Bangalore District Court
Lakshmidevamma vs Yeddala Sreenivasulu on 24 April, 2026
KABC020117002025
BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM &
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL - 2026
PRESENT: SRI.NARENDRA.B.R., B.Sc, L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT
MVC No.1898/2025
PETITIONERS:
1. Lakshmidevamma
W/o Late Narayanaswamy,
D/o late Muniyappa,
Aged about 50 years.
2. Bharathi.,
W/o Late K Narayanaswamy.,
Aged about 43 years.
3. Tejas K N.,
S/o Late Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 35 years.
4. Smitha K N.,
D/o Late Narayanaswamy,
W/o Supreeth H S,
Aged about 33 years.
5. Nikruth K N.,
S/o Late Narayanaswamy,
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.1898/2025
Aged about 17 years,
All Residing at: No.151,
Ablodu, Kempanahalli,
Sidlagatta Taluk,
Chikkaballapura,
Karnataka-562105.
Petitioner No.4 residing at:
Kothakote, Paragodu village &
Post, Bagapalli, Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District,
Karnataka-561207.
Since petitioner No.5 is minor
and he will be represented by
his mother natural guardian
petitioner No.2)
(By Sri.R.V.Raghavendra., Adv.)
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS:
1. Sri.Yeddala Sreenivasulu.,
S/o Yeddala Audiseshaiah, Major
R/at, Nellore Main Road,
Survepalli Bit-II, Venkatachalam,
SPS Nellore, Andra Pradesh-524321.
(Owner of the Lorry Reg No.AP-26-TF-6359)
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd
TP Hub Office at,
Krushi Bhavan, 6th Floor,
Hudson circle, Nrupathunga Road
Bengaluru-560001.
(Policy No. 1515003123P114054369)
(Period from 29.01.2024 to 28.01.2025)
SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.1898/2025
3. Mandara Krishnaiah.,
S/o Gangaiah, Major,
R/at: Golla Street, Amancherla,
Nellore, Andra Pradesh-524345,
(Policy Holder of the Lorry
Reg.No.AP-26-TF-6359)
(R1 - Exparte)
(R2 - By Sri.T.A.Mahesh Kumar., Adv.)
(R3 - Exparte)
J U D G M E N T
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners claiming compensation of ₹.50,00,000/- with interest from the date of petition till its realization for the death of Sri.K.Narayanaswamy S/o Narayanappa in road traffic accident.
2. The petition averments in brief:-
On 20.01.2025 at about 07.45 p.m., the deceased was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-43-Y-5418 from Kempanahalli Village side towards Hanumanthapur Gate side, at Hanumanthapur Gate, Shidlghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura, a Lorry bearing Regn.No.AP-26-TF-6359 has been parked SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.1898/2025 without any indication or any signal due to which the deceased could not control his motor cycle and dashed against the offending vehicle and caused the accident. Due to the accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. Thereafter, deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Shidlagatta, wherein postmortem was conducted and body was handed over to petitioners and they shifted the body to their native place to perform funeral and obsequies ceremonies for which they have spent a sum of ₹.3,00,000/-.
Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was doing Agriculture work and was earning a sum of ₹.25,000/- per month. Due to the death of deceased, the petitioners lost bread earning member of the family and put to lot of mental agony. The accident occurred due to negligent parking of lorry by its driver. The SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.1898/2025 respondents, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
3. In pursuance of notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared before the tribunal through the counsel and filed the written statement. The respondent No.1 and 3 have not appeared before the tribunal and hence, they have been placed ex-parte.
4. 2nd respondent, in the written statement, has admitted the aspect of issue of policy of insurance in favour of first respondent in respect of lorry which is valid from January 29, 2024 to January 28, 2025, encompasses coverage for risks associated with the said vehicle. Respondent No.2 denied the aspect of occurrence of the accident, as mentioned by the petitioners. The respondent No.2 denied the manner of accident and also denied the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.1898/2025 offending vehicle in the cause of accident. The amount claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, this tribunal has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioners prove that deceased Sri.K.Narayanaswamy succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 20.01.2025 at about 07.45 p.m., at Hanumathapur Gate, Shidlghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura, when deceased was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-43-Y-5418, due to the rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing Regn.No.AP-26-TF-6359 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to substantiate the contention of the petition, the Petitioner No.2/wife of deceased got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.1898/2025 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and closed their side of evidence. The respondents did not adduce their evidence either oral or documentary.
