Bangalore District Court
Jyothi B vs M.D.Ganesh on 8 February, 2022
KABC020106782020
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-12)
Present: Shri. MOHAMED ARIFULLA C.F.
B.Sc., LL.B.,
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT12, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 8th day of February 2022
MVC. NO.1995/2020 C/w
MVC No.1996/2020
Petitioner : Jyothi B
(MVC 1995/2020) W/o Dinesh P
Aged about 20 years,
R/at Chiniviranahalli,
Ahobala Agrahara,
Beladhara Post,
Kora Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk & District.
Petitioner : Dinesh P
(MVC 1996/2020) S/o Puttahanumaiah,
Aged about 34 years,
SCCH-12 2 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
R/at Chiniviranahalli,
Ahobala Agrahara,
Beladhara Post,
Kora Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk & District.
(By pleader Sri.KMSG)
V/s
Respondents : 1. M.D.Ganesh
(In both the case) S/o. Late Dattareya,
No.288/51, Srikanteswara Nilaya,
Parimala Nagara,
Arishinakunte,
Bangalore562123.(Insured)
2. The Manager,
TATA AIG General Insu.Co. Ltd.,
Office, At 69, 2nd Floor,
JP & Devi Jambukeshwara Arcade,
Millers Road,
Banglaore560068. ( Insured)
(R1 By pleader Sri.MGS
(R2 By pleader Sri.MN)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two petitions filed by the petitioners U/Sec. 166 of
M.V Act and both the petitioners sustained injuries in the
accident and hence, these cases are clubbed together for
common trial and are having common evidence in
MVC.No.1995/2020, they are taken together for disposal
through this common Judgment.
SCCH-12 3 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
2. Brief Facts of both the Petitions: The case of the
petitioners is that, on 17022020 at about 9.15 a.m. they were
crossing TumkurBengaluru N.H48 Road near
Chikkabidarakallu, Bengaluru, at that time, the rider of
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA04JZ6776 (herein after called
as offending vehicle) drove the same with high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioners
and caused accident, as a result of this, the petitioners
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident the
petitioners were shifted to Premier Sanjeevini hospital, wherein
they have taken treatment as inpatients and spent huge
amount towards treatment and other incidental charges.
3. The petitioner of MVC No.1995/2020 was hale and
healthy before the accident and was a Tailor and was earning
Rs.15,000/ per month and due to the injuries sustained in the
accident and prolonged medical treatment she lost future
earning capacity, for which the petitioner and his family
members have been suffering mentally and physically. Hence
prays to award a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ with interest.
4. The petitioner of MVC 1996/2020 was hale and healthy
before the accident and was a lorry driver and earning an
income of Rs.30,000/ per month and contributing his income
to his depending family members and due to the injuries
sustained in the accident and prolonged medical treatment and
long bed rest, the petitioner lost his income due to permanent
SCCH-12 4 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
disability and also lost future earning capacity, for which the
petitioner and his family members have been suffering
mentally,physically as well as financially. Hence prays to award
a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ with interest.
5. The accident was occurred due to negligence of the
rider of offending vehicle and the Nelamangala traffic Police
have registered the case in Crime No.85/2020 under section
279, 337 of IPC against the rider of offending motorcycle. The
respondent no.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the above petitioners. Hence this petition.
6. After service of notices the respondent no.1 and 2 have
appeared before this court through their Counsels, but
respondent No.1 has not filed written statement. The
respondent no.2 has filed its written statement.
7. The respondent no.2 in its written statement has
contended that the claim petitions are not maintainable either
in law or on facts. Further the Respondent no.2 contended that
the owner and the Police have not complied Section 134 (c)
and 158(6) of M.V.Act. Further stated that the respondent no.2
has admitted the issuance of policy to the offending vehicle and
its liability is subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the
policy. Further the respondent no.2 has denied the manner of
accident, the age and avocation, income of the petitioners,
SCCH-12 5 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
injuries sustained by them, treatment taken by them, medical
expenses incurred by them and disability suffered by them. It
has contended that the rider of offending vehicle was not
holding valid DL at the time of accident and as such, this
respondent is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1. This
Respondent seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of
M.V.Act. It is further stated that, in case that, owner of the
vehicle unable to contest the case on all ground apart, this
Respondent shall be permitted to take all defenses available
under Section 170 of M.V.Act to contest the case. It is further
submitted that the amount of compensation claimed by the
petitioners is highly exorbitant and without any basis and
hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues
were framed as under;
ISSUES in MVC 1995/2020
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, on 1702
2020 at about 9.15 a.m., the petitioner was a
pedestrian and was crossing the road along
with her husband on TumkurBengaluru NH48
Road, Chikkabidarakallu, Bengaluru, at that
time, the rider of Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA
04JZ6776 came from Tumkur side at high
speed in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the petitioner and caused
accident, due to which the Petitioner fell down
and sustained grievous injuries all over the
body ?
