Bangalore District Court
Hanumantappa.M vs Ranga Concrete Products on 22 March, 2025
1
KABC0B0048762023
BEFORE THE MACT & XV ADDL., JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-19)
PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN SADASHIV POL,
B.A., L.L.B(SPL)
XV ADDL. SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MACT,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 22nd day of March 2025
MVC No.4043/2023
1) Sri. Hanumanthappa M. S/o. Sidramappa,
Age 51 years.
2) Smt. Renukamma W/o. Hanumanthappa,
Age 42 years.
3) Kum. T.H. Poornima D/o. Hanumanthappa,
Age 23 years.
4) Kum. PoojaH.D. D/o. Hanumanthappa,
Age 21 years.
5) Prajwal Kumar H. S/o. Hanumanthappa,
Age 15 years.
(Petitioner No.5 being a Minor.
R/by his father & Natural Guardian/
Petitioner Sri. Hanumanthappa.
All are R/at :
SCCH-19 22 MVC. 4043/2023
No.165, 9th Cross, Ambedkar Nagar,
Whitefield, Bangalore. ..........Petitioners
(By Sri. M. Subramani, Adv.,)
V/s.
1) Sri. Ranga Concrete Products,
Sy.No.154/1, Dattakodi Village,
Attibele, Anekal Tq, Bangalore.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA-51/AB-8883)
2) H.D.F.C. ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Ground Floor, ACR Tower 32,
Residency Road, Ashoknaar,
Bangalore-560 025. .......Respondents
(Policy No.2315 2042 5639 1101 000,
Valid From 13.08.2022 to 12.08.2023)
(R.1 by Sri. H.G.L. Adv.,)
(R.2 by Sri. Madhu Kiran, Adv.,)
Date of Institution of petition : 24.06.2023
Nature of petition : U/Sec.166 of MV Act.
Date of commencement of : 06.12.2023
Recording of evidence
Date of pronouncement of : 22.03.2025
Judgment
Total Duration : Year Months Days
01 08 28
JUDGMENT
SCCH-19 33 MVC. 4043/2023 The petitioners have filed this petition U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner case is that, on 14.06.2023 at about 5.30 a.m, when the deceased Pratham H. was riding the TVS XL Heavy Duty Moped bearing Reg.No.KA-53/Q-4540 on Whitefield Main Road, near Prestige White Medows Apartment, at that time the driver of one Canter Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51/AB-8883 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, came from behind at high speed and dashed to the deceased and caused the accident, as a result of forced impact, deceased fell down and front right side wheel of the canter lorry ran over his back and he succumbed the accidental injuries on spot. Immediately after the accident deceased was taken to Vydehi Hospital, wherein postmortem was conducted and after postmortem they took the dead body to their native, by using an ambulance for which they have spent Rs.50,000/- and also performed funeral, obsequies, last rites for which they have spent more than Rs.3,00,000/-.
3. It is further stated that, the petitioner No.1 and 2 are the parents, petitioner No.3 is physically handicapped younger sister, petitioner No.4 and 5 are the younger sister SCCH-19 44 MVC. 4043/2023 and brother. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale, healthy and aged about 19 years and he was joining Veritastech Pilot Academy Coach and also part time job milk and paper distributor and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. and he had an opportunity to join Airways and worked at abroad in future. It is further stated that, deceased was only earning member in the family. Due to the sudden death of their only bread winner, the petitioners lost love and affection of the deceased and are undergoing great mental shock and mental agony. The petitioners also facing great financial difficulties.
4. It is further stated that, the accident in question purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Canter Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51/AB-8883, against whom the Whitefield Traffic Police have registered a case in Crime No.129/2023 punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the Lorry. It is further stated that, the Respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending Lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, prayed to grant compensation.
5. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 and 2 entered their appearance through their respective learned counsel and filed their written statements.
SCCH-19 55 MVC. 4043/20236. The respondent No.1 has filed written statement and contended that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is contended that he has denied the accident by side of the driver of his vehicle and it is duly insured with respondent No.2 and as on the date of accident the policy was in force. It is further denied the averments of the petition and also denied the place, date, time of accident and denied the age, occupation, income and also alleged rash and negligent driving of the said canter lorry. It is further denied that the injuries sustained by the deceased and expenditure towards treatment and funeral expenses. It has further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant.
7. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the petition averments and contended that the petition itself is not maintainable either on facts or law. The respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of insurance policy, but denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and also the amount spent towards medical expenses by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has contended that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the M.V. Act and the insured and jurisdictional police have not intimated about the alleged accident to the insurer, this respondent has no SCCH-19 66 MVC. 4043/2023 knowledge about the said accident till served with the notice by this Court. Further, it is further contended that the lorry was not involved in the alleged accident nor caused any accident to the deceased, as on the date of accident the deceased himself was negligent who rode his TVS XL in a zig zag manner in the middle of the road without having proper lookout over the oncoming vehicles along the road due to which the deceased fell down on the road. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself who was riding his vehicle without wearing helmet and caused the accident, the petitioners in collision with the jurisdictional police have created false crime records and story about the manner and involvement of the Lorry to get the compensation and have lodged false complaint against the insured vehicle. Further, it is contended that the driver of the alleged vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. It has further contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence on all these grounds, it has sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Based on the above pleadings, this tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1.Whether the petitioners prove that, on 14.06.2023 at about 5.30a.m, the deceased SCCH-19 77 MVC. 4043/2023 Pratham H. was riding TVS XL Heavy Duty Moped bearing Reg.No.KA-53/Q-4540 on Whitefield Main Road and he reached near Prestige White Meadows Apartment, at that time, driver of one Canter Lorry bearing Reg.KA-51/AB-8883 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind at a high speed from same direction and dashed the deceased's vehicle. As a result of forced impact, the deceased was fell down and front right side wheel of the canter Lorry ran over his back and he sustained grievous injuries as on he spot?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much? From whom?
3. Whether order or award?
9. In order to substantiate the case, petitioner No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 28 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28. The petitioners got examined the Driver of one Swift Dizer Car as PW.2 and also examined and got marked Ex.P.4(a) and P29, and they have also examined the police of Whitefield Police Station as PW.3.
10. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
11. For the following reasons, this Tribunal answer the above Issues as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative, SCCH-19 88 MVC. 4043/2023 Issue No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
12. Issue No.1 :- The petitioners filed this petition against respondents for claiming compensation from the respondents, due to death of son of the petitioner No.1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No.3 to 5 in a road traffic accident.
13. In order to substantiate the case, the petitioner No.1 Sri. Hanumanthappa got examined himself as PW.1 and filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and in his chief affidavit, he has reiterated the entire contention of petition and got marked 28 documents as Ex.P1 to P.28.
14. Ex.P.1 is the copy of F.I.R, Ex.P.2 is the copy of complaint, Ex.P.3 is the copy of further statement of complainant, Ex.P.4 is the copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is the copy of sketch, Ex.P.6 is the copy of inquest report, Ex.P.7 is the copy of IMV report, Ex.P.8 is the copy of PM report, Ex.P.9 is the copy of eyewitness statements, Ex.P.10 is the copy of notice U/Sec.133, of MV Act. Ex.P.11 is the copy of reply to the notice, Ex.P.12 is the copy of accused statement, Ex.P.13 is the copy of identification of accused by witnesses, Ex.P.14 is the copy of police notice issued to Manager of Ram Dev Medicals to collect the CC SCCH-19 99 MVC. 4043/2023 Footage of the accident, Ex.P.15 is the copy of Sec.65 B certificate, Ex.P.16 is the copy of police intimation, Ex.P.17 is the FSL report of deceased, Ex.P.18 is the copy of delivery challan of offending vehicle, Ex.P.19 is the copy of charge sheet, Ex.P.20 is the copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased, Ex.P..21 to 25 are the Aadhar cards of the petitioners, Ex.P.26 is the copy of SSLC Marks Card of deceased, Ex.P.27 is the copy of 2 nd year PUC Marks Card and Ex.P.28 is the copy of certificate of appreciation.
15. The petitioner got examined the driver of one Car as eye witness as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.29 his Aadhar Card and also his signature on Ex.P.4 as Ex.P.4(a). The petitioners also examined the Head Constable of White Field Traffic Police Station as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.30 and P.31 as Pen Driver and Certificate U/Sec.65(B).
16. The Respondent No.1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence and also not produced any document on their behalf.
17. The respondent No.2 has contended that, this accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the deceased himself and denied about the involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident and contended that the insured vehicle is falsely implicated in the petition.
SCCH-19 10 10 MVC. 4043/202318. To prove the contention that, the insured vehicle has been falsely implicated, the respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence. On the other hand, PW.1 has stated about the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. In cross-examination, he has stated that he has seen the CC TV Camera Footage and confirms the causing of the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle. The petitioners have examined the eyewitness of the accident one Mr. Arun Giri as PW.2. Wherein he has stated that on 14-06-2023 he was going to drop the passengers, at that time about 5.30a.m. opposite of the Prestige Apartment one vehicle No.KA-51/AB-8883 TATA Canter hit the TVS Excel. He parked his vehicle, the driver of the Canter ran away from the spot, he saw the vehicle number and he left the spot to drop the passengers. At about 11.30am he was return and saw that police were at the spot and he has given the details of vehicles to the police. In cross-examination nothing worthy has been elicited from the mouth of PW.2 to disbelieve his evidence. On perusal of the evidence of PW.2, it appears that he is the eyewitness to the accident and he saw the offending vehicle causing the accident. Therefore, it appears that the offending vehicle has caused the accident.
19. Further, PW.3 has stated in his chief-examination that, At the time of PM the tier marks were found on the SCCH-19 11 11 MVC. 4043/2023 body. As per the direction of the Investigation Officer, he has collected the CC TV footage from White Meadows Apartments and Ramdev Medical for the concerned time. As per CC TV Footage the accident took place between two wheeler and Canter. The Canter was having cement blocks and rear side of the Canter SRCP was written in red colour. In cross-examination nothing worthy has been elicited from the mouth of PW.3 to disbelieve his evidence. On perusal of the evidence of PW.3, it appears that, from the CC TV Footage, the offending vehicle has been traced out and it is involved in the accident. During the arguments by the petitioners' side, this Tribunal has played the Pen Drive and saw the passing of offending vehicle at the spot. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the offending vehicle has caused the accident and petitioners have proved the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.
20. On perusal of Ex.P.5 spot sketch, it discloses that the accident occurred on the side of the road and the deceased on his side, though there is sufficient space for moving the offending vehicle on left side of said vehicle, the driver of offending vehicle took his vehicle to his right side and dashed to the Petitioner and caused the accident. Further on perusal of Ex.P.10 and 11 i.e., notice U/Sec.133 of IMV Act and reply to the said notice, in the reply the owner of SCCH-19 12 12 MVC. 4043/2023 the vehicle admitted that the driver was driving the vehicle on the date of alleged accident and he is having valid D.L. and insurance was in force on the date of accident. So it clearly indicates that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. Further on perusal of charge sheet it discloses that, the Whitefield Traffic Police filed the case against the driver of TATA Canter Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA- 51/AB-8883 and another by name Narayana A.P. for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC r/w Sec.134(A & B), 187, 146 and 196 of IMV Act. But, there is no any material to hold that, there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR(Civil) 319 Kausum and others V/s Satbir and others held that, in the petition for compensation U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act.1988 the petitioners have to prove the incident only on the preponderance of the probabilities and standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt is not required.
22. After careful scrutiny of Ex.P.1-F.I.R. Ex.P.2-Complaint, Ex.P.3-further statement of complainant, Ex.P.4-Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.5-Sketch, Ex.P.7-IMV report, Ex.P.9- Eyewitness statements, Ex.P.19-charge sheet, Ex.P.10-Copy of Notice U/Sec.133 of IMV act and Ex.P.11 reply to the Notice U/Sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P.30 the Pen Drive, it appears that, SCCH-19 13 13 MVC. 4043/2023 as on the date of alleged accident, the driver of offending vehicle drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased motorcycle and caused the accident. Therefore considering all these aspects, this Tribunal came to conclusion that, the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Canter Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51/AB-8883. Accordingly, this Tribunal is answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
23. Issue No.2: The petitioners claiming compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/- with respect to death of Mr. Pratham M. in a road traffic accident. The petitioners have stated that, due to sudden death of the deceased they lost love, affection and future support of the deceased and also they were undergoing great mental agony and hardship. The deceased was the sole bread earner of the family.
24. To prove the age of the deceased, the petitioners produced notarized copies of SSLC and PUC Marks Cards and Aadhaar Card of the deceased which are marked as Ex.P.20, P.26 and P.27. As per said documents, date of birth of the deceased is shown as 29.10.2004. This accident occurred in the year 2023. Hence the age of the deceased is taken into consideration as 19 years at the time of accident. Then the proper multiplier is 18.
SCCH-19 14 14 MVC. 4043/202325. The Petitioners stated that, prior to the date of accident the deceased was hale, healthy and he was joining Veritastech Pilot Academy Coach and also doing part time job like milk and paper distributor and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/-p.m. and used his entire income for the maintenance of his family. The petitioners not examined any witness and produced any document to prove actual income and avocation of the deceased. In present days the coolie worker can gets Rs.500/- to 600/- per day. Therefore, by considering the age and occupation of deceased this Tribunal taken notional income of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- p.m.
26. With regard to the loss of future prospectus is concern, the Apex court in the earlier Judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh & Ors Vs Rajbir Singh & Ors) also taken note of the fact that, self employed persons are also entitled for future prospectus and the said Judgment was referred to larger bench and the Apex court in the recent Judgment passed in 2017 ACJ 2700 SC (between National Insurance co. ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others.) "In case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 year. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and SCCH-19 15 15 MVC. 4043/2023 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component"
Herein this case, the deceased is aged about 19 years at the time of accident and no document produced to prove his actual income and avocation. Hence the Petitioners are entitled to claim 40% of future prospectus as per above citation, due to death of the deceased in the road traffic accident.
27. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioners are parents, brother and sister of the deceased. Hence the petitioners No.1 to 4 are considered as dependents on the income of the deceased. So relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Varma and others -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation & another), out of the income of the deceased 50% has to be deducted towards Personal expenses of the deceased as the deceased is the Unmarried / Bachelor.
a) Income of deceased is taken at Rs. 16,000-00
b) Addition of 40% income towards Rs.
future prospectus @ Rs.16,000/-
22,400-00 + 6,400/- (40%) SCCH-19 16 16 MVC. 4043/2023
c) Deduction towards personal expenses:
Rs. 11,200-00
Out of Rs.22,500/- - (50%) =
Rs.11,200/-
Therefore this tribunal taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs.11,200/-, which comes as under:-
Rs.11,200 X 12 X 18 = Rs.24,19,200/- Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.24,19,200/- under the head loss of dependency.
28. The petitioners are the parents, sisters and brother of the deceased, they lost love, affection and future support of the deceased. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was held in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. ltd., V/s Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP (civil) 3192/2018) The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to SCCH-19 17 17 MVC. 4043/2023 the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the Principles of awarding compensation under "Loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi (Supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000/- each, for loss of Filial Consortium.
Hence, the Petitioners No.1 to 5 are entitled compensation for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of Filial Consortium.
29. The petitioners claiming that, they have spent Rs.3,50,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremonies of the deceased. but they have not produced any documents in this respect. Considering the expenses towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies of the deceased and in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in 2017 ACJ 2700 SC (between National Insurance co. ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others), it is just and proper to award a Rs.15,000/- under this head. Further the Petitioners are also entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of estate.
SCCH-19 18 18 MVC. 4043/202330. Considering oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence, it is just and proper to grant compensation as follows:
Sl.
Under the Heads of Amount
No.
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 24,19,200-00
2. Towards Filial Consortium Rs. 2,00,000-00
3. Towards funeral and Rs. 15,000-00
obsequies ceremonies
4. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000-00
Total Rs. 26,49,200-00
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.26,49,200/-.
31. Interest:
In so far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, in MFA.No.103557/2016 (between Sriram General Insurance Co. ltd., V/s Smt. Lakshmi & others, dd 20-03-2018) the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru has held that as per Sec.34 of CPC the rate of interest that can be awarded on Judgments cannot be more than 6% p.a. and that since Sec.149 of M.V. Act provides for the interest on Judgments, the interest to be awarded in claim Petitions has to be 6% p.a. SCCH-19 19 19 MVC. 4043/2023 and not more than that. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
32. Liability:-
The respondent No.1 is the owner & respondent No.2 is the insurer of the Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51/AB-8883. As already discussed in the Issue No.1 it is proved that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle, hence respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Further the respondent No.2 being Insurer of the offending vehicle is primarily held liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Tribunal is answered Issue No.2 in the Partly Affirmative.
33. Issue No.3:- For the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal has proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The claim petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby Partly allowed with cost as hereunder.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.26,19,200/-. with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.SCCH-19 20 20 MVC. 4043/2023
The Respondent No.1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. Further the Respondent No.2 being insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation together with 6% interest within Sixty days, from the date of this order.
The petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-each with interest and the petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,19,200/- with interest, petitioner No.4 and 5 are entitled for Rs.3,50,000/- each with interest.
After deposit, out of awarded share compensation amount 50% each, with interest shall be released in favour of the Petitioner No.1 to 4 with proper identification and the remaining their shares amount with interest shall be deposited in their names in FD in any nationalized bank, for a period of Three years.
After deposit, the entire share of petitioner No.5 with interest shall be deposited in his name in FD in any nationalized bank for 3 years or till he attain the age of majority whichever is later.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 22nd day of March 2025) Digitally signed by MOHAN MOHAN SADASHIV SADASHIV POL Date: 2025.04.03 POL 17:24:37 +0530 (Mohan Sadashiv Pol) XV ASCJ & Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.SCCH-19 21 21 MVC. 4043/2023
A N N E X U R E:
List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:
P.W.1 : Sri. Hanumanthappa M. P.W.2 : Sri. Arun Giri M. P.W.3 : Sri. V.G. Anand.
List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.2 : Copy of Complaint. Ex.P.3 : Copy of Further Statement of Complainant. Ex.P.4 : Copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.2. Ex.P.5 : Copy of Spot Sketch. Ex.P.6 : Copy of Inquest Report. Ex.P.7 : Copy of IMV Report. Ex.P.8 : Copy of P.M. Report. Ex.P.9 : Copy of Eyewitness Statements(3 in Nos.) Ex.P.10 : Copy of Notice U/Sec.133 of MV Act. Ex.P.11 : Copy of Reply to the Notice. Ex.P.12 : Copy of Accused Statement. Ex.P.13 : Copy of Witnesses Statements (4 in Nos.) Ex.P.14 : Copy of Police Notice. Ex.P.15 : Copy of Certificate U/Sec.65(B) of Evidence Act. Ex.P.16 : Copy of Police Intimation. Ex.P.17 : Copy of FSL Report. SCCH-19 22 22 MVC. 4043/2023 Ex.P.18 : Copy of Delivery Challan. Ex.P.19 : Copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.P.20 : Copy of Aadhar Card of Deceased.
Ex.P.21 to 25 : Copy of Aadhar Cards of Petitioners. Ex.P.26 : Copy of SSLC Marks Card of Deceased. Ex.P.27 : Copy of 2nd PUC Marks Card of Deceased. Ex.P.28 : Copy of Certificate of Appreciation.
Ex.P.29 : Copy of Aadhar Card of PW.2. Ex.P.30 : Pen Driver. Ex.P.31 : Certificate U/Sec.65(B) of Evidence Act.
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
- NIL -
List of documents marked for Respondents:
- NIL - MOHAN Digitally signed by MOHAN SADASHIV POL SADASHIV Date: POL 2025.04.03 17:24:46 +0530 (Mohan Sadashiv Pol) XV ASCJ & Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.