7. Heard arguments of both side and perused the materials available on records.
8. This Tribunal answers the above issues as below:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per final order, for
the following:
//REASONS//
9. Issue No.1:- It is the case of the
petitioners that deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 20.01.2025 at about 07.45 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-43-Y-5418 from Kempanahalli Village side towards Hanumanthapur Gate side and at SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.1898/2025 Hanumanthapur Gate, Shidlghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura, lorry bearing Regn.No.AP-26-TF- 6359 has been parked without any indication or any signal due to which the deceased could not control his motor cycle and dashed against the offending vehicle that resulted in accident. Due to the accident, deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital.
10. The Petitioner No.2/wife of deceased Smt.Bharathi examined as PW.1. In the chief- examination, PW.1 deposed that her husband was proceeding in a motor cycle, due to the negligent parking of lorry by its driver, the accident occurred. In order to prove the accident and negligence of the driver of lorry, the petitioners produced Ex.P.2 First Information statement, lodged by son of deceased by name Sri.Tejas with police on 21.01.2025 pertaining to the accident occurred on SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.1898/2025 20.01.2025. On the basis of first information lodged by son of deceased, the police registered the FIR as per Ex.P.1 for the offence punishable under section 281, 285 & 106(1) of BNS. In first information statement as well as FIR, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligent parking of lorry by its driver. In the first information statement, it is mentioned that the driver of the lorry has parked the lorry in a negligent manner due to which the deceased dashed to the lorry that resulted in the accident. The respondents not furnished any materials in order to controvert the recitals of first information statement. The FIR is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle which does not appear to have been questioned or challenged.
11. The petitioners also furnished Spot panchanama, seizer mahazar and Sketch which are SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.1898/2025 marked as Ex.P.3 to 5. The said documents disclose that the police visited the place of incident after registration of FIR and the place of incident is described in the said documents. In the mahazar also, the accident is stated to have taken place due to negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. The respondents not furnished any satisfactory materials to show that the place of accident, as described in the mahazar and sketch, are contrary to actual facts. The sketch furnished before the Tribunal also discloses the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident.
12. Ex.P.4 is the Vehicle Seizure Mahazar. The said document discloses the aspect of seizure of offending vehicle by the police on the ground of its involvement in the cause of accident. The driver or owner of the offending vehicle does not SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.1898/2025 appear to have questioned the seizure procedure conducted by the police. Ex.P.6 is the IMV Report, wherein damages caused to both the vehicles are mentioned. The IMV report furnished by petitioners discloses the aspect of damages caused to the offending vehicle. If the vehicle has not been involved in the accident, then driver or owner of the vehicle could have provided satisfactory explanation regarding the manner in which the vehicle got damaged. No explanation is forthcoming from the materials on record pertaining to the manner in which the vehicle got damaged. The said document discloses the aspect of involvement of offending vehicle in the cause of accident.
13. Ex.P.7 is the Inquest Report. Ex.P.8 is the PM report, wherein deceased Sri.K.Narayanaswamy is stated to have died due to cardiorespiratory arrest injury to vital organs brain due to RTA. The SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.1898/2025 aspect of death of Sri.K.Narayanaswamy does not appear to be in dispute. Ex.P.9 is the notice issued under Sec.133 of IMV Act and reply given to the said notice is marked as Ex.P.10. In the notice given by I.O, there is mention about involvement of the vehicle and about negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle in the cause of accident. The owner of the vehicle has given reply to the notice. In the reply given to the notice, the aspect of involvement of the vehicle as well as negligence on the driver does not appear to have been denied. The owner of the vehicle could have denied the involvement of the vehicle and negligence of the driver in the reply given to the notice. But, the owner of the vehicle has not denied the said aspects in the reply given to the notice issued by I.O. The respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle, not placed any materials to rebut or disprove the contents of notice and the reply given SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.1898/2025 to the notice. Respondent No.1 neither denied the signature appearing Ex.P.9 and P.10 nor placed materials to doubt the signature appearing in said documents. The notice and reply to the notice bears the signature of respondent No.1 which is not rebutted or controverted by placing cogent and substantive materials. The said documents also disclose the aspect of involvement of the offending vehicle in the cause of accident.
