Bangalore District Court
In Smt. Stella Mary @ Marynalini Stella vs In 1. Smt. Padama Sridhar on 29 July, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS 29th DAY OF JULY, 2016
PRESENT: SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA. P.S. B.Com., L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT
M.V.C No.1100/2014 & MVC 1101/2014
PETITIONER IN Smt. Stella Mary @ Marynalini Stella,
MVC 1100/2014: W/o. Sri. Arogya Swamy,
Age : 48, Occ: Tailor,
No.17, 5th Cross, Subash Nagar,
Vidya Nagar, Shimoga.
PETITIONER IN Shri. Sathish Kumar @ Satish,
MVC 1101/2014: S/o. Anand,
Age: 33, Occ : Driver,
# 53, 3rd Cross, ITC Colony,
Jai Bharath Nagar, Coxtown,
Jeevanahalli, Bangalore - 05.
(Sri. Suresh M. Latur -------Advocate)
- V/S -
RESPONDENTS IN 1. Smt. Padama Sridhar,
BOTH THE CASES: # 16, Sree Vihar, RMV IInd Stage,
Nagashetty Halli,
Bangalore - 94.
(Exparte)
2. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited,
Hosur Main Road, 2nd Floor,
PVR Complex, Madivala,
Koramangala,
Bangalore - 68.
(Sri. K.M. Ravi............Advocate.)
*****
SCCH - 11 2 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are came to be filed by the petitioners
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- with
interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of accident till
the date of realization on account of the personal injuries
sustained by the petitioners in the Motor accident that took
place on 30.11.2013.
2) Since these petitions are arisen out of one
accident, they are clubbed together and common evidence
was recorded in MVC No.1100/2014.
3) The brief facts of the petitioners case are as
follows:
That on 30.11.2013, the petitioners were traveling in a
Qualis Car bearing Regn. No.KA-25-M-9994 from Shringere
towards Nidhige, Shimoga District. When the said Car
reached near Dr. Umashankar farm field on N.H.13 road at
about 5.30 p.m., the driver of the said Car driven the vehicle
in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and took
sudden turn. Due to which, he lost control over the Car and
SCCH - 11 3 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
the said Car was turtle down. As a result, the petitioner
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident,
they were taken to Prashamani Hospital, Koppa, where first
aid treatment was given. Later, they were shifted to Sahyadri
Narayana Hospital, Shimoga. Later, the petitioner in No.MVC
No.1100/2014 was shifted to Malya Hospital, Bangalore and
petitioner in MVC 1101/2014 was shifted to Manipal
Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment and they were
treated their as inpatient. The petitioner in MVC
No.1100/2014 have spent Rs.80,000/- towards his treatment
and conveyance expenses. Likewise, petitioner in MVC
1101/2014 have spent sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards
treatment and conveyance. Due to the accident, they suffered
permanent disability. The accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the Car by its driver. Hence the
respondents, who are the RC owner and insurer are liable to
pay the compensation. Hence they prayed for allowing the
petition.
4) After service of notice, the respondent No.1
remained absent, hence he place exparte. Respondent No.2
has appeared through its counsel and filed common written
SCCH - 11 4 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
statement wherein, he denied the entire allegations made in
the petitions. He has further disputed the manner of accident,
nature of injuries sustained by the petitioners and quantum
of compensation claimed under different heads. He has
further contended that, the driver of the Qualis Car was not
holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of
accident and the said Car has no permit to ply in a public
place and the same was used without valid permit in violation
of the policy. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
Among the above grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the
petitions.
5) On the basis of the above rival pleadings, the
following issues have been framed:
ISSUES IN MVC 1100/2014:
1. Whether petitioner proves that,
on 30.11.2013 at about 5.30 p.m,
when she was traveling in a Qualis Car
bearing No.KA-25-M-9994 from
Shringere towards Nidhige, Shimoga
district and when reached near
Dr.Umashankar farm filed on NH-13
Road, at that time, driver of said car
driven the same in rash and negligent
manner endangering human life by
which car turtle down and petitioner
sustained grievous injuries?
SCCH - 11 5 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
2. Whether respondent No.2
proves that, as on the date of accident,
the driver of offending car was not
holding valid and effective driving
licence and the respondent No.1
allowed the said vehicle to ply on the
road without valid permit and has
violated the terms and conditions of
insurance policy ?
3. Whether petitioner is entitled
for the compensation? If so, what is
quantum of the compensation and
from whom?
