Bangalore District Court
Roopabai vs Ramachandra Nayak on 15 April, 2023
KABC020190252020
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU
(SCCH24)
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL 2023
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
C/c XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER MACT,
BENGALURU.
MVC NO.4246/2020
PETITIONER/S: 1.Roopabai,
W/o late Kumara Nayak @
Kumara Naik,
Aged about 33 years,
2. Vinaykumar Nayaka K.
S/o late Kumara Nayak @
Kumara Naik,
Aged about 14 years,
3.Vinanthkumar Nayaka.K
S/o late Kumara Nayak @
Kumara Naik,
Aged about 12 years,
Since Sl.No.2 and 3 are minors,
Rep.by their natural guardian
mother Roopabai.
2 MVC No.4246/2020
SCCH-24
All are R/at Dharmanayakana
Thandya, Machenahalli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
4. Munisham Naik,
S/o Lakshaman Naik
Aged about 75 years,
5. Sakee Bai,
W/o Munisham Naik,
Aged about 65 years,
Both R/o Majara Hosahalli
Thandya, Antharahalli,
Thubagere Hobli,
Doddaballapura Tq.
(By Sri.Vasantha Kumar N.
Advocate.)
V/S
RESPONDENT/S 1. Ramachandra Nayak,
S/o Narasimha Nayak,
Ganganayakana Thandya,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(R.C.Owner of the vehicle
Reg.No.KA52A3117)
(By Sri.S.Nagaraja,
Advocate.)
2. M/s Royal Sundaram
Gen.Insurance Co.
No.30, 3rd floor,
JNR City Center,
3 MVC No.4246/2020
SCCH-24
Rajaram Mohan Roy road,
Sampangiramanagar,
Bangalore560027.
(Policy No.VPV0293089000100
valid from 6.9.2019 to 5.9.2020)
(By Sri.Ravi S.Samprathi,
Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
This is a Petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.60,00,000/ for the Death of one Kumara Nayak @ Kumara Naik in a road traffic accident dated 03.03.2020.
2. The case of the Petitioners in brief is that, on 03.03.2020 at about 6.45 p.m., the deceased Kumara Naik @ Kumara Nayak after finishing his work, traveling in an Ape Autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA52A3117 from Kerekal cross towards his village Dharmanayakana Thandya, on Soladevanahalli road, near Narayana P.U.College, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, at that time the driver of the said Autorickshaw drove the vehicle 4 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 very rashly and negligently, endangering to human life and property and due to heavy speed he lost the control over the said auto and dashed against the heavy duty T.V.S.bearing No.KA52E7206, due to the said accident the autorickshaw was turtle and fell on the left side of the road, as a result the deceased sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, wherein postmortem was conducted and the deadbody was handed over to them, they transported it to their native place through hired taxi and incurred Rs.1,00,000/ towards hire charges and funeral expenses.
3. It is further case of the Petitioners that before accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, doing the work of cutting the trees, loading and unloading the same and earning sum of Rs.30,000/ p.m., and he used to spend the amount towards the maintenance of his family. Due to the untimely death of the deceased they were put 5 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 to great hardship and injury, loss of dependency, loss of love and affection and mental agony. The Nelamangala Rural police have registered a case in Cr.No.36/2020 u/sec 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA52A3117 and hence, the Respondents being the RC owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to them.
4. In response to the summons issued by this court, the Respondents have appeared through their respective counsel and filed separate written statements.
5. The Respondent No.1 in the written statement has denied the averments made in column Nos1 to 22 of the petition as false and submitted that he is the RC owner of the Autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA52A3117 and it was insured with the respondent No.2 which is valid from 06.09.2019 to 05.09.2020. Further submitted that there 6 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 was complete negligence on the part of the rider of the TVS Heavy Duty bearing Reg.No.KA52E7206. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against him.