14. The I.O., after detailed investigation, filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable U/s.281, 285 and 106(1) of BNS, 2023 as per Ex.P.11. In the final report also, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligent parking of lorry by its driver. The documents furnished by petitioners disclose the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of lorry in the cause of SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.1898/2025 accident. The respondents not placed any materials in order to rebut or disprove the documents furnished by the petitioners related to the aspect of negligence. The owner or driver of the lorry does not appear to have challenged the FIR as well as final report filed by the police against the driver of offending vehicle. The correctness of investigation does not appear to have been challenged by respondents in any manner. In the cross examination of PW.1 also, nothing to disprove or disbelieve the contention of petitioners could be elicited from the witness.
15. Respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle, neither appeared before the Tribunal nor placed satisfactory materials in order to rebut or disprove the contentions of petitioners. Respondent No.1, being the owner of offending vehicle, is the proper person to state about involvement of the SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.1898/2025 vehicle and negligence on the part of the driver. But, respondent No.1 neither appeared nor furnished any materials in order to deny or disprove the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 could have examined the driver of the vehicle in order to disprove the contentions of petitioners. Respondent No.1 has not placed any satisfactory materials to rebut the documents furnished by petitioners related to the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle.
16. The respondents not placed satisfactory materials before the tribunal to disprove case of petitioner. In the absence of satisfactory materials, the documents furnished by the petitioners are to be looked into in order to ascertain the aspect of negligence. The materials placed before the Tribunal points towards the SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.1898/2025 negligence on the part of driver of offending lorry in the cause of accident. So, the oral and documentary evidence placed by the petitioners discloses that the accident was caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of petitioners coupled with the documents produced before this tribunal, this tribunal is of the opinion that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of Lorry bearing Regn.No.AP-26-TF-6359 by its driver and deceased succumbed to injuries. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
17. Issue No.2: In view of answering issue No.1 in the affirmative, the petitioners are entitled for compensation. In order to assess the compensation, the Tribunal has to look into several factors like age, avocation, income of deceased, SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.1898/2025 conveyance charges, funeral and obsequies, towards of loss of love and affection, etc. (A) Towards dependency and loss of future earnings: (i) In the petition, the age of the deceased Sri.K.Narayanaswamy is shown as 60 years. In order to prove the age of deceased, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.12 - Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 14.10.1964. The accident occurred on 20.01.2025. As per the document furnished by petitioners, the age of the deceased appears to be 60 years at the time of accident. The respondents not furnished any satisfactory materials in order to dispute or rebut the document furnished by petitioners related to the age of deceased. In the absence of materials to the contrary, the document furnished by petitioners is to be considered for ascertaining the age of deceased. The accident SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.1898/2025 occurred on 20.01.2025. As per the materials furnished before the Tribunal, the age of deceased was 60 years as on the date of accident and same is taken into consideration. As per dictum of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Smt.Sarla Verma case '09' multiplier is applicable in the present case.
(ii) The petitioners contended that deceased Sri.K.Narayanaswamy was doing Agriculture work and was earning a sum of ₹.25,000/- per month. In order to prove the occupation and income of deceased, the petitioners have not produced any documents. The petitioners not furnished any materials to show that he was earning a sum of ₹.25,000/- per month. The petitioners not furnished satisfactory materials in order to substantiate their contention related to occupation and income of deceased. In the absence of sufficient and satisfactory materials related to occupation and income of deceased, notional income is to be considered. By SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.1898/2025 considering the facts and circumstances of case, the notional income of deceased is considered as ₹.17,000/- per month.
