Bangalore District Court
Sri.Musuluri Kalyan Chakravarthi vs Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 4 January, 2022
SCCH-11 1 MVC.No.7385/2018
KABC020313172018
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JANUARY-2022
PRESENT: SRI.RAGHAVENDRA.D, B.COM, L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT
MVC No.7385/2018
PETITIONER:
Sri.Musuluri Kalyan Chakravarthi,
S/o.Sri.Venkata Rao,
Aged 32 years,
Residing at F-No-210,
SLV Ganga Nivas, Varanasi,
Jinkethimmanahalli, Bidaramalli,
RM Nagar, Bengaluru - 560036.
(By Sri.K.S.Devaraj, Adv.)
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS:
1. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation,
Central Office, Transport House,
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.7385/2018
K.H.Road, Bengaluru - 560027,
(Insurer of the Passenger Non-AC
Sleeper Bus bearing registration
No.KA-40-F-1062).
2. Sri.Manjanna.M.,
S/o.Sri.Mariyappa,
Aged about 52 years,
Harohalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru (RD) - 562110,
(Driver of the Passenger Non-AC
Sleeper Bus bearing registration
No.KA-40-F-1062).
(Resp.No.1 - by Sri.Afzal Ahmed, Adv.)
(Resp.No.2 - Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.76,69,089/- along with interest from the date of petition till its realization for injuries sustained by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on the night 14.06.2018, the petitioner along with his family boarded the Non A/C Sleeper Passenger KSRTC Bus bearing Regn.No.KA-40-F-1062 travelling from Bengaluru to Sringeri SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.7385/2018 and proceeding near Guddehalli Village, N.R.Pura Taluk of Chikkamagalur District, on 15.06.2018 at about 5.30 a.m., the 2nd respondent who was the driver of vehicle and was driving in a rash and negligent manner with no care or concern, lost his control over the bus at curve of the road, due to which the vehicle toppled to 10 feet ditch on the right side of road with all the passengers on board, including the petitioner and his family. Due to which, petitioner suffered collisions inside the vehicle and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Prashamani Hospital in Koppa and was shifted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal for treatment, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. The petitioner has spent huge amount towards medical, hospitalization, nourishment and conveyance charges etc. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and was an employee at Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., working as Relationship Manager - Customer Advisory Team and getting salary of Rs.32,164/- per month. Due to the accidental SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.7385/2018 injuries, he suffered permanent disablement. The accident in question has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of KSRTC Non A/C Sleeper bus bearing Regn.No.KA-40-F- 1062. The respondents being the insurer and driver of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
3. In pursuance of notice, respondent No.2 did not appear before the tribunal and hence, he has been placed as ex-parte. Respondent No.1 appeared before the tribunal and filed his written statement.
4. The brief contents of written statement of respondent No.1 is as under:
The respondent No.1 has filed counter to petition by denying the petition averments. It has further disputed the manner of accident, age of injured and quantum of compensation claimed under different heads. Further contended that the bus belongs to this respondent and the SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.7385/2018 accident and injuries which has sustained is only an unnatural incident which is not within the control of driver of this respondent. Further contended that the bus belongs to this respondent and was assigned on schedule trip Bengaluru to Sringeri. On 14.06.2018 the said bus was driven by its driver Mr.Manjanna token No.14153 and was proceeding on the schedule trip from Bengaluru to Sringeri slowly and cautiously observing all the rules and regulations. On 15.06.2018 at about 5.30 a.m., when he proceeding on Narasimharajpura Taluk, Guddahalli Village while taking a steep curve on mud road all of sudden the steering wheel got stucked as a result of which the driver of bus could not control the bus. The driver of bus who was cautious enough suddenly applied brakes and stopped the bus, while doing so the bus got toppled near road side pit, as a result of which some of the passengers of bus suffer minor injuries. Further contended that the driver of this respondent is not at all responsible for the cause of accident, the officials of this respondent SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.7385/2018 immediately visited the spot and shifted the passengers to hospital. The officials of this respondent visited hospital and paid entire medical expenses of Rs.1,65,254/- which had occurred to petitioner. The amount claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioner proves that, he sustained grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 15.06.2018 at about 5.30 a.m., near Gudehalli Village, N.R.Pura Town, while he was travelling in a KSRTC Bus bearing Regn.No.KA-40-F-1062 along with his family, due to the rash and negligent driving of above said KSRTC Bus by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the claim petition?