4. What Order or award ?
ISSUES IN MVC 1101/2014:
1. Whether petitioner proves
that, on 30.11.2013 at about 5.30 pm,
when he was traveling in Toyota Qualis
Car bearing No.KA-25-M-9994 from
Shringere to Nidhege in Shimoga
district and when said vehicle reached
near Umashankar farm filed on NH-13
Road, at that time, the driver of said
vehicle driven the same in rash and
negligent manner endangering human
life with high speed by which vehicle
turtle down and petitioner sustained
grievous injuries?
2. Whether respondent No.2
proves that, as on the date of accident,
the driver of Toyota Qualis car bearing
No.KA-25-M-9994 was not holding
valid and effective driving licence and
said vehicle plied on the road without
valid permit and the respondent No.1
SCCH - 11 6 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
violated terms and conditions of
insurance policy ?
3. Whether petitioner is entitled
for the compensation as prayed in the
claim petition? If so, what is quantum
of the compensation and from whom?
4. What Order or award?
6) During the course of trial, in order to prove the
petitioners case, they have filed affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief and examined as PW.1 and PW.2.
Besides their evidence, they have examined the Doctors who
treated them as PW.3 to 5. Apart from their oral evidence,
they have produced 50 documents and got them marked as
Ex.P.1 to 50 and closed their side evidence. The 2nd
respondent did not adduced any oral evidence nor produced
any documents.
7) I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and respondent No.2.
8) My findings to the above issues are as follows:
[
In MVC 1100/2014
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative;
Issue No.2 : In the Negative;
SCCH - 11 7 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
Issue No.3 : Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is
entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @ 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till
realization, from respondents.
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the following:
In MVC 1101/2014
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative;
Issue No.2 : In the Negative;
Issue No.3 : Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is
entitled for compensation of
Rs.6,06,540/- with interest @ 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till
realization, from respondents.
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9) ISSUES NO.1 AND 2 IN MVC No.1100/2014 &
ISSUE No.1 and 2 in MVC 1101/2014:
Since these issues are inter connected, to avoid the
repetition, they have been taken together for discussion. It is
the specific case of the petitioner that, they sustained
grievous injuries in the accident that took place on
30.11.2013 near Dr. Umashankar farm field on N.H.13 road,
due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
by its driver. The respondent No.2 disputed the involvement
of the offending vehicle and the rash and negligent on the
SCCH - 11 8 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
part of the driver of the offending vehicle. When respondent
No.2 denied the involvement of the Qualis Car and negligence
on the part of the driver of the Car, it is for the petitioners to
prove the negligence and involvement of the Qualis Car in the
accident. In order to prove the negligence on the part of the
driver of the Qualis Car. PW.1 and 2 have categorically stated
in their evidence as to how the driver of the Car driven the
vehicle and the manner in which, the accident occurred.
According to them, due to the rash and negligent driving of
the Car by its driver, the said accident occurred and he is
solely responsible for the accident. In support of their oral
evidence, they have produced FIR, complaint, charge sheet,
mahazar, sketch, IMV report as per Ex.P.1 to P.6. On perusal
of these documents, Ex.P.1 indicates that, the criminal case
was registered against the driver of the Car for having driven
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Ex.P.2 indicates
that, one S. Barnad lodged the complaint against the driver of
the Car for having driven the Car in a rash and negligent
manner. Ex.P.3 reveals that, the driver of the Car was charge
sheeted for the offence punishable Under Section 279, 337
and 338 of IPC. On perusal of these documents, it is crystal
SCCH - 11 9 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
clear that, the accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Car by its driver.
10) The oral testimony of PW.1 and 2 are coupled with
the documentary evidence of Ex.P.1 to 6. Though 2nd
respondent has cross-examined the PW.1 and 2, nothing has
been elicited from them to disprove the negligence on the part
of the driver of the Car. Further, the restoration of the
criminal case against the driver of the Car for having driven
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed
that itself prima facie proves the actionable negligence on the
part of the driver of the Car. Moreover, Ex.P.6 IMV report
indicates that, the accident occurred not due to any
mechanical defect of the Car. Under the circumstances, I
have no hesitation to record findings that, the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car by
its driver. More so, the respondent No.2 has not led any
rebuttal evidence to rebut the petitioners case. In the
absence of cogent oral as well as documentary evidence,
though respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW.1 and 2,
it cannot be said that, the said Car was not involved in the
accident.