In Hem Raj V/s the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guess work in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. In view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioners are entitled for future prospects. In National Insurance Company Ltd V/s Pranaya Sethi and others case the Hon'be Supreme Court held that, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary an addition of 10% of the established income should be warranted where the deceased is aged between 50 to 60 years. In the case on hand, deceased was aged about 60 years. Hence, in view of ratio laid down SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.1898/2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioners are entitled for additional 10% to the established income. The established income of the deceased is ₹.17,000/- and 10% of ₹.17,000/- is ₹.1,700/-. So, the total gross income of deceased is ₹.17,000/- + ₹.1,700/- = ₹.18,700/- per month. As per the materials on record, the deceased Sri.Narayanaswamy is married, having wives and children. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have produced notarized copies of Aadhaar cards which are marked as Ex.P.12. The materials on record disclose that the deceased K.Narayanaswamy was having two wives and children. Petitioner No.1 & 2 are the wives of deceased and petitioner No.3 to 5 are the children of deceased. PW.1 stated in the cross examination that she is the second wife and petitioner No.1 is the first wife of deceased Narayanaswamy. The Aadhaar Cards furnished by the petitioners disclose the relationship of petitioners with that of the SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.1898/2025 deceased. The respondents not furnished satisfactory materials in order to disprove or rebut the documents furnished by the petitioners related to their relationship with the deceased. In the absence of contrary materials, the petitioners are considered to be the legal representatives of deceased K.Narayanaswamy. As per the settled principles of law, the 2nd wife has no legal recognition in the eye of law and not eligible to claim compensation. But, in the decision reported in 2014 SCC Online Kar 12825 rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between Lalita Vs. M.R.Sunil Kumar and others, it has been held that 2nd wife is not entitled for compensation, but, if 2nd wife is dependent on the deceased, then she is entitled for compensation under the head of dependency. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that 2nd wife is entitled for compensation if she is dependent on the income of deceased. In the SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.1898/2025 present case, the materials placed on record disclose that the petitioner No.2, being the 2 nd wife, is dependent on the income of deceased. No materials are placed before the tribunal to show that petitioner No.2 is not dependent on the income of deceased and she is having independent source of income. The respondents not placed satisfactory materials or not elicited anything from PW.1, to show that petitioner No.2 is not dependent on the income of deceased and she is having independent source of income. As per the principles laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above stated judgment, the petitioner No.2 is entitled for compensation under the head loss of dependency since the materials on record do not discloses that she was not dependent on the income of deceased. As such, the petitioner No.2, though 2nd wife of deceased, is entitled for compensation under head of loss of dependency.
SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.1898/2025
Further, in the cross examination, PW.1 stated that petitioner No.4 is the married and living in her husband's house. The cause title of the petition also discloses that petitioner No.4 is married. Though petitioner No.4 is considered as legal representative of deceased, she cannot be considered to be dependent on the income of deceased. Petitioner No.4 is married and living in her husband's house and as such, she cannot be considered to be dependent on the income of deceased. On consideration of above stated aspects and the materials on record, petitioner No.1 to 3 and 5 are considered to be dependents of deceased and petitioner No.4 is not considered to be dependent of deceased. As per principles laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, petitioner No.2 is also held entitled for compensation for loss of dependency. Thus, petitioner No.1 to 3 and 5 are considered as dependents of deceased. As per dictum SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.1898/2025 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Smt.Sarla Verma case, where number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, 1/4th has to be deducted from the gross income of deceased towards his personal expenses and remaining is to be taken as income towards dependency. Though petitioner no 4 is not entitled for compensation towards loss of dependency, she is entitled for compensation towards loss of estate of deceased, as the compensation awarded is considered to be the asset of deceased. Thus, petitioners are entitled to compensation of ₹.15,14,700/- towards loss of dependency which is calculated as follows:
Calculation Total (In ₹.)
1/4th of ₹.18,700/- (deduction ₹.14,025/-
of ₹.4,675/-)
₹.14,025/- multiply by 12 ₹.1,68,300/-
₹.1,68,300/- multiply by 09 ₹.15,14,700/-
Multiplier
SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.1898/2025
(B) Towards Consortium, loss of estate and
funeral expenses; In the case on hand, the date of
accident is 20.01.2025. So, in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pranay Sethi case, the petitioners are entitled for additional 10% on conventional heads which is to be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. So the petitioner No.1 to 5, being the wives and children of deceased, are entitled for ₹.48,400/- (each) towards loss of Spousal Consortium and Parental Consortium and also entitled for ₹.18,150/- towards loss of estate and ₹.18,150/- towards funeral expenses.
18. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
a. Towards dependency and loss ₹.15,14,700/-
of future income
b. Towards Consortium.
1. Spousal Consortium (2) ₹.96,800/-
SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.1898/2025
2. Parental Consortium (3) ₹.1,45,200/-
c. Towards Loss of estate & ₹.36,300/-
Funeral Expenses
Total Compensation ₹.17,93,000/-
The petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of ₹.17,93,000/-.
19. In view of ratio and dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA.No.100090 of 2014 C/w. MFA.No.25107 of 2013 between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another, the petitioners are entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
20. The petitioners filed petition against the respondent No.1 & 2. It is already held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent parking of Lorry bearing Regn.No.AP-26-TF-6359 by its driver. So, the respondents No.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.1898/2025 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
21. Issue No.3: In view of the findings given on the above said issues, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following:
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioners Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of ₹.17,93,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 being the insurer is primarily liable to deposit the SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.1898/2025 said compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of award.
The petition against respondent No.3 is hereby dismissed.
Out of the total compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 and 2, being the wife of deceased, are entitled for 30% each, petitioner No.3 & 5 are entitled for 15% each and petitioner No.4 is entitled for 10% of the compensation amount. In total amount apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 & 2, 60% of the amount shall be released in favour of petitioner No.1 & 2, and 40% of the amount shall be kept in FD for a period of three years.
15% of compensation amount allotted to the share of minor petitioners No.5 shall be kept in FD in his name of minor petitioner in any of the Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank of the choice of minor guardian for a period of 3 years or till he attains the age of majority whichever is later. The guardian of petitioner is SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.1898/2025 entitled for interest that accrues on FD periodically.
The entire award amount allotted to the share of petitioner No.3 & 4 shall be released to petitioner No.3 & 4, as amount is meager one.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioners hereby directed to produce particulars of Bank Account of petitioners, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contained compulsorily photographs of petitioners, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioners shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest thereon by respondent, the SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.1898/2025 petitioners are entitled to receive amount as mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
Bank shall not advance loan on such FD, and shall not cause premature release of FD without permission from the Tribunal.
Bank shall release amount along with interest thereon in favour of petitioners on proper verification and identification or credit said amount to their account after expiry of three years period of deposit, without waiting for further order of court.
The advocate fee is fixed at ₹.1,000/-.
Office to draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 24th day of April 2026.) (NARENDRA.B.R) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-11 31 MVC.No.1898/2025 A N N E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
PW.1 : Smt.Bharathi
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS:-
Ex.P.1 : FIR
Ex.P.2 : Complaint
Ex.P.3 : Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.4 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.5 : Sketch
Ex.P.6 : IMV Report
Ex.P.7 : Inquest Report
Ex.P.8 : PM Report
Ex.P.9 : 133 Notice
Ex.P.10 : Reply Notice
Ex.P.11 : Charge Sheet
Ex.P.12 : Notarized copies of Aadhaar Cards
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS:-
-NIL-
SCCH-11 32 MVC.No.1898/2025
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
-NIL-
(NARENDRA.B.R)
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU
Digitally signed
by NARENDRA
NARENDRA BR
BR Date:
2026.05.02
10:33:54 +0530