If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. The case is remanded by Hon'ble High Court of SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.7385/2018 Karnataka in MFA.No.3600 of 2020 with a direction to dispose the matter afresh. In order to prove his case, the petitioner himself got examined as PW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.19 and Dr.B.Ramesh got examined as PW.4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.23 & 24 and Senior Manager of H.R. Maxlife Insurance Company got examined as PW.5 and got marked documents at Ex.P.25 & 26 and closed their side of evidence. The driver in respondent corporation examined as RW.1, but no documents have been marked on his behalf and closed his side of evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for petitioner also filed written arguments and perused the same. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on citations reported in:
1. (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 between National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others.SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.7385/2018
2. (2018) 4 Supreme Court Cases 571 between Jagdish Vs. Mohan and others.
3. (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343 between Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another.
4. In MFA.No.102196/2015 (MV) of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, between Sri.Mehboob Sab Vs. Sri Mahesh and another.
5. In MFA.No.6200 of 2018 between Sri.Marigowda Vs. Shivanna and another.
6. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 between Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport corporation and another.
7. (2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 450 between Anant Vs. Pratap and another.
8. (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274 between Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others.
I have carefully perused the above reported judgments. With due respect to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.7385/2018 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the ratio and the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the above reported judgments are taken into consideration to decide the above case.
8. Findings of this tribunal on the above issues are as under:-
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:- The petitioner has contended that on 15.06.2018 at about 05.30 a.m., in Gudehalli Village, Near N.R.Pura Taluk, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC Non A/C Sleeper Bus bearing Regn.No.KA-40-F-1062 by its driver and he sustained grievous injuries.
10. In order to prove rash and negligent KSRTC Non A/C Sleeper Bus bearing Regn.No.KA-40-F-1062 by its driver, the SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.7385/2018 petitioners in all clubbed cases examined PW.1 to PW.3. In their chief examination, they have deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of bus by its driver the accident occurred. On perusal of cross-examination of PW.1 to 3 nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to 3 to disprove the case of petitioner.
11. Further, in order to prove accident, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint. On perusal of Ex.P.2, the witness by name Sri.Dugu Laksmana, S/o.Gundurao has lodged a complaint with police on 15.06.2018. Ex.P.9 Wound certificate, it shows that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. After completion of investigation, the police have filed charge sheet at Ex.P.13 against the driver of offending bus for the offences punishable U/s.279, 337 & 338 of IPC. RW.1 in his chief examination deposed that, he was driving his bus slowly and in a steep curve the steering wheel got sucked as a result of which he lost control over the bus, he suddenly applied the brake and SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.7385/2018 bus lost its balance and toppled near the road side pit. As a result of which the petitioners who were passenger in the said bus suffered some minor injuries. On perusal of evidence of RW.1, it is crystal clear that there was an accident and in the said accident the petitioner sustained injuries. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents produced as per Exs.P.1, 2, 8, 9 and 13, this tribunal is of the opinion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC Non A/C Sleeper Bus bearing Regn.No.KA-40-F-1062 by its driver and same has resulted in grievous injuries to the Petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.1 held in the Affirmative.
12. Issue No.2: In view of held issue No.1 in the Affirmative, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. To assess the compensation, the Tribunal has to look into several factors like injury, pain and suffering sustained by the petitioner and amount spent by the petitioner towards medical expenses, food and extra nourishment and medical attendants, SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.7385/2018 conveyance, loss of income during treatment, disability, loss of amenities etc., let me discussion one by one.
(a) Towards injury and pain and suffering:-
The petitioner has contended that due to accident he has sustained burst fracture of D12 vertebrae with paraplegia
- retropulsin of posterior fragment into spinal canal and left calcaneum fracture and underwent decompression and posterior spinal stabilization and discharged with an advice to take regular follow up treatment. In order to prove injuries caused to him, petitioner has produced Ex.P.9- Wound Certificate, which reveals that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner has produced discharge summaries issued by Kasturba Hospital, Manipal, Manipal Hospital, Koshys Hospital at Ex.P.10, 11, 12 & 17. On perusal of these documents, it shows that, the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient in the said hospitals. So, on perusal of records, the petitioner took treatment in the hospital as an inpatient and the petitioner examined the doctor as PW.4 SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.7385/2018 Dr.B.Ramesh and got marked two documents at Ex.P.23 & 24. PW.4/doctor has deposed that he examined the petitioner for assessment of disability. The doctor has assessed the total physical disability of 90% to the right lower limb and 90% to the left lower limb and 67.5% to the whole body. By considering the injury and facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the view that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- is just and reasonable towards pain and suffering.