6. The Respondent No.2 in the written statement have denied the case of the petitioners as false, admitted issuance of policy but their liability if any is subject to terms and conditions and submitted that there is non compliance of Section 134(c) and Section 158(6) of M.V. Act. Further submitted that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective DL as on the date of the accident and vehicle had no permit, FC which is in contravention of policy conditions. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against them.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the only legal representative of deceased 'Kumara Nayak @ Kumara Naik 7 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 S/o Munisham Naik' and were dependent on him?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that, the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.03.2020 at about 6.45 p.m., on Soladevanahalli road, near Narayana P.U.College, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru District, due to the actionable negligence of the driver of Ape Autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA52A3117?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
From whom?
4. What Order or Award?
8. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners have examined the Petitioner No.1 - Smt.Roopabai - wife of the deceased as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.16. On the other side the Respondent No.1 has examined himself as RW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.R.1 to R.3. The respondent No.2 examined its official as RW.2 and produced documents as per Exs.R.4 and R.5.
8 MVC No.4246/2020
SCCH-24
9. Heard arguments and perused the materials on record. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon decisions as follows; 1) (2018) 9 SCC 650: Shmanna & Ors., Vs. Divisional Manger, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., 2) (2018) 3 SCC 208: Pappu & Ors., Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr., 3) Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (Arising out of special leave petition (C) No.5311 of 2019): Kurvan Ansari Alias Kumar Ali & Anr., Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr.. The counsel for the respondent No.1 has relied upon decisions as follows; 1)(2018) 3 SCC 208: Pappu & Ors., Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr., 2) Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (Arising out of special leave petition (C) No.5311 of 2019): Kurvan Ansari Alias Kumar Ali & Anr., Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr., 3) C.M.A.(MD) No.211 of 2018: Madras High Court; Thanikodi Vs. Parameswari & Ors..
10. My findings to the above issues are as follows: Issue No.1 : In the affirmative, 9 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 Issue No.2 : In the affirmative, Issue No.3 : Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.4 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. Issue No.1: It is the case of the Petitioners that, the Petitioner No.1 is the wife, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children and the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased - Kumara Nayak @ Kumara Naik. In this regard, the Petitioners have examined the first petitioner who is wife of the deceased by name Smt.Roopabai as PW.1. PW.1 has specifically deposed this relationship in her chiefexamination. Apart from that to prove the relationship, the Petitioners have also produced the notarized copies of Aadhar Cards of the Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and deceased Kumara Nayak alias Kumara Naik and G tree as per Exs.P10 to P16. There is no contrary to these documents from the respondents. In the said documents, 10 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 in Ex.P.10 Aadhar Card of the deceased his father's name is not mentioned, in the Aadhar card of the Petitioner No.1, her father's name is mentioned as Narayana Nayaka and it appears that it is taken prior to her marriage, in the Aadhar Card of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 their father's name is mentioned as Kumara Nayaka and in the Aadhar card of the petitioner No.4 his father's name is mentioned as Lakshaman Naik, in Aadhar card of the Petitioner No.5 her husband's name is mentioned as Munishaminayaka who is the father of the deceased. In Ex.P.14, GenealogicalTree the names of the Petitioners and deceased are mentioned with their relationship. Further, these documents are public documents and they have got initial presumptive value under law. In Ex.P.4/inquest mahazar in the statement of petitioner No.1 the relationship between the deceased and the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 is narrated and in column No.2 the father's name of the deceased is also mentioned who is none other than the 11 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 petitioner No.4. These documents have not been seriously disputed by the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 has not produced any contrary documents to dispute and rebut the contents of documents produced by the Petitioners. As such, there are no reasons to discard the oral and documentary evidence produced by the Petitioners. Under such circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 and documents, this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased Kumara Nayak @ Kumara Naik. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is held in the affirmative.