SCCH-12 6 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation as sought for? If yes, How much
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
ISSUES in MVC No.1996/2020
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, on
17022020 at about 9.15 a.m., the petitioner was
a pedestrian and was crossing the road along with
his wife on TumkurBengaluru NH48 Road,
Chikkabidarakallu, Bengaluru, at that time, the
rider of Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA04JZ
6776 came from Tumkur side at high speed in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against
the petitioner and caused accident, due to which
the Petitioner fell down and sustained grievous
injuries all over the body ?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation as sought for? If yes, How much
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
9. In order to prove the above issues the petitioners
have examined themselves as P.W.1 and 2 and got marked
the documents at Ex.P.1 to 18 respectively. The petitioner of
MVC No.1996/2020 has examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N as P.W.3
and got marked documents at Ex.P.19 and 20.
10. The official of respondent No.2 insurance
company is examined as RW1 and office superintendent,
SCCH-12 7 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
RTO, Nelamanagala is examined as RW2 and got marked
the documents at Ex.R.1 to 7 respectively.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the entire
materials placed on record and my answers to the above
issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 in : In Partly Affirmative,
Both the cases
Issue No.2 in : In Partly Affirmative,
Both the cases
Issue No.3 in : As per final order
Both the cases for the following
REASONS
12. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES: According to the
petitioners, on 17022020 at about 9.15 a.m. they were
crossing TumkurBengaluru N.H48 Road, near
Chikkabidarakallu, Bengaluru, at that time, the rider of
motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA04JZ6776 (herein after called
as offending vehicle) drove the same with high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioners
and caused accident, as a result of this, the petitioners
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident the
petitioners were shifted to Premier Sanjeevini hospital, wherein
they have taken treatment as inpatients and spent huge
amount towards treatment and other incidental charges.
SCCH-12 8 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
13. The respondent No.2 has denied the accident and
stated that, the accident did not take place due to the rash and
negligent manner of the rider of the offending vehicle. The
petitioners in both cases have not sustained any injuries as
stated in their petitions. The accident took place due to careless
and negligent manner of the petitioners, as they were crossing
the road without observing the traffic rules and regulations.
The jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet against the
rider of the said offending vehicle.
14. The petitioners have produced copy of F.I.R.,
complaint, charge sheet, Panchanama, seizure mahazar, MVA
report, wound certificate (PW1) and charge sheet, wound
certificate (PW2) which have been marked at Ex.P.1 to 7 and
12. The recitals of complaint shows that the petitioners who
were crossing the road and at that time, the rider of offending
motorcycle hit the petitioners. However, the learned counsel for
the respondent no.2 has argued that due to the sole negligence
of the petitioners, the accident took place. But, the material
placed on record shows that, the accident took place due to
rash and negligent riding of rider of offending vehicle.
15. On perusal of Ex.P.2 complaint and Ex.P.7 charge
sheet, it shows that the accident took place at the time of
crossing of road by the petitioners. It is an admitted fact that
the accident took place on TumkurBengaluru NH48 Road and
the movement of vehicles in the said road is very high and it is a
SCCH-12 9 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
very huge traffic road and therefore, one who crosses the road
should take utmost care and caution. More over, it is also an
admitted fact that there was no zebra crossing to cross the
pedestrians. In the present case on hand, the petitioners of
both petitions were crossing the road without taking care and
caution and therefore, they are also responsible for the
accident. As such, the part of negligence is attributed towards
petitioners. However, the rider of the motorcycle could have
avoided the accident, if she took little care and caution while
riding her vehicle. As far as the negligence on the part of
petitioners is concerned, it is meager compared to the rider of
the offending vehicle. Therefore, the contributory negligence is
fixed on the part of the petitioners and rider of offending vehicle
at the ratio of 20% and 80% respectively.
16. After considering all these facts and circumstances of
the case that, the accident took place due to the negligence of
the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA04JZ6776 and also due
to contributory negligence of petitioners. Accordingly, I answer
Issue No.1 in both the cases in Partly Affirmative.
17. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.1995/2020 : The
petitioner has stated that she has sustained injuries on the face
and she was admitted to the Premier Sanjeevini Hospital,
Bengaluru from 17022020 to 18022020 and she was treated
and she was advised followup treatment.
SCCH-12 10 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
18. On considering the oral evidence of PW.1 and
documentary evidence which have been marked as Ex. P1FIR,
Ex.P.2 complaint, Ex.P.3 & 4 Spot and seizure mahazar,
Ex.P.5 IMV report, Ex.P.6 Wound certificate, Ex.P.7 Charge
sheet, Ex.P.8 discharge summary, it is found that the petitioner
has sustained only simple injuries.
19. As far as the age of the petitioner is concerned, the
petitioner has stated that she was 20 years at the time of
accident. To substantiate her contention, Petitioner has
produced Ex.P.11 notarized copy of Aadhaar card, in which it
reveals the date of birth of the petitioner as 09012000. As
such, the petitioner is aged about 20 years as on the date of
accident. As such, this Tribunal considers the age of the
petitioner as "20"years.
20. The document Ex. P.6 i.e., wound certificate shows
that the Petitioner had sustained injury to face and she was
admitted to the Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, Bengaluru from
17022020 and taken treatment and she was discharged on
18022020 with followup advice. Though, the petitioner has
not got examined the doctor, she has produced wound
certificate, discharge summary and Ex.P.9 medical bills worth
Rs.11,878/ This fact clearly goes to show that she took
treatment in the hospital and therefore, this tribunal cannot
award compensation for the future loss of income and other
heads and therefore, this tribunal considering the nature of
injuries sustained by the petitioner awards a global
SCCH-12 11 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
compensation of Rs.25,000/ under all the conventional
heads.
21. As already discussed in the issue No.1, the accident
took place due to the contributory negligence of petitioner and
the contributory negligence is fixed on the part of the
petitioner at 20% and therefore, the amount of Rs.5,000/ out
of award amount is to be deducted towards contributory
negligence.
22. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion
that, the Petitioner of MVC No.1995/2020 is entitled for
global compensation of Rs.20,000/ along with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing of petition till
realization.
23. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.1996/2020 : The petitioner
has stated that he has sustained Trimallular fracture with D/L
ankle left and he was admitted to the Premier Sanjeevini
Hospital, Bengaluru from 17022020 and he underwent
surgery for lateral malleolus in the form of closed reduction and
internal fixation with TENS and CC screws for the medial
malleolus and he was discharged on 20022020 with followup
advice.
24. On considering the oral evidence of PW.1 and
documentary evidence which have been marked as Ex. P1FIR,
SCCH-12 12 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
Ex.P.2 complaint, Ex.P.3 & 4 Spot and seizure mahazar,
Ex.P.5 IMV report, Ex.P.12 Wound certificate, Ex.P.7 Charge
sheet, Ex.P.13 &14 discharge summaries, it is found that the
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries.
25. As far as the age of the petitioner is concerned, the
petitioner has stated that he was 34 years at the time of
accident. To substantiate his contention, petitioner has
produced Ex.P.17 notarized copy of Aadhaar card, in which it
reveals the date of birth of the petitioner as 06101986. As
such, the petitioner is aged 34 years as on the date of accident.
As such, this Tribunal considers the age of the petitioner as
"34"years.
26. The petitioner has stated that he was hale and
healthy and working as a lorry driver and was earning an
income of Rs.20,000/ per month. But, he has not produced
any document supporting to show his income and as such this
Tribunal considers the avocation of the Petitioner as a driver. As
such, it is considered that the petitioner is an unskilled labour.
On considering the age and avocation of the petitioner on the
date of accident, this Tribunal considers the notional income of
the petitioner at Rs.12,000/ p.m.
27. The document Ex. P.12 i.e., wound certificate shows
that the Petitioner had sustained Trimallular fracture with D/L
ankle left and he was admitted to the Premier Sanjeevini
Hospital, Bengaluru from 17022020 and underwent surgery
SCCH-12 13 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
and he was discharged on 20022020 with followup advice.
Further he was admitted at Vijayanagar hospital, Bengaluru on
29052020 and he underwent removal of TENS Left Fibula
under SAB done and discharged on 30052020.
28. Further P.W.3 has stated that he examined the
petitioner recently on 24082021 and noticed the following
complaints i.e. swelling and pain in the left ankle, unable to
walk normally, unable to sit down, squat and sit cross leg, he
was limping gait, swollen deformed left ankle restricted left
ankle and foot movements, wasting of the left calf muscles. The
P.W.3 is not a treated doctor of the petitioner and he has also
stated that, the petitioner sustained Trimalleolar fracture
dislocation of the left ankle and also stated that he was
admitted in the hospital for 2 times. The P.W.3 has assessed the
disability on the "Guidelines of gazette notification issued by the
ministry of Social justice and empowerment, Government of
India" and has opined that the petitioner has got disability of
40% to left lower limb and 13% to the whole body. However
P.W.3 has not stated the functional disability to the petitioner.
As this Tribunal has considered the avocation of petitioner as
unskilled labour. On considering the wound certificate Ex.P.12
and medical documents and the avocation of the petitioner and
on considering the age of the petitioner and also relying on the
principles of the ruling reported in 2011 ACJ 1 SC
(Rajkumar /Vs/ Ajaykumar), the Tribunal considers the
permanent functional disability of the petitioner is at 13%. The
SCCH-12 14 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
tribunal considers the age of the petitioner as 34 years on the
basis of medical documents produced by the petitioner and the
appropriate multiplier '16' is applicable as per Sarla Verma's
case. On considering the avocation and age of the petitioner,
the total loss of future income is calculated as
(12,000X12X13X16/100) =Rs.2,99,520/
29. The petitioner has sustained Trimallular fracture
with D/L ankle left and he was admitted to the Premier
Sanjeevini Hospital, Bengaluru and Vijayanagar hospital,
Bengaluru and he underwent surgery and also there is a
restricted movement. As such, he has suffered lot of
inconvenience and therefore, considering all these aspects as
well as avocation of the petitioner. Hence, this Tribunal awards
Rs.50,000/ under the head of pain and sufferings.
30. The petitioner underwent closed reduction and
internal fixation with TENS for lateral malleolus and CC screws
for the medial malleolous. As such considering the avocation of
the petitioner and injuries sustained by him, he might have
required rest for three months. Therefore, the total period for
treatment is considered to be as three months. This Tribunal
awards Rs.36,000/ under the head of Loss of income during
the period of treatment.
31. The petitioner has produced the medical bills and
prescriptions at Ex.P.15 & 16 towards the treatment taken by
SCCH-12 15 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
him worth Rs.2,01,964/ Hence, this Tribunal awards
Rs.2,05,000/ towards medical, conveyance, nutrition and
attendant charges.
32. This tribunal awards Rs.30,000/ under the head
of Loss of future happiness and amenities.
33. The P.W.3 has stated in his evidence that, the
fracture of left medial and lateral malleolus with mild ankle tilt
laterally is united. It is an admitted fact that the implants are
removed. As such, the petitioner has already undergone
removal of implants. Hence, he is entitled for future medical
expenses.
34. As already discussed in the issue No.1, the accident
took place due to the contributory negligence of petitioner and
the contributory negligence is fixed on the part of the
petitioner at 20% and therefore, 20% of the award amount is
to be deducted towards contributory negligence.
The calculation table stands as follows:
01 Loss of future income : Rs. 2,99,520=00
02 Pain and sufferings : Rs. 50,000=00
03 Loss of income during : Rs. 36,000=00
treatment period.
04 Medical, conveyance, : Rs. 2,05,000=00
Nutrition and
Attendant charges
SCCH-12 16 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
05 Loss of future : Rs. 30,000=00
happiness and
amenities
Total Rs. 6,20,520=00
20% deducted towards - RS. 1,24,104=00
contributory
negligence of
petitioners out of total
compensation amount
i.e., Rs.6,20,520/
MINUS 20%
=Rs.1,24,104/
Grand Rs. 4,96,416=00
Total
35. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion
that, the Petitioner of MVC No.1996/2020 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,96,416/ along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing of petition till
realization.
36. The official of respondent No.2 has got examined
himself as RW1 and produced Ex.R1 to R5 documents and
also he stated in his evidence that the rider of the motor cycle
was not possessing DL at the time of the accident. Further he
has stated that the investigation officer has filed charge sheet
by alleging that the rider has committed offences U/Sec. 279,
337, 338 of IPC and Sec. 181 of M.V. Act and he has got marked
true copy of charge sheet Ex.R3. The respondent No.2 also got
examined official of RTO Nelamangala as RW2 and he has
SCCH-12 17 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
produced Ex.R7 LLR, which belongs to rider of the offending
vehicle and he has stated that the rider of the motor vehicle
one Bhavana N.S. was possessing Learner's Licence at the time
of accident.
37. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has
canvassed the judgment of our Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in 2020 SCC Online SC 769 between Beli Ram Vs.Rajinder
Kumar and others and also canvassed the Judgment of our
Hon'ble High Court reported in MFA.No.4716/2011 (MV),
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Umamaheshwari and
others.
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and our Hon'ble High
Court have made proposition of law that is the driver or rider of
a vehicle is not possessing valid DL at the time of the accident
and in such a situation the liability is to be fastened on the
owner of the vehicle and not the insurer. However, in the
present case on hand, the petitioner was riding the motor cycle
with a pillion rider as per the recitals of Ex.P1FIR and
Ex.P7charge sheet, the investigation officer has stated in
the charge sheet that the rider of the motor cycle was not
possessing driving licence at the time of accident, but he has
stated that the rider was possessing learner's licence. The
material placed by the RTO official and police record discloses
that the rider of the motor cycle was possessing learners'
licence at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the
SCCH-12 18 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
respondent No.2 has argued that a rider who is possessing
learners licence shall be accompanied with a pillion rider who
is possessing driving licence. It is an admitted fact that a rider
who is possessing learner's licence shall be accompanied with a
pillion rider who is possessing driving licence while riding the
motorcycle. It is also an admitted fact that the rider was
accompanied by a pillion rider. However, in the present case
on hand, the police record does not disclose whether the
pillion rider was possessing driving licence or not. Moreover,
the investigation officer has also not filed charge sheet against
the owner of the vehicle by alleging that the owner allowed a
person to ride his motor cycle who was not have possessing
driving licence. Such being the case, this Tribunal comes to
the conclusion that the rider of the offending motorcycle was
riding it with the pillion rider who was possessing driving
licence. As such the insurer cannot be absolved from the
liability.
39. The liability of Respondents No.1 and 2 is joint and
several in nature. Respondent No.2 being the insurers is
directed to pay the compensation amount. Hence, I answer
Issue No.2 of MVC No. 1995/2020, and 1996/2020, in
Partly Affirmative.
40. ISSUE NO.3 IN ALL THREE PETITIONS: In view
of the above discussion on Issue no.1 and 2, I proceed to pass
the following;
SCCH-12 19 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
ORDER
All the three petitions filed by the petitioners U/Sec. 166 of M.V Act are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC No.1995/2020 is entitled to get compensation of Rs.20,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit from the respondent no.1 and
2. The respondent no.1 being the insurer is directed to pay compensation and also directed to deposit the same within two months.
Since the compensation amount of petitioner in MVC No.1995/2020 is a meager one and therefore it is ordered to pay the entire amount to the petitioner.
The petitioner of MVC No.1996/2020 is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,96,416/ along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing of petition till realization.
The liability of Respondents No.1 and 2 is joint and several in nature. Respondent No.2 being the insurer is directed to pay the compensation SCCH-12 20 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020 amount. The respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the same within two months.
Out of the award amount, 50% shall be deposited in the name of petitioner of MVC No.1996/2020 in any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years and remaining 50% shall be paid to the petitioner in MVC No.1996/2020.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/each petition.
Draw an award accordingly.
The original judgment copy shall be kept in MVC 1995/2020 and copy of the same may be kept in MVC No.1996/2020 for reference. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer and printout taken by her, then corrected and pronounced in the open court on this the 8th day of February 2022) (Mohamed Arifulla C.F.) XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM, Court of Small causes, Bangalore.
ANNEXURES IN MVC NO.1995/2020 List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
P.W.1 : Jyothi B SCCH-12 21 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020 List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s :
Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR Ex.P.2 : Copy of complaint Ex.P.3 : Copy of mahazar Ex.P.4 : Copy of seizure mahazar Ex.P.5 : Copy of IMV report Ex.P.6 : Copy of Wound certificate Ex.P.7 : Copy of Charge sheet Ex.P.8 : Discharge summary Ex.P.9 : Medical bills (5 No's) Ex.P.10 : Prescriptions Ex.P.11 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card IN MVC NO.1996/2020
List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
P.W.2 : Dinesh P P.W.3 : Dr. Nagaraj B.N.
List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s :
Ex.P.12 : Wound certificate Ex.P.13 : Discharge summary & 14 Ex.P.15 : Medical bills (46 nos) Ex.P.16 : Prescriptions Ex.P.17 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card Ex.P18 : Xray ( 6 in nos) Ex.P19 : Clinical notes Ex.P20 : Xray List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s in both cases:
R.W.1 : Shreyas Bhat
R.W.2 : Devaraju G
SCCH-12 22 MVC No. 1995 & 1996/2020
List of documents marked for the respondent/s in both cases :
Ex.R.1 : Authorization letter Ex.R.2 : Policy copy with terms and conditions Ex.R.3 : True copy of Charge sheet Ex.R.4 : Copy of RTI application submitted before RTO, Nelamangala Ex.R.5 : Postal acknowledgement Ex.R.6 : Authorization letter Ex.R.7 : LLR extract (Mohamed Arifulla C.F.) XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM, Court of Small causes, Bangalore.