Bangalore District Court
) Sri Nandishappa vs ) United India Insurance on 21 February, 2017
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
Dated this the 21st day of February 2017
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L, ., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No.3868/2016
Petitioners: 1) Sri Nandishappa,
S/o Late Maheshappa,
Aged about 65 years.
2) Smt.Sampangamma,
W/o Nandishappa,
Aged about 50 years
3) Sri N.Venkatesh,
S/o Nandishappa,
Aged about 33 years.
4) Sri Ramesh,
S/o Nandishappa,
Aged about 30 years.
The petitioners' are
Resident of Singhalli Village,
Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru District.
(By Sri P.Basavaraju, Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondents: 1) United India Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Having its Office at No.40,
SCCH 1 2 MVC No.3868/2016
Lakshmi complex, BO Chickpet,
K.R.Road, Bengaluru -560 002.
(Insurer of the offended
Water Tanker Mini lorry vehicle
Vehicle bearing
No. KL-03-S-8765
Policy
No.0704013115P106592684)
(By Sri B.C.Shivanne Gowda,
Advocate)
2. Sri Santhosh Kumar G.,
S/o Gullappa,
Aged by Major,
R/at No.81, Dasarahalli,
H.A.Farm Post, Hebbal,
Bengaluru -560 024.
(Owner of the offended Tanker Vehicle
Bearing No. KL-03-S-8765)
(By Sri D.Srinivasa, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.41,45,000/- from the respondents with regard to the death of their son Sri Thimmegowda , S/o Nandishappa in the road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are :
SCCH 1 3 MVC No.3868/2016 It is the case of the petitioner that on 13.10.2015 at about 2.00 p.m. when the deceased was riding motor cycle bearing No. KA-51-E- 9509 from Bangalore City to his village on the on the left side of Kottanuru main road and when he reached Gubbi cross, the driver of lorry bearing No. KL-03-S-8765 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the backside of the deceased vehicle, due to which deceased fell down along with his vehicle and thereafter the wheel of the lorry ran over the stomach and head of the deceased and he died on the spot.
3. Immediately after the accident, dead body of the deceased was shifted to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical College and hospital , Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore, wherein postmortem was conducted and handed over the body to the petitioners, who in turn conducted the funeral and obsequies ceremony by spending huge amount.
4. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 24 years and he was doing business under the name and style S.L.N. Enterprises as a partner with one Mohan Kumar at Singahalli village besides he was also doing agricultural activities and he was earning Rs.35,000/p.m. and he used to contribute the entire income towards the family and he was the only bread earner of the SCCH 1 4 MVC No.3868/2016 family and the petitioners are father, mother and brothers of the deceased and they were depending upon him. The petitioners were entirely depending on the earnings of the deceased and they are finding extremely difficult to eke out their livelihood as the deceased was the only earning member in their family.
5. The accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No. KL-03-S-8765 and the respondent No.1 being the insurer and respondent No.2 being the owner of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
6. In pursuance of this claim petition, this Court issued notice against the respondents. Respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before the Court through their respective counsels and respondent NO.2 has not chosen to file written statement.
Respondent NO.1 has filed written statement denying the petition averments. This respondent has denied the date, time and mode of accident, involvement of the vehicle in the accident, relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, age, avocation and income of the deceased and deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The compensation claimed by the SCCH 1 5 MVC No.3868/2016 petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. It is further contended that the petitioner is the resident of Andhra Pradesh State and place of accident is also not in Bangalore and hence, the case was filed out side of the jurisdiction and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. It is further contended that the first respondent reserves his right to amend its statement of objection and also to take over the defence of the insured in the event of the owner does not contest the proceedings under section 170 of M.V.Act. It is further contended that the accident was occurred only on account of the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the petitioner himself without having valid driving licence to ride the motor cycle and also without wearing helmet and due to over speed while overtaking the tanker lorry from left side of the road, he has lost control over the motor cycle and fell on the road and sustained injury and deceased alone is solely responsible for this accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
8. Based on the pleadings, this Court has framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 13.10.2015 at about 2.00 p.m, near Gubbi Cross, Kottanuru-Hennuru Main Road, Bangalure City, within the jurisdiction of Bangalore International Airport Traffic Police Station on account of rash and negligent SCCH 1 6 MVC No.3868/2016 driving of the water tanker bearing registration No.KL-
03-S-8765 by its driver?