SCCH - 11 10 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
11) It is the case of the respondent No.2 that, the
offending vehicle has no permit to ply in a public place and
the driver of the said Car was not holding valid and effective
driving licence at the time of accident. Though he has taken
such plea to substantiate such facts, he neither entered into
the witness box nor produced any documents. Further, he
has not examined the driver of the Car. Further, no attempt
was made to get the DL particulars of the driver of the said
Car and permit in the concerned RTO. In the absence of
cogent oral as well as documentary evidence, the contention
of the respondent No.2 that, the offending vehicle has not
permit as on the date of accident and the driver was not
holding valid and effective driving licence cannot be believed
and there is no force to accept such contents. In view of the
above discussion, I answered issue No.1 in MVC 1100/2014
and 1101/2014 are in the Affirmative and issue No.2 in MVC
No.1100/2014 and MVC No.1101/2014 are in the Negative.
12) Issue No.3 in MVC No.1100/2014: According to
the petitioner in MVC No.1100/2014, he had sustained
grievous injuries as mentioned in wound certificate Ex.P.13.
On perusal of Ex.P.13 wound certificate, it goes to show that,
SCCH - 11 11 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
he has sustained the fracture of the left orbit and anterior
wall with muscle entrapment. According to the Doctor, who
examined the petitioner, the above said injury is grievous in
nature. It has come in the evidence of PW.1 that, she took
treatment as inpatient for one day at Manipal Hospital,
Bangalore and later she took treatment at Malya Hospital as
inpatient from 02.12.2013 to 09.12.2013. During that period,
on 03.12.2013, under GA fracture expose, exploration,
muscle entrapment release, PDS plate insertions and closure
of wound in layer. PW.5 who is the doctor treated the
petitioner has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner
underwent surgery for his fracture. He has further stated
that, the petitioner complains of pain, headache in the left
orbit, diplopic some times, unable to do any work. He has
further stated that, because of the accidental injuries the
petitioner has disability of 5% face and it may come in the
way of tailoring work. Though, the respondent No.2 cross-
examined the PW.2 regarding the disability, nothing is elicited
from him to disprove the disability. According to the doctor,
the petitioner has 5% disability for her face. But he has not
stated any disability to the whole body or particular limb.
Under the circumstances, I feel the disability caused to the
SCCH - 11 12 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
petitioner is not a functional disability. As such, she is not
entitled the compensation under the head loss of earning
capacity and future income, however, since she has disability
all her face. She is entitled compensation under the head
permanent disability. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.50,000/-
towards permanent disability.
13) According to the petitioner, she sustained fracture of
the left orbit with muscle entrapment and took treatment at
Manipal and Malya Hospital, Bangalore as inpatient from
02.12.2013 to 09.12.2013. Considering the nature of the
injuries and duration of the hospitalization, I feel the
petitioner has been put to some sort of inconvenience and
discomfort and she might have suffered pain and mental
agony on account of accidental injuries. Under the
circumstances, it is reasonable to award a sum of
Rs.40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and
loss of amenities in life. Accordingly, I award Rs.40,000/-
and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of
amenities in life.
SCCH - 11 13 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
14) According to PW.1, she has spent Rs.1,00,000/-
towards her treatment, conveyance and other incidental
charges. In this regard, she has produced medical bills of
Ex.P.39, 11 in numbers. On perusal of these medical bills,
they indicates that, she has spent Rs.1,11,964/-. Here,
though respondent No.2 has cross-examined PW.1, nothing
has been elicited from her to disprove the medical bills.
Further, the medical bills are supported by the doctor
prescriptions. In view of these, I award a sum of
Rs.1,12,000/- (rounded off) towards medical expenses.
15) It has come in the evidence of PW.1, she was hale
and healthy prior to the accident and was doing tailoring
work, thereby earning Rs.8,000/- per month. But, nothing is
placed on record to substantiate such fact. However,
considering the nature of the avocation and age of the
petitioner, I constrain to assess the income of the petitioner is
Rs.6,000/- per month taking into consideration, the nature of
the injuries and duration of hospitalization, I feel the
petitioner must have taken a rest for the period of three
months on account of accident. Under the circumstances, I
SCCH - 11 14 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
award a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income during
the laid up period.
16) According to the petitioner, she has spent
considerable amount towards conveyance, attendant charges,
food and nourished food. But nothing is placed on record to
substantiate such fact. However, considering the nature of
the injuries and duration of hospitalization, I feel it is
reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards
conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourished food.
17) Thus in all, the petitioner is entitled to
compensation as under:
1) Permanent disability Rs. 50,000/-
2) Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
3) Loss of amenities in life Rs. 20,000/-
4) Medical expenses Rs. 1,12,000/-
5) Loss of income during Rs. 18,000/-
laid up period
6) Towards conveyance,
attendant charges, food Rs. 20,000/-
and nourished food
Total Rs. Rs. 2,60,000/-
SCCH - 11 15 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
18) ISSUE No.3 IN MVC 1101/2014: According to
the petitioner in MVC 1101/2014, he had sustained injuries
as mentioned in Ex.P.15 wound certificate. On perusal of
wound certificate, it is clear that, the petitioner sustained the
following injuries.
