Bangalore District Court
Bhanushree K.T vs Icici Lomb Gen Ins Co Ltd on 15 November, 2025
KABC020021912023
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-17
PRESENT: KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM, B.A.L, LL.M.,
Member, MACT
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 15th day of November-2025
MVC No.434/2023
Petitioner Smt. Bhanushree K.T.,
W/o Late Mohan B.,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.15, 1st floor,
7th main, Binny Layout,
M.C. Road, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560040.
(By Smt. Rekha M, Adv)
V/s.
Respondents 1. M/s ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
By its Manager,
No.121, The Estate Building,
9th floor, Dickenson road,
SCCH-17 2 MVC No.434/2023
Bangalore - 560001.
(Insurer of the Toyota Innova Car
No.KA-02-MT-8001)
(By Smt.Padma S Uttur , Advt)
2. Sri. K.H. Shivaram,
S/o Honnegowda H.,
R/at No.27, 1st main,
1st cross Neharu road,
Girinagar BSK 3rd stage,
Bengaluru - 560085.
(Owner of the Toyota Innova Car
No.KA-02-MT-8001)
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.164 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident that occurred on 28.08.2022.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 28.08.2022 at about 2.00 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding in a Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-
1027 sitting by the next seat of the driver proceeding on B.M. Road, near Gananguru village, Mandya District, at SCCH-17 3 MVC No.434/2023 that time driver of Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02- MT-8001 was parked his car in the middle the road (wrong side) without any indicator or signal and that time the driver the Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027 in order to avoid accident to the other vehicles on the busy road hit to the Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-
02-MT-8001 and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained multiple fracture fractures.
Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Srirangapatna Government Hospital after first aid treatment she was shifted to DRM Multi specialty Hospital, Mysore, wherein petitioner was admitted as inpatient and underwent surgery by spending Rs.5,00,000/-towards medical and other incidental expenses.
At the time of accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was a working in Kotak Mahendra Bank at SCCH-17 4 MVC No.434/2023 Bangalore and earning Rs.25,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries petitioner is not able to do her psychical work or to lead a normal life as she was doing prior to the said accident and thereby lost her income.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are the insurer of Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence prays to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest.
3. After service of summons, respondent No.2 - owner remained absent hence, placed exparte.
The respondent No.1-insurance company appeared before the tribunal through its counsel and filed written statement by denying the involvement of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident and also issuance of policy to Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001. Further contended that this accident has taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the Alto Car bearing No.KA-02- SCCH-17 5 MVC No.434/2023 MB-1027 in which the petitioner was proceeding as inmate. After detailed investigation, the police has filed the abated charge sheet under Sec.279, 337, 304(A) against the driver of the Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB- 1027. Further contended that the owner of the innova Car has knowingly entrusted the vehicle to the driver who was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and hence violated the policy conditions and so also the driver of Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027 not having the valid and effective driving licence. Further contended that there is no compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(b) of MV Act. It has denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. Further it has denied the cause and manner of accident and also contended that the accident in question was caused due to the sole negligence of the driver of the Alto car in which the petitioner was proceeding. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly SCCH-17 6 MVC No.434/2023 excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the petition against it..
4. On the basis of the rival contention, the following issues are framed by this court:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries due to the actionable negligent driving of driv-
ing of Innova Car bearing Reg. No. KA-
02-MT-8001 by its driver, in RTA took place on 28.08.2022 at about 2.00 p.m. on B.M. road, near Ganguru Vil-
lage, Mandya?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner is examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 15 and also examined MRO at DRM Multi Specialty hospital, Mysore as PW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P16 to Ex.P20. The first SCCH-17 7 MVC No.434/2023 respondent examined its official as RW.1, and got marked one document at Ex.R.1 and 2.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the material evidence that are available on record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following citation:
1. 2025 ACJ 244 in between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Urmila Halder.
2. MFA No.5130 2015 (MV-I) in between Syed Yaseen V/s. Nasreen Banu.
3. MFA No.9652/2013 C/w 9653/2013 (MV-D) in between H.Girish V/s. Pradeep Kumar Raju.
At the time of arguments it is found that the Issue No.1 is framed by putting the burden on the petitioner to prove the negligence of the driver of the Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001. The present petition is filed under Sec.164 of IMV Act, as such, the Issue No.1 is recasted as follows:
Whether the petitioner proves that she had sustained grievous injuries in SCCH-17 8 MVC No.434/2023 a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 28.08.2022 at about 2.00 p.m. when she was proceeding in Alto car bearing No. KA-02-MB-1027 on B.M. Road, near Ganguru Village, Mandya due to the involvement of the Toyota Innova Car bearing No. KA-02- MT-8001?