2. Whether the respondent No.1 proves that the accident was occurred on account of negligent act of the Deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What order?
9. In order to prove their claim, the third petitioner is examined as PW-1, two witnesses are examined as PW-2 and 3 and they have got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to 18. On the other hand, the respondents have examined one witness as RW-1 and have got marked Ex.R.1 to 3.
10. Both the counsels were absent, hence, taken as no arguments.
11. Based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
1. Issue No.1 ... In the affirmative
2. Issue No.2 ... In the negative
3. Issue NO.3 ... partly in the affirmative
4. Issue No.4 ... As per final order For the following:
SCCH 1 7 MVC No.3868/2016
REASONS
12. Issue No.1 and 2 : These two issues are inter-connected to each other and they are taken up together for discussions in order to avoid repetitions.
It is the case of the petitioners that on 13.10.2015 at about 2.00 p.m. when deceased was riding motor cycle bearing No. KA-51-E- 9509 from Bangalore City to his village on the on the left side of Kottanuru main road, and when he reached Gubbi cross, the driver of lorry bearing No. KL-03-S-8765 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the backside of the deceased vehicle, due to which deceased fell down along with his vehicle and thereafter the wheel of the lorry ran over the stomach and head of the deceased and he died on the spot.
13. On the other hand, the respondents have taken the contention that deceased was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and due to over speed and while over taking the insured lorry from left side of the road, he has lost control over the motor cycle and fell on the road and succumbed to the injury on the spot.
SCCH 1 8 MVC No.3868/2016
14. The petitioners in order to prove their case, third petitioner is examined as PW-1 and he has filed affidavit reiterating the petition averments and also got marked the documents FIR, mahazar, charge sheet, sketch, 133 notice, reply , IMV report and P.M.Report as Ex.P.1 and 2 and 5 to 10. She was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits he has not witnessed the accident. He does not know to whom the motor cycle belongs to. It is elicited that he has seen the place of accident. He admits that the accident was occurred in the circle. He says he does not know while taking the right turn by his brother the accident was occurred. It is suggested that his brother himself has taken the right turn without any signal and he himself went and dashed the lorry which was coming in the other side and the said suggestion was denied. He further says he does not know about the accident was occurred due to negligence of his brother.
15. The petitioners have examined one more witness as PW-3 and he is an eye witness to the accident. He says he was standing at Gubbi cross road, Kottanur main road at the left side and waiting for his friend, at that time the deceased was driving his two wheeler bearing No. KA-51-E-9509 at the left side of the road , the driver of the water tanker lorry bearing No. KL-03-S-8765 drove the same in a SCCH 1 9 MVC No.3868/2016 rash and negligent manner without giving any signal or indicator, over took the two wheeler and dashed against the two wheeler from back and left side of the two wheeler and the rider of the motor cycle fell down and wheel of the lorry ran over the deceased and he died on the spot itself. He was subjected to cross-examination. He says he know the deceased Thimmegowda from last 8 to 10 years. The Police have recorded his statement but he ha snot given any complaint. It is suggested that he has not witnessed the accident and hence, he has not given any complaint and the said suggestion was denied. It is elicited that he was waiting near the place of accident to see his friend and the distance between the place where he was waiting and the place of accident is around 150 to 200 feet. It is suggested that he has not witnessed the accident and only after hearing the accident sound he went to the spot and the same was denied. It is elicited that the driver of the tanker who was coming from rear side has suddenly over taken the two wheeler and came to left side and the two wheeler came in contact with rear wheel of the tanker. He admits that the accident was occurred in the junction which leads both the sides. He admits that the rider of the two wheeler was proceeding towards Kothanur. It is suggested that the rider of the motor cycle while taking the right turn SCCH 1 10 MVC No.3868/2016 he himself went and dashed the tanker and as a result the front portion was damaged and the same was denied. It is further suggested that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the rider of the two wheeler and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that he has not witnessed the accident and only in order to help the family of the petitioner he is giving false evidence before the Court and the said suggestion was denied.
16. The respondents have not examined any of the witnesses regarding negligence is concerned.
17. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 2648 (Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another) wherein it is held that :
Negligence-Contributory negligence- Hitting from behind- Truck hit a two-wheeler from behind, dragged it to a distance of 20-25ft and rider of two wheeler sustained fatal injuries-Impact on two wheeler shows that truck must have been travelling at a high speed and its driver did not have sufficient control over his vehicle-Truck driver was driving a heavy motor vehicle and should have taken sufficient caution-No direct evidence showing negligence of the deceased that led to the accident- Tribunal found that two -wheeler rider contributed to the accident -
SCCH 1 11 MVC No.3868/2016 Tribunal found that two-wheeler rider contributed to the accident to the extent of 20 percent and it was affirmed by High Court -Apex Court set aside the finding of contributory negligence and held that truck driver was solely responsible for the accident.
18. Now, let me appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Admittedly PW-1 is not an eye witness. PW-3 is the eye witness and the evidence remains is of PW-3. PW-3 categorically says that he was waiting for his friend at that time the deceased was riding motor cycle on the left side of the road, at that time lorry bearing No. KL-03-S-8765 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without giving any signal and putting indicator, over took the two wheeler and dashed against the two wheeler from back. It is suggested that he was not present at the time of accident and the same was denied. It is elicited that he has not given the complaint. A suggestion was made that he was not there at the time of accident and only in order to help the family of the deceased , he is giving false evidence before the Court and the same was denied.
19. In Ex.P.2 mahazar, it is stated that the rider of the motor cycle was coming from Bangalore to Kothanur and when he reached Gubbi cross, a lorry bearing No. KL-03-S-8765 which was going on SCCH 1 12 MVC No.3868/2016 the right side suddenly hit the motor cycle from rear side, as a result the rider of the motor cycle fell on the road along with the vehicle and the wheels of the lorry ran over the rider of the motor cycle and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. Ex.P.5 discloses the Police after investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and section 56 read with section 192 of M.V.Act and 187 of M.V.Act. Ex.P.6 sketch clearly discloses that the accident road is a two way road and the rider of the motor cycle was going from south to north direction and the lorry was coming on his right side and when it reached the junction the driver of the lorry suddenly took left turn hitting the motor cycle. The Police have issued notice under section 133 of M.V.Act to the owner of the lorry in terms of Ex.P.7 and he has replied the notice as per Ex.P.8. IMV report which is marked at Ex.P.9 discloses that the motor cycle sustained damages to head light , doom was damaged at right side, tail lamp damaged, rear both indicators were damaged, rear body cover damaged, seat was also damaged. In the same was lorry sustained rear left mudguard bend, front bumper front portion rubbed at right corner. Though respondents have contended that accident occurred due to the SCCH 1 13 MVC No.3868/2016 negligence act of the deceased and the same is not substantiated by respondents by leading cogent evidence and the driver of the lorry has not been examined before the Court, who is the right person to say about the negligence of the deceased. In order to consider the contributory negligence there must be cogent evidence as held in the judgment reported in (2014 Kant.M.A.C. 330 (SC) ( Meera Devi and another Vs. . Himachal Pradesh Road Transport )-No cogent evidence to prove plea of contributory negligence, doctrine of common law cannot be applied. More over the petitioners have relied upon the judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 2648 and the same is applicable to the case on hand and I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue NO.2 in the negative.
20. Issue No.3:- The petitioners have contended that claimants are the parents and brothers of the deceased. Ex.P.14 notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 which discloses his name as Nandishappa and Ex.P.13 is the notarized Aadhar card of Sampanagamma which discloses her husband's name as Nandishappa. Ex.P.12 and P.15 Notarised copies of Aadhar cards of Venkatesh and Ramesh, wherein their father's name has been mentioned as SCCH 1 14 MVC No.3868/2016 Nandhishappa. Ex.P.16 notarised copy of driving licence of deceased is produced wherein his father's name is mentioned as Nandhishappa. Hence, the relationship of the deceased with the petitioners are proved as that of father, mother and brothers. Here the petitioners No.3 and 4 are aged about 33 years and 30 years and they are major and married and they are not considered as dependants of the deceased. Hence, petitioners No.1 and 2 are considered as dependants of the deceased.
21. It is the case of the petitioners that deceased was running business under the name and style of S.L.N. enterprises as a partner with one Mohan Kumar at Singahalli village besides he was also doing agricultural activities and he was earning as sum of Rs.35,000/p.m. and he used to contribute the entire income towards his family. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioners have examined the said Mohan Kumar as PW-2. In his evidence he states that he is the proprietor of S.L.N. Enterprises and deceased was a partner, wherein they jointly running Printing Press and they together have invested Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose of said business and every month they used to earn Rs.60,000/- p.m. and share the same and besides this he was also doing agricultural activities and he used to earn Rs.35,000/p.m. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the SCCH 1 15 MVC No.3868/2016 cross-examination he says he has not produced any document to show that the deceased was also his partner. He admits that Ex.P.17 notarised copy of rental agreement and Ex.P.18 notarised copy of Registration Certificate of establishment stands in his name and there is no mention of deceased as his partner. In the absence of any documentary proof regarding his partnership business and Ex.P.17 and 18 stands in the name of Mohan Kumar, this Court has to taken the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- as the accident is of the year 2015.
22. It is important to note that in the recent judgment reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 (SC)( Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs. National Insurance company Ltd. And others) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
Quantum - fatal accident -principles of assessment-multiplier-choice of -deceased aged 26 and claimants are father , mother and sister who got married during pendency of claim application -Tribunal adopted multiplier of 17-High Court reduced multiplier to 13 -whether multiplier of 17 based on the age of the deceased be applied - Held:yes, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation .
SCCH 1 16 MVC No.3868/2016 As per the above judgment in this case also, this Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased to arrive the proper multiplier. The date of birth of the deceased is 10.01.1988 as per notarized copy of driving licence which is marked at Ex.P.16 and the accident took place in the year 2015 and he was aged 27 years at the time of accident and the relevant multiplier is 17.
23. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held that even if a person is self employed, loss of future prospects has to be taken into consideration and hence, as the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident, 50%, of his income, has to be taken as loss of future prospects. I have already taken the income of the deceased per month as Rs.8,000/- and 50% of it works out to Rs.4,000/- and thus the total works out to Rs.12,000/-. The deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, hence, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards his personal income. It works out to be Rs.6,000/-p.m.. (12,000-6,000) and the annual income is Rs.72,000/- (6,000x12). The proper multiplier applicable is 17 and if we multiply the annual income of the deceased by the multiplier , the same works SCCH 1 17 MVC No.3868/2016 out to Rs.12,24,000/- (72,000x17), to which the petitioners are entitled to under the head loss of dependency on account of death of their son in the accident. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.12,24,000/- towards loss of dependency.
24. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, since the deceased has left behind his parents and brothers, I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the parents and brothers for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security SCCH 1 18 MVC No.3868/2016 etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
25.The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs 1 Loss of dependency 12,24,000-00 2 Compensation to the family 1,00,000-00 members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc. 3 Cost incurred on account of 10,000-00 funeral and ritual expenses Total 13,34,000-00
26. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,34,000/- and out of that Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head of loss of love and affection is distributed among the petitioner No.3 and 4 equally i.e., Rs.50,000/- each .
27. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others), with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para 13 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that Insurance Company is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment and also SCCH 1 19 MVC No.3868/2016 by following the principles laid down in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy). In view of the above judgments with regard to the rate of interest, and also it is settled law that while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the rate of interest at 9% cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
28. The counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the offending vehicle had no fitness certificate as on the date of the accident and hence, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount and in support of his contention he has examined Srirangaiah, F.D.A. at R.T.O. Yelahanka as RW-1. In his evidence he says as per the records no F.C. in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL-03-S-8765 and the same has been reassigned as No. KA-50-A-4830 ON 13.10.2015. He further says the fitness certificate is required to run the vehicle. In the cross-examination it is elicited that the F.C. will be issued for a period of 2 years and if it is commercial vehicle and the same will be renewed every year. It is SCCH 1 20 MVC No.3868/2016 suggested that one month prior notice will be issued to the owner for renewing of F.C. and the said suggestion was denied. It is further suggested that in order to help the insurance company he is giving false evidence before the Court and the same was denied.
29. Now, let me appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It has to the noted that it is the first and foremost duty of the insurance company to see whether the vehicle possess all the necessary valid and effective documents at the time of issuing policy and now after issuing the policy, it cannot claim that it is not liable to pay the compensation until and unless there is strictly violation of the rules of the M.V.Act.
30. In this regard, this Tribunal would like to rely upon the unreported judgment passed in M.F.A. No.6621/2006 (MV) ( The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sri N.Srinivasa Murthy and others) and in this judgment Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held:
" the liability of the insurance company cannot be denied on account of the fitness certificate of the lorry was not in force" .
Further, this Tribunal would like to rely upon the unreported judgment in M.F.A. No.10009/2013 C/w M.F.A. NO.s.10010/2013, SCCH 1 21 MVC No.3868/2016 10011 to 10013/2013 and 1336/2014. In this judgment Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held:
" the insurance company at the time of issuing the policy had not verified the date on which fitness certificate would expire. The insurer having issued the policy without verification of fitness certificate cannot disown its liability".
In the same way it is held in the judgment reported in 1992 ACJ 148 (Alam Yasin Mirzza Vs. V.K.Makwana and others) . In this judgment also Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held :
" that the insurance company cannot seek exemption of liability on the ground of no fitness certificate" .
This Tribunal also would like to rely upon the judgment reported in 2015 ACJ 2142 (Augustine V.M. Vs. Ayyappankutty and others) it is held that the question before the Court was " Whether insurance Company is entitled to take defence of technical violation of conditions of policy in respect of non-renewal of certificate of fitness or permit of a transport vehicle in a third party claim?". While answering the above point in the negative, the Court held that unless SCCH 1 22 MVC No.3868/2016 the breach was so fundamental, the Insurance company cannot disown its responsibility.
31. For having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I am of the opinion that insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Admittedly the respondent No.1 being the insurer and respondent No.2 being the owner of offending vehicle bearing No. KL-03-S-8765, hence, both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, primary liability is fixed on respondent No.1 insurance company to satisfy the award. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
32. Issue No.4: In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part against the respondents.
SCCH 1 23 MVC No.3868/2016
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.13,34,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.1 - Insurance Company and he is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Out of the total compensation amount, the petitioner NO.3 and 4 are entitled for Rs.50,000/- each awarded under the head of loss of love and affection and the same along with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in their favour.
The remaining compensation amount with proportionate interest is distributed among the petitioners No.1 and 2 equally.
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1, who is aged about 65 years, the entire share of his compensation amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to him under proper identification.
SCCH 1 24 MVC No.3868/2016 Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of petitioner No.2 in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner No. 2.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 21st day of February, 2017) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 N.Venkatesh
P.W.2 Mohankumar
P.W.3 Jagadeesh
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW-1 Srirangaiah Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : Copy of mahazar
Ex.P-3 : P.F.List
SCCH 1 25 MVC No.3868/2016
Ex.P-4 : Genealogical tree
Ex.P-5 : Copy of charge sheet
Ex.P-6 : Copy of sketch
Ex.P-7 Copy of 133 notice
Ex.P.8 Copy of reply
Ex.P.9 Copy of IMV report
Ex.P.10 Copy of P.M.Report
Ex.P.11 Copy of Inquest report
Ex.P.12 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of PW-1 (Original
compared)
Ex.P.13 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of his Mother (Original
compared)
Ex.P.14 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of his father (Original
compared)
Ex.P.15 Notarised copy of ration card of brother (Original
compared)
Ex.P.16 Notarised copy of driving licence of petitioner (Original
compared)
Ex.P.17 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of rental agreement
(Original compared)
Ex.P.18 Notarised copy of Registration certificate of establishment
(Original compared)
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 Authorisation letter
Ex.R.2 B Register Extract
Ex.R.3 F.C.Details
(H.P.SANDESH)
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore