Bangalore District Court
Is An Exorbitant And Fanciful vs No.2 on 16 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 16th day of April, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),LL.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.5647/2014
C/w. M.V.C.No.5648/2014
Sri. Melvin Wilfred Pinto, ..... PETITIONER IN
S/o. Thomas Pinto, M.V.C.No.5647/2014
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at No.308,
Motati Maple,
M. S. Reddy Line, KMF Diary,
Marathahalli Bridge,
Marathahalli Colony,
Bangalore - 37.
(By Sri. K. V. Vijayakumar Gowda,
Adv.,)
V/s
1. S.R.S. Travels, ..... RESPONDENTS IN
No.321/3, TSP Road, M.V.C.No.5647/2014
Opp. Bangalore Medical College,
Kalasipalya,
Bangalore - 560002.
(Owner of the Bus bearing Registration
No.KA-42-9255)
SCCH-7 2 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
2. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Ltd., No.89, 2nd Floor,
SVR Complex,
Hosur Main Road,
Madiwala,
Bangalore-68.
(Policy No.3004/70325534/01/000,
Valid from 10.03.2013 to 09.03.2014)
(R-1 Exparte)
(R-2 By Sri. Maheswara, Adv.,)
Mrs. Joseph Fernandes, ..... PETITIONER IN
M.V.C.No.5648/2014
W/o. Sudhir Fernandes,
Aged about 54 years,
Residing at: No.308,
Mottali Mayade,
Survey No.135,
M. S. Reddy Lane,
Marathalli,
Bangalore - 37.
(By Sri. K. V. Vijayakumar Gowda,
Adv.,)
V/s
..... RESPONDENTS IN
1. S.R.S. Travels,
M.V.C.No.5648/2014
No.321/3, TSP Road,
Opp. Bangalore Medical College,
Kalasipalya,
Bangalore - 560002.
(Owner of the Bus bearing Registration
No.KA-42-9255)
SCCH-7 3 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
2. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Ltd., No.89, 2nd Floor,
SVR Complex,
Hosur Main Road,
Madiwala,
Bangalore-68.
(Policy No.3004/70325534/01/000,
Valid from 10.03.2013 to 09.03.2014)
(R-1 Exparte)
(R-2 By Sri. S. Maheshwara, Adv.,)
COMMON JUDGMENT
As per the Order dated 28.09.2015 passed on Memo in
M.V.C.No.5647/2014, M.V.C.No.5648/2014 is clubbed with the
said M.V.C.No.5647/2014 and the common evidence is recorded
in the said case. Hence, M.V.C.No.5647/2014 and
M.V.C.No.5648/2014 are pending for consideration and disposal
before this Tribunal by passing a common Judgment.
2. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5647/2014 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 5,00,000/- with interest and costs.
3. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.5647/2014 are as follows;
SCCH-7 4 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
a) He claims the following special damages apart from the
general damages like, pain and suffering, loss of income treatment
period, loss of income, loss of future medical expenses, loss of
amenities, loss of disability, loss of expectation of life permanent
disability, etc.,
a) Expenses on medicines, Hospital
charges, conveyance etc., spent so far Rs. 1,50,000/-
b) Attendant charges from the date of
accident Rs.3,000/- p.m.,
till time date of trial Rs. 9,000/-
c) Loss of income during laid up period
at the rate of Rs.30,000/- p.m.,
till time date of trial Rs. ..........
b) He was hale and healthy at the time of accident and he
was doing Business and was earning Rupees 30,000/- p.m., and
contributing the entire earnings towards the welfare of the family.
Due to the accident injuries to Nasal bone and other injuries, he
cannot continue his avocation as Business and thus, lost his job
and income.
c) He sustained severe injuries to his Nasal bone and
other injuries all over the body. He was treated as an inpatient for
the said Hospital.
d) Even after the best available treatment, he not yet
regain from the accidental injuries and he was still under follow-
up treatment as per the advise of the Doctors due to injuries, he is
SCCH-7 5 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
unable to move on his own and attendant is required. He is
unable to lead normal life as earlier to the accident.
e) On 17.01.2014 at about 10.15 p.m., while he was
traveling as a passenger in Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-
9255 along with other Petitioner and when the said Bus reached
on Bangalore-Hosur NH-7 Road, near Narayana Hrudayalaya
Hospital, sustained grievous injuries as the driver of the said Bus
driven the same in rash and negligent manner with excessive
speed and dashed against the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration
No.KA-40-F-343 from behind and causing accident and injuries to
him and other Petitioner in the vehicle. The accident occurred due
to sole rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing Registration
No.KA-42-9225 by its driver.
f) He has not claimed any compensation under Section
140 before any other Authority. Hence, this petition.
4. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte
on 18.02.2015.
5. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he was
placed as exparte on 18.02.2015. Later, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 04.07.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte
order is set-aside and the Respondent No.2 is taken on file. But,
SCCH-7 6 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
dated 24.08.2015 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
6. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5647/2014, has further contended
as follows;
a) He does not admit the issuance of the insurance policy
to the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255 and liability to
indemnify the Respondent No.1 is not admitted. The liability if
any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the valid policy,
provisions of M.V. Act, valid and effective driving licence held by
the driver of Bus and valid R.C., F.C., permit and also subject to
the confirmation of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act. It seeks
protection under Section 147 and 149(2) of M.V. Act.
b) The insured is duty bound to submit all vehicular
documents, including driving licence before it as mandated under
Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is a clear violation
of provisions of law and contract of insurance.
c) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a
mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the
relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from
the date of information, but, the Hebbagodi Police Station failed to
SCCH-7 7 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
forward the documents and not complied with the statutory
demand.
d) The claim petition liable to be dismissed for non-
joinder of necessary parties, namely, the owner and insurer of
KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-40-F-343. The driver of
KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-40-F-343 was solely
responsible for the alleged accident.
e) The driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-
9255 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on
the date of the accident and further, was not qualified for holding
or obtaining such driving licence and further not satisfied the
requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
The Respondent No.1 knowingly fully well that, the driver did not
possess a valid and effective driving licence, willfully entrusted the
vehicle to the said driver, the owner committed breach of terms
and conditions of the policy, hence, it is not liable to pay any
compensation to the Petitioner.
f) The Petitioner has not suffered any injuries as
contended in the claim petition and the injuries suffered by him
have not resulted in any disability and has not caused any
financial loss. The Petitioner has not suffered any earning
capacity.
g) In the event of this Hon'ble Tribunal granting
compensation, the rate of interest prevailing in nationalized Banks
SCCH-7 8 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
for fixed deposit of one year shall be the rate of interest and it
cannot exceed more than 6% per annum in view of the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of
Manavalagan V/s. A. Krishnamurthy and Others, reported in ILR
2004 KAR 3268.
h) He craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to grant
permission under Section 170 of M.V. Act, if the owner of the
vehicle fails to contest the proceedings as contemplated under
Section 170 of M.V. Act.
i) It reserves the right to file additional Written Statement
under the changed circumstances of the case.
j) All other contentions raised by the Petitioner, which
run counter to this Written Statement, are hereby repudiated as
false and baseless.
k) The quantum of compensation claimed by the
Petitioner is an exorbitant and fanciful.
l) The Petitioner is called upon to prove that, he has not
filed claim petition any other Court/Tribunal/Forum, at any place.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.
7. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5648/2014 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 6,00,000/- with interest and costs.
SCCH-7 9 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
8. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.5648/2014 are as follows;
a) She claims the following special damages apart from
the general damages like, pain and suffering, loss of income
treatment period, loss of income, loss of future medical expenses,
loss of amenities, loss of disability, loss of expectation of life
permanent disability, etc.,
a) Expenses on medicines, Hospital
bills, conveyance etc., spent so far Rs. 2,50,000/-
b) Attendant charges from the date of
accident Rs.3,000/- p.m., for 4
months from the date of accident Rs. 12,000/-
c) Loss of income during laid up period
at Rs.8,000/- p.m., for 4 months Rs. 32,000/-
b) She was hale and healthy at the time of accident and
she was aged about 54 years and was doing tailoring work and
earning Rupees 8,000/- p.m., and contributing the entire earnings
towards the maintenance of the family. The family members were
depending on the income of her and they put into great financial
miseries.
c) She has sustained displaced fracture of left clavicle
and other injuries all over the body. Due to the accidental injuries
and sustained disabilities, she is unable to do her tailoring work
and thus, lost her income and further income also. She is unable
to lead normal life as earlier to the accident. The injuries are
SCCH-7 10 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
permanent in nature and cause in way of doing her manual work
and house-hold work. The family members are lost the services
rendering by her towards the family.
d) On 17.01.2014 at about 10.15 p.m., while she was
traveling as a passenger in Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-
9255 and when the said Bus reached on Bangalore - Hosur NH-7
Road, near Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital, sustained grievous
injuries, as the driver of the said Bus driven drive the same in
rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed as
against the KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-40-F-343 from
behind and caused accident and injuries to her. The accident
occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-42-9225 by its driver. Hence, this petition.
9. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte
on 18.02.2015.
10. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he was
placed as exparte on 18.02.2015. Later, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 12.05.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte
order is set-aside and the Respondent No.2 is taken on file. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
SCCH-7 11 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
dated 08.09.2015 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
11. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5648/2014, has further contended
as follows;
a) He does not admit the issuance of the insurance policy
to the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255 and liability to
indemnify the Respondent No.1 is not admitted. The liability if
any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the valid policy,
provisions of M.V. Act, valid and effective driving licence held by
the driver of Bus and valid R.C., F.C., permit and also subject to
the confirmation of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act. It seeks
protection under Section 147 and 149(2) of M.V. Act.
b) The insured is duty bound to submit all vehicular
documents, including driving licence before it as mandated under
Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is a clear violation
of provisions of law and contract of insurance.
c) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a
mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the
relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from
the date of information, but, the Hebbagodi Police Station failed to
forward the documents and not complied with the statutory
demand.
SCCH-7 12 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
d) The claim petition liable to be dismissed for non-
joinder of necessary parties, namely, the owner and insurer of
KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-40-F-343. The driver of
KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-40-F-343 was solely
responsible for the alleged accident.
e) The driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-
9255 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on
the date of the accident and further, was not qualified for holding
or obtaining such driving licence and further not satisfied the
requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
The Respondent No.1 knowingly fully well that, the driver did not
possess a valid and effective driving licence, willfully entrusted the
vehicle to the said driver, the owner committed breach of terms
and conditions of the policy, hence, it is not liable to pay any
compensation to the Petitioner.
f) The Petitioner has not suffered any injuries as
contended in the claim petition and the injuries suffered by her
have not resulted in any disability and has not caused any
financial loss. The Petitioner has not suffered any earning
capacity.
g) In the event of this Hon'ble Tribunal granting
compensation, the rate of interest prevailing in nationalized Banks
for fixed deposit of one year shall be the rate of interest and it
cannot exceed more than 6% per annum in view of the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of
SCCH-7 13 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
Manavalagan V/s. A. Krishnamurthy and Others, reported in ILR
2004 KAR 3268.
h) He craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to grant
permission under Section 170 of M.V. Act, if the owner of the
vehicle fails to contest the proceedings as contemplated under
Section 170 of M.V. Act.
i) It reserves the right to file additional Written Statement
under the changed circumstances of the case.
j) All other contentions raised by the Petitioner, which
run counter to this Written Statement, are hereby repudiated as
false and baseless.
k) The quantum of compensation claimed by the
Petitioner is an exorbitant and fanciful.
l) The Petitioner is called upon to prove that, she has not
filed claim petition any other Court/Tribunal/Forum, at any place.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.
12. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the
following Issues;
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.5647/2014
1. Whether the Petitioner proves
that, the accident occurred due
SCCH-7 14 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
to rash and negligent driving of
the Bus Bearing Reg.No.KA-42-
9255 by its driver and in the
said accident, he sustained
injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is
entitled for compensation and
damages? If so, how much and
from whom?
3. What Order?
In M.V.C.No.5648/2014
1. Whether the Petitioner proves
that, the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of
the Bus Bearing Reg.No.KA-42-
9255 by its driver and in the said
accident, she sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled
for compensation and damages?
If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What Order?
13. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5647/2014 himself has been examined as P.W.1 by
filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and has placed
reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.20 and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5648/2014 herself has been examined as P.W.2 and has
also examined one witness as P.W.3 by filing the affidavits as their
SCCH-7 15 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.11 to
Ex.P.19. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has not
adduced any evidence on his behalf.
14. Heard the arguments.
15. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
M.V.C.No.5647/2014
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 36,000/- with
interest at the rate of 8%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
M.V.C.No.5648/2014
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 1,87,108/-
with interest at the rate
SCCH-7 16 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
of 8% p.a. from the date
of the petition till the
date of payment, from
the Respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
16. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES :- The P.W.1, who
is the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5647/2014 has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, on 17.01.2014 at about 10.45 p.m.,
while he was traveling in a Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-
9255 on Bangalore-Hosur N.H-7 Road, near Narayana Hrudayala
Hospital, Bangalore, he sustained grievous injuries as the driver of
the said Bus drove the same is rash and negligent manner with
excessive speed and dashed against the KSRTC Bus bearing
No.KA-40-F-343 from behind and causing the accident and
injuries. He has further stated that, due to the sole rash and
negligent driving of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255
by its driver, the said accident was taken place. He has further
stated that, immediately after the accident, he was taken to
Manipal Hospital, Bangalore and on detailed examination on X-
ray, it was found that, he had sustained contusion nasal bone
fracture and injuries to all over the body. He has further stated
that, the Police have registered a case as against the said Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255 for rash and negligent driving
by its driver.
SCCH-7 17 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
17. The P.W.2, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5648/2014 has also stated the same evidence of P.W.1,
in his examination-in-chief and he has further stated that, he was
also traveling in the said Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255
and due to the said accident, he sustained displaced fracture left
clavicle and injuries all over the body.
18. No doubt, the P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated in their
cross-examination that, they do not know, who has lodged the
complaint before the Police in respect of the alleged accident and
they do not know as against whom, the Police have filed the
charge sheet. The P.W.1 has further stated that, he has not given
a statement before the Police about the alleged accident.
19. But, only based on the said evidence elicited from the
mouth of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 by the Respondent No.2, it cannot
be thrown away the above said oral version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in
respect of the accident in question, as, to corroborate his oral
version, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5647/2014 has produced
Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 MVI Report, Ex.P.4 Spot
Panchanama, Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.6 Discharge
Summary, Ex.P.7 Out Patient Summary, Ex.P.10 X-ray Film and
Ex.P.20 Charge Sheet and to corroborate his oral version, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5648/2014 has produced Ex.P.11 Wound
Certificate, Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.16 X-ray Films
5 in numbers and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5648/2014 has also
produced Ex.P.17 Outpatient Sheet and Ex.P.19 Inpatient Record
through P.W.3, who is one of the treated Doctor, which clearly
SCCH-7 18 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
disclosed that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner
of driving of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-
9255 by its driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken
place on 17.01.2014 at 10.45 p.m., when both the Petitioners were
traveling in the said offending Bus, which dashed to the KSRTC
Bus bearing Registration No. KA-40-F-343 from its behind and
due to the said impact, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5647/2014 had
sustained one simple injury and he had taken treatment on the
same day itself as an outpatient at Manipal Hospital and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5648/2014 had sustained one grievous
injury and by admitting as an inpatient from 18.04.2014 to
21.04.2014, i.e., for 4 days, he took treatment to the said
accidental injuries at Manipal Hospital, which is clear from the
following discussion. It is also clear from the contents of the said
material documents that, there was no negligence on the part of
the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-40-F-343,
who lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the jurisdictional Police as
against the driver of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-
42-9255. Furthermore, though by filing the written statement, the
Respondent No.2 has contested the case of both the Petitioners,
he has not adduced any evidence to consider his defence.
Furthermore, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.1, who is the R.C. Owner of the offending Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255, he was remained absent and
hence, he is placed as exparte. The non-appearance of the
Respondent No.1 clearly implies that, whatever, the case made out
by the Petitioners in both the cases as well as the evidence
SCCH-7 19 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
adduced by them to consider their case, are indirectly admitted by
the Respondent No.1.
20. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
clearly disclosed that, the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-40-F-343, as against which, the offending Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255 dashed on its behind, had
lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before Hebbagodi Police as against the
driver of the said offending Bus by alleging that, on 18.01.2014 at
10.15 near Narayana Hrudayalaya, a sound was heard to him and
on seeing, it is noticed that, a Private Bus dashed to his Bus and
when he got down from the said Bus and it is found that, the
driver of the offending Private SRS Travels Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-42-9255 dashed to his KSRTC Bus by driving
the said Private Bus with very high speed, rash and negligent
manner on right side and due to the said impact, the right side
seats and glasses were damaged and the passengers were not
sustained any grievous injuries and as such, he prayed to take
necessary legal action as against the driver of the Bus and the
said Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of
the said Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255 for the offences
punishable under Section 279 of IPC under Crime No.37/2014. It
is also clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
that, there is no delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by the
driver of the KSRTC Bus in respect of the said road traffic
accident.
SCCH-7 20 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
21. The contents of Ex.P.3 MVI Report and Ex.P.4 Spot
Panchanama disclosed that, due to very high speed, rash and
negligent manner of driving of SRS Bus bearing Registration
No.KA-42-9255 by its driver itself, the said road traffic accident
was taken place and there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-40-F-343 and the
said SRS Bus as well as its driver are very much involved in the
said road traffic accident. The damages caused to both the Bus
are clearly mentioned in Ex.P.3 MVI Report, which clearly
disclosed about the terrific impact of the said road traffic accident.
It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.3 MVI Report that, the said
accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the
said vehicle.
22. The contents of Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.6
Discharge Summary and Ex.P.10 X-ray Film disclosed that, with
alleged history of road traffic accident said to have been occurred
on 17.01.2014 at 8.30 p.m., the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5647/2014 was brought to Manipal Hospital on
18.01.2014 at 1.20 a.m. itself and on examination, it is found
that, he had sustained contusion nasal bridge with nasal bleeding,
which is simple in nature and on the same day itself, he was
discharged from the said Hospital and conservative treatment was
given to the Petitioner to the said accidental injuries. From this
medical evidence, it is made crystal clear that, in the said road
traffic accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5647/2014 had
sustained one simple injury.
SCCH-7 21 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
23. The contents of Ex.P.11 Wound Certificate clearly
disclosed that, with alleged history of road traffic accident said to
have occurred on 17.01.2014 at 10.30 p.m., the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5648/2014 was brought to Manipal Hospital on
18.01.2014 at 1.30 a.m., itself and on examination, it is found
that, he had sustained the injury, i.e., contusion left shoulder
clavicle, which is grievous in nature and by admitting as an
inpatient from 18.01.2014 to 21.01.2014, i.e., 4 days, he took
treatment to the said accidental injuries.
24. The contents of Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary, Ex.P.16
X-ray Film and Ex.P.19 Inpatient Record further clearly disclosed
that, it was diagnosed that, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5648/2014
had displaced fracture left clavicle, which caused due to the road
traffic accident and by admitting as an inpatient from 18.01.2014
to 21.01.2014, i.e., for 4 days, he took treatment to the said
accidental injuries at Manipal Hospital. From this medical
evidence, it is made crystal clear that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5648/2014 had sustained
one grievous injury.
25. The contents of Ex.P.20 Charge Sheet further clearly
disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found
that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving
of offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255 by its
driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken place on
17.01.2014 at 10.15 p.m., near Bus stop of Narayana
Hrudayalaya Hospital, Bangalore-Hosur, N.H-7 Road, which
SCCH-7 22 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
dashed to KSRTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-40-F-343 on its
behind, when it was stopped in the said Bus Stop by its driver to
get down the passengers from the said Bus and due to the said
impact, both the Bus were damaged and the Petitioners in both
the cases, who were traveling in the said Private Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-42-9255 had sustained simple injury and
grievous injury respectively and as such, after thorough
investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as
against the driver of the offending Private Bus bearing Registration
No.KA-42-9255 for the offences punishable under Section 279,
337 and 338 of IPC. There is no allegation leveled as against the
driver of the KSRTC Bus, i.e., Complainant, by the Investigating
Officer in Ex.P.20 Charge Sheet about his negligence in the
commission of the said road traffic accident. Even, there is no
allegation leveled by the Investigating Officer as against both the
Petitioners in Ex.P.20 Charge Sheet about their negligence while
they were traveling in the said offending Bus.
26. From the above said material evidence, both oral and
documentary, it is clearly proved that, due to very high speed,
rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Private Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255 by its driver itself, the said
road traffic accident was taken place and the said Private Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255 as well as its driver are very
much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5647/2014 had sustained one simple
injury and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.5648/2014 had sustained
SCCH-7 23 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
one grievous injury. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in both
the cases in the Affirmative.
27. ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH THE CASES :-
28. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.5647/2014 :- The P.W.1
has stated that, he took conservative treatment for the said
injuries at Manipal Hospital and he was inpatient in the said
Hospital for one day and he took follow-up treatment for 3 months
initially twice in a week and later, once in 15 days and he had
spent Rupees 1,50,000/- for treatment and conveyance and
producing medical bills Rupees 11,000/- and lost some of the
bills. He has further stated that, at the time of accident, he was
doing a Business and earning Rupees 30,000/- per month and at
the time of accident, he was aged about 41 years. He has further
stated that, due to the injuries and subsisting disabilities caused
in the accident, he could not move for a small distance, cannot
claim stairs, cannot walk freely and could not continue his
profession of Business and became jobless and being illiterate
could not get any light work in competitive job market and became
dependent on others. He has further stated that, he is entitle for
compensation on the heads, pain and sufferings, loss of income,
loss of future income, loss of income during treatment period, loss
of expectancy of life, loss of amenities, attendant charges and
future attendant charges and future medical expenses, etc.,
SCCH-7 24 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
29. The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.7 Out Patient
Summary, Ex.P.8 Medical Bills 5 in numbers, amounting of
Rupees 11,000/-, Ex.P.9 Medical Prescription.
30. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
observed and come to the conclusion based on Ex.P.5 Wound
Certificate and Ex.P.6 Discharge Summary that, in the said road
traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained contusion of nasal
bleeding, which is simple in nature and conservative treatment
was given to the Petitioner at Manipal Hospital and on 18.01.2014
at 1.20 a.m., he was admitted in the said Hospital and after taking
treatment to the said accidental injury on 18.01.2014 at 2.230
a.m., itself, he was discharged from the said Hospital.
31. It is clear from the contents of Ex.P.7 Out Patient
Summary that, the chief complaint of the Petitioner was upper
back ache and lower neck pain since two months and on and off
increased since 10 days and has parasthesia and after
examination, he was advised to take medicines by Sacre World
Hospital on 28.04.2015.
32. But, based on the said oral version of P.W.1 as well as
the contents of the above said medical documents, it cannot be
believed and accept that, due to the said accidental injury, the
Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and functional
disability, as, it is clear from the contents of said medical
documents, which are marked at Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 that, in the
said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had only sustained
SCCH-7 25 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
contusion nasal bleeding, which is simple in nature and only
conservative treatment was given to him at Manipal Hospital and
on the same day itself, he was discharged. Further, the Petitioner
has not examined the treated Doctor. Even, the Petitioner has not
produced disability certificate issued either by the treated Doctor
or by the competent Doctor, who has assessed the said disability.
Furthermore, as stated by the Petitioner, he was doing a Business
at the time of accident and the said injury caused to the Petitioner
no way affects to do his normal and day to day activities.
Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for compensation under
the different heads.
33. However, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner
had sustained one simple injury and he had taken conservative
treatment on the very day itself at Manipal Hosptial, this Tribunal
feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to award global
compensation of Rupees 25,000/- to the Petitioner, which is
reasonable, fair and acceptable one.
34. The P.W.1 has stated that, he had spent Rupees
1,50,000/- for treatment and conveyance and producing Medical
Bills Rupees 11,000/- and lost some of the bills. In this regard,
the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.8 Medical Bills 5 in numbers,
which is amounting of Rupees 11,000/-. The Petitioner has taken
treatment at Manipal Hospital, only for one day and in the said
road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained contusion nasal
bridge with nasal bleeding and he was taken treatment
SCCH-7 26 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
conservatively. Considering the nature of the injury and line of
treatment given to the Petitioner, the possibility of spending the
said amount for the medicines cannot be doubted. Therefore, it is
necessary to award the said actual medical expenses of Rupees
11,000/- to the Petitioner.
35. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rupees 36,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum
on the above said sum from the date of petition till payment.
36. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.5648/2014 :- The P.W.2
has stated that, at the time of accident, she was aged 54 years. No
authenticated documents are produced by the Petitioner to
consider her actual age at the time of accident. But, the above
said Police and medial documents relating to the Petitioner are
clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, she was 54 years
old. Hence, the age of the Petitioner is considered as 54 years at
the time of accident.
37. The P.W.2 has stated that, at the time of accident, she
was working as a Tailor and earning Rupees 8,000/- per month.
But, she has not produced any authenticated documents to show
that, at the time of accident, she was working as a Tailor and
earning Rupees 8,000/- per month. However, in the absence of
material evidence to consider the avocation and income of the
Petitioner, to consider her age as well as the family status, this
Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to consider the
notional income of the Petitioner is of Rupees 5,000/- per month
SCCH-7 27 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
at the time of accident, which is reasonable, believable and
acceptable one. Hence, the notional income of the Petitioner is
considered as Rupees 5,000/- per month at the time of accident.
38. The P.W.2 has stated that, she undergone
operation/treatment for the said fracture at Manipal Hospital with
implants and she was inpatient in the said Hospital for a week
and she took follow-up treatment for 5 months initially twice in a
week and later, once in 15 days. The P.W.3, who is a treated
Doctor, has stated that, the Petitioner undergone open reduction
and internal fixation of left clavicle on 19.01.2014. While
answering Issue No.1, based on Ex.P.11 Wound Certificate,
Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.19 Inpatient Records, this
Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, in
the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained
contusion left shoulder with fracture clavicle and it was diagnosed
during the course of treatment, it is diagnosed that, she sustained
displacement fracture left clavicle, which is grievous in nature and
by admitting as an inpatient from 18.01.2014 to 21.01.2014, i.e.,
for 4 days, she took treatment to the said accidental injuries at
Manipal Hospital. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.4 Discharge
Summary and Ex.P.9 Inpatient Record that, during the course of
treatment, open reduction internal fixation of left clavicle done
under G.A on 19.01.2014. From this, it appears that, during the
course of treatment, implants are inserted to the Petitioner at
fracture site. Hence, even though the Petitioner was discharged on
21.01.2014 from the Hospital, she required the regular follow-up
treatment to the said accidental injury as per the advise of the
SCCH-7 28 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
treated Doctors. More so, in Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary and
Ex.P.19 Inpatient Record, it is clearly advised by the treated
Doctors to the Petitioner to take regular follow-up treatment.
Hence, the evidence stated by the P.W.1 in respect of taking
follow-up treatment and line of treatment can very well be believed
and accept.
39. The P.W.2 has stated that, due to the injuries and
subsisting disabilities caused in the accident, she could not move
for a small distance, cannot claim stairs, cannot walk freely and
could not continue her profession of Tailor and became jobless
and being illiterate could not get any light work in competitive job
market and became dependent on others.
40. The P.W.3 has stated that, the Petitioner visiting him
for disability/assessment on 03.10.2015 with complaints of pain
and restriction of movements left shoulder, weakness in left
shoulder. He has further stated that, on examination, the
disability were noted, i.e., healed surgical scars over the left
shoulder, restriction of movements and weakness in left shoulder.
He has further stated that, check X-rays of the Petitioner bearing
No.497 dated 03.10.2015, which shows united fracture left
clavicle with implants in situ. He has further stated that, based on
clinical and radiological examination and after referring to
Ministry of Social Justice Guideline for disability assessment, he
is of the opinion that, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent
disability in relation to left upper limb will be around 38%, total
SCCH-7 29 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
body will be around 12.5%. The P.W.3 has produced Ex.P.17 Out
Patient Sheets and Ex.P.18 X-ray Films along with Report.
41. No doubt, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained clavicle fracture, i.e., injury to clavicle.
But, only based on the above said oral version of P.W.2 and P.W.3
coupled with the contents of above said medical documents, it
cannot be believed and accept that, due to the said accidental
injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of
12.5% to the whole body, as, even though the P.W.3 is one of the
treated Doctor, he has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief as
well as cross-examination that, now the fracture is united.
Further, the Petitioner, who was aged 54 years at the time of
accident, has utterly failed to prove her avocation and income at
the time of accident. Furthermore, neither the Petitioner nor P.W.3
produced the disability certificate. Further, admittedly, the said
fracture left clavicle is united with implants in situ and if the said
implants are removed, the said extent of permanent disability will
be definitely reduced to some extent. Therefore, the said extent of
12.5% whole body disability as stated by the P.W.3 relating to the
Petitioner cannot be believed and accept.
42. However, in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained displaced fracture left clavicle and during
the course of treatment, it was diagnosed that, displaced fracture
left clavicle and open reduction and internal fixation of left clavicle
done on 19.01.2014, i.e., implants were inserted to the Petitioner
at fracture site and now also the Petitioner is having said implants
SCCH-7 30 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
in situ and by admitting as an inpatient totally for 4 days, she
took treatment to the said accidental injury at Manipal Hospital
and she was aged 54 years at the time of accident, due to the said
accidental injuries, the Petitioner is definitely suffering from
permanent physical and functional disability to some extent. By
considering the same, this Tribunal feels that, due to the said
accidental injury, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent
physical and functional disability of 5% to the whole body, which
is believable and acceptable one. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled
for compensation under the following heads.
43. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion
that, the permanent physical and functional disability of the
Petitioner is of 5%. This would certainly come in the way of the
future life of the Petitioner and thereby, her income to that extent
would be definitely reduced. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for
future loss of income arising out of the permanent physical and
functional disability of 5%.
44. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion
that, the age of the Petitioner was 54 years at the time of accident.
The multiplier corresponding to the said age as per Sarala
Varma's case is 11.
45. As the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical
and functional disability of 5% to the whole body. The notional
income of the Petitioner is already considered as Rupees 5,000/-
per month. Therefore, the loss arising out of the said 5% disability
SCCH-7 31 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
for monthly income of Rupees 5,000/- by applying multiplier 11
comes to Rupees 33,000/-, i.e., (Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 11 x 5%).
46. As per Ex.P.11 Wound Certificate and evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.3, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury.
The Petitioner was in the Hospital as an inpatient from
18.01.2014 to 21.01.2014, i.e., for 4 days. Due to the said injury,
the Petitioner could have definitely suffered a lot of pain and
agony during the course of treatment. Considering the said
aspects, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees
30,000/- towards pain and suffering.
47. As it is already observed that, the age of the Petitioner
was 54 years. She has to lead remaining her entire life with 5%
permanent physical and functional disability, which comes in the
way of enjoyment of life. Therefore, it is just, proper and necessary
to award a sum of Rupees 10,000/- towards loss of amenities of
life to the Petitioner.
48. The Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury and
she was in the Hospital as an inpatient for 4 days and she could
not do any work at least for 2 months and thereby, she deprived
the income. Therefore, at the rate of Rupees 5,000/- per month, a
sum of Rupees 10,000/- (Rupees 5,000/- X 2 months) is awarded
towards loss of income during the laid up period.
49. The P.W.2 has stated that, she had spent Rupees
2,50,000/- for treatment and conveyance and producing Medical
SCCH-7 32 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
Bills Rupees 90,108/- and lost some of the bills. In this regard,
the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.13 Medical Bills 21 in numbers,
which is amounting of Rupees 90,108/-, Ex.P.14 Advance Bills 3
in numbers and Ex.P.15 Medical Prescriptions 4 in numbers. The
Petitioner has taken treatment at Manipal Hospital, wherein, she
was taken treatment as an inpatient from 18.01.2014 to
21.01.2014, i.e., for 4 days. Considering the nature of the injury
and line of treatment given to the Petitioner and length of
treatment, the possibility of spending the said amount for the
medicines cannot be doubted. Therefore, it is necessary to award
the said actual medical expenses of Rupees 90,108/- to the
Petitioner.
50. The P.W.2 has not stated anything about the future
medical assistance and its expenses. The P.W.3 has stated that,
the Petitioner will require further operation in near future for
implant removal of left clavicle, which will cost around Rupees
50,000/- in general ward. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.12
Discharge Summary and Ex.P.19 Inpatient Record about Open
reduction and internal fixation of left clavicle done under G.A. on
19.01.2014, which disclosed about the insertion of implants in
situ. The said implants have to be removed and therefore, the
Petitioner requires the amount for future medical expenses.
Neither the Petitioner nor P.W.3 produced the estimation for
removal of implants. However, this Tribunal feels that, it is just,
proper and necessary to award future medical expenses of Rupees
10,000/- to the Petitioner.
SCCH-7 33 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
51. As the Petitioner was taken treatment as an inpatient
for 4 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees 1,000/-
towards conveyance charges, Rupees 1,000/- towards attendant
charges and Rupees 2,000/- towards food, nourishment and diet
charges etc.,
52. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
Loss of future income
1. Rs. 33,000-00
arising out of 5% Disability
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000-00
3. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 10,000-00
Loss of income during laid
4. Rs. 10,000-00
up period
5. Actual medical expenses Rs. 90,108-00
6. Conveyance Rs. 1,000-00
7. Attendant Charges Rs. 1,000-00
Food, Nourishment &
8. Rs. 2,000-00
Diet charges
TOTAL Rs. 1,87,108-00
53. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation
of Rupees 1,87,108/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum (excluding future medical expenses of Rupees 10,000/-)
on the above said sum from the date of petition till payment.
54. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of
the driver of the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255
SCCH-7 34 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
and there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5647/2014 and M.V.C.No.5648/2014 and the said
offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255 as well
as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic
accident, wherein, the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.5647/2014 had
sustained one simple injury and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5648/2014 had sustained one grievous injury. It is
clearly mentioned in the cause title of the petitions that, the
Respondent No.1 is an Owner and the Respondent No.2 is an
insurer of the offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-
42-9255 and the Policy No.3004/70325534/01/000, valid from
10.03.2013 to 09.03.2014.
55. No doubt, the Respondent No.2, who is the Insurance
Company, has not admitted the issuance of the Insurance Policy
to the said offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-
9255, in his written statement. But, to consider the same, the
Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence. Further, there is
no allegation leveled by the Investigating Officer in Ex.P.20 Charge
Sheet as against the Respondent No.1 that, at the time of
accident, the said offending Private Bus bearing Registration
No.KA-42-9255 was not having a valid Insurance Policy at the
time of accident. Even, there is no allegation leveled as against the
driver of the said offending Private Bus by the Investigating Officer
in Ex.P.20 Charge Sheet that, he was not having a valid and
effective driving licence to drive such class of offending Bus at the
time of accident. Even, the Respondent No.2 has not proved the
violation of the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy by the
SCCH-7 35 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
Respondent No.1. From this, it appears that, there is no material
evidence is forthcoming on behalf of the Respondent No.2 to deny
the case made out by both the Petitioners that, at the time of
accident, the Respondent No.1 was a owner and the Respondent
No.2 was an insurer of the offending Private Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-42-9255 and its Policy
No.3004/70325534/01/000, valid from 10.03.2013 to
09.03.2014. Under such circumstances, it can be safely held that,
at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was a registered
owner and the Respondent No.2 was an insurer of the offending
Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-42-9255 and its Insurance
Policy was valid, which covers the date of accident. Hence, the
Respondent No.1 being the R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.2
being the Insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above
said compensation and interest to both the Petitioners. Since the
Respondent No.2 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent
No.1. Hence, Issues No.2 in M.V.C.No.5647/2014 and
M.V.C.No.5648/2014 are answered accordingly.
56. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.5647/2014 :- For the
aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
SCCH-7 36 MVC.No.5647/2014C/w MVC No.5648/2014 The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 36,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of
compensation and interest, entire
amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.5647/2014 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.5648/2014.
Draw award accordingly.
55. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.NO.5648/2014 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
SCCH-7 37 MVC.No.5647/2014C/w MVC No.5648/2014 ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 1,87,108/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rupees 10,000/-) from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of
compensation and interest, entire
amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
SCCH-7 38 MVC.No.5647/2014C/w MVC No.5648/2014 Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.5647/2014 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.5648/2014.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 16th day of April, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Melvin Wilfred Pinto P.W.2 : Mrs. Josephine Fernandes P.W.3 : Dr. Raghavendra Reddy
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True Copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.4 : True Copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.5 : True Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.6 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P.7 : Out Patient Summary
Ex.P.8 : Medical Bills (5 in nos.)
Ex.P.9 : Medical Prescription
Ex.P.10 : X-ray Film
SCCH-7 39 MVC.No.5647/2014
C/w MVC No.5648/2014
Ex.P.11 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.12 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P.13 : Medical Bills (21 in nos.)
Ex.P.14 : Advance Bills (3 in nos.)
Ex.P.15 : Medical Prescriptions (4 in nos.)
Ex.P.16 : X-ray Films (5 in nos.)
Ex.P.17 : Outpatient Sheets
Ex.P.18 : X-ray Film along with report
Ex.P.19 : Inpatient Record
Ex.P.20 : Charge Sheet
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.