12. Issue No.2: The Petitioners in order to prove that there was actionable negligence by the driver of the Autoricshaw bearing Reg.No.KA52A3117 have examined the Petitioner No.1 i.e., the wife of the deceased as PW.1 and produced 9 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.9. The PW.1 12 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 has stated in her evidence that on 03.03.2020 at about 6.45 p.m., her husband Kumara Naik @ Kumara Nayak after finishing his work, traveling in an Ape Autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA52A3117 from Kerekal cross towards his village Dharmanayakana Thandya, on Soladevanahalli road, near Narayana P.U.College, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, at that time the driver of the said Autorickshaw drove the vehicle very rashly and negligently, endangering to human life and property and due to heavy speed, he lost the control over the said auto and dashed against the heavy duty T.V.S. bearing No.KA 52E7206, due to the said accident the autorickshaw was turtle and fell on the left side of the road and caused accident, as a result the deceased sustained severe head injury and was died on the spot. The Respondents denied the case of the petitioners as false and contended that there was no negligence on part of the driver of the autorickshaw.
13 MVC No.4246/2020
SCCH-24
13. In the crossexamination of PW.1 nothing worth is elicited to disprove her version with regard to the alleged manner of accident. The respondent No.1 by examining himself as RW.1 has deposed that there was complete negligence on the part of the TVS Heavy Duty vehicle but except bare statement no documents are produced and in his crossexamination it is elicited that the charge sheet is filed against him who was driving the auto and he had DL only to drive the LMV four wheeler NT and in Ex.P.7 it is clearly mentioned that he had no DL as on the date of accident to drive the Auto. The RW.1 has failed to prove his defence that there was no negligence on his part. The respondent No.2 have lead evidence of RW.2 and they focused on their defence that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid DL and hence they are not liable to pay compensation and in the crossexamination the RW.2 admitted that the charge sheet filed against their insured vehicle which had valid policy but subject to terms and 14 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 conditions. The respondent No.2 has also not disproved the alleged manner of accident.
14. Further, the documents produced by the Petitioners such as the FIR in Cr.No.0036/2020 of Nelamangala Police Station, complaint, spot mahazar, Inquest mahazar, PM report, death certificate, chargesheet, IMV report and spot sketch as per Exs.P.1 to P.9 are all public documents which have got presumptive value under law. Therefore, there are no reasons to discard the evidence of PW.1 and the documents produced by her at Exs.P.1 to P.9. The PM report produced as per Ex.P.5 clearly shows that death was due to hemorrhage following head injury and chest injury causing damage the organ - brain and lungs as a result of road traffic accident. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of the PW.1 coupled with the Exs.P.1 to P.9, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the driver of the offending autorickshaw driven it high speed in a rash and negligent 15 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 manner and lost the control over the said auto and dashed against the heavy duty TVS, due to which the said autorickshaw was turtle and fell on the left side of the road, as a result the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 is in the Affirmative.
15. Issue No. 3: The PW.1 has specifically deposed before this court that due to the untimely death of the deceased, they have lost the bread earner of their family and their loving person and that deceased Kumara Naik was getting income of Rs.30,000/ by doing the work of cutting the trees, loading and unloading the same. This court while discussing the issue No.2 has come to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation.
16 MVC No.4246/2020
SCCH-24 Monthly income
16. According to the Petitioners the deceased was doing the work of cutting the trees, loading and unloading the same and earned a sum of Rs.30,000/ p.m.. In this regard they have not examined any witness/employer and no documents like Bank Account statement or receipts etc., are produced to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of specific evidence for proof of income, the version of the Petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/ per month is not acceptable. Under such circumstances, this court has to consider the income of the deceased notionally for calculating the compensation. At the time of accident the deceased was a young person aged about 40 years as per Aadhar card/Ex.P.10. The accident took place in the year 2020. Therefore, having regard to the age of the deceased, hike in living cost and the price index and also relying the decision of Hon'ble H.C. in the case of Sumangala & Others and 17 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 Ramanagouda &Anr., in MFA No:202534/2019(MVC) wherein the notified notional income chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is considered for fixing the notional income and taking judicial notice of the said income chart of KSLSA, accordingly the monthly notional income of the deceased is considered as Rs.14,500/ per month.
Age of the deceased
17. In so far as age of the deceased is concerned, the Petitioners have produced Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of the deceased as per Ex.P.10. As per Ex.P.10 his date of birth is 12.10.1980. The accident was occurred on 03.03.2020. As such his age was 40 years as on the date of his death. The Respondents have not placed any other contrary documents. Therefore, the age of the deceased as on the date of accident is considered 40 years. 18 MVC No.4246/2020
SCCH-24
i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY AND FUTURE PROSPECTS:
As per principles of law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation, appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is 15. In the instant case, the deceased has a wife, 2 minor children, father and mother who are 5 in numbers. In the crossexamination of PW.1 the suggestions are put that petitioners 4 and 5/her parents in law are residing separately as per Exs.P.15 and P.16/Aadhar cards but she denied the said suggestion but admitted that the address of her brother inlaw and address of her parents in law are one and the same. Moreover in Ex.P.4/inquest mahazar in the statement of Sri.Krishna Nayak it is clearly stated that the deceased was residing in the house of his wife and in the statement of 1st petitioner also she clearly stated that they were residing in her parental house, from this it is crystal clear that the petitioners 4 and 5 were not residing along with the petitioners and the deceased but they were 19 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 residing with the brother of the deceased and from this it can be said that they were looked after by the brother of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioners 1 to 3 are only considered as Dependants of the deceased. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs Pranay Sethi and others, even in case of the self employed and fixed salary also the Petitioners are entitled for future prospects. As mentioned above, in the present case since the deceased is in the age group of below 40 years, 40% future prospects have to be added to his monthly income. As per the Sarala Verma case, 1/3rd of his income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. If 40% income is added to his monthly income, it comes around Rs.20,300/ (Rs.14,500/ + Rs.5,800/) and 1/3 rd of his income is deducted towards his living and personal expenses, balance comes to Rs.13,534/ (Rs.20,300/ Rs.6,766/). Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be 20 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 Rs.24,36,120/ (Rs.13,534/ X 12 X 15 = Rs.24,36,120/).
ii) TRANSPORTATION AND FUNERAL
EXPENSES
In so far as the funeral and transportation expenses are concerned, the Petitioners have pleaded that they have spent Rs.1,00,000/ towards hire charges and funeral expenses. No documents are produced in this regard. However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficulty to maintain bills for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and hence it would be appropriate to award compensation of Rs.20,000/ towards funeral and transportation expenses.
iii) LOSS TO THE ESTATE:
As mentioned above, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.14,500/ per month. Out of this, he was getting 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses. Such being the case, out of this, certainly he would have saved 21 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 some amount and created estate in favor of the Petitioners. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/ under the head of loss of estate.
iv) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM The Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased. She has lost her husband at the age of 33 years and she has to live remaining part of her life without him. Therefore, she is entitled for compensation under the head of consortium. In Magma General Insurance company Limited the Hon'ble Apex court has considered the compensation under head of loss of consortium. The Hon'ble Apex court in three judge Bench in United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur and others, (2020) SCC online 410, had reaffirmed the view of the two judge Bench in Magma General Insurance company Ltd. In Paragraph 53 to 65, dealt with three conventional heads and discussed about "Consortium" to be a compendious term, which 22 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. Filial Consortium - A child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Therefore, the claimants are also entitled for compensation under the head of consortium. As such, the Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are entitled a sum of Rs.40,000/ each under this head and in total it comes to Rs.2,00,000/ under this head. As such, in total, the compensation amount comes to Rs.26,76,120/ and if it is rounded off it comes to Rs.26,76,200/ and same is awarded to the petitioners alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Liability:
18. The respondent No.2 contended that as on the date of accident the driver of insured vehicle was not holding valid and effective DL to drive the said category of 23 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 vehicle which is in contravention of policy conditions and hence they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. As already discussed above the respondent No.1 though lead his evidence and produced the Ex.R.3/copy of DL but failed to prove that he was having valid and effective DL to drive the insured vehicle as on the date of accident. Moreover, Ex.P.7 clearly shows that IO after doing complete investigation has also put relevant Section against accused for not holding valid and effective DL as on the date of accident, this document also clearly supports the defence of the respondent No.2.
19. In support of the defence the respondent No.2 has got examined the RW.1 whose evidence is already appreciated above. By leading the evidence of RW.2 and relying on the Ex.P.7 the respondent No.2 has successfully proved their defence that the driver of the offending insured vehicle had no valid and effective DL as on the 24 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 date of accident and hence there is breach of policy conditions.
20. The respondent No.2 further contends that as there is a breach of policy conditions and hence they are not liable to pay compensation and pay and recovery principles are also not applicable to the case on hand. On the other side the counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners are third party and as the third party risk is covered under Ex.R.5 policy and hence if this Tribunal comes to conclusion that there is a breach of policy conditions then the pay and recovery needs to be ordered. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions referred above which supports the arguments canvassed by the counsel for the petitioners.
The counsel for the respondent No.1 also relied upon the decisions which are referred above with regard to principle of pay and recovery, they are also aptly applicable to the present case. Further I also rely upon the decision of 25 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 Hon'ble H.C. in MFA.No:30131/2010 (MVI) in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Yallavva and Anr., wherein also principles of pay and recovery observed. Therefore, for the above discussion the respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle is solely liable to pay said compensation to the petitioners. However, under the principles of pay and recovery as per the above discussion as the policy existed and covered risk of third party, the respondent No.2 being the insurer is directed to pay compensation to the petitioners at the first instance and later to recover the same from the insured owner by filing Execution petition as per law. Though the Petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.60,00,000, but the Petitioners are entitled only for a sum of Rs.26,76,200/ alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed in part. Accordingly I answer Issue No.3 is partly in the affirmative.
26 MVC No.4246/2020
SCCH-24
21. Issue No.4: In view of findings from the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with cost.
The Petitioners are entitled for
Compensation of Rs.26,76,200/ (Rupees
Twenty Six Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand and Two Hundred only) alongwith interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount. The Respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle is solely liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.27 MVC No.4246/2020
SCCH-24 However, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest before this Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this Judgement at the first instance and later to recover it from the respondent No.1/owner by filing execution petition.
On deposit of the award amount and interest, 10% shall be deposited in the name of Petitioner No.1 for a period of three years in any N/S bank and 10% each shall be de posited in the names of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in any N/S bank till they attain the age of majority with a liberty to withdraw the interest and in remaining, 10% each shall be released in the name of petitioner Nos.4 and 5 and the remaining entire amount shall be 28 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 released in favour of the petitioner No.1 by way of epayment with proper identification and due acknowledgment as per Rules.
The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/. Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer on line, revised, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 15th day of April 2023.) (Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM, Bangalore.
ANNEXTURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner:
P.W.1 Smt.Roopabai List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents: RW.1 Mr.Ramachandra Nayak RW.2 Mr.Sudhakara H.
List of documents marked on behalf of the Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 True copy of spot Mahazar
29 MVC No.4246/2020
SCCH-24
Ex.P4 True copy of Inquest Mahazar
Ex.P5 True copy of PM report
Ex.P6 True copy of Death certificate of the
deceased
Ex.P7 True copy of Chargessheet
Ex.P8 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P9 True copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P10 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of the
deceased (Original verified and returned) Ex.P.11 Notarized copies of Aadhar cards of to P13 myself and petitioners 2 and 3 Ex.P.14 Gtree filed by way of affidavit Ex.P.15 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner No.4 (Compared with Original and returned) Ex.P.16 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner No.5 (Compared with Original and returned) List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R1 Notarized copy of RC of vehicle bearing No.KA52A3117 (Compared with original and same is returned) Ex.R2 Insurance Policy pertaining to the vehicle bearing No.KA52A3117 Ex.R3 Notarized copy of DL of RW.1 (compared with original and same is returned) 30 MVC No.4246/2020 SCCH-24 Ex.R4 Authorization letter Ex.R5 True copy of Insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions (Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM, Bangalore.