Bangalore District Court
Kurshid Begum vs Rihana Banu on 2 December, 2025
KABC020449062023
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
MVC No.8763/2023
PETITIONER: 1. Smt. Kurshid Begum
W/o Basheer Ahmed
Aged about 60 years
2. Mr. Basheer @ Basheer
Ahmed
S/o Late. Basha
Aged about 65 years
3. Mr. Abdul Rehman
S/o Basheer Ahmed
Aged about 36 years
4. Mr. Adbul Razak
S/o Basheer Ahmed
Aged about 34 years
All are R/at no.7, H Cross,
Madar Sab Layout New
Guruappanaplay, Bengaluru
South, Dharmaram college
Bengaluru-29.
(By Sri. B.H.Chikkanna,
Advocate/s.)
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.8763/2023
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt. Rihana Banu
W/o Mehaboob khan,
No.453, 11th cross,
Srikanteshwara School Road,
K.N Pura Badavane,
Kalyanagiri, Mysore-570019.
(RC owner of the motorcycle
bearing registration no. KA-09-
HS-9151)
(Ex-parte)
2. The Manager
The Shriram General
Insurance Co.Ltd.
Old No.619/L, BBMP Khata
No.25 PID No.15-31-25,
Situated at, 36th cross Road,
2nd Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 010.
Policy no.418033/31/19/002943
Valid from:07.09.2018 to
06.09.2023.
(By Sri. S.R.Murthy, Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
This judgment arises out of claim petition filed by the claimants against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") SCCH-25 3 MVC No.8763/2023 praying for awarding compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the death of Sri. Abdul Rahim was died in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 30.06.2023 at about 06.00pm.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 30.06.2023 at about 06.00p.m. the deceased was a pillion rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-HS-9151 along with his friend as a rider Sri.Syed Arsha, near Yaliyuru Circle, Mysore to Bangalore Road, Mandya, within the jurisdiction of Mandya Rural Police Station, Mandya, at that time the rider of the said motorcycle ridden it with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endangering human life and the tube of the rear tyre of the motorcycle was hit due to the speed and air went out immediately due to the speed, the motorcycle went out of control and fell on the right side of the road and the motorcycle was rubbed. On account of the tremendous impact of the said accident, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately the deceased was shifted to MIMS Hospital, SCCH-25 4 MVC No.8763/2023 Mandya, provided first aid treatment later shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment and he died on 19.07.2023 at about 5.36pm. The Post-Mortem was conducted at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. Petitioners performed the funeral and last rites.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that the deceased Abdul Rahim was hale and healthy, working as Sale Executive and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and entire amount contributed to the maintenance of his family. Due to the sudden and unnatural death, the petitioners lost their son and depending on the income of the deceased Abdul Rahim. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners are put into great mental shock and agony. The accident was occurred due to the negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-HS-9151 and Mandya Rural Police have registered a case in Cr.No.290/2023 p/u/Secs.279, 304(A) of the IPC against the rider of the said offending motorcycle. The 1st respondent being the RC owner SCCH-25 5 MVC No.8763/2023 and the 2nd respondent being the Insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. In response to the notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of summons, the respondent No.1 did not appear hence, placed ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.2 has filed objections by denying entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in favour of the Respondent No.1 in respect of the Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-HS-9151. The rider of the offending motorcycle did not possess a valid DL as on the date of accident. There is a non compliance of Sec.134(c) and Sec.158(6) of MV Act. It has also denied the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. Further denied the age, occupation, income of the deceased. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners are exorbitant and highly excessive. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against it.
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.8763/2023
6. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are arises for determination.
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased Sri.Abdul Rahim ?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioners prove that, the deceased Sri.Abdul Rahim, had died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 30.06.2023 at about 6:00pm, near Yaliyuru circle, Mysore-Bengaluru Road, Mandya, due to rash and negligent riding of rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 09-HS-9151 as alleged?
Issue No.3: Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, what amount and from whom?
Issue No.4: What order or Award?
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.3 has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked total Thirteen documents as Exs.P1 to P.13. They have also got examined Mr.Arokia Swamy - Medical Record Department at St.Johns Hospital as PW.2 and got SCCH-25 7 MVC No.8763/2023 marked Exs.P.14 to P.17. Mr.Shivkumar Patil - Medical Record Technician at Victoria Hospital got examined as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.18 to P.21. In order to prove its defense the respondent No.2 got examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.8. It has also got examined Sri. Shivaprasad Rao - Police Inspector, Mandya Rural Police as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R.9. It has also got examined its official Mr.D.V.Akhilesh as RW.3 and got marked Ex.R.10. The chief examination affidavit of the RW.1 has been eschewed vide order dated 20.06.2025.
8. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the counsels for the petitioner and the respondents.
The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
1. MFA No.20210/2024 (MV-D): The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Nibhaye Vadde Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Pooja and Ors.
2. First Appeal from order No.1780/2024: ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Arti Devi and Ors.SCCH-25 8 MVC No.8763/2023
The counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2020 ACJ 3000 SC: Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar
2. 2021 ACJ 2526 : Preethi Vs. K.N.Manokaran and Ors.
3. 2022 ACJ 787 : A.Jahir Hussain Vs. V. Ramkumar (died) and Ors.
4.2022 ACJ 1213 : Mahantesh Vs. Nethravathi and Ors.
5. MFA No.3288/2013 (MV-I) : M/s Shriram Gen. Ins. Co.
Ltd., Vs. Mrs. Sunitha @ Nagaveni and Ors.
6. MFA No.3297/2019 (MF-D) : Smt. Adilakshmamma and Ors. Vs. Sri. Raju B. and Anr.
7. MFA No.6154/2019 (MV-D): Hemalatha @ Hemavathi and Ors. Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., & Anr.
8. 2018(1) Kar. L.R 249: The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Annemma and Ors.
9. MFA No.7018/2023 : M/s TATA AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Sri. Manjunatha and Ors.
9. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence let in before this tribunal, my answers to the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.3 : Partly in affirmative Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the foregoing:SCCH-25 9 MVC No.8763/2023
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1 and 2: As these issues are inter- linked each other, as such I considered these issues together for common discussion and also to avoid repetition of facts of the case. As I referred above, In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner No.3 has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked total Thirteen documents as Ex.P1 to 13. They have also got examined Two more witnesses as Pws.2 & 3 and got marked as per Exs.P.14 to
21. The respondent No.2 got examined its officials as Rws.1 & 3 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.8. IT has also got examined Police Inspector as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R.9. The chief examination of the PW.1 has been eschewed or expunged. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
11. Before evaluating the evidence on the petitioner's side, it is necessary to refer the evidence of RW.2 viz investigating officer of the Crime No.290-2023. The evidence SCCH-25 10 MVC No.8763/2023 of the RW.2 has indicates that the accident was occurred while returning from purchasing the offending bike in a auction bid conducted by HDFC bank and the accused was the successful bidder in the public auction. The case sheet produced by the RW.2 marked at Ex.R9, in internal page No.44 indicates that the respondent No.1 has executed the loan cum hypthecation agreement in relating to purchasing of the offending bike. The bank papers are clearly demonstrated that the respondent No.1 has avail the loan to purchase the offending vehicle. It can be seen from internal page No.75 of Ex.R9 that, bank has issued Pre-sale Notice to respondent No.1. The indemnity bond executed by the deceased in favour of the bank indicates that the said bond was purchased on 28.06.2023 and the banker has issued a notice to concerned parking station on 30.06.2023 to release the offending vehicle in favour of the deceased. These documents are clearly demonstrate that the bank authorities have seized the vehicle from the respondent No.1 as she failed to clear off the loan and thereafter, the bank official SCCH-25 11 MVC No.8763/2023 have conducted the public auction and the deceased has purchased the vehicle by executing indemnity bond in favour of the bank official and also the deceased has taken the offending bike into his custody from concerned parking station. It means, the accident was occurred when the vehicle was in the custody of the deceased. But, the offending vehicle ownership is still in the name of the respondent No.1. Section 2(30) of Motor vehicle Act defines the owner as follows:
"(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 16501 in paragraph No. 1 Brij Bihari Gupta Vs Manmet and Others SCCH-25 12 MVC No.8763/2023 "The transfer of the registration as per Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 requires the transferee to report the fact of transfer in the prescribed form to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is affected within 14 days of the transfer. There is no contention raised by the registered owner that he made such a report as required under Section 50(1)
(a)(i) of the Act."
13. On careful reading of the above dictum and materials on record is clearly depicts that at the time of the accident, no materials is appeared to hold that the vehicle has got transferred to deceased and the respondent No.1 name has been deleted in the relevant column of registration certificate. The police documents are clearly depicts that the bank official have seized the vehicle and stored in their respective parking area. Though, the respondent No.1 name has been reflected in the registered owner column, the vehicle was in the custody of the bank. The said bank has been delivered the possession of the offending vehicle to deceased in view of successful public auction bid. But, the SCCH-25 13 MVC No.8763/2023 documentation is not yet completed. So, I incline to hold that the 1st respondent has registered owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
14. The PW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. In the cross examination of PW.1, nothing worthwhile is elicited. They have also got examined Two more witness as Pws.2 & 3 and they have reiterated the petition averments in the chief examination. Pws.2 & 3 has been subjected to cross examination. In the cross examination of Pws.2 & 3, nothing worthwhile is elicited.
15. To prove the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, they have produced notarized copy of Aadhar Cards of the petitioners at Ex.P.8. Ex.P.4 Inquest mahazar also shows the names and relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
16. It is undisputed fact that there was inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. At this juncture, it is SCCH-25 14 MVC No.8763/2023 beneficial to refer the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 2RAVI V/s. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHER The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "in accident cases, human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the Courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim cannot be dismissed merely on that ground although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases. Delay in lodging the claim should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent 2(2011) 4 SCC 693 SCCH-25 15 MVC No.8763/2023 reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof."
17. In the light of the Judgment referred to supra in RAVI's case, it is manifestly clear delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. However, the claim has to be examined with a closer scrutiny, particularly the contents of the FIR. So, informant can't lodged the complaint till injured was alive and he had lodged the complaint as injure was dead a was busy in providing medial aid to injured. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof. It is well settled position of law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation and the evidence required about negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of probability.
SCCH-25 16 MVC No.8763/2023
18. The petitioner has totally relied on the police documents to establish negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's rider. It is no doubt the police have submitted the charge sheet against the rider of the offending Bike after thorough investigation. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the insured vehicle. The materials on records clearly indicates that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle. So, I hold issue Nos.1 & 2 in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.3: The Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 being the Mother, father and brothers of the deceased. It is contention of the petitioners that the deceased was working as a Senior SCCH-25 17 MVC No.8763/2023 Executive - Retilas Sales at Ample Techonologies Pvt. Ltd., (Apple Show Room), Bangalore and earning Rs.36,675/- per month. The petitioner No.3 has reiterated the same in the chief examination affidavit. In this regard, petitioners have produced Pay Slip for the month of April, May and June 2023 at Ex.P.9. As per the claim petition the age of the deceased was 30 years. The post mortem report of the deceased is also revels that the age of the deceased was 30 years. As per the salary slips from April 2023 to June 2023, the Gross Earnings are vary from month to month. As per the salary slip, Basic Salary, House Rent allowance which are calculated as Rs.22,500/- are taken into consideration but other heads like Grade Allowances, Com Off and Incentives which are vary from month to month, so they are not taken into consideration as permanent salary. Therefore, Rs.22,500/- is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice.
20. The cause title of the petition has discloses that the age of the petitioners. The age of the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 SCCH-25 18 MVC No.8763/2023 shown as 36 & 34 years respectively at the time of the filling of this case. It is means, these petitioners are elder brothers of the deceased and might be working and earning their own to pull their family to safeguard from any financial crisis. In other words that the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 had never dependents on the income of the deceased to lead their life. The petitioners have not placed cogent evidence to hold that the brothers have also totally dependent on the income of the deceased. In this regard, I would like to rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 3(2021) 11 SCC 780 n paragraph No.8 (a) that:
"If the deceased was a bachelor and claim was filed by the parents, the deduction would normally 50% as personal and living expenses of the bachelor.
Subject to evidence to the contrary, the father was likely to have his own income, and would not considered to be a dependent. Hence, the mother alone will be 3United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others SCCH-25 19 MVC No.8763/2023 considered to be a dependant.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters of the deceased bachelor would not be considered to be a dependents because they would usually either be independent and earning or married, or dependent on the father."
Therefore, I decline to hold that the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 are also dependents on the income of the deceased. The petitioner Nos.1 & 2 being mother and father, aged about 60 & 65 years, both are depending on the income of the deceased. Therefore, both will be considered as dependents of the deceased. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 4(2017) 16 SCC 680, if the deceased age will come under the slab below 40 year and permanent employer, then 50% of the salary has to be taken as future prospects. The insurer has not disputing status of employment of the deceased. So, the monthly income of deceased is Rs.33,750/- (Rs.22,500/- + Rs.11,250/- = Rs.33,750/-). As per Sarala Varma's case the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 17. The deceased 4National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others SCCH-25 20 MVC No.8763/2023 is a Bachelor, If the deceased is a Bachelor, then ½ of his salary should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then, Rs.16,875/- is to be deducted in Rs.33,750/-. As such Rs.16,875/- is to be taken as monthly income of the deceased. The loss of dependency is calculated as below. Rs.16,875/- (monthly income) x 12 x 17 (multiplier) =Rs.34,42,500/-. This is just and proper compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
LOSS OF ESTATE
21. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pranay Sethi case in case of death in the maximum the Court can award Rs.18,150/- in lump sum under the head of loss of estate.
FUNERAL EXPENSES
22. In view of the Pranay Sethi's case this tribunal has no option but to award Rs.18,150/- under this head. Except these heads the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.
SCCH-25 21 MVC No.8763/2023
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
23. The Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 being the Mother and Father are entitled for 'Filial Consortium' in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Surpeme Court of India reported in 5 (2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs48,400/- each) is awarded under this head.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
24. The Petitioners have stated that, after the accident, deceased was shifted to MIMS Hospital, Mandya, provided first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he was treated as an inpatient. During the treatment he died on 19.07.2023. So far the petitioners have spent Rs.10,00,000/- towards the treatment. In this regard they have produced medical bills at Ex.P.10 for a sum of Rs.8,83,161/-. Out of these bills, at bill No.90040006516 amount of Rs.1,00,473/- paid by the Empower Committee for PWD, as such this amount shall be deducted from total amount. Therefore, Rs.7,82,688/- is awarded under the head of Medical Expenses.
5Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram SCCH-25 22 MVC No.8763/2023
25. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
Sl. Name of the Head Awarded
No. Compensation
01. Loss of dependency Rs.34,42,500=00
02. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,150=00
03. Towards Funeral expenses Rs.18,150=00
04. Loss of Consortium Rs.96,800=00
05. Medical Expenses Rs.7,82,688=00
TOTAL Rs.43,41,988=00
26. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. The police have filed the charge sheet for the offense punishable under section 279,304(A) of IPC, and r/w section 181 of Motor Vehicle Act. The charge sheet clearly depicts that accused has rode the motorcycle without driving license. The alleged accident occurred post amendment of Motor Vehicle Act. Section 150(2) of Motor Vehicle Act SCCH-25 23 MVC No.8763/2023 (amendment) reads thus:
"(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as its execution is stayed pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto."
Hence, fastening of liability on respondent No.2 viz insurance company does not arise at all. Therefore, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 with 6%P.A.
27. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION:
As I discussed in supra, the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the mother and father of the deceased, both are dependant on the income of the deceased. Hence, the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 SCCH-25 24 MVC No.8763/2023 are entitled 50:50 in the total awarded amount On deposit of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw 50% and remaining amount shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 partly in Affirmative.
28. Issue No.4:- In view of my findings to the above issues, the claimants are entitled for the compensation at the at rate of 6% P.A. from the respondent No.1. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The claim petition filed by claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part as against respondent No.1.
The claim petition against the respondent No.2 is dismissed.
The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation of Rs,43,41,988/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Eight Only) with SCCH-25 25 MVC No.8763/2023 interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation, the claimants No.1 and 2 are entitled at 50:50 ratio and to withdraw 50% and remaining 50% of their shall be invested as FD in their respective names for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed. Draw the award accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 2nd day of December, 2025).
(RAGHAVENDRA. R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE SCCH-25 26 MVC No.8763/2023 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Sri. Abdul Rehman PW.2 Sri.Arokia Swamy PW.3 Sri. Shivkumar Patil
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR and complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of Spot mahazar
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P4 True copy of Inquest report
Ex.P5 True copy of PM report
Ex.P6 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Adhaar cards of
petitioners No.1 and 2 (2 in nos)
Ex.P9 Payslips April 2023 to June 2023
Ex.P10 Medical bills 27 in nos
Ex.P11 Medical prescriptions 19 in nos
Ex.P12 Notarized copy of Ration card of family
of petitioner
Ex.P13 Notarized copy of employee Id card of
deceased
SCCH-25 27 MVC No.8763/2023
Ex.P14 Authorization letter
Ex.P15 Copies of Police intimation 2 in nos.
Ex.P16 Copy of MLC register extract.
Ex.P17 IP record Ex.P18 Authorization letter Ex.P19 Copy of MLC register extract Ex.P20 Copy of Death memo Ex.P21 Case sheet List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Sri. Santhosh RW.2 Sri. Shivaprasad Rao RW.3 Sri. D.V.Akhilesh
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter Ex.R.2 True copy of Insurance policy Ex.R.3 Legal Notice Ex.R.4 Postal Receipt Exs.R.5 &6 2 Returned postal covers Ex.R.7 Legal Notice Ex.R.8 Receipt SCCH-25 28 MVC No.8763/2023 Ex.R.9 File in Cr.No.290/2023 Ex.R.10 Authorization letter (RAGHAVENDRA.R) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore. Digitally signed by RAMACHANDRAPPA RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2025.12.08 15:19:23 +0530