7. My findings on the above issues are as under. Recasted Issue No.1 : In the affirmative;
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative,
Issue No.3 : As per final orders
for the following:-
: R E A S O N S:
ISSUE NO.1 :
8. That by reiterating all the averments made in the petition, the petitioner filed his affidavit in lieu of- examination in-chief. In support of his case, he has produced certified copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, IMV report, charge sheet and wound certificate all these documents are marked under Ex.P.1 to P.15.
9. It is important to note that, the petitioner filed this petition u/s 164 of MV Act, therefore, question of SCCH-17 9 MVC No.434/2023 considering rash and negligence does not arise. What the petitioner has to establish is that, there was an accident between two vehicles and in the said accident the petitioner sustained injuries. Therefore petitioner need to prove that, the accident in question took place and the Toyoto Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 involved in the accident. However the petitioner has to prove that she sustained injuries in the very accident, due to the involvement of the Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02- MT-8001.
10. It is pertinent to note that in petition filed U/sec.164, the question to be considered by the tribunal is that the involvement of the vehicles against which the compensation is sought for and not whether there is rash or negligence on part of the drivers of the both vehicle against which the compensation is claimed. The aspect of negligence has no role whatsoever to decide the question SCCH-17 10 MVC No.434/2023 of the entitlement for compensation. Section 164 of MV Act, reads thus;
164. Payment of Compensation in case of death or grievous hurt etc (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person.
(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section.
SCCH-17 11 MVC No.434/2023In the decision reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1249 rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Salma and others, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is held that;
"A petition under section 163-A of the Act is maintainable even in case where negligence is on part of the victim."
Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2004) 5 SCC 385 rendered in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Sono and others V/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd., it is held that;
"Section 163-A also covers the cases where negligence is even on part of the victim held excluding the defense of contributory negligence".
In Civil Appeal No.9694/2013 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Sunil Kumar and another, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that;
"In a proceedings under section 163-A of IMV Act it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on part of the victim."SCCH-17 12 MVC No.434/2023
On a coalesce of the afore-quoted legal fresco and on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex Court the having regard to the crux of the dispute between the parties, the above principles are squarely applicable to the case on hand. For the said reasons, in a proceeding under section 163-A of the Act it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim. There is no much different between 163-A of old Act and Sec.164 of new amended MV Act.
11. In the present case, the FIR was registered against the driver of Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB- 1027. The FIR as per Ex.P1 came to be registered on the basis of first information as per Ex.P2 which is given by one Vyshnavi M. After the detailed investigation the police also filed charge sheet as per Ex.P.5 against the driver of Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027. The driver of Toyoto Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 SCCH-17 13 MVC No.434/2023 was made as witness No.2. The contents of Ex.P1, 2 and Ex.P5 establishes the involvement of Toyoto Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001in the said accident.
12. As per Section 164 of the Act, rash and negligence need not be proved, the petitioner has to be prove only involvement of the vehicle. So, as per the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we have to grant the compensation under section 163-A of the Act on the basis of structured formula is in the nature of the final award and the adjudication there under is required to be made without an requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle/s involved in the accident under section 164 of the Act.
13. In view of above provisions of law and case laws, it is crystal clear that in a petition filed under section 164 of the Act, the proof of negligence is not required to be considered by the tribunal. Admittedly the respondent SCCH-17 14 MVC No.434/2023 No.1 who is the owner of the driver of vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 has not challenged the oral and documentary evidence led by the claimant. The version of the petitioner remained unchallenged and undisputed. This Tribunal has carefully gone through the evidence placed by petitioner. It is important to note that, the present petition is filed under 164 of M.V.Act, seeking award of compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the said accident.
14. The Ex.P.4 is IMV report depicts that the vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 has also got damaged in the said accident. Thus after the detailed investigation the I.O. has found that the vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MT- 8001 is involved in the accident. The Ex.P5 charge sheet also evidentiates the involvement of the vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 in the said accident. The Ex.P12 shows that the petitioner herein sustained five grievious injuries. The petitioner also produced Ex.P6 discharge SCCH-17 15 MVC No.434/2023 summary, Ex.P7 medical prescriptions and Ex.P11 X- rays which shows that the petitioner herein sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. All these materials available on record demonstrates that, in the said accident two vehicles were involved, which itself is sufficient to invoke the provisions U/Sec.164 of Motor Vehicle Act.
15. Petitioner filed petition under section 164 of MV Act. Hence in view of the above decisions, it is observed that claimant is entitled to compensation without proving negligence. The Ex.P.6 is discharge summary which shows that the petitioner admitted to their hospital for the treatment for the injuries sustained by her in the said accident. The Ex.P.12 is the wound certificate which evidentiates that the petitioner has got the grievous injuries in the said accident.
16. Under such circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documents SCCH-17 16 MVC No.434/2023 produced as per Ex.P1 to 12 this tribunal is of the opinion that the accident has been occurred by the involvement of the vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 and same has resulted in grievous injuries to the petitioner. By the oral and documentary evidence petitioner proves that the accident occurred due to the involvement of both vehicles. Hence, this Tribunal need not discuss much about this point. Accordingly, Recasted Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
17. ISSUE NO.2 : The involvement of vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 in the said accident and grievous injuries to the petitioner in the said accident is stand established for the reasons discussed in issue No.1. Therefore, under these circumstances, petitioner being injured is entitled for compensation.
18. The contentions of the petitioner that she was working in Kotak Mahindra Bank and was earning Rs.25,000/-p.m. To prove the said facts the petitioner SCCH-17 17 MVC No.434/2023 has not led any evidence. Further PW.1 got exhibited Ex.P6 Discharge Summary which disclose that, the petitioner has sustained Blunt Trauma Chest - right Multiple Ribs fracture with minimal pneumothorax, open fracture distal radius and fracture distal 1/3rd ulna - right with flexor tendon injury, Extensor tendon injury of left index -Zone V, fracture distal femur right and fracture distal tibia - right and soft tissue laceration of left forehead and scalp.
19. The petitioner also examined MRO at DRM Multi Specialty hospital, Mysore as PW.2 and got marked document at Ex.P16 to Ex.P20 i.e., authorization letter, MLC extract, police intimation, inpatient case details and X-ray.
20. The petitioner has not given evidence with respect to disability of the petitioner. No evidence is lead by showing permanent disability. Therefore, there is no doctor evidence is available to consider the physical SCCH-17 18 MVC No.434/2023 disability of the petitioner due to the accidental injury. For the reasons discussed in the Issue No.1, it is proved that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the above said accident and involvement of vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001 and also established.
21. As this petition is filed U/s.164 of MV Act, involvement of the vehicle is sufficient, one's claimant proved the accident, he need not prove the fact of negligence.
Sec.164 of IMV Act: -
Payment of compensation in case of death or grevious hurt, etc. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful SCCH-17 19 MVC No.434/2023 act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person.
(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section.
22. In the instant case as the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, but has not adduced any evidence to show the percentage of disability. As per the Discharge summary marked at Ex.P6 the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
23. The leaned counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently argued and contended that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the Alto car and the petitioner being the owner of the said Alto car is not entitled for compensation. On this point the learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that as petition filed U/Sec.164 of MV Act the point of negligence cannot be SCCH-17 20 MVC No.434/2023 consider and relied on the following judgments in support of their argument.
2025 ACJ 244 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Urmila Halder.
In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, by considering the amendment to Sec. 163-A of MV Act the compensation of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- can be granted retrospectively i.e., even if the accident had taken place even before the amendment.
MFA No. 5130/2015 (MV-I) between Syed Yaseen V/s. Nasreen Banu and others.
20. On reading the said section, it is no- fault liability. There is no need to prove the negligence of driver or rider of the vehicle. It is sufficient to prove involvement of the vehicle. It is true that, looking at the materials on record, the accident occurred due to the exclusive negligence of the claimant. On that count, the claim petition cannot be dismissed because it was not necessary to plead or prove as to who was responsible for the accident. It is sufficient to prove involvement of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant and hence, he is not entitled to compensation is not tenable and calls for interference.
********
22. If he assesses the compensation under the provision of 163-A of the Act, it is necessary for the claimant to prove that he SCCH-17 21 MVC No.434/2023 has suffered permanent disability. But under Section 164 of the MV Act, it does not say that proving permanent disability is required. If we compare the Section 163-A and 164 of the MV Act, more or less they are similar. Under Section 164-C, the Central Government has to make rules regarding the implementation of the said provision. It appears so far any such rules have not been framed by the Central Government and published it. Therefore, unless the Rules are framed specifying guidelines to assess the compensation or interpretation of the provision of Section 164 of MV Act, it has to be followed as it exists.
******* ******* *********
26. The claim petition is not maintainable against respondent Nos.1 and 2, since they are owner and insurer of the car bearing registration No.KA-03-MP-5786, in which the claimant was the driver. As per the law laid down in the Ramkhiladi (supra) case, he cannot claim compensation against his owner and insurer. He is not third party. Hence, claim against respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not maintainable.
MFA No. 9653/2013 ( MV-D) between H.Girish and another V/s. Pradeep Kumar Raju and another.
"7. Having heard the counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The first issue with regard to the liability the finding of the tribunal cannot be sustained. It is not a case of an application under section 166 of SCCH-17 22 MVC No.434/2023 MV Act but it is under section 163-A of MV Act where the involvement of the vehicle and the accident are only important but not the negligence. Once the vehicle is involved, Insurance Company is bound to pay the compensation. In that view of the above matter this court holds that the respondent No.2/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Then coming to the quantum of the compensation in the light of the amendment to section 163- A of MV Act and in light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Urmila Halder referred supra the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each".
Thereby when the petition is filed U/Sec. 164 of MV Act it is not fault liability and there is not need to prove the negligence of driver of the other vehicle. Section 164 is a newly inserted provision that deals with the payment of compensation in cases of death or grievous injuries on a 'No Fault Liability' basis. Under this section, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is prescribed for death and Rs. 2,50,000/- for grievous hurt, without the need to prove the negligence of the driver. The Second Schedule of the 1988 Act, which previously provided a structured SCCH-17 23 MVC No.434/2023 formula for no-fault compensation under Section 163A, has been removed. Further, upon accepting compensation under Section 164, the claimant is barred from claiming additional compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amendment and introduction of Sec. 164 of MV Act introduced two major changes. First, it removed the earlier income cap of ₹40,000/- per annum, which limited claims under Section 163A. Second, it replaced the structured formula compensation system with a fixed amount of compensation ₹5,00,000/- in case of death and ₹2,50,000/- in case of grievous hurt. Thereby the argument of learned counsel for respondent No.1 in respect the income of the petitioner does not holds any water.
24. In this case as per the charge sheet the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Alto car. The present petitioner is the owner of the said SCCH-17 24 MVC No.434/2023 Alto car and was also inmate of the said Alto car at the time of accident. But on that ground the claim petition cannot be dismissed because it is not necessary to plead or to prove who was responsible for the accident. Mere involvement of the vehicles is sufficient to claim the compensation U/Sec. 164 of MV Act.
25. Admittedly the respondent No.1 is the insurer and the respondent No.2 is the owner of the Toyota Innova Car bearing No.KA-02-MT-8001, which dashed by the Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027. The deceased was the inmate of Alto Car bearing No.KA-02-MB-1027. The claim petition is not maintainable against the against the insurer of Alto car as the petitioner being the owner of offending Alto car is not third party to her vehicle insurer. As per the law laid down in the case of Ram Kiladi and another V/s United India Insurance Company and another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 the petitioner SCCH-17 25 MVC No.434/2023 cannot claim compensation against her insurer as she is not third party to her insurer.
26. Under Sec. 164 of IMV Act, the involvement is sufficient to claim the compensation and need not be established the fact of negligence. Hence even though the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the Alto Car it does not holds water when petition is filed U/Sec.164 of IMV Act. As held in the judgment of Hon'ble High Cout of Karnataka in MFA No. 5130/2015 (MV-I) between Syed Yaseen V/s. Nasreen Banu and others as quoted above it is not necessary for the claimant to prove that he has suffered permanent disability as under Section 164 of the MV Act, it does not say that proving permanent disability is required. Thereby as the petitioner successfully established that the petitioner sustained grievous injury she is entitled for the compensation it is necessary for the claimant to prove that he has suffered permanent disability. But under SCCH-17 26 MVC No.434/2023 Section 164 of the MV Act, it does not say that proving permanent disability is required of Rs.2,50,000/- U/Sec. 164 of MV Act. Hence the respondent No.1& 2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The respondent No.1 being the insurer liable to deposit the compensation on behalf of respondent No.2 owner. Accordingly, Issue No.2 answered In the affirmative.
Issue No.3:
27. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Fifty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
SCCH-17 27 MVC No.434/2023
The respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
Considering the quantum of amount
awarded to petitioner, it is ordered to release
the entire amount in the favour petitioner.
Advocate fee is fixed at 2,500/-.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of November, 2025) (KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM) XIX ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Bhanushree K.T.
PW.2 Thejashwini G
List of documents marked on behalf of the
petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
SCCH-17 28 MVC No.434/2023
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P4 True copy of IMV Report
Ex.P5 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P6 Discharge summary
Ex.P7 Medical Prescriptions with doctors notes
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card
Ex.P9 Medical bills
Ex.P10 Medical prescription
Ex.P11 X-ray
Ex.P12 True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P13 Medical bills
Ex.P14 Advance receipts
Ex.P15 X-ray
Ex.P16 Authorization letter
Ex.P17 & True copy of MLC and Police intimation 18 Ex.P19 Inpatient case details Ex.P20 X-rays List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 R.Roshni Ashwitha List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Certified copy of judgment in MVC No.1246/2023
XIX ADDL.JUDGE
Digitally signed
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
by KANCHI Bengaluru.
KANCHI MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
GOUTAM Date:
2025.11.28
12:22:37 +0530