Bangalore District Court
Shekar.R vs Poornima.G on 19 January, 2024
KABC020222432022
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH25)
-: PRESENT:-
SMT. PRAKRITI KALYANPUR, B.A(L),LL.B., LL.M.
XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024
MVC No.4020/2022
PETITIONER: Sri. Shekar R.
S/o.Ramachandra,
Aged about 35 years,
OCC : Cook,
#163, 3rd Cross, 2nd Main,
Kalikamba Temple,
Hrushikesh Nagar,
Bangalore South,
Hosakerehalli,
B.S.K. 3rd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(By Sri.Ketah Latur,
Advocate/s.)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt. Poornima G.
D/o Gundanna,
No.13/15, 2nd main,
Srinivas Nagar,
Kathriguppe Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(Owner of Scooter bearing
Reg.No.KA41J7743)
(Exparte))
SCCH - 25 2 MVC 4020/2022
2. The Manager
United India Ins. Co. Ltd.,
5th & 6th Floors,
Krishi Bhavan,
Nrupathunga Road,
Hudson Cricle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(Insurer of Scooter bearing
Reg.No.KA41J7743)
Policy: 0727003121P107748147
Valid : 18.11.2021 to 17.11.2022
(By Sri. K.Suresh, Advocate.)
......
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident dated 21.07.2022.
2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that:
On 21.07.2022 at about 01.00 am., the Petitioner was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA42V3537 from Vidyapeta Circle to Hoskerehalli on Katriguppe Main Road. When he reached infront of Mathaji Electrical, a Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA41J7743 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner from wrong side and dashed SCCH - 25 3 MVC 4020/2022 against him from opposite direction. As a result, he has sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore wherein he has taken treatment. So far he has spent about Rs.50,000/ towards medical and conveyance expenses and Rs.50,000/ for motorcycle repair.
3. It is the further case of the Petitioner that, due to accidental injuries and permanent disability, the petitioner cannot do his occupation and earn his livelihood. Apart from loss of earnings he will have to suffer from constant pain and discomforts throughout his life. Hence his life has become miserable and dark due to this accident. The accident is solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle involved in the accident. Therefore, the respondents being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
4. In response to notice issued by this tribunal, the Respondent No.2 appeared and filed written statement. In SCCH - 25 4 MVC 4020/2022 spite of due service of summons, the respondent No.1 did not appear hence, placed exparte.
5. The objections of the Respondent No.2:
This respondent admits the issuance of policy in respect of the motorcycle bearing No.KA41J7743. There is non compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further submitted that the insured vehicle was said to be driven by a person not in possession of valid and effective DL and the 1st respondent knowingly and willfully entrusted his vehicle to such a person at the time of accident. Further the petitioner sustained injuries due to fall from motorcycle bearing NO.KA41V3537 when he was riding under the influence of alcohol. The petitioner colluded with the jurisdictional police and has created false records and lodged a false complaint after the laps of 5 days. Further denied the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the offending motorcycle. The petition is bad for nonjoinder of proper and necessary parties to the petition. This respondent denied the accident, involvement of the insured SCCH - 25 5 MVC 4020/2022 vehicle in the accident, age, occupation of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against them.
6. On the above rival contentions of the parties, this court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the accident took place on 21.07.2022 at about 01.00 am near Katriguppe Main Road, Opp Mathaji Electricals, Bangalore, due to rash and neglgient act of riding of rider of Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA41J7743 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom payable?
3. What order or award?
7. The Petitioner in order to prove his case, has examined himself as PW.1 and has got marked 18 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.18. He has also examined Mr.Nagaraja G.V. Medical Records Technician at Victoria SCCH - 25 6 MVC 4020/2022 Hospital, Bangalore as PW.2 and got marked 4 documents as per Exs.P.19 to P.22. Dr.S.Ramachandra - Senior Consultant and DNB P.G. teacher at General Hospital, Jayanagar, Bangalore examined as PW.3 and got marked 2 documents as per Exs.P.23 & P.24. Mr. Gopal K - Manager at M/s. AVS Nagaraj Enterprises, Gandhi Bazar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore examined as PW.4 and got marked 1 document as per Ex.P.25. On the other side, the Respondent No.1 has examined its official Mr.P.Ramesh Administrative Officer - Legal Claims as RW.1 and got marked 2 documents as per Exs.R.1 & R.2.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both the parties.
The counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon the decision in ILR 2012 KAR 2689 : K.E.Basavarajapp Vs. H. Chandrappa and Anr.
The counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) 2014 ACJ 627 (SC) : Syed Sadiq and Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co. ltd.,
(ii) 2015 AAC 1126 (SC) : Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir and Ors.SCCH - 25 7 MVC 4020/2022
(iii) 2012 ACJ 1459 (SC) (DB) : Manoj Rathaur Vs. Anil Raheja and Ors.
(iv) 2023 ACJ 894 (SC) (DB) : Muhammad Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd., and Ors.
(v) 2022 AAC 608 (J&K) : National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Mohd. Anwar Bhat
(vi) 2011 ACJ 911 (SC) (DB) : Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors.
(vii) 2013 ACJ 2141 (SC) (DB) : Jiju Kuruvila and ors.
Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors.
9. On hearing both sides and perusal of the evidence on record this court answers the above issues as follows: Issue No.1: Partly In the affirmative, Issue No.2: In the affirmative, Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following: REASONS
10. Issue No.1:
In order to prove that the accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA41J7743, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and has got marked 6 documents as per Exs.P.1, 2, 4 to 6 and 8. PW.1 has reiterated the averments SCCH - 25 8 MVC 4020/2022 of the petition in his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. The Respondent No.2 has denied the involvement of the offending scooter in the accident. Further contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the petitioner himself. In the crossexamination of PW.1, he has stated that the Road at spot of the accident was 2225 feet wide and a straight road. His bike was damaged in the front side and the accident took place at 1.00 am midnight and the traffic is very low at midnight. Further stated that it was raining and he was going slow. But nothing worthwhile showing the absence of negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter is elicited. However, in Exs.P.20 and P.22 it is mentioned that 'patient was riding bike under the influence of alcohol'. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the petitioner since he was drunk. In support of his argument he has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in K.E.Bsavarajappa Vs. H. Chandrappa and Anr., reported in ILR 2012 KAR 2689, wherein it is held on facts that 'since the petitioner had drunk alcohol the case SCCH - 25 9 MVC 4020/2022 of the petitioner looks suspicious'. On the other hand the counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in 2014 ACJ 627 (SC) : Syed Sadiq and Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co. ltd., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that 'the contributory negligence cannot be concluded without the same being proved by the opposite part'. He has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jiju Kuruvila and Ors.
Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors. reported in 2013 ACJ 2141, wherein the court has observed that only on the fact of the petitioner being in an intoxicated condition, negligence cannot be attributed in the absence of evidence to suggest negligence on the part of the petitioner'. In the case on hand, as per Ex.P.5 the offending vehicle was coming on the wrong side of the Road. However, in the sketch itself it is clear that if the petitioner was riding the bike slowly, only on being hit by the offending bike it would not have been damaged only to the front side of the motorcycle and the petitioner wouldn't have suffered grievous injuries. In addition the SCCH - 25 10 MVC 4020/2022 accident has taken place at 1.00 am which shows that the traffic would have been low. This shows that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner also and the said negligence can be assessed at 20%.
11. Ex.P.6 MVA report reveals that the vehicle bearing No.KA41V3537 was damaged to its (i) Front right side indicator, (ii) front right side crash guard bent, (iii) Front right side rear view mirror and the Scooter bearing No.KA 41J7743 damaged to its (i) Front right side shape of the body, (ii) front right side indicator, (iii) right side rider running board and (iv) Rear right side body damaged. As per Ex.P.6 both the motorcycles are damaged to their front portion. Therefore, it is clear that it was a head on collision. The other documents at Exs.P.1, 2, 4 to 6 & 8 i.e., FIR, FIS, spot mahazar, spot sketch, MVA report and charge sheet are in accordance with the statement given by the petitioner. No contrary evidence is led against these documents from the side of respondent No.2. As such, there are no reasons to discard or disbelieve the version of the Petitioner/PW.1. SCCH - 25 11 MVC 4020/2022
12. As per Ex.P.7/Wound Certificate, the petitioner sustained injuries on 21.07.2022 in a RTA. This shows that on account of the accident the Petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. As per Ex.P.6, the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of either of the vehicles. Therefore, on overall perusal of Exs.P.1, 2, 4 to 6 & 8 it is clear that the accident occurred on 21.07.2022 and the petitioner sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.7 and the reason for the occurrence of the accident was rash and negligent riding by the riders of both the Motorcycles bearing No.KA 41V3537 and KA41J7743. Accordingly, issue No.1 is held partly in the affirmative.
13. Issue No.2: In order to prove the injuries and disability suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner has produced the wound certificate as per Ex.P.7. As per Ex.P.7, the Petitioner has sustained - (i) Crush injury (R) foot exposing bones and tendons (ii) Partially cut 2nd toe and 5th toe. Active bleeding present. Fracture noted in distal end of proximal phalanx of SCCH - 25 12 MVC 4020/2022 1st and 2nd toe. Fracture of 2nd Metatarsal bone is seen which are grievous in nature.
14. The petitioner has got examined Nagaraja G.V. Medical records officer at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore examined as PW.2 and got marked 4 documents as per Exs.P.19 to P.22. In the cross examination of PW.2, nothing worthwhile is elicited.
15. Dr.S. Ramachandra - Senior Consultant and DNB PG teacher at General Hospital, Jayanagar, Bangalore was examined as PW.3. He has deposed the details of surgery undergone by the petitioner and has stated that 2 nd and 5th toes of right foot are completely absent due to amputation. Tip of great toe (1st Toe) of right foot is absent and the wound is till Raw and requires periodic dressing and antibiotic coverage, right great toe due to partial absence in its tip and NON UNION of fracture of P.P. has almost become useless and NON FUNCTIONAL and contributing to disability of almost an amputated great toe. PW.3 has assessed the permanent residual physical disability at about 20% of right SCCH - 25 13 MVC 4020/2022 lower limb which is about 10% of whole body and produced 2 documents as per Ex.P.23 - Out patient slip and Ex.P.24 Two Xrays of petitioner respectively.
16. In his cross examination, PW.3 stated that, he has not treated the petitioner. He had gone through the old Xray and follow up OPD record of the petitioner. The amputation is not noted in the discharge summary but it is mentioned in the follow up OPD records of the petitioner. Further stated that in the accident spot itself the petitioner lost the 2nd and 5th toes. Pw.3 has stated that he is personally not aware about the petitioner's avocation. But as per the petitioner statement he was working as a Cook in catering. With difficulty the petitioner can continue his work as a Cook. The petitioner can perform his daily activities with difficulty. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir reported in 2022 AAC 608 (J&K) : National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Mohd. Anwar Bhat, wherein it is held that 'disability SCCH - 25 14 MVC 4020/2022 certificate given by Doctor who has not treated the claimant can be considered', Disability:
17. On perusal of the evidence of PW.3 it is clear that he has assessed the disability of the petitioner. The injuries suffered by the petitioner have affected his mobility.
18. The petitioner has averred that, at the time of accident he was a Cook at Catering and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/ per month. From the evidence of PW.3 it can be seen that the disability being suffered by the petitioner will impact on his daily activities. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court of India reported in 2012 ACJ 1459 (SC) (DB) : Manoj Rathaur Vs. Anil Raheja and Ors., wherein it is held that 'in the absence of rebuttal evidence to question the correctness of the assessment made by the Doctor, the disability percentage cannot be reduced'. However, due to the amputation of 2nd and 5th toe, the petitioner has to suffer SCCH - 25 15 MVC 4020/2022 permanent disability, as such it is justifiable to consider the total disability of the whole body at 10% estimated by PW.3. Therefore, the court deems it fit to fix the functional disability at 10%.
Monthly income:
19. The Petitioner has deposed in his evidence that, he was a Cook at catering and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/ per month. In this regard he has produced salary certificate issued by AVS Nagaraj Enterprises as per Ex.P.15. He has also examined Mr.Gopal K. Manager at AVS Nagaraj enterprises as PW.4 and produced his Aadhar Card as per Ex.P.25. In the cross examination of Pw.4, he has stated that they do not have registration with the labor department and do not maintain any register about employees. There is no appointment letter given to the petitioner. Either Pw.4 or Pw.1 have produced any relevant document to prove that the petitioner is working in their Catering. Apart from that, the petitioner has also not produced any documents such as Bank statement, vouchers etc., to show the receipt of salary. SCCH - 25 16 MVC 4020/2022
20. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.7404/2014 (MVD), by relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Meena Pawaria and others Vs. Ashrafali and others (2021 SCC online sc 1083), Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir (2015) 7 SCC 252, Smt. Neeta and others Vs. Divisional Manager, MSRTC Kolhapur (2015)3 scc 590, Kala Devi and Orthers Vs. Bhagwan Das Chouhan and Others (2015) 2 SCC 771, Sonobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmadabad Municipal Transport Service (2013) 16 SCC 719, Pushkar Mehra Vs. Brij Mohan Kushwaha and others (2015) 12 SCC 688, Govind Yadav Vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited and another (2011) 10 SCC 683 and Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (2009) 13 SCC 710 has held that there is a continuous and consistent trend by the Apex Court that the Minimum Wages Act provide for a source by which the notional income of the deceased, who had no valid proof of SCCH - 25 17 MVC 4020/2022 income could be assessed. .......The range of the wages between highly skilled and unskilled labour may have to be considered by the Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased........However, such guidelines cannot take the place of statutory guidelines and therefore we hold that it would be proper to rely on the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act as a guideline and assess whether the deceased was a skilled or unskilled laborer.
21. It is pertinent to note that as per the Karnataka Government Notification of Minimum Wages for employment as Cook and related works the monthly income of a Cook is Rs.13,951/ per month. Therefore the notional income of the petitioner can be rounded off to Rs.14,000/ per month.
22. At the time of accident the Petitioner was aged about 35 years as could be made out from Ex.P.13/Notarized copy Aadhar Card. He was hale and healthy before the accident. The accident took place in the SCCH - 25 18 MVC 4020/2022 year 2022. Keeping all the above things in mind, Petitioner is entitled to the following compensation:
i) PAIN AND SUFFERING: After the accident, the Petitioner was treated at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 21.07.2022 to 22.08.2022, after surgery discharged with advice. In this regard, he has produced Ex.P.11 Discharge summary of Victoria Hospital. Considering that the nature of injuries he has undergone is grievous, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/ under this head.
ii) MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The Petitioner has pleaded that he has spent a sum of Rs.50,000/ towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges etc., In this regard, he has produced 13 medical bills as per Ex.P.17 for a sum of Rs.5,135/. There is no contrary evidence from the respondents to disprove the medical expenses by the SCCH - 25 19 MVC 4020/2022 petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the above said amount under this head.
iii) LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD: As mentioned above the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner has taken treatment for almost 1 month at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. In this regard the petitioner has produced Ex.P.11 Discharge summary of Victoria Hospital. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment it can be said that the Petitioner may have required at least Two months time for recovering from the injuries sustained by him. Hence, he is entitled only for a sum of Rs.28,000/ under this head.
iv) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME: On perusal of Ex.P.13, as on the date of accident he was 35 years old. As per the dictum laid down in Sarala Verma's case the appropriate multiplier applicable for his age is 16. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of SCCH - 25 20 MVC 4020/2022 Rs.2,68,800/ (Rs.14,000/ x 12 x 16 x 10%= Rs.2,68,800/) under this head.
(v) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
HAPPINESS:
The Petitioner was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. He has sustained grievous injuries and amputation of 2nd and 5th toe and as per consideration of this Tribunal, he is suffering from 10% functional disability. The Petitioner has to suffer this disability throughout his life. He will suffer in his mind that he is no more a normal Man. This will have an adverse effect on the future life of the petitioner. Because of this he will have to lose some of the amenities and comforts. Therefore, considering the age and nature of injuries that the Petitioner has suffered, a sum of Rs.20,000/ is awarded under this head.
(vi) ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND NOURISHMENT CHARGES:
After the accident, the Petitioner was treated in the above said hospital, admitted for almost 30 days as an SCCH - 25 21 MVC 4020/2022 inpatient and discharged with advise. However, during this period he must have spent considerable amount on his food and nourishment, conveyance and attendant expenses. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/ under this head.
23. The Petitioner is entitled to compensation under the following heads:
1. Pain & suffering Rs.60,000/
2. Medical expenses Rs.5,135/
3. Loss of income during laid up Rs.28,000/ period
4. Loss of future income Rs.2,68,800/
5. Loss of future amenities and Rs.20,000/ happiness
6. Attendant, conveyance, food and Rs.20,000/ nourishment charges TOTAL Rs.4,01,935/ If it is rounded off it comes to around Rs.4,02,000/ and same is awarded under different heads to the Petitioner.
LIABILITY
24. The Respondent No.2 in the written statement has specifically denied the involvement of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA41J7743 in the accident. It has SCCH - 25 22 MVC 4020/2022 contended that, the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the petitioner himself but has not proved the same. The respondent No.2 has also contended that there was delay in filing the FIR. The counsel for the petitioner has reliedupon the decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in 2011 ACJ 911 (SC) (DB) : Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors., wherein it is held that ' only delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to reject the claim'. In the case on hand the involvement of the vehicle is mentioned in the hospital records, which are the records of first entry. Therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR does not prove the noninvolvement of the offending vehicle.
25. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madyapradesh reported in 2015 AAC 1126 (SC) : Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir and Ors., wherein the court has awarded interest of 9% per annum. However, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madyapradesh has only persuasive value when there is a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka SCCH - 25 23 MVC 4020/2022 which says that only 6% per annum interest may be granted on the compensation amount. In another decision 2023 ACJ 894 (SC) (DB) : Muhammad Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd., and Ors., Supreme court of India has made observations on the basis of the facts of the case'. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs.4,02,000/, 20% must be deducted towards contributory negligence of the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ but he is entitled only for a sum of Rs.3,21,600/ (Rs.4,02,000/ Rs.80,400/) with interest @6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, issue No.2 held in the Affirmative.
26. Issue No.3:
For the reasons and discussions made above and finding to the above issues, this court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed with cost.SCCH - 25 24 MVC 4020/2022
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,21,600/ (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
However, the Respondent No.2/Insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest before this Tribunal within sixty days from the date of this award.
On deposit of compensation and interest, entire amount shall be released in favour of the Petitioner by way of epayment on proper identification and due acknowledgment as per rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
SCCH - 25 25 MVC 4020/2022Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th Day of January 2024).
(PRAKRITI KALYANPUR) XXIII ASCJ & ACMM, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Mr. Shekar R. PW.2 Mr. Nagaraja G.V. PW.3 Dr.S.Ramachandra PW.4 Mr. Gopal K.
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of FIR Ex.P2 Certified copy of FIS Ex.P3 Certified copy of Statement of victim Ex.P4 Certified copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P5 Certified copy of Spot sketch Ex.P6 Certified copy of MVA report Ex.P7 Certified copy of Wound certificate Ex.P8 Certified copy of Charge sheet Ex.P9 Certified copy of Police notice u/Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P10 Certified copy of reply to Police notice u/Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P11 Discharge summary card issued by Victoria hospital Ex.P12 OPD book issued by Victoria hospital Ex.P13 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of SCCH - 25 26 MVC 4020/2022
petitioner (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P14 Notarized copy of DL of petitioner (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P15 Salary certificate issued by A.V.S Nagaraj Enterprises Ex.P16 Two photos with one CD Ex.P17 13 Medical bills for Rs.5,135/ Ex.P18 Ten Medical prescriptions Ex.P19 Authorization letter Ex.P20 True copy of Accident register extract (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P21 One OPD book Ex.P22 One inpatient case sheet of Victoria Hospital Ex.P23 One outpatient slip Ex.P24 Two Xrays (one old and one new) Ex.P.25 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Mr. P. Ramesh List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 True copy of Insurance policy
(PRAKRITI KALYANPUR)
XXIII ASCJ & ACMM,
Bengaluru.