19) Posterior dislocation of left elbow, 2) Degloving
injuries around the left elbow. According to the doctor, the
above said injuries are grievous in nature. PW.2 has stated in
his evidence that, he sustained fracture injuries and
underwent surgery for his fracture at Manipal hospital,
Bangalore. He has further stated that, he took treatment as
inpatient from 01.12.2013 to 12.12.2013, during that period,
he underwent surgery twice. PW.3 who is the doctor treated
the petitioner has stated in his evidence that, he has treated
the petitioner along with other doctors. He has further stated
that, he was conducted a surgery for the injuries sustained by
the petitioner. On 03.12.2013, wound inspection,
debridement and change of dressing done under GA on
03.12.2013. He has further stated that, Antero-lateral thigh
flap cover from right thigh and skin grafting from right thigh
was done under GA on 05.12.2013. He has further stated
SCCH - 11 16 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
that, the petitioner has 40% disability to the upper limb and
12.5% to the whole body. He has further stated that, because
of the above said disabilities, it is difficult for the petitioner to
work as a driver and also difficult to do any physical and
manual work. PW.4 who is also the doctor treated the
petitioner has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner has
pain and restriction of movements and loss of muscle power
to left elbow joint. He has further stated that, the petitioner
has permanent disability of 35% in relation to left upper limb
and 12% to the whole body. Though, PW.3 and 4 have cross-
examined by the respondent, nothing is elicited from him to
disprove the disability assessed by them. Under the
circumstances, there is no reasons to disbelieve the evidence
of PW.3 and 4 in relation to the whole body of the petitioner.
Hence, 12% disability is taken into consideration to assess
the loss of earning capacity and future income. According to
the petitioner, he was a driver by profession and thereby
earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month, but nothing is
placed on record to substantiate his avocation and income.
However, considering the nature of the injuries, avocation
and age of the petitioner, I constrain to assess the income of
the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month. The age of the
SCCH - 11 17 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
petitioner at the time of the accident as mentioned in wound
certificate was 33 years as on the date of accident. Hence,
proper multiplier is '16' as per Sarla Verma Case.
Considering the income, age and disability, if a sum of
Rs.1,38,240/- is awarded towards loss of earning capacity
and future income, it would meets the ends of justice. Hence,
I award Rs.1,38,240/- towards loss of earning capacity and
future income.
20) According to the petitioner, he sustained fracture
injuries and took treatment at Manipal Hospital from
01.12.2013 to 12.12.2013 as inpatient. Considering the
nature of the injuries and duration of the hospitalization, I
feel the petitioner has been put to some sort of inconvenience
and discomfort and she might have suffered pain and mental
agony on account of accidental injuries. Under the
circumstances, it is reasonable to award sum of Rs.50,000/-
and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of
amenities in life. Accordingly, I award Rs.50,000/- and
Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of
amenities in life.
SCCH - 11 18 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
21) According to PW.2, he has spent Rs.4,50,000/-
towards his treatment. In this regard, he has produced
medical bills of Ex.P.31, 73 in numbers. On perusal of these
medical bills, they indicates that, he has spent Rs.3,44,268/-.
Here, though respondent No.2 has cross-examined PW.2,
nothing has been elicited from him to disprove the medical
bills. Further, the medical bills are supported by the doctor
prescriptions. In view of this, I award a sum of Rs.3,44,300/-
(rounded off) towards medical expenses.
22) It has come in the evidence of PW.1 that, due to the
accidental injuries, he could not attend his duty. Thus, he
lost his income. But, nothing is placed on record to
substantiate such fact. However, considering the nature of
injuries and duration of hospitalization, I feel, he must have
taken a rest for the period of four months. I have already
assess the income of the petitioner is Rs.6,000/- per month.
Hence, I award a sum of Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income
during the laid up period. Under the circumstances, I award a
sum of Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during the laid
up period.
SCCH - 11 19 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
23) PW.2 has stated in his evidence that, he has to
undergo one more surgery for which, he has spent about
Rs.2,50,000/-. But, nothing is placed on record to show that,
he has to undergo one more operation. PW.3 and 4 who are
the doctors treated the petitioners have also not stated in
their evidence. Petitioner has to undergo one more surgery in
the absence of cogent documentary evidence, the evidence of
PW.2 to the effect that, he has to undergo one more operation
for which, he requires Rs.2,50,000/- cannot be believed and
there is no force to accept such evidence. Under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is not
entitled to compensation under the head future medical
expenses.
24) According to the petitioner, she has spent
considerable amount towards conveyance, attendant charges,
food and nourished food. But nothing is placed on record to
substantiate such fact. However, considering the nature of
the injuries and duration of hospitalization, I feel it is
reasonable to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards
conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourished food.
SCCH - 11 20 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
25) Thus in all, the petitioner in MVC No.1100/2014
is entitled to compensation as under:
1) Loss of earning capacity Rs. 1,38,240/-
2) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
3) Loss of amenities in life Rs. 20,000/-
4) Medical expenses Rs. 3,44,300/-
5) Loss of income during laid Rs. 24,000/-
up period
6) Towards conveyance, Rs. 30,000/-
attendant charges, food and
nourished food
Total Rs. Rs. 6,06,540/-
26) The respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending
vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle.
The respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the respondent
No.1. So, I hold that in MVC No.1100/2014, petitioner is
entitled for compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest
@ 6% p.a. from the date of petition from respondent No.2, till
complete realisation. In MVC No.1101/2014, petitioner is
entitled for compensation of Rs.6,06,540/- along with interest
@ 6% p.a. from the date of petition from respondent No.2, till
SCCH - 11 21 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014
complete realisation. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.3 is
partly affirmative in both cases.
27) ISSUE No.4: In view of answers to issues No.1 to
3 in both cases, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act are hereby partly allowed with costs.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- and Rs.6,06,540/- are awarded to the petitioners in MVC 1100/2014 and MVC No.1101/2014 respectively as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petitions till the date of realization.
Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. In order to indemnify the petitioners, the respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of 30 days from this day.
In case of deposit of the awarded compensation by the respondents, 50% each shall be deposited in F.D in the name of petitioners in any nationalized or scheduled SCCH - 11 22 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014 bank for the period of 3 years, failing to furnish the particulars, the same shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bangalore.
Remaining 50% each shall be released to the petitioners through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case.
Office to draw award accordingly.
(Original copy of Judgment shall be kept in MVC 1100/2014 and copy of the same shall be kept in MVC 1101/2014.) (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 29th day of July, 2016.) (CHANDRASHEKARA. P.S.) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS:
PW.1 - Stella Mary @ Stella Marynalini PW.2 - Satish Kumar @ Satish SCCH - 11 23 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014 PW.3 - Dr. Sunil Kumar.K.S. PW.4 - Dr. Raghavendra Reddy.R. PW.5 - Dr. R. Shashikanth DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 - True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 - True copy of Complaint Ex.P.3 - True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P.4 - True copy of Panchanama Ex.P.5 - True copy of hand sketch map Ex.P.6 - True copy of IMV report Ex.P.7 - True copy of photos Ex.P.8 - True copy of statement Ex.P.9-11 - True copy of statement Ex.P.12 - Notary attested copy of Aadhaar card Ex.P.13 - True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.14 - True copy of statement Ex.P.15 - True copy of wound certificate Ex.P.16 - Discharge summary Ex.P.17 - OP case sheet Ex.P.18 - Outpatient record Ex.P.19 - Estimate issued by Manipal Hospital Ex.P.20 - Dressing Protocol report Ex.P.21 - Microbiology report Ex.P.22 - Physiotherapy report Ex.P.23 - Microbiology report Ex.P.24 - Physiotheraphy report Ex.P.25&26- 2 microbiology report Ex.P.27 - ECG test report SCCH - 11 24 MVC No.1100 & 1101/2014 Ex.P.28 - Notary attested copy of driving licence Ex.P.29 & 30- 2 photos Ex.P.30(a) - Photo negative Ex.P.31 - 73 Medical bills Ex.P.32 - 4 medical prescriptions Ex.P.33-36 - 4 X-rays Ex.P.37 - Attested copy of discharge summary Ex.P.38 - Attested copy of discharge summary Ex.P.39 - 11 medical bills Ex.P.40 - 12 medical prescriptions Ex.P.41 - One X-ray Ex.P.42 - Another X-ray Ex.P.43 - Medical bill Ex.P.44 - Inpatient record Ex.P.45 - One OPD sheet Ex.P.46 - Lab report Ex.P.47 - One X-ray Ex.P.48 - Disability assessment Ex.P.49 - Inpatient records of petitioner Ex.P.50 - One X-ray with report
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
- NIL -
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS :
- NIL -
I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT.