Bangalore District Court
Kengal Swami vs Indresh.D.S on 10 September, 2025
KABC020103442023
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
PRESENT: Sri. B.S.HONNASWAMY (B.A., LL.M)
VII Addl. SCJ and ACJM,
Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No.2325/2023
Petitioner : Sri.Kengal Swami,
S/o Kengal Shetty,
Aged about 65 years,
(Since petitioner is unsound mind,
unconscious and suffering mental
infirmity, not oriented and hence
rep. by his wife as natural guardian)
Smt.Lakshmi Devi.K.S,
W/o Kengal Swami,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at Ward No.26,
Garadi Mane Street, Kote,
Kanakapura Town & Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
(By Sri.Rajesh.G.C, Advocate)
V/s
(SCCH-3) 2 M.V.C.No.2325/2023
Respondents : 01. Sri.Indresh.D.S,
S/o D.G.Shivalinge Gowda,
Major,
R/at Dunnasandra Village,
Guthalahunase Post,
Maralavadi Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District - 562 121.
(RC Owner of Car bearing reg. No.
KA-05-ND-0479)
(By Sri.Avinash.B.C, Advocate)
02. ICICI Lombard Gen. Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
(Deleted, as per the order
dt:17.12.2024)
03. Edelweiss General Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
Office at, No.427/141, 1st Floor,
9th Main Road, 5th Block,
Jayanagara,
Bengaluru - 560 041.
Policy No.900230823
Period 12.10.2021 to 11.10.2024
Insurer of Car bearing
No.KA-05-ND-0479
(Exparte)
*******
(SCCH-3) 3 M.V.C.No.2325/2023
JUDGMENT
The natural guardian of the petitioner has filed this claim petition U/Sec 166 of M.V. Act, 1989, against respondents seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in Motor Vehicle Accident.
02. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is as under:
On 18.03.2023 at about 06.30 p.m, the petitioner was pedestrian on extreme correct side by walk of Sathanur - Kanakapura Road and when he reached near Smasana, Kalegowdanadoddi Village, Sathanur - Kanakapura Main Road, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, at that time driver of Car bearing No.KA-05-ND-0479 has driven from Sathanur side towards Kanakapura side, at very high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner from behind and caused the accident. Due to impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to General hospital, Kanakapura, wherein he took first aid treatment, further shifted to Astra hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient for 05 days and after further management he was shifted to Victoria (SCCH-3) 4 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 23.03.2023 to 29.03.2023 and after conservative treatment, he was shifted to St. Martha's hospital and taken treatment for a day and thereafter again shifted to Astra Rehabilitation Centre, Bengaluru, wherein the petitioner still continuing the follow-up treatment, petitioner still unconscious and not oriented and suffering mentally infirmity, continuing follow-up treatment and has bedridden. The natural guardian of the petitioner has spent Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical and nourishment and attendant charges etc.,. Prior to accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged about 65 years and earning sum of Rs.30,000/- p.m by doing Mason work. Due to accidental injuries sustained by the petitioner have not united, he has undergone severe pain, bedridden and cannot do his routine work and he was not get earlier physical fitness and cannot chewing food, feeding liquid food on the bed and still he is bedridden, cannot speak, cannot identify anything, still unconscious and suffering permanent disability and undergoing deep mental shock, pain and sufferings and hardship, he cannot attend his work permanently, resulted in loss of earning and put to great financial hardship and untold misery and (SCCH-3) 5 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 depressed. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of above said offending Car by its driver and in this regard the Kanakapura Traffic Police have registered a case against driver of said offending Car. The respondent No.1 being the RC owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with cost and interest.
03. On service of notice, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared before the tribunal, but only the respondent No.1 has filed written statement. During pendency of the petition the respondent No.2 has filed application to delete them in the claim petition, as they were issued policy covers only own damage risk and the same was allowed and respondent No.2 was deleted. Later the petitioner has filed application to implead proposed respondent No.3 and the same was allowed and impleaded the respondent No.3. Inspite of service of notice, the respondent No.3 did not appeared and was placed exparte.
04. The respondent No.1 in his objections has denied the entire case of the petitioner and further denied the alleged accident, negligence of the driver of Car, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and (SCCH-3) 6 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and treatment taken by the petitioner and expenses incurred by the petitioner and admits that vehicle No.KA-05-ND-0479 is covered by the policy of insurance and valid from 15.10.2021 to 11.10.2023 issued by respondent No.2 and the compensation claimed is excessive and hence, pray to dismiss the petition with costs against respondent No.1.
05. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor: -
ISSUES
01. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred on 18.03.2023 at about 06.30 p.m, near Smasana, Kallegowdanadoddi Village, Kanakapura - Sathnoor Road, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara, District, due to rash and negligent act of driving of the Car bearing registration No.KA-05-ND-0479 by its driver as alleged in the petition?
02. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
03. What Order or Award?
06. In order to prove the case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got examined doctor as (SCCH-3) 7 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 PW.2 and got marked 30 documents as Ex.P.1 to 30 and closed his side evidence.
07. By way of rebuttal, the respondent No.1 got examined himself as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents as Ex.R.1 to 3 and closed his side evidence.
08. Heard both sides.
09. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 In affirmative
Issue No.2 In partly affirmative
Issue No.3 As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:- The natural guardian of the petitioner filed affidavit as PW.1 by reiterating the petition averments. Though she has been elaborately cross-examined by the respondent No.1 counsel, but nothing is brought on record to disbelieve the case of the petitioner that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Car by its driver, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident and treatment taken by the petitioner and expenses incurred by the petitioner. On perusal of the documents, Ex.P.1 is the FIR registered at Kanakapura (SCCH-3) 8 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 Traffic Police against driver of Car. Ex.P.2 is the complaint shows that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Car the accident took place and petitioner sustained injuries.
11. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car. Ex.P.3 to 5 are the Spot Mahazar, Seizer Mahazar and Sketch showing place of accident Kanakapura - Mysuru Road, near Smasana of Kalegowdanadoddi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, which is not disputed. Ex.P.6 is copy of IMV report which discloses that involvement of offending car in the accident. Ex.P.7 is Wound certificate which shows the petitioner sustained head injury:- laceration with bleeding area left occipital region. CT scan:- haemorragic contusion in left temporal lobe, moderate SAH with inter venticular haemorrhage in basal cistans, moderate cerebral edema and said injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.P.8 is the important document Investigation Officer. After completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of offending car for the offences punishable U/Sec 279, 338 of IPC. Ex.P.9 is copy of Notice U/Sec.133 of IMV Act issued to the owner of the offending car. Ex.P.10 is copy of Reply to notice which discloses that the owner of the offending (SCCH-3) 9 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 car stating that he was accompanied with one Suresh.M.C who was driving the car at the time of accident and he caused accident and he had valid driving licence and car had valid insurance as on the date of accident. Ex.P.12 and 15 is the DAMA summary and Discharge summary which shows that the petitioner sustained left temporal bleed with intraventricular hemorrhage. Ex.P.13, 14 and 16 are the Discharge summaries which shows that the petitioner sustained left temporal contusions with diffuse cerebral edema? DAH, Head injury, diabetes mellitus, hyponatremia and bilateral emphysematous pyelonephritis. Ex.P.23 and 24 are Aadhaar cards of the petitioner and PW.1. To disprove the petitioner case, the respondent No.1 got examined himself as RW.1 and in his chief-examination evidence he has reieterated the objections averments therein and he has produced RC card, DL of driver Suresh and copy of Policy as per Ex.R.1 to 3 which shows that respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending car and driver had valid driving licence and car had valid driving licence with respondent No.3 and the same was valid as on the date of accident. The evidence of RW.1/respondent No.1 is not helpful to the case of respondents. On going through the oral and documentary evidence (SCCH-3) 10 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 produced by the petitioner clearly goes to show that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending Car. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
12. Issue No.2:- This issue is related to the entitlement of the compensation on account of the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in Road Traffic Accident.
PW.1 in her evidence and pleadings has stated that prior to accident petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged about 65 years and earning sum of Rs.30,000/- p.m by doing Mason work and she has spent Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical and nourishment and attendant charges etc.,. Due to accidental injuries sustained by the petitioner, he has undergone severe pain, bedridden and cannot do his routine work and he was not get earlier physical fitness and cannot chewing food, feeding liquid food on the bed and still he is bedridden, cannot speak, cannot identify anything, still unconscious and suffering permanent disability and undergoing deep mental shock, pain and sufferings and hardship, he cannot attend his work permanently, resulted in loss of earning and put to (SCCH-3) 11 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 great financial hardship and untold misery and depressed.
13. So far as avocation and income of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has not placed any documents or evidence before the tribunal. Therefore, in the absence of authenticated, believable and satisfactory documents in proof of the income of the injured, this tribunal has to go by the Lok-Adalath chart, according to which the notional income in relation to the accident of the year 2023 to be taken as Rs.16,000/- p.m. Therefore, this tribunal has assessed the monthly income of petitioner is at Rs.16,000/-.
14. According to the evidence of PW.2 doctor who examined the petitioner and assessed the disability has stated in his chief-examination that petitioner sustained left temporal bleed with intraventricular bleed and subarachnoid haemorrhage and he assessed total disability of around 70%. This disability is pertaining to whole body which is likely to be permanent and he has produced OPD records, Mini mental state examination report, MRI brain report, Neuro psychological assessment report, MRI scan films and CD as per Ex.P.26 to 30.
(SCCH-3) 12 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 Loss of future income:-
15. Looking to the nature of the injuries, it is duty of petitioner to prove his age, but petitioner has not produced birth certificate, school records or SSLC marks card to show his exact date of birth. However, he has produced Aadhaar card at Ex.P.23. Eventhough said document is not authenticated document for the proof of age for any person, but in the absence of any other documents, the same can be relied upon and according to which the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 01.01.1963 and the alleged accident was occurred on 18.03.2023. Hence, it appears that as on the date of accident the age of the petitioner is 60 years and this tribunal has assessed age of the petitioner as 60 years. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 in between Sarla Verma and others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and others case the multiplier applicable to the age group of 56 to 60 years is '9'.
16. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 (16 SCC 680).
(SCCH-3) 13 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 If the petitioner is having self employee, a future prospectus has to be considered. The petitioner was aged 60 years on the date of accident, hence 10% income has to be added towards his monthly income and it comes to Rs.16,000/- + 1,600/- = 17,600/-.
The doctor PW.2 has given disability of around 70% which is pertaing to whole body. But this witness is not cross-examined by the respondents. In this regard the petitioner has produced Medical certificate as per Ex.P.11 wherein the doctor has opined that petitioner sustained head injury and he is disoriented, unable to walk and decreased responsive since then. Patient is under regular physiotherapy, hence patient is not able to attend the court.
On perusal of Ex.P.27 is Mini mental state examination report wherein the opinion given by the doctor that MMSE could not be done, patient unable to comprehend/execute any test.
Ex.P.28 is MRI brain report sequences shows Axial T1 Flair, T2 W FSE, Swan, diffusion W EPI, coronal 3D cube T2 flair, 3D SPGR and the impression opinion given by the doctor at page No.2 is that diffuse cerebral atrophy, Gliotic changes with old haemorragic residue involving the left inferior frontal and left temporal regions, with a small focus of old (SCCH-3) 14 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 haemorragic residue also involving the right anterior temporal parenchyma-consistent with post-traumatic sequelae, no evidence of acute infarct/haemorrhage or mass effect seen in the present study and for clinical correlation Ex.P.29 is Neuro psychological assessment report the Behaviour observation given by the doctor that A quiet and well behaved man. Eye contact is present. He is unable to comprehend instructions and not able to try strategies. Slow to respond and irrelevant speech. Intelligence test is an assessment that measures a range of cognitive abilities and provides a range of cognitive abilities and provides a score that is intended to serve as a measure of individual's intellectual abilities and potential. On Bhatia's short battery of performance tests of intelligence for adults was discontinued as he was not able to comprehend instructions on the test.
Lobe functioning:-
Frontal lobe: He is inadequate in planning, organizing and problem solving. Cognitive abilities are inadequate. Motor abilities are very slow. Temporal lobe: His auditory functioning is slow. Parietal lobe: Language processing is inadequate.
(SCCH-3) 15 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 Occipital lobe: His visual area is functioning inadequate.
On Indian disability evaluation and assessment scale (IDEAS), the scores are 14 which shows the client has 71-99% disability in the areas of self-care.
Interpersonal activities. Communication and understanding as well as work which signifies severe disability.
Impression: Mr.Kengal Swamy, the petitioner is functioning has poor intellectual abilities with severe disability.
However, on perusal of evidence of petitioner, he came to court with a stretcher and gave evidence voluntarily and he was completely bedridden which is evident from photographs at Ex.P.22. Hence, considering the evidence of PW.2, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and medical records, this tribunal has assessed functional disability of the petitioner at 60%. Therefore, the loss of future income works out as under:
Rs.17,600/- x 12 x 9 x 60/100 = Rs.11,40,480/-.
Nourishing food expenses, attendant and conveyance:
(SCCH-3) 16 M.V.C.No.2325/2023
a) Nourishing Food:
17. Taking nourishment food is equally
necessary along with medicines for fast recovery from the accidental injuries. The petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 95 days at Astra hospital, Victoria hospital and St.Martha's hospital, Bengaluru as per Ex.P.12 to 16 DAMA summary and Discharge summaries. That apart the petitioner was regularly taking follow-up treatment for considerable period.
18. It is true, no material has been placed by the petitioner with regard to amount spent towards nourishment food. Even it is also difficult to produce and prove the same by way of document. Having regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner it could be said that throughout the life of the petitioner PW.1 has to be provided with adequate nutritious food to maintain present status of the petitioner. While awarding compensation under the head loss of future income, no amount has been deducted. So, that amount could be made use of for the purpose of nutritious food. Along with that, it is reasonable to award Rs.1,50,000/- towards nourishment food which was provided to the petitioner from the date of the accident till today.
(SCCH-3) 17 M.V.C.No.2325/2023
b. Conveyance:
19. Since the petitioner has Neuro
pshychological problems along with physical disability, it is not possible to take the petitioner in any of public conveyance to the hospital. Either wife of the petitioner or any attendant who takes care of the petitioner has to engage taxi or ambulance whenever they want to take the petitioner for follow-up treatment. Hence, it is reasonable to award Rs.1,50,000/- towards past and future conveyance.
c. Attendant charges:
20. It is true, in the case on hand the petitioner has not produced any document to show that one attendant or nurse was engaged to look after the petitoner. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner is native of Kanakapura. Since the petitioner requires higher treatment, he was shifted to Astra hospital and then to Victoria hospital and then to St.Martha's hospital, Bengaluru. From the date of accident for a period of three months the petitioner was treated as an inpatient. Thereafter, he was discharged with the advise of follow-uptreatment. As could be seen from the medical bills produced by the petitioner, the petitioner has taken treatment in various hospitals.
(SCCH-3) 18 M.V.C.No.2325/2023
21. Having seen the medical documents of the petitioner, it could be said that for prolonged period, when he was taking treatment regularly the petitioner is unable to carry out his day-to-day activities without the help of supporter. Therefore, one attendant was absolutely required for the petitioner throughout his life. As stated in the Neuro physhological assessment report petitioner has poor memory, not able to walk as he needs support, he screams and gets angry and he has stammering and irrelevant talk. Therefore, it is held that one attendant does require for the petitioner throughout his life. Having considering all these facts it is held that it is necessary to award sum of Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.4,000 x 12 x 9) towards attendant charges.
Pain, Sufferings and Trauma:
22. The petitioner was aged about 60 years at the time of the accident. Due to the accident he had permanent disability as noted above. He was not born with permanent disability. As observed supra, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 95 days and still the petitioner has been regularly taking follow up treatment. From this any lay man could imagine the pain and suffering and trauma undergone by the petitioner who was aged about 60 (SCCH-3) 19 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 years and born in middle class family. It is not possible to imagine the mental pain of the petitioner. By considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner as noted above, its effect and also number of days treatment taken by the petitioner, this tribunal is of the considered opinion that it is just and proper to award reasonable and just compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner under the head pain and sufferings.
Loss of Amenities and discomfort:
23. As per the Discharge summaries at Ex.P.12 to 16 petitioner sustained left temporal bleed with intraventricular hemorrhage, left temporal contusions with diffuse cerebral edema? DAH, Head injury, diabetes mellitus, hyponatremia and bilateral emphysematous pyelonephritis. From the date of accident till date the petitioner is under regular follow-
up treatment to maintain present condition. As stated by the doctors, the petitioner was found to have head injury and he is disoriented, unable to walk and decreased responsive since then. Patient is under regular physiotherapy, which amounts to disability of 70% to whole body.
24. Social withdrawal can often result, leaving the injured person feeling isolated. His personal (SCCH-3) 20 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 relationships can be heavily affected. The petitioner could not able to enjoy his life as he was enjoying and others were enjoying due to the alleged accident. Overall considering the difficulties of the petitioner, it is no doubt that the physical disabilities noted above not only put the petitioner in grief and mental sufferings it also effect on his happiness and it is total discomfort in his life, it has taken away his amenities. By considering all these aspects, this tribunal is of the considered opinion that it is just and proper to award reasonable compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of amenities, happiness and discomfort. vii. Loss of income during laid up period:-
25. Another point to be discussed herein, about the loss of income during laid up period and rest period. In the main petition, it is the assertion of the petitioner that, he was earning Rs.30,000/ p.m by doing Mason work. In the case on hand, on going through the facts and circumstances of the case prima-facie reveal that, after the accident, due to the grievousness injuries sustained by the petitioner and also due to his critical condition, has not attended for his job after the accident and loss of income in toto occurred to him, after the accident. As such, while considering the loss of future income each and every (SCCH-3) 21 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 aspect to be discussed. Because there was a total loss to him, after the accident, till today he is under the care and custody of his wife and without the assistance of the attendant, he could not do any work as per the evidence of the doctor as well as on going through his age criteria. And also no improvements from his side to do normal life in future, Hence the petitioner herein, is not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of income during the laid up period and rest period.
Medical Expenses:-
26. The petitioner has got marked entire medical bills as per Ex.P.21 and Photo receipt as per Ex.P.22(a), which amounts to Rs.8,16,701/-. To disprove the said medical expenses, the respondent No.1 has not produced any documents nor any evidence. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.8,16,701/- under this head.
Future Medical Expenses:
27. The PW.2 has not stated anything about future medical expenses. However, considering the grievousness of injuries sustained by the petitioner and disability sustained by the petitioner, this tribunal is of the opinion that to award compensation of (SCCH-3) 22 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of future medical expenses.
28. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as detailed below:-
Sl. Head of compensation Amount in
No. Rs.
1. Loss of future income 11,40,480-00
2. Pain and sufferings 1,50,000-00
3. Attendant charges 4,32,000-00
4. Medical Expenses 8,16,701-00
5. Loss of amenities, future 1,50,000-00
happiness, discomfort
6. Food and nourishment 1,50,000-00
7. Conveyance 1,50,000-00
8. Future medical expenses 1,00,000-00
Total 30,89,181-00
29. Accordingly I hold that, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.30,89,181/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-) from the date of petition till its realization.
30. Regarding liability:- Despite service of notice, the respondent No.3 did not appeared before the tribunal and hence placed exparte. As already discussed above the respondent No.1 got examined (SCCH-3) 23 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 as RW.1, but he has not disprove the case of the petitioner and to prove his contention. As per Ex.P.3 copy of Policy as on the date of accident is valid and is in force. Therefore, the respondent No.1 being the RC owner and respondent No.3 being the insurer of the offending Car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, since policy of offending vehicle was valid and is in force as on the date of accident, the respondent No.3 being the insurer of offending vehicle shall deposit above said compensation amount of Rs.30,89,181/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 partly in affirmative.
31. Issue No.3:- In view of reasons assigned to Issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,89,181/- (Rupees Thirty lakhs eighty nine thousand one hundred and eighty one only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a (excluding future (SCCH-3) 24 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 medical expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-) from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.3 shall deposit above said compensation amount with interest within two months from the date of this Judgment.
The claim petition against respondent No.2 is deleted.
The petitioner is entitled to get release 70% of the award amount through E-payment directly to the petitioner account by obtaining the bank account details and remaining 30% shall be kept in fixed deposit in any scheduled bank for a period of three years, in his name. The petitioner is at liberty to draw periodical interest.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on system, corrected, initialed and then pronounced by me in open court on 10th day of September, 2025).
(B.S.HONNASWAMY) VII Addl. Judge and ACJM, Bengaluru.
(SCCH-3) 25 M.V.C.No.2325/2023
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for the petitioner:
P.W.1 Lakshmi Devi.K.S P.W.2 Dr.Shailesh .A.V. Rao List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner: Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint Ex.P.3 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 True copy of Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.5 True copy of Sketch Ex.P.6 True copy of IMV report Ex.P.7 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P.8 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P.9 True copy of Notice U/Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P.10 True copy of Reply to notice
Ex.P.11 Medical certificate dt:21.06.2023 Ex.P.12 Dama summary Ex.P.13 04 Discharge summaries to 16 Ex.P.17 Outpatient records (05 in Nos.) Ex.P.18 Radiology reports (03 in Nos.) to 20 Ex.P.21 137 Medical bills for a sum of Rs.8,16,201/- Ex.P.22 04 Photos Ex.P.22(a) Photo receipt Ex.P.22(b) CD Ex.P.23 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner Ex.P.24 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of PW.1 Ex.P.25 02 X-rays Ex.P.26 OPD records from Padmashree Diagnostics, Bengaluru Ex.P.27 Mini mental state examination report Ex.P.28 MRI brain report Ex.P.29 Neuro psychological assessment report (SCCH-3) 26 M.V.C.No.2325/2023 Ex.P.30 MRI Scan films Ex.P.30(A)CD List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
\R.W.1 Indresh.D.S
List of documents
\ marked on behalf of the
Respondents:
Ex.R.1 Notarized copy of R.C card of respondent
No.1
Ex.R.2 Notarized copy of D.L of driver Suresh
Ex.R.3 True copy of Policy
(B.S.HONNASWAMY)
VII Addl. Judge and ACJM,
Bengaluru.