(b) Towards Medical Expenses:
The petitioner has claimed compensation towards medical expenses. The petitioner contended that he took treatment at Kasturba & Manipal, Koshys Hospitals. The petitioner has also produced 80 Medical bills for a sum of Rs.6,62,064/- as per Ex.P.14, out of that he has produced at Page No.95 in Ex.P.14 Bill No.18 bill No.18 dated: 08.08.2018 for Rs.75,000/-, bill No.23 dated: 10.09.2018 for Rs.75,000/- and bill No.35 dated: 13.10.2018 for Rs.75,000/- issued by SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.7385/2018 Ratna Physiotherapy Clinic. Again the petitioner has produced Physiotheraphy bills at Ex.P.19 wherein Page No.124 Bill No.47 dated: 05.01.2019 for Rs.15,000/-, bill No.60 dated:
05.02.2019 for Rs.15,000/-, bill No.68 dated: 05.03.2019 for Rs.15,000/-, bill No.79 dated: 05.04.2019 for Rs.15,000/-, bill No.34 dated: 05.05.2019 for Rs.15,000/- are produced. In addition to these medical bills, the petitioner also produced bill No.30 dated: 05.03.2019 for Rs.51,000/-, bill No.76 dated: 05.04.2019 for Rs.51,000/-, bill No.54 dated 05.05.2019 for Rs.51,000/-. So, on perusal of all these bills, the petitioner produced the bills of Physiotherphy. Bill No.68 dated: 05.03.2019 for Rs.51,000/-, bill No.30, dated: 05.03.2019 for Rs.51,000/-. He has also produced bill No.34 dated: 05.05.2019 for Rs.15,000/- and again he has produced bill No.54 dated: 05.05.2019 for Rs.51,000/-. He has also produced Bill No.79 dated: 05.04.2019 and again has produced bill No.76 dated: 05.04.2019 for Rs.51,000/-. So, on perusal of these bills, they were prepared on same date but SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.7385/2018 amounts are different. Further in addition to all these bills, he has produced one more bill issued by Ratna Physiotherapy clinic dated: 05.07.2018 for Rs.75,000/-. Case on hand, no doubt the petitioner required physiotherapy. But the petitioner not examined the author of physiotherapy bill and the petitioner not proved these bills before the tribunal by placing cogent evidence. When the petitioner has not proved these physiotherapy bills, this tribunal is not accepted all these physiotherapy bills placed by the petitioner. The petitioner has produced three discharge summaries issued by Kasturba, Manipal and Koshys Hospitals at Ex.P.10, 11 and 17.
During cross examination of PW.2 has admitted that during hospitalization from the date of accident till discharge date, the KSRTC officials have paid Rs.1,65,254/-. In Ex.P.14 bill issued by Koshys Hospital dated: 11.07.2018, the petitioner has mentioned in the list, but actual bill amount of Rs.7,650/-. In Koshys Hospital bill dated: 11.07.2018 for Rs.12,410/-, instead of Rs.14,410/-. In Cash bill dated 07.01.2019, Tejas X- SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.7385/2018 rays and lab, he has mentioned Rs.1,600/- instead of Rs.1,700/-. In Rashi Akshyanagara bill dated: 28.06.2018, he has mentioned Rs.200/-, instead of Rs.1,800/-. This Tribunal calculated all the medical bills excluding physiotherapy bills. So, this tribunal is of the view that compensation of Rs.1,20,268/- is just and reasonable towards medical expenses.
(c) Towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant charges: On perusal of the records, the accident occurred on 15.06.2018 and the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient in the hospitals. On perusal of evidence, the petitioner was inpatient in several Hospitals as he has sustained grievous injuries. So, during the time of treatment the petitioner also required good food and extra nourishment. The petitioner produced three discharge summaries issued by Kasturba, Manipal and Koshys Hospitals at Ex.P.10, 11, 12 & 17, which shows that the petitioner was admitted from 15.06.2018 to 26.06.2018, 27.06.2018, 09.07.2018 to SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.7385/2018 11.07.2018 and again from 24.07.218 & 25.07.2018 i.e., for a period of 18 days. Considering the said fact the Tribunal is of the view that compensation of Rs.400/- per day for 18 days to a sum of Rs.7,200/- is just and reasonable towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant.
(d) Towards Conveyance:
The petitioner is the resident of SLV Ganga Nivas, Varanasi, Jinkethimmanahalli, Bidaramalli, RM Nagar, Bengaluru. He has admitted for treatment at Hospital. In order to prove this aspect the petitioner has produced Discharge Summaries as per Ex.P.10, 11, 12 & 17. Considering the injuries and facts of the case, the tribunal is of the view that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- is just and proper towards conveyance charges.
(e) Towards loss of income during treatment:
The petitioner has contended that he was working as an employee at Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., working as Relationship Manager - Customer Advisory Team and earning a SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.7385/2018 sum of Rs.32,164/-. Due to accidental injuries, he was not able to do work and lost his income. In order to prove his income, petitioner examined Senior Manager of HR Max Life Insurance Company as PW.5 and got marked documents at Ex.P.25 & 26 i.e., Letter of Appointment and Pay slips. As per Ex.P.25 Letter of Appointment, wherein it is mentioned as he was appointed as Relationship Manager - Customer Advisory Team. As per Ex.P.26 - Pay slips for the month of May & June 2018, wherein it shows that his basic salary was Rs.10,161/- and net salary was Rs.30,745/- and gross salary was Rs.32,164/-. In order to prove all these documents, the petitioners have examined one Senior Manager of H.R.Max Life Insurance Company as PW.5. He has deposed that the petitioner was working in their company and he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.32,000/- per month. In his cross examination, he has deposed that he did not know whether he has resigned his job or not, but he was relieved from the job. Further he has admitted that he was on probationary period. On perusal of SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.7385/2018 evidence of PW.5 and documents issued by Max Life Insurance Company, it shows that at the time of accident, the petitioner was working in the Max Life Insurance Company Limited as Relationship Manager and drawing Gross salary of Rs.32,164/-. The respondents have not rebutted the Ex.P.26 produced by the petitioner. So, this tribunal considered net salary of Rs.30,000/-, after deducting the professional tax and income tax. Due to the injuries, petitioner was unable to continue his work. However, by considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner might have in house for at least two months. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.60,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 2) towards loss of income during treatment.
f) Towards Permanent Disability:
The petitioner has contended that due to the accident, he was inpatient at several Hospitals, and sustained permanent disablement. The petitioner also examined Dr.B.Ramesh as PW.4 working as an Orthopedic Surgeon at SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.7385/2018 Victoria Hospital. PW.4/Doctor examined the patient clinically and radiologically to assess disabilities and he diagnosed that petitioner has sustained burst fracture of D12 vertebrae with paraplegia - retropulsion of posterior fragment into spinal canal and left calcaneum fracture and later discharged with advice to take follow up treatment. PW.4 has deposed that the petitioner suffers from total disability of 90% to the right lower limb and 90% to the left lower limb and 67.5% to the whole body. In order to prove her disability, the doctor has not produced disability certificate, but he has produced Ex.P.23 & 24 i.e., OPD Book and X-ray films.
The doctor has deposed that the petitioner sustained brust fracture of D12 vertebrae with paraplegia retropulsion of posterior fragment into spinal canal and left calcaneum fracture and further deposed in his chief examination that the petitioner moves around in wheel chair, the petitioner has a urinary catheter in site, the power of petitioners lower limbs are as follows:SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.7385/2018
i. Power of both hips 3/5 ii. Power of both knees 2/5 iii. Power of both ankles 0/5 (whereas the normal power in 5/5).
Even on perusal of Discharge summary issued by Kasturba Hospital at Ex.P.10, wherein also mentioned that tenderness over D12 vertebrae prominent spinous process at D12 Neurological examination:
SENSORY MOTOR
Right Left Right Left
L1 2/2 2/2 0/5 0/5
L2 1/2 1/2 0/5 0/5
L3 0/2 0/2 0/5 0/5
L4 0/2 0/2 0/5 0/5
L5 0/2 0/2 0/5 0/5
On perusal of hospital documents and oral evidence placed by the petitioner, it shows that the petitioner unable to attend his regular work due to the injuries sustained by him. The doctor clearly deposed that petitioner moves around in a wheel chair. The respondent nothing elicited from the mouth of PW.4 to disprove his evidence. The PW.4 has admitted that he was not treated the patient. On perusal of doctor evidence SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.7385/2018 and hospital documents, the petitioner cannot go for his regular work due to injuries sustained by him. Under such circumstances the functional disability of the petitioner assessed to the extent of 40%.
13. In order to prove age of the petitioner, he has not produced any documents, but he has produced Pay Slips marked at Ex.P.26, wherein the date of birth mentioned as 25.03.1986, the accident occurred on 15.06.2018, so the age of petitioner was 32 years as on the date of accident. So, the age of petitioner was 32 years at the time of accident.
Hence, the same is taken into consideration for applying multiplier and multiplier 16 is applicable as per Smt. Srla Verma case. As per ratio laid down in Raj Kumar V/s. Ajay kumar and another, this tribunal not deducted personal expenses of petitioner out of his gross income. Hence, future earning capacity of the petitioner due to permanent disability works out as under :
Annual Income before accident : (30,000/- x 12) = SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.7385/2018 Rs.3,60,000/-
Loss of future earning p.a. (40% of prior annual income) Rs.1,44,000/-.
Multiplier applicable with reference to age - 16 Loss of future earnings - (1,44,000/- x 16) = Rs.23,04,000/-. The petitioner is entitled for Rs.23,04,000/- under the head of loss of future earning capacity.
(g) Deprivation of Future Amenities:- The doctor has opined that the petitioner sustained burst fracture of D12 vertebrae with paraplegia retropulsion of posterior fragment into spinal canal and left calcaneum fracture and he is unable to do his day-today activities as earlier. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the view that compensation of Rs.20,000/- is just and reasonable under the head deprivation of future amenities.
14. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.7385/2018 compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
a. Towards injury pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
b. Towards medical expenses Rs.1,20,268/-
c. Towards food and extra Rs.7,200/-
nourishment and medical
attendant
d. Towards conveyance Rs.10,000/-
e. Towards loss of income during Rs.60,000/-
treatment
f. Towards loss of future earning Rs.23,04,000/-
capacity
g. Deprivation of future amenities Rs.10,000/-
Total compensation Rs.25,71,468/-
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,71,468/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
15. So, the respondent No.1 being the insurer and owner of the offending KSRTC Non A/C Sleeper Bus bearing Regn.No.KA-04-F-1062 is liable to pay compensation. Hence, Issue No.2 answered Partly in the Affirmative. SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.7385/2018
16. Issue No.3: In view of forgoing reasons this tribunal proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.25,71,468/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Eight only) with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
Respondent No. 1 is directed to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award after deducting amount already deposited.
Out of said compensation, 60% shall be released to petitioner and remaining 40% balance amount shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank nearer to his place for three years without encumbrance. He is entitled for interest that accrues on FD periodically.SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.7385/2018
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 petitioner hereby directed to produce particulars of his Bank Account, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contained compulsorily photographs of petitioner, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioner shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest thereon by respondent, the petitioner is 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 favor of petitioner on proper verification and identification or credit said amount to his account after expiry of three years period of deposit, without waiting SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.7385/2018 for further order of court.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer over computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 4th day of January, 2022.) (D.RAGHAVENDRA) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
PW.2 - Sri.Musuluri Kalyan Chakravathi PW.4 - Dr.B.Ramesh PW.5 - Sri.Kushal Gopal Dadhich DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P8 Bus E-Ticket
Ex.P9 Wound Certificate
Ex.P10 & 11 Two Discharge Summaries
Ex.P12 True copy of Case Summary
Ex.P13 Charge Sheet
Ex.P14 Medical bills
SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.7385/2018
Ex.P15 Treatment certificate
Ex.P16 Lab reports
Ex.P17 Discharge Summary
Ex.P18 Prescriptions
Ex.P19 9 Physiotherapy bills
Ex.P23 OPD Book
Ex.P24 X-ray
LIST OF WITNESSES ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 Sri.M.Manjanna LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS :
-NIL-
I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT.