Bangalore District Court
Kumari Hemalatha vs Icici Lombard Motor Ins.Co.Ltd on 28 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated: This 28th day of March 2017.
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
& Member MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.4501/2016
PETITIONER: Kumari Hemalatha
D/o Bandesh
Aged about 19 years,
R/at Maralakunte Village,
Sompur Hobli,
Nelamangala,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Pleader Sri.RCS)
/Vs./
RESPONDENTS: 1. ICICI Lombard Motor Ins.Co.Ltd.,
No.121, The Estate Building,
9th Floor, Dickenson Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
(By pleader Sri.JNR)
2. Habeeb Khan,
S/o Ameer Khan,
Thyamagondlu,
Kalallugatha Post,
Nelamgala,
Bengaluru Rural-562123.
(By pleader Sri.SRS)
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this claim petition against the respondents U/S.166 of M.V. Act for seeking compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief contents of petition are as under:
On 15-11-2014, at about 9.30 A.M., the petitioner was standing by the side of the road near Bhoodihal, on NH-4 Tumkur -Bengaluru highway for cross the road and at that time, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-J-3715 ride the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the public gathered at the spot have shifted the injured to J.P. hospital, Nelamangala, wherein, he has taken first aid and thereafter, he was shifted to Hosmat hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he has taken treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery. After discharge from the hospital and as per the advice of the doctor, the petitioner has taken follow-up treatment as an outpatient and till today, he is taking treatment as an outpatient. The contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical expenses and other incidental charges.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 26 years, working in paragon factory and drawing salary of Rs.10,000/-p.m. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disablement and he is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier to the accident and as such, he has left the job.
4. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the alleged motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-J-3715 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the alleged motorcycle and as such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Contending the above facts, he prays to grant for compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- with interest and cost.
5. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before the court through their respective counsel and filed the objection statement.
6. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.1 are as under:
The claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent No.1 has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and injuries sustained by him and disablement suffered by him and medical expenses incurred by him. Further he has admitted that, he is the owner of the alleged motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-J-3715 and the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and as such, he is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Further he contended that his vehicle is falsely implicated in the accident with an intention to claim the compensatition. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him with cost.
7. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.2 are as under:
The respondent No.2 has contended that, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the entire accident in toto and also contended that, the alleged vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and not caused the accident to the petitioner and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Further the respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy to the alleged motorbike and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. Further he contended that, the owner of the alleged vehicle was not complied the mandatory provision of Sec.134 (c) of M.V.Act and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of Sec.158 (6) of MV Act. Further he contended that, the rider of the alleged motorcycle was not responsible for occurrence of alleged accident, inspite of that, the concerned police have wrongly prepared the charge sheet against him. Further he contended that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to negligence on the part of the alleged motorbike, on the other hand, the alleged accident has occurred due sole negligence on the part of the petitioner as he was cross the road carelessly and negligent manner where there was no Zebra crossing for cross the road by the pedestrian. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and injuries sustained by him and disablement suffered by him and medical expenses incurred by him. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him with cost.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grevious injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the HONDA MOTOR CYCLE bearing Reg.
No.KA-52-J-3715 on 15.11.2014 at about 09.30 A.M., near Boodhihal village on Tumakur - Bengaluru NH-4 Road, Kasaba Hobali, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate? From whom?
3. What order or award?
9. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to 12. Further in support of his evidence, he has examined Dr.Chethan.A as Pw-2 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-13 to 16.
10. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence are produced.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
12. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 & 2: In the partly affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
13. ISSUE NO.1:- During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued by reiterating the contents of petition and also evidence put forth by PW-1 and 2. Further he argued that, to prove the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the alleged motorcycle, the petitioner has produced the copy of police investigation papers and on perusal of contents of those documents, it is clear that, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Further he argued that, the defence of the respondent No.2 is that, the alleged motorcycle was not at all involved in the accident and if the petitioner has proved that, the alleged motorcycle has caused the accident to him, then the petitioner has also contributed major extent of negligence for occurrence of accident as he was negligently cross the road, where there was no zebra crossing for cross the road by the pedestrian. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.2 has not examined any witness who have seen the accident and not produced any supportive documents and as such, the oral version of the respondent No.2, is not acceptable one. Further he argued that, to prove the disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has examined Dr.Chethan .A as PW-2 and as per the version of the doctor, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 13% to the whole body. Further he argued that, the petitioner has proved his case as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.2. Further he argued that, on perusal of the copy of police investigation papers produced by the petitioner itself shows that, the alleged motorcycle was not at all involved in the accident and not caused the accident to the petitioner. Further he argued that, on perusal of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with contents of copy of panchanama, it is clear that, the alleged accident was occurred on the middle of the road and as such, the petitioner has also contributed major extent of negligence for occurrence of accident. Further he argued that, to prove the alleged disablement suffered by the petitioner, though, he has examined the doctor as PW-2, but he is not a treated doctor and as such, the evidence of the PW-2 is not acceptable one. Further he argued that, the petitioner has failed to prove his occupation and income as contended in the petition by producing proper documents and also he has failed to prove his case as contended in the petition by producing proper documents. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition as against the respondent No.2 with cost.
15. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon the following citations:
1. 2015 (1) AKR 89 (S. Narayana Vs. M.G. Ravichandran and another)
2. 2014 ACJ 1968 (Saravana Vs. T. Kiran Vinod and another)
3. ILR 2004 KAR 1104 (Koosappa Poojari Vs. Sadabba and others)
16. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I, intend to discuss the case on merits.
On perusal of the evidence available on records, it reveals that, to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as Pw-1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of petition. Further in support of his evidence, the Pw-1 has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 12.
17. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-1 at length. In the cross-examination, the P.W.1 has clearly stated at Page No.11 and 12 that:-
" C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¥Àr¹vÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ, ¨ÉÊPï §gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀPÀÆÌ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¥Àr¹vÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ ¨ÉÊPï£ÀÄß, ¸ÀªÁgÀ£ÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ §¢UÉ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÉAÉzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁV, ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è, gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ §®PÉÌ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÉAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¨ÉÊPï §gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr, CzÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ §gÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÃ, gÀ¸ÉÛ zÁl¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ MªÉÄäUÉ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁl®Ä ºÉÆÃVgÀĪɣÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀ ¨ÉÊPï £À£ÀUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ, ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà ªÁºÀ£À C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, DzÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ, £Á£ÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀ ¨ÉÊPï ¸ÀªÁgÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¦ügÀÁåzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪɣÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of the above evidence, it reveals that, at one stretch, the respondent No.2 has denied the involvement of the alleged motorcycle in the accident and on the other stretch, he has admitted the alleged accident, but he has contended that, the petitioner has also contributed some extent of negligence for occurrence of accident.
18. To prove the said defence and to disprove the version of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has not produced any rebuttal documents. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the entire version of the respondent No.2 is not acceptable one.
19. Further on perusal of the records, it reveals that, to prove the involvement of the alleged motorcycle in the accident and to prove the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the alleged motorcycle, in support of oral evidence, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of police investigation papers and the same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 5. On perusal of Ex-P-1 and 5 i.e. copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that, Nelamangala rural police have registered a case against the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-J-3715 and after completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet against the rider of the said motorcycle.
20. Further as stated above that, the specific contention of the respondent No.2 is that, if the petitioner has proved the alleged accident as contended in the petition, then he has also contributed major extent of negligence for occurrence of accident as he was negligently cross the road where there was no zebra crossing for cross by the pedestrian. To prove the said contention, the respondent No.2 has relied upon the evidence of PW-1 and contents of copy of spot panchanama. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1, it reveals that, the PW-1 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination at page No.9 that, "on the alleged spot there was no zebra cross for crossing the road by the pedestrian". Further on perusal of Ex-P-2 i.e. copy of spot panchanama, it reveals that, admittedly, the alleged spot was on the National Highway-4 road. Further on perusal of Ex-P-2 ie., spot panchanama, wherein, the alleged spot was shown as under:
"¥ÉǰøÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ ¨sÁgÀvï ¨ÉAeï£À ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ-¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ J£ïºÉZï- 4 gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀsåzÀ «ÄrAiÀÄ£ï¢AzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 8 Cr zÀÆgÀzÀ°è gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀA¨Às«¹zÀÄÝ.............."
On perusal of the above contents of spot panchanama, it reveals that, the alleged accident has occurred on the middle of the road. Further as stated above that as per the version of the petitioner, itself clear that, on the alleged spot, there was no zebra crossing for cross the road by the pedestrian and the said road is a national highway. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has also contributed some extent of negligence for occurrence of accident. However the degree of negligence on the part of the petitioner is lesser than, the negligence on the part of the rider of the alleged motorbike. For the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the extent of negligence on the part of the petitioner is fixed at 15% and the extent of negligence on the part of the rider of the alleged motorcycle is fixed at 85% certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
21. At this stage, I have gone through the citation relied by the counsel for the respondent No.2 reported in 2015 (1) AKR 89 (S. Narayana Vs. M.G. Ravichandran and another), wherein, the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka observed as under:-
"(A) Motor Vehicle Act (59 of 1988), Sec.166-Contributery negligence-Determination-
Accident occurred when claimant was crossing road-Evidence showing that he was crossing road even after seeing car coming from opposite direction-In city like Bangalore vehicle are continuously running one after another-Fed up by waiting, claimant might have attempted to cross road and in said process, he had also contributed towards accident to some extent-Considering this fact, driver of offending vehicle i.e., car and claimant contributed held liable to extent of 85% and 15% respectively.
On going through the above Judgment, the observation of the Hon'ble High Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand, as the facts involved in the said case and facts and circumstances of the present case are similar one.
22. Considering the above facts and on appreciation of evidence of Pw-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has partly proved the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the alleged motorcycle as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence.
23. Further on perusal of Ex.P.4 i.e., copy of wound certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained simple as well as grievous injuries in the above said accident.
24. Considering the above facts and on appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has partly proved this issue by producing proper documents. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the partly affirmative.
25. ISSUE NO.2:- The specific contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 26 years, working in Paragon factory, Nelamangala and drawing salary of Rs.10,000/-p.m. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, he has sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and also sustained fracture of D4 to D8 spinous and as such, he has suffered permanent disablement and he is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier to the accident. Hence, he has left the job and as such, he has lost the earning capacity. .
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has denied the above contention of the petitioner in toto.
26. To prove the age, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of election ID card and the same is marked as Ex.P.11. On perusal of Ex.P.11, wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 25-11-1988 and the same is considered as date of birth of the petitioner, then it is clear that, as on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 26 years. Hence the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is "17".
27. To prove the occupation and income, the petitioner has not produced any proper documents. On the other hand, on perusal of contents of the complaint and contents of charge sheet, wherein, the occupation of the petitioner is shown as factory worker. Considering the above facts and looking to the contents of complaint and charge sheet and in the absence of positive documents regarding the income of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that, if the income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.7,000/-p.m., as the alleged accident has occurred in the month of November 2014 certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
28. To prove the disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has examined Dr. Chethan.A, Orthopedic Surgeon, Hosmat hospital, Bengaluru, as PW-2, who has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and sustained D4 to D8 spinous process fracture. Further he has stated regarding the difficulties facing by the petitioner. Further he has stated that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 39% to the left lower limb and 13% to the whole body.
29. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-2 at length. On perusal of the entire evidence of Pw-2, it reveals that, the PW-2 is one of the treated doctor and at present, the fractures are united.
Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of injuries and looking to the age and occupation of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that, if the extent of disability suffered by the petitioner is considered as 13% to the whole body as stated by PW-2 certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
30. The income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.7,000/-p.m. and disability is considered as 13 and the multiplier 17 is applied, then the loss of income due to disability comes to Rs.1,85,640/-(Rs.7,000X12X13/100X17). Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.1,86,000/-under the head of loss of future earnings.
31. Further on perusal of Ex.P.4 i.e. copy of wound certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:-
1. Comminuted fracture of mid 1/3rd of left tibia
2. Segmental fracture of mid 1/3rd of left fibula
3. Fracture of D4 to D8 spinous process
4. Lacerated wound over the left tibia measuring 5x2x3 cm.
Further it reveals that, as per the version of the doctor, the injury No.1 to 3 are grievous in nature and the injury No.4 is simple in nature.
Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of injuries and considering the age and occupation of the petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-under the head of pain and suffering.
32. Further as stated above that, the petitioner was a factory worker and he has sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and sustained fracture of D4 to D8 spinous process and suffered disability to the extent of 13% to the whole body and as such, the said extent of disability suffered by the petitioner may affect some extent on the occupation of the petitioner. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of amenities.
33. Further on perusal of Ex.P.6 i.e. discharge summary, it shows that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 5 days at Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore. Further on perusal of the evidence of PW-2, it shows that, after discharge from the hospital, the petitioner has taken follow-up treatment as an outpatient at Hosmat hospital, Bengaluru. Looking to the period of hospitalization and period of follow-up treatment, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.8,000/- under the head of attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges.
34. The contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent more than Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. In support of his contention, he has produced the medical bills and the same are marked as Ex.P.7. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has disputed the genuineness of the said bills and to that effect, the counsel for respondent No.2 has cross examined the PW-1 at length, but nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve those bills. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex-P7 - medical bills, it shows that, the petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.1,14,295/- towards medical expenses. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.1,14,000/- under the head of medical expenses.
35. Further due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner might not have attended his regular work atleast for a period of 4 months, as he has sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and sustained fracture of D4 to D8 spinous process and he was hospitalized for a period of 5 days. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.29,000/-under the head of loss of income during laid up period and rest period.
36. Further the PW-2/doctor has stated that, the petitioner needs one more surgery for removal of implants from left tibia and cost of the said surgery is Rs.50,000/-. In support of his contention, the Pw-2/doctor has not produced any estimation letter or other proper documents. Considering the above facts and in the absence of positive documents regarding the cost of future surgery and looking to the nature of surgery, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of future medical expenses.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,07,000/-under the following heads:-
Sl.No. Compensation heads Amount
1. Towards Loss of future earnings Rs. 1,86,000/-
2. Towards pain and suffering Rs. 1,10,000/-
3. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/-
4. Towards loss of income during laid up Rs. 29,000/-
period and rest period
5. Towards Medical expenses Rs. 1,14,000/-
6. Towards attendant, nourishment and Rs. 8,000/-
conveyance charges
7. Future medical expenses Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs.5,07,000/-
37. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of petition and contents of objection statement, it reveals that, the respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the alleged motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-J-3715 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has contributed the negligence to the extent of 15% for occurrence of accident and the rider of the alleged motorcycle had contributed the negligence to the extent of 85%. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 85% of the total compensation amount to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the alleged motorcycle is liable to pay compensation to the extent of 85% of Rs.5,07,000/- which comes to Rs.4,30,950/- which is rounded of to Rs.4,31,000/- with interest @9% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.2 in the partly affirmative.
38. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion on issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/S.166 of M.V.Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,31,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. (future medical expenses does not carry any interest) from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, in view of the policy, the respondent No.2-insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within 60 days from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, looking to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner an amount of Rs.75,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized bank/ schedule Bank of petitioner's choice, for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be paid to the petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 28th day of March 2017).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. Bachan Pashi P.W.2. Dr.Chethan.A List of documents exhibited on petitioner`s side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint Ex-P2 Tue copy of Mahazar Ex-P3 True copy of MVA report Ex-P4 True copy of wound certificate Ex-P5 True copy of charge sheet Ex-P6 Discharge summary Ex-P7 Medical bills Ex-P8 Medical prescriptions Ex-P9 Lab reports Ex-P10 CTscan report Ex-P11 Notarized copy of voter ID card Ex-P12 X-rays Ex-P13 &14 Inpatient Case sheet Ex-P15 OPD case sheet Ex-P16 X-ray
List of witnesses examined on respondents side:
-None-
List of documents exhibited on respondents side:
-Nil-
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.