 & 7, but they
are not the treated doctors and as such, the evidence of PW-6
and 7 are not acceptable one. Further he argued that, the
petitioners have failed to prove their case as contended in the
petition by producing proper documents. Further he argued that,
on perusal of copy of police investigation papers produced by the
15 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
petitioners, itself shows that, at the time of accident, the
offending car was not having valid fitness certificate and as
such, the owner of the offending car has violated the policy
conditions. Hence, the respondent No.2 Insurance company is
not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1. Contending the
above facts, he prays to dismiss all the petitions as against the
respondent No.2 with cost.
20. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for
the respondent No.2 has relied upon the following citations:
1. (2014) 9 SCC 324 (Narinder Singh Vs. New India
Assurance Co.Ltd., and others)
2. 2014 (2) AKR 269 (Nazeer @ Nazeer Ahmed Vs.
Chandrashekar Gowda and another).
21. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I intend
to discuss the case on merits.
On perusal of the records, it reveals that, to prove their
case, the petitioner in MVC.2044/2014 and 2045/2014 have
examined themselves as Pw-1 and 2 and to prove the case in
16 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
MVC.No.2046/2014 the father of the petitioner has examined
himself as PW-3 and they have stated in their evidence by
reiterating the contents of petition. Further in support of their
evidence, the Pw-1 to 3 have produced the documents and the
same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 31, respectively.
22. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has
cross-examined the PW-1 to 3 at length. In the cross-
examination, the PW-1 has clearly stated at page No.7 that:
"It is false to suggest that, I was driving
without driving licence and due to my negligence
accident taken place and I was driving in rash and
negligent manner and not due to negligence of car
driver.
It is false to suggest that, I went to the wrong
lane and dashed the car and I have dashed the other
vehicles."
On perusal of the above evidence, it reveals that, the
defence of respondent No.2 is that, the alleged accident has not
17 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
alleged car, on the other hand, the accident has occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto i.e.
petitioner in MVC.No.2044/2014.
23. To prove the said defence, respondent No.2 has
examined its Assistant Manager as RW-1, who has stated in his
evidence by reiterating the contents of objection statement
filed by the respondent No.2.
24. Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioners has cross-
examined the RW-1 at length. On perusal of entire evidence of
RW-1, it reveals that, the RW-1 is not an eye witness to the
alleged accident and as such, the evidence of RW-1 is not much
helpful to the defence taken by the respondent No.2 regarding
the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the auto.
Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of
the opinion that, if at all as per the version of the respondent
No.2, the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part
of the driver of the auto i.e. petitioner in MVC.No.2044/2014,
18 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
then it was the duty of the respondent No.2 to examine the
driver of the offending car or any one of the witness cited in
the charge sheet, but the respondent No.2 did not do so.
Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of
the opinion that, the oral contention of the respondent No.2 is
not acceptable one.
25. On the other hand, to disprove the contention of the
respondent No.2 and to prove the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending car bearing registration No.KA-03-
P-5608 and in support of oral evidence, the petitioners have
relied upon the copy of police investigation papers and the same
are marked as Ex.P.1 to 14. On perusal of Ex.P.2, 3 and 5 i.e.
copy of FIR, complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that,
Hulimavu traffic police have registered a case against the driver
of the car bearing registration No.KA-03-P-5608 and after
completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed the
charge sheet against the driver of the said car.
19 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
26. Considering the above facts and on perusal of
evidence of Pw-1 to 3 coupled with documents and for the above
reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved
that, the accident has mainly occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending car as contended in the
petition by producing oral and documentary evidence.
27. Further on perusal of Ex-P-9, 21 and 27 i.e. copy of
wound certificates, it shows that, the petitioners have sustained
simple as well as grievous injuries in the above said accident.
28. On appreciation of evidence of Pw-1 to 3 coupled with
documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that,
the petitioners have proved this issue in all the cases by
producing proper documents. Accordingly, I answer the issue
No.1 in all the case in the affirmative.
29. ISSUE NO.2 IN ALL THE CASES:-The specific
contention of the respondent No.2 is that, the driver of the
offending car was not having valid and effective driving licence
to drive the car as on the date of accident. To prove the said
20 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
fact, the respondent No.2 has not produced any supportive
documents. On the other hand, on perusal of copy of charge
sheet, it shows that the concerned investigation officer has not
filed the charge sheet against the driver of the car for the
offences punishable U/s.3 R/w.sec.181 of MV Act. Further on
perusal of the records, it reveals that, the respondent No.1 has
produced the driving licence and the same is not yet marked as
exhibit. But to decide the issue no.2, I am of the opinion that, if
the driving licence produced by the respondent No.1 is
considered certainly it would meet the ends of justice. On
perusal of driving licence, it shows that the driver of the
offending car was having valid and effective driving licence to
drive the car as on the date of accident. Considering the above
facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the
respondent No.2 has failed to prove this issue by producing
proper documents. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the
negative.
21 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
30.ISSUE NO.3 IN MVC.No.2044/2014:- The specific
contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at
the time of accident, aged about 22 years, working as an auto
driver and earning Rs.15,000/-p.m. Further the contention of
the petitioner is that, he has sustained grievous injuries in the
accident and as such, he has suffered permanent disablement
and he is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier to the
accident.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the
age, occupation and income of the petitioner and injuries
sustained by him and disablement suffered by him.
31. To prove the occupation and income, the petitioner
has not produced any proper documents. On the other hand, on
perusal of copy of complaint (Ex-P-3), wherein, the complainant
has stated that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was
driving the auto bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AE-2257. Considering the
above facts and looking to the contents of complaint and in the
absence of positive documents regarding the income of the
22 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
petitioner, I am of the opinion that, if the income of the
petitioner is considered as Rs.7,500/-p.m. as the matter is for
the year 2014, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
32. To prove the age, the petitioner has relied upon the
copy of transfer certificate and the same is marked as Ex.P.18.
On perusal of Ex.P.18, wherein, the date of birth of the
petitioner is shown as 07-09-1993 and the same is considered as
date of birth of the petitioner, then, it is clear that, as on the
date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 21 years. Hence
the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 18.
33. Further to prove the disablement, the petitioner has
examined Dr.Shashikumar.H.K., orthopedic surgeon of Apollo
hospital as P.W.7, who has stated in his evidence regarding the
injuries sustained by the petitioner and nature of treatment
taken by him and difficulties suffered by him. Further he has
stated that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent
of 52.5% to the limb and 17.5% to the whole body.
23 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
34. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has
cross-examined the PW-7 at length. On perusal of evidence of
PW-7, it reveals that, the PW-7 is a treated doctor and at
present, the fractures are united.
35. Further on perusal of copy of wound certificate, it
shows that, "the petitioner has sustained fracture of left
femur and sustained fracture of right wrist". Further as
stated above that the petitioner is working as an auto driver.
Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of injuries
and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the
extent of disability suffered by the petitioner is considered as
17% to the whole body, as stated by PW-7 certainly it would
meet the ends of justice.
36. The income of the petitioner is considered as
Rs.7,500/-p.m. and disability is considered as 17%, and the
multiplier 18 is applied, then the loss of income due to disability
comes to Rs.2,75,400/-(Rs.7,500X12X17/100X18). For the
above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
24 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
compensation of Rs.2,76,000/-under the head of loss of
future earnings
37. On perusal of Ex.P.9 i.e. copy of wound certificate, it
shows that, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:-
1. Fracture of left shaft of femur.
2. Fracture of right wrist radial styloid
with intra articular extention.
3. Abrasion over anterior chest wall.
Further, it reveals that, as per the version of the doctor,
the injury No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature and the injury No.3
is simple in nature. Considering the above facts and looking to
the nature of injuries and considering the occupation of the
petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
compensation of Rs.50,000/-under the head of pain and
suffering.
38. Further as stated above that, the petitioner was an
auto driver and he has suffered disability to the extent of 17%
to the whole body. Considering the above facts, I am of the
opinion that, the said extent of disability suffered by the
25 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
petitioner may affect some extent on the occupation of the
petitioner. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and
reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the
head of loss of amenities.
39. Further on perusal of Ex-P-15 & 16 i.e. discharge
summaries, it shows that, the petitioner has taken treatment as
an inpatient for a period of 2 days at Apollo hospital, Bengaluru
and 4 days at Shekar hospital, Bengaluru. Looking to the period
of hospitalization, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
compensation of Rs.6,000/- under the head of attendant,
nourishment and conveyance charges.
40. The contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent
more than Rs.3,00,000/-towards medical expenses. To prove
the said fact, the petitioner has relied upon the medical bills and
the same are marked as Ex.P.18. On the other hand, the
respondent No.2 has disputed the genuineness of the medical
bills and to that effect, the counsel for respondent No.2 has
26 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
cross-examined the Pw.1 at length, but nothing has been elicited
from him to disbelieve those bills.
On the other hand, on perusal of evidence of PW-1
coupled with Ex-P-18 i.e. medical bills, it shows that, the
petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.1,32,198/- towards medical
expenses. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and
reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.1,32,000/- under
the head of medical expenses.
41. Further the petitioner is a bachelor and he has
sustained fracture of left femur and sustained fracture of right
wrist and sustained abrasion over anterior chest wall and
suffered disability to the extent of 17% to the whole body.
Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, if some
amount is awarded under the head of loss of marriage
prospectus certainly it would meet the ends of justice. For the
above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
compensation of "Rs.25,000/-under the head of loss of
marriage prospectus."
27 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
42. Further due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner
might have taken rest at least for a period of 4 months as he
was hospitalized for a period of 6 days and underwent surgery.
Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to
grant for compensation of Rs.30,000/-under the head of loss
of income during laid up period and rest period.
43. Further the Pw-7/doctor has stated that the
petitioner needs one more surgery for removal of implants and
cost of the said surgery is Rs.1,00,000/-. In support of the
said contention, the Pw-7 has not produced any estimation letter
or other proper documents. Considering the above facts and in
the absence of positive documents regarding the future medical
expenses and looking to the nature of surgery, I deem it just
and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under
the head of future medical expenses.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case
and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner
28 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,69,000/- under the
following heads:
Sl.No. Compensation heads Amount
1. Towards Loss of future earnings Rs. 2,76,000/-
2. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
3. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
4. Towards Loss of marriage prospectus Rs. 25,000/-
5. Towards Conveyance, nourishment & Rs. 6,000/-
attendant charges
6. Towards loss of income during laid up Rs. 30,000/-
period and rest period
7. Towards Medical expenses Rs. 1,32,000/-
8. Towards future medical expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.5,69,000/-
44. ISSUE NO.3 IN MVC.No.2045/2014:- The specific
contention of the petitioner is that, she was hale and healthy at
the time of accident, aged about 20 years, working as a coolie
and earning Rs.10,000/-p.m. Further the contention of the
petitioner is that, she has sustained grievous injuries in the
accident and as such, she has suffered permanent disablement
and she is not in a position to work as she was doing earlier to
the accident.
29 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the
age, occupation and income of the petitioner and injuries
sustained by her and disablement suffered by her.
45. To prove the occupation and income, the petitioner
has not produced any proper documents. On the other hand, on
perusal of Ex-P-20 i.e. copy of statement given by the petitioner
before the police, wherein, the petitioner has stated that she is
a house wife.
46. To prove the age, the petitioner has not produced any
proper documents. On the other hand, on perusal of Ex.P.21, i.e.
copy of wound certificate, wherein, the age of the petitioner is
shown as 19 years as on the date of accident.
47. Further to prove the disablement, the petitioner has
examined Dr.Mahadev Kumar.P. orthopedic surgeon of St.John's
hospital as P.W.6, who has stated in his evidence regarding the
injuries sustained by the petitioner and treatment taken by her
and difficulties suffered by her. Further he has stated that,
30 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 31.86% to
the whole body.
48. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has
cross-examined the PW-6 at length. On perusal of evidence of
PW-6, it reveals that, the PW-6 is one of the treated doctor.
49. Further as stated above that, the petitioner is not an
earning member and she is a house wife. Considering the above
facts, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is not entitled for
compensation under the head of loss of future earnings. On the
other hand, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation under the head of disablement. Considering
the above facts and looking to the extent of disability suffered
by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that, if an amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- is awarded under the head of disablement
certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
50. Further on perusal of Ex-P-21 i.e. copy of wound
certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the
following injuries:-
31 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
1. Degloving scalp injury.
2. Fracture of right mid shaft femur.
3. Right wrist volar Barton fracture.
Further, it reveals that, as per the version of the doctor,
all the injuries are grievous in nature.
Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of
injuries, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation
of Rs.65,000/-under the head of pain and suffering.
51. Further as stated above that, the petitioner is a house
wife and she has suffered disability to the extent of 31% to the
whole body and sustained fracture of right femur, degloving
scalp injury and sustained right wrist volar Barton fracture.
Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, the
above said extent of disability suffered by the petitioner may
affect some extent on the future life of the petitioner.
Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to
grant for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss
of amenities.
32 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
52. Further on perusal of Ex-P-22 & 38 i.e. discharge
summary and case sheet, it shows that, the petitioner has taken
treatment as an inpatient for a period of 2 days at Apollo
hospital, Bengaluru and 9 days at St.John's hospital, Bengaluru.
Looking to the period of hospitalization, I deem it just and
reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.11,000/- under the
head of nourishment and conveyance charges.
53. The contention of the petitioner is that, she has spent
more than Rs.2,00,000/-towards medical expenses. To prove
the said fact, the petitioner has relied upon the medical bills and
the same are marked as Ex.P.24. On the other hand, the
respondent No.2 has disputed the genuineness of the medical
bills and to that effect, the counsel for the respondent No.2 has
cross-examined the Pw.2 at length, but nothing has been elicited
from her to disbelieve those bills.
On the other hand, on perusal of evidence of PW-2
coupled with Ex-P-24 i.e. medical bills, it shows that, the
petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.1,33,582/- towards medical
33 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
expenses. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and
reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.1,34,000/- under
the head of medical expenses.
54. Further as stated above, that the petitioner has
sustained fracture of right femur, degloving scalp injury and
sustained right wrist volar Barton fracture. Considering the
above facts, I am of the opinion that, the said injuries may
create some extent of disfigurement to the petitioner and as
such, if some amount is awarded under the head of
disfigurement, certainly it would meet the ends of justice. For
the above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
compensation of "Rs.25,000/-under the head of
disfigurement."
55. Further on perusal of Ex-P-20 i.e. copy of statement,
it reveals that, the petitioner is a married women and she is a
house wife. Considering the above facts and looking to the
nature injuries, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner might
have taken rest atleast for a period of 3 months and during that
34 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
period, she may taken assistance of any one of the person by
paying salary. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and
reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.20,000/-under the
head of attendant's charges.
56. Further the Pw-6/doctor has stated that the
petitioner needs one more surgery for removal of implants and
cost of the said surgery is Rs.40,000/-. In support of the said
contention, the Pw-6 has not produced any estimation letter or
other proper documents. Considering the above facts and in the
absence of positive documents regarding the future medical
expenses and looking to the nature of surgery, I deem it just
and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.20,000/- under
the head of future medical expenses.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case
and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner
is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- under the
following heads:
35 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
Sl.No. Compensation heads Amount
1. Towards disablement Rs. 2,50,000/-
2. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 65,000/-
3. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
4. Towards attendant's charges Rs. 20,000/-
5. Towards Conveyance and nourishment Rs. 11,000/-
charges
6. Towards Medical expenses Rs. 1,34,000/-
7. Towards future medical expenses Rs. 20,000/-
8. Towards disfigurement Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.5,50,000/-
57. Issue No.3 in MVC.No.2046/2014: The specific
contention of the petitioner is that, she was hale and healthy at
the time of accident, aged about 2 years. Further the
contention of the petitioner is that, she has sustained fracture
of left femur and sustained head injury and other injuries to her
body and as such, she has suffered disablement and she has lost
her bright future career.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the
age and status of the petitioner and injuries sustained by her
and disablement suffered by her.
36 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
58. To prove the age, the petitioner has relied upon the
document at Ex-P-29 i.e. copy of birth certificate, wherein the
date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 19-4-2012 and the
same is considered as date of birth of the petitioner, then it is
clear that, as on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged
about 1 year 10 months.
59. Further to prove the disablement, the petitioner has
examined Dr.Mahadev Kumar.P. orthopedic surgeon of St.John's
hospital as P.W.6, who has stated in his evidence regarding the
injuries sustained by the petitioner and treatment taken by her
and difficulties suffered by her. Further the Pw-6 has stated
that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of
6.29% to the whole body.
60. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has
cross-examined the PW-6 at length. On perusal of evidence of
PW-6, it reveals that, the PW-6 is one of the treated doctor and
the fractures are mal-united. Considering the above facts and
looking to the age and status of the petitioner, I am of the
37 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
opinion that, if the extent of disability suffered by the
petitioner is considered as 6% to the whole body certainly it
would meet the ends of justice.
61. Further as stated above that, the petitioner is aged
about 2 years as on the date of accident. Considering the above
facts and in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
a citation reported in ILR 2013 Page 4891 (Master Mallikarjun
V/s. The National Insurance Company Limited and another), I am
of the opinion that, if an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded
under the head of disablement certainly it would meet the ends
of justice.
62. Further on perusal of Ex.P.27 i.e. copy of wound
certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the
following injuries:-
1.. Fracture of left shaft of femur.
2. Lung contusion,
3. Right adrenal hemorrhage.
4. Hight parietal minimal SAH.
38 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
Further as per the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries
are grievous in nature. Considering the above facts and looking
to the nature of injuries, I deem it just and reasonable to grant
for compensation of Rs.60,000/-under the head of pain and
suffering.
63. Further on perusal of Ex.P.28 and 42 i.e. discharge
summary and case sheet, it shows that, the petitioner has taken
treatment as an inpatient for a period of 2 days at Apollo
hospital, Bangalore and 3 days at St.Jhon's hospital, Bangalore.
Looking to the period of hospitalization, I deem it just and
reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.6,000/-under the
head of attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges.
64. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has
sustained fracture of left femur and also sustained head injury.
Considering the above facts and looking to the age and status of
the petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
compensation of Rs.20,000/-under the head of loss of
amenities.
39 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
65. The contention of the petitioner is that, her parents
have spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical
expenses. To prove the said fact, the petitioner has relied upon
the medical bills and the same are marked as Ex.P.30. On the
other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the genuineness
of the medical bills and to that effect, the counsel for the
respondent No.2 has cross-examined the Pw.3 at length, but
nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve those bills.
On the other hand, on perusal of evidence of PW-3
coupled with Ex-P-30 i.e. medical bills, it shows that, the parents
of the petitioner have spent an amount of Rs.53,626/- towards
medical expenses. Considering the above facts, I deem it just
and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.54,000/- under
the head of medical expenses.
66. Further due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner
might have taken rest atleast for a period of 3 months and
during that period, her parents may taken care of her and as
such, they have lost their 3 months income. Considering the
40 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
above facts, I am of the opinion that, if some amount is
awarded under the head of loss of income of parents of
petitioner, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
compensation of Rs.21,000/-under the head of loss of
income of parents of petitioner during treatment period and
rest period of petitioner.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case
and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner
is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,61,000/- under the
following heads:
Sl.No. Compensation heads Amount
1. Towards disablement Rs. 1,00,000/-
2. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 60,000/-
3. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/-
4. Towards Conveyance, nourishment and Rs. 6,000/-
attendant charges
5. Towards Medical expenses Rs. 54,000/-
6. Towards loss of income of parents of Rs. 21,000/-
petitioner during laid up period and rest
period
Total Rs.2,61,000/-
41 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
67. LIABILITY: On perusal of contents of petition and
contents of objection statement, it reveals that the respondent
No.1 is the owner of car bearing reg. No.KA-03-P-5608 and the
respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. Further on
perusal of Ex-R-3 i.e. copy of policy, it shows that, the policy
was valid as on the date of accident.
68. The specific contention of the respondent no.2 is that,
as on the date of accident, the alleged car was not having fitness
certificate to plied on the road and as such, the owner of the
vehicle has violated the policy conditions and as such, the
respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1.
69. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.2 Insurance
company has examined its official as RW-1, who has stated in his
evidence by reiterating the contents of objection statement
filed by the respondent No.2 and also the above said defence.
Further in support of his evidence, the RW-1 has produced the
documents and the same are marked as Ex-R-1 to 3.
42 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
70. Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioners has cross-
examined the RW-1 at length. In the cross-examination, the
RW-1 has clearly admitted at page No.4 that:
"AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà MAzÀÄ ªÁºÀ£ÀPÉÌ «ªÀiÁ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä
PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÁUÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ D ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ
J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ. PÁgï £ÉÆAzÀtô ¸ÀASÉåB
PÉJ-03-¦-5608 ªÁºÀ£ÀPÉÌ vÀªÀÄä PÀA¥À¤¬ÄAzÀ «ªÀiÁ
¥ÀvÀæ PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ, D ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ
EzÀݪÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁV, ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ªÁºÀ£PÀ ÉÌ £ÀªÀÄä «ªÀiÁ PÀA¥À¤¬ÄAzÀ «ªÀiÁ
¥ÀvÀæ PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ, £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ D ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß RÄzÁÝV
¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀÄvÉÛêÉ."
On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, at the
time of issuance of policy, the fitness certificate of the alleged
car was valid. Further on perusal of Ex-R-2 i.e. copy of 'B'
Register extract, it reveals that, the fitness certificate of the
43 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
offending car is valid till 01-06-2013, whereas, the accident has
occurred on 31-1-2014. Considering the above facts, looking to
the contents of Ex-R-2, it is clear that, as on the date of
accident, the car was not having fitness certificate. Further on
perusal of Ex-P-8 i.e. copy of MVA report, it shows that, the
concerned Motor Vehicle inspector has examined the car and
given opinion that, the accident has not occurred due to any
mechanical defects. Considering the above facts, I am of the
opinion that, as on the date of accident, the offending car was in
good condition.
71. At this stage, I have gone through the citation relied
by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 reported in (2014) 9
SCC 324 (Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and
others), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss.39 43 and
192 - Registration of motor vehicle - Mandatoriness
of - Temporary registration - Duration for which
valid - Extension when permissible - Held, using a
vehicle on public road without any registration is an
44 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
offence punishable - No person shall drive a motor
vehicle in any public place without valid registration -
Further held, temporary registration is valid only for
a period of one month that can be extended only
where chassis of a vehicle with temporary
registration is detained in workshop beyond one
month for being fitted with a body or for unforeseen
circumstances beyond control of owner."
On going through the above said observation, the said
observation is not aptly applicable to the case on hand, as the
facts involved in the said case and the facts of the present case
are different one.
72. Further, I have gone through the another citation
relied by the counsel for respondent No.2 reported in 2014 (2)
AKR 269 (Nazeer @ Nazeer Ahmed Vs. Chandrashekar Gowda
and another), wherein, our Hon'ble High Court observed as
under:
"(C) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) - Ss.147,
56, 39 - Liability of insurer - Claimant sustained two
45 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
grievous injuries and one simple injury - Offending
vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate at the
time of accident - As per Section 56 of Act , a
transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly
registered for purpose of Section 39, unless it
carries a Certificate of Fitness - Insurer not liable
to pay compensation".
On going through the above said Judgment, the
observation of the Hon'ble High Court is not aptly applicable to
the case on hand, as the facts involved in the said case and the
facts of the present case are different one.
73. At this stage, I come across an unreported Judgment
of our Hon'ble High Court passed in MFA No.6621/2006 C/W
MFA CROB No.304/2006 dated 18-9-2007 (The New India
Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Sri.N.Srinivasamurthy and others),
wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed in para
No.6 of the Judgment as under:
"After re-considering the entire evidence, we
are the opinion that, the tribunal has awarded just
and proper compensation. At this stage, the learned
46 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the
fitness certificate of the lorry was not in force and
it had expired. But that cannot be a reason to deny
the compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, the
said contention is rejected."
On going through the said Judgment, the above
observation of the Hon'ble High Court is aptly applicable to the
case on hand. Considering the above facts and for the above
reason, I am of the opinion that, the contention of the
respondent No.2 is not acceptable one. On the other hand, as
opined above that, the accident has occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car. Hence, the
respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2
being the insurer of the offending car is liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners as calculated above along with
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
47 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18
deposit. Hence, I answer the issue No.2 in all the cases in the
partly affirmative.
74. ISSUE NO.4 IN ALL THE CASES: In view of my
findings on issues No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The claim petitions i.e. MVC.No.2044/2014, 2045/2014 and 2046/2014 filed by the petitioners U/S.166 of M.V.Act are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation as noted below with interest @ 9% P.A. (In MVC.No.2044/2014 and 2045/2014, future medical expenses does not carry interest) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. MVC.No.2044/2014 Rs. 5,69,000/- MVC.No.2045/2014 Rs. 5,50,000/- MVC.No.2046/2014 Rs. 2,61,000/-
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay above said compensation amount to the petitioners. However, in view of the policy, the respondent No.2 insurance company is 48 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014 SCCH-18 directed to deposit the above said compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.No.2044/2014 and looking to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized bank/ schedule Bank of petitioner's choice, for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
After deposit of compensation amount awarded to the petitioner in MVC.2045/2014 and looking to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized bank/ schedule Bank of petitioner's choice, for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
After deposit of compensation amount awarded to the petitioner in MVC.2046/2014 and 49 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014 SCCH-18 looking to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.90,000/- shall be released in the name of guardian of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be kept in FD in the name of minor petitioner represented by her natural guardian i.e., father in any nationalized/ schedule bank of petitioner's choice till she attains the age of majority.
Keep the original Judgment in MVC.No.2044/2014 and its copy in other cases.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 27th day of October 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMESEKHARA) III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, BENGALURU.
50 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014
SCCH-18 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE List of witnesses examined for petitioner's side:
PW-1: Sri.Raju PW-2: Smt.Selvi PW-3: Kum.Divya PW-4: Dr.Sharavanan.B.E. PW-5: Sri.Prakash PW-6: Dr.Mahadev Kumar.P PW-7: Dr.Shashi Kumar
List of documents exhibited for petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of reply notice Ex-P2 True copy of FIR with complaint Ex-P3 True copy of statement Ex-P4 True copy of Re-statement Ex-P5 True copy of charge sheet Ex-P6 True copy of panchanama Ex-P7 True copy of sketch Ex-P8 True copy of MVA report Ex-P9 True copy of wound certificate Ex-P10 True copy of statement of injured Ex-P11 to 14 True copy of statement of witnesses Ex-P15 Letter of Apollo hospital Ex-P16 Discharge summary Ex-P17 Transfer certificate Ex-P18 IP bill with medical bills Ex-P19 Prescriptions Ex-P20 True copy of statement of injured Ex-P21 True copy of wound certificate Ex-P22 Letter of Apollo hospital Ex-P23 Reference letter Ex-P24 IP bill with medical bills Ex-P25 Lab reports and Prescriptions Ex-P26 True copy of statement of injured Ex-P27 True copy of wound certificate 51 MVC.Nos.2044, 2045 & 2046/2014 SCCH-18 Ex-P28 Letter issued by Apollo hospital Ex-P29 Copy of birth certificate of minor petitioner Ex-P30 IP bill with medical bills Ex-P31 Lab reports Ex-P32 Authorization letter Ex-P33 IP file Ex-P34 Authorization letter Ex-P35 IP file Ex-P36 Admission record Ex-P37 Follow-up treatment records Ex-P38 ICU admission document Ex-P39 CD Ex-P40 X-rays Ex-P41 CT scan and MRI scan Ex-P42 OPD file Ex-P43 IP file Ex-P44 X-rays Ex-P45 CD pertaining to X-ray Ex-P46 CT scan films Ex-P47 IP file Ex-P48 CD Ex-P49 X-ray report List of witnesses examined for respondents' side:-
R.W.1. Subramanyam List of documents exhibited for respondents' side:
Ex-R1 Authorization letter Ex-R2 'B' Register extract Ex-R3 Copy of policy
III ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.