Bangalore District Court
Vehicle vs No.2 Has Not Adduced Any Evidence On His ... on 18 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 19th day of August, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.2436/2015
Smt. Thankamani. K.V., ..... PETITIONER
W/o. Sujith. T.,
Aged about 43 years,
R/o. No.55, Muthkur,
Medimallasandra,
Anugondanahalli Hobli,
Hosakote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District,
PIN : 560 067.
(By Sri. Sachin. V. Shettar, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Sri. Reliance General Insurance ..... RESPONDENTS
Company Ltd.,
by its Manager,
Centinary Building,
East Wing, 5th Floor,
Near City Bank,
M.G. Road,
Bangalore - 1.
(Insure of Maruthi Omini Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958)
2. Raghu.V.,
S/o. Vayappa,
Aged Major,
R/o No.37, Nagawara Palya,
2 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015
(SCCH-7)
C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore - 93.
(R.C. Owner of Maruthi Omini Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958)
(R1- By Sri. H.T. Venkataraju, Adv.,)
(R2- By Sri. Gangaraju. N.K., Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award compensation of Rupees 8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and costs and also direct the Respondents to deposit a sum of Rupees 25,000/- pursuant to the provisions of Section 140 of the IMV Act as it is a case of grievous injury and permanent disability.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case are as follows;
a) On 09.04.2015 at about 8.45 a.m., the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 proceeding from his residence towards Varthur, slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road, near Valepura Bus Stop, Varthur Main Road, Bangalore. At that time, the driver of Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 coming from Varthur towards Mutsandra in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed as against the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686. Due to the severe impact, Motor Cycle fell down along with rider and pillion rider, 3 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) in which, she was a pillion rider and sustained grievous severe injuries to her.
b) Immediately, after the accident, she was taken to Vydehi Hospital, Bangalore in 108 Ambulance, wherein, she was admitted as an inpatient from 09.04.2015 to 25.04.2015 for about 17 days, wherein, she was operated with internal fixation, as, the injuries were severe, the operation done was complicated, she was kept under treatment in the Hospital and presently, she under treatment. Due to the grievous injuries and hospitalization, she has undergone enormous pain suffering and mental agony. She has spent Rupees 2,00,000/- towards medicine and Rupees 50,000/- towards incidental expense.
c) The accident in question has occurred mainly due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 by its driver. Prior to the accident, she was hale and healthy, active and energetic and had no vices.
d) At the time of accident, she was working as an Accountant at M/s. Stup Consultants, Bangalore and drawing monthly salary of Rupees 30,000/-. Due to the grievous injuries, prolonged treatment, she could not attend to her work and lost income.
e) Due to the grievous injuries, she has suffered permanent disability as she is unable to walk, run, squat, cannot use Indian Toilet, ride Motor Cycle, unable to lift heavy weight, cannot do routine work, etc., 4 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7)
f) The Respondent No.1 is the insurer and the Respondent No.2 is the R.C. Owner of the Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 in question. Both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as claimed by her.
g) The White Field Police have registered a case as against the driver of the Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 in Crime No.49/2015 under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and the said case is pending trial. Hence, this petition.
3. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 08.12.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
4. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and has filed the written statement.
5. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) The petition filed by the Petitioner claiming compensation of Rupees 8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road traffic accident dated 09.04.2015 is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) The alleged accident is mainly due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing 5 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 and he is solely responsible for the accident and he was not at all having any driving licence to ride the Motor Cycle and the said Motor Cycle was not having valid and effective RC, insurance and the owner of the Motor Cycle and the claimant is in collusion with the jurisdictional Police, have falsely implicated the Maruthi Omini Car in the alleged accident and the owner and insurer of the Motor Cycle are proper and necessary parties to the claim petition, in their absence, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.
c) The Petitioner is very well aware of the names, address and other particulars of the owner and insurer of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 and they are in collusion with the owner and insurer, intentionally, they are not made them as parties to this claim petition.
d) The Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation, much less, a sum of Rupees 8,00,000/- as claimed in the claim petition is very much excessive, exorbitant, imaginary and baseless and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.
e) The particulars of the policy number, i.e., 6052552311000710 and the validity of the policy, i.e., from 28.03.2015 to 27.03.2016 mentioned in the claim petition do not tally with the records maintained by it and the Petitioner has not produced the actual Insurance Policy, under these circumstances, the policy in respect of the Maruthi Omini Car is not admitted. The insurer of the said vehicle and the liability thereof is subject to the confirmed of Section 64 V.B. and the terms and conditions of the policy.
6 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015(SCCH-7)
f) The owner of the Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 has not intimated the accident and not given the particulars of the Insurance Policy, name and address of the driver and also not furnished the vehicles particulars, like, driving licence, R.C. Book, FC, Tax Card, Permit etc., for the verification as required under the terms and conditions of the policy and there is a gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy, hence, it is not liable to indemnify any liability arising out of the alleged accident. In case, if it has issued any valid and effective policy, the same is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of M.V. Act. Due to non-compliance U/s 158(6) and 134(1) of M.V. Act.
g) The driver of the Maruthi Omini Car was driving the same on the correct side of the road, at that time, the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 was riding the same with great speed and in a rash and negligent manner, he came on the opposite direction and dashed against the front portion of the Maruthi Omini Car and caused the accident and lost control and fell down and the pillion rider sustained injuries because of the negligence of the rider of the Motor Cycle and there is no rash or negligent act on the part of the Maruthi Omini Car. Hence, the accident is mainly due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Motor Cycle, he is not having valid and effective driving licence to riding the Motor Cycle, hence, he is colluding with the jurisdictional Police and owner of the Motor Cycle and filed a false complaint only against the driver of the Maruthi Omini Car only to get some compensation.
h) The driver of the Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 is not having valid and effective 7 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) driving licence to drive the Maruthi Omini Car as on the date of alleged accident and there is gross violation of the policy condition and the policy in collusion with the owner of the Maruthi Omini Car has changed the driver of the Marthi Omini Car, but, the person against whom the alleged Criminal case is filed was not driving the Maruthi Omini Car at the time of alleged accident. Hence, it is not liable to indemnify the owner of the Maruthi Omini Car for its breach of policy conditions.
i) If the owner of the Maruthi Omni Car remains exparte or colluding with the Petitioner or fails to contest the said claim petition even after the service of notice and if he does not cooperate with the insurer in providing the necessary information and particulars and documents in conducting the case, then, it may be permitted to contest the said petition on all other grounds that may be available to the owner of the vehicle as per Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act.
j) It reserves his right to file Additional Objection Statement under the changed circumstances of the case and when required. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with exemplary costs.
6. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) The petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.2 is not maintainable either in law as on facts.
b) On that day, the driver of the Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-MS-7195 was driving the same slowly and cautiously, by observing the traffic rules and 8 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) regulations on the extreme left side of the said road, the Petitioner's vehicle, who rider himself, has not followed the vehicle movements and came to rider extreme right, i.e., wrong side and he himself dashed. The said Maruthi Omni Car, the Petitioner with a malafide intention in order to seek wrongful compensation has filed the said claim petition.
c) He is the R.C. Owner of the said Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958, all the R.T.O. documents pertaining to the said Car are standing in his name, the same was insured with the Respondent No.1/Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., vide Policy No.60525582311000710, valid from 28.03.2015 to 27.03.2016 (Date of accident on 09.04.2015), the policy was in force as on the date of accident, the driver, who drove the said Car is having valid and effective driving licence, in the event, if this Hon'ble Court comes to a conclusion that, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation, in such circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondent No.1/Insurance Company to indemnify the award amount as the vehicle in question, i.e., Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 was insured on the alleged date of the accident, which is valid.
d) The compensation amount of Rupees 8,00,000/- as claimed by the Petitioner is an excessive, exorbitant, unreasonable and speculative in native.
e) He may be permitted to file an additional written statement in due course of law under any changed circumstances, if necessary. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
9 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015(SCCH-7)
7. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 by its driver and in the said accident, she sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation and damages? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
8. In order to prove his case, the Petitioner herself has been examined as P.W.1 and has also examined one witness as P.W.2 by filing the affidavits as their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has examined its Legal Manager as R.W.1 by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
9. Heard the arguments.
10. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation
10 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015
(SCCH-7)
of Rupees 4,24,620/- with
interest at the rate of 9%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
11. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner has
stated in her examination-in-chief that, on 09.04.2015 at about 8.45 a.m., the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 proceeding from his residence towards Varthur, slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road, near Valepura Bus Stop, Varthur Main Road, Bangalore and at that time, the driver of Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 coming from Varthur towards Mutsandra in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed as against the Motor Cycle and due to the severe impact, Motor Cycle fell down along with rider and she, in which, she was a pillion rider had sustained grievous severe injuries, such as, type III-C comminuted right distal femur fracture with intra articular extension and other injuries. She has further stated that, immediately, after the accident, she was taken to Vydehi Hospital, Bangalore, in 108 Ambulance, wherein, she was admitted as an inpatient from 09.04.2015 to 25.04.2015 for about 17 days. She has further stated that, the accident in question has occurred mainly due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME- 7958 by its driver. She has further stated that, the White Field Police have registered a case as against the driver of the Maruthi 11 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 in Crime No.49/2015 under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and the said case is pending trial.
12. No doubt, though the accident was taken place on 09.04.2015 at 8-45 a.m., the complaint is lodged on 12.04.2015 at 10-15 a.m., which disclosed that, there is 3 days delay in lodging the complaint in respect of the accident in question, which caused to the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner has not produced the driving licence relating to her husband to show that, her husband was having a valid and effective driving licence to ride the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686, wherein, she was proceeding as a pillion rider at the time of accident. Even, the Petitioner has not produced the vehicular documents relating to the said Motor Cycle, though she has admitted in her cross-examination that, at the time of accident, she was proceeding along with her husband on Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 and the said Motor Cycle was standing in the name of her husband and her husband was having a valid driving licence to ride the said Motor Cycle at the time of accident and it was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company. Further, though the P.W.1 in her cross- examination has clearly stated that, she has no hurdle to produce the documents relating to the said Motor Cycle and also driving licence relating to her husband, she did not care to produce the said documents. She has further stated in her cross- examination that, before the accident, she had seen the offending Car about 200 meters distance and at the time of accident, there were no other vehicles on either side of their vehicle and her Office working time is 9-00 a.m. to 6-00 p.m. and at the time of accident, she was going to her Office and her Office is situated 12 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) about 28 km away from her residence. She has further clearly admitted that, 3 days delay in lodging the complaint by her husband and the Police have not recorded her statement at Hospital, when she was admitted in the Hospital immediately after the accident. Even the Petitioner has not produced the MLC Register. In this regard, she has stated in her cross-examination that, she has not stated the registration number of the offending vehicle, which caused the accident to her, to the Hospital Authority. She has further stated that, the Police have not called her for identification of the offending vehicle during the course of investigation. Further, the Petitioner has not produced the vehicle seizure mahazar relating to the offending vehicle. In this regard, she has stated that, she has not produced the vehicle seizure mahazar relating to the offending vehicle. She has further clearly admitted that, as per Ex.P.7 Spot Hand Sketch, the lot of space is available to go to further by her husband. Further, the Respondent No.1 has examined its Legal Manager as R.W.1, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Maruthi Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 is not at all involved in the alleged accident and there is no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Omni Car and the Petitioner must have sustained injury due to the rash and negligent riding of the Motor Cycle and the Petitioner in collusion with the Police, has filed a false complaint as against the driver of the Maruthi Omni Car after a lapse of three days, only to get some compensation and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. He has further stated that, as per the sketch, mahazar and evidence of P.W.1, the driver of the Maruthi Omni Car was driving the same on the correct side of the road, at that time, the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 was riding the same with great speed and in a rash and negligent 13 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) manner, he came on the opposite direction and dashed against the front portion of the Maruthi Omni Car and caused the accident and lost control and fell down and the pillion rider sustained injuries because of the negligence of the rider of the Motor Cycle and there is no rash or negligent act on the part of the Maruthi Omni Car and hence, the accident is mainly due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Motor Cycle and he is not having valid and effective driving licence to ride the Motor Cycle and the said Motor Cycle is not having any valid insurance, hence, she is colluding with the jurisdictional Police and owner of the Motor Cycle and her husband, filed a false complaint only against the driver of the Maruthi Omni Car, only to get some compensation and hence, his Motor Cycle rider also contribute more than 50% negligence in this accident and hence, he prays this Hon'ble Court to fix the contributory negligence on both the vehicles.
13. But, based on the said oral evidence of P.W.1, which has been elicited from her mouth by the Respondents during the course of cross-examination, the oral evidence of R.W.1, non- production of the vehicle seizure panchanama relating to the offending vehicle, the contents of Ex.P.7 Spot Hand Sketch and also non-production of the driving licence of the husband of the Petitioner and vehicular documents relating to the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686, it cannot be believed and accept the defence taken by the Respondents that, there is contributory negligence attributed on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686, i.e., husband of the Petitioner, wherein, she was proceeding as a pillion rider, as, to corroborate her case as well as oral version, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 14 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 MVI Reports, Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.7 Spot Hand Sketch, Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet and Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary, which clearly disclosed that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME- 7958 in the commission of the said road traffic accident and there is no negligence on the part of the husband of the Petitioner in riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA- 53-EC-4686 and if the driver of the offending Maruthi Omni Car could have taken a little care at the time of accident, he could have avoided the said road traffic accident, which caused to the Petitioner and in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury, i.e., fracture of right femur and by admitting as an inpatient from 09.04.2015 to 25.04.2015, i.e., for 17 days, she took treatment to the said accidental injury at Vydehi Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, which is clear from the following discussion. Further, except the oral version of R.W.1, no supportive and authenticated documents produced by the Respondent No.2 to consider his evidence in respect of the accident in question. Further, though the Respondent No.2, who is a R.C. Owner of the offending Maruthi Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 has appeared before this Tribunal and has filed the Written Statement to contest the case of the Petitioner, he has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. Further, the P.W.1 in her cross- examination has clearly stated that, when she was went to the Hospital immediately after the accident, she has informed to the Hospital Authority that, she had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident and there was no space available on the road to avoid the accident by her husband. Further, the above said medical documents clearly disclosed that, immediately after the 15 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) accident at 9-20 a.m., on 09.04.2015 itself, the Petitioner was admitted in Vydehi Medical Science and Research Centre and by admitting as an inpatient totally for 17 days from 09.04.2015 to 25.04.2015, she took treatment to the said accidental injury and as such, she had no occassion to lodged a complaint immediately after the accident. Since, the husband of the Petitioner had accompanied with the Petitioner during hospitalization, he was also not able to lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police immediately after the accident. The reasons for delay in lodging the complaint are clearly explained by the husband of the Petitioner in Ex.P.2 Complaint itself. Further, the delay in lodging the complaint is no way affect to consider the case of the Petitioner. Further, the P.W.1 has clearly denied the suggestions put to her by the Respondents in her cross-examination that, the offending Car was coming on the left side of the road and at the time of accident, as, she was reached her Office at 9-00 a.m., and as such, her husband was riding the Motor Cycle with very high speed to reach her Office and as such, due to their negligence itself, the alleged accident was taken place and hence, she has not lodged a complaint before the Police immediately after the accident and the offending Maruthi Omni Car not at all involved in the alleged accident and it never caused accident to her and in collusion with the owner and Police, her husband lodged a false complaint in respect of the alleged accident and there was head on collusion in between the Motor Cycle and offending Car and if her husband had taken the Motor Cycle on the extent left side of the road, definitely, the alleged accident could not occurred and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Maruthi Car, but, the entire negligence is on the part of her husband and at the time of accident, her husband was not having valid driving licence and his Motor Cycle was not having 16 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) vehicular documents and as such, in collusion with the Police and the owner of the offending vehicle only to claim compensation, a false complaint is lodged. From this, it appears that, though the P.W.1 has been cross-examined by the Respondents, nothing has been elicited from her mouth to consider their specific defence. Further, the R.W.1 in his cross- examination has clearly stated that, based on the documents, he is giving evidence in the present petition. From this, it appears that, except oral version of R.W.1, the Respondent No.1 has not produced any material documents to consider its specific defence in respect of the accident in question.
14. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint disclosed that, the husband of the Petitioner, who was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 had lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Whitefield Traffic Police as against the driver of the offending Maruthi Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 by alleging that, on 09.04.2015 at 8-45 a.m., when he was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 along with his wife, i.e., the Petitioner, as a pillion rider and they were proceeding from their house, which is situated at Muthkur towards Varthur, near Valepura Bus Stand, offending Maruthi Omni Car came from Varthur towards Mathsandra with very high speed, rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed to their Motor Cycle and due to which, both of them fell down along with Motor Cycle and he had sustained grievous injuries on his both hands and his wife, i.e., Petitioner had sustained grievous injury on her hands and legs and the cause of the said accident is the driver of the offending Maruthi Omni Car and as such, he prayed to take necessary legal action as against the driver of the Omni Maruthi 17 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) Car and based on the said Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of the offending Car for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 134 (A & B) R/w Section 187 of M.V. Act under Crime No.49/2012. Further, the husband of the Petitioner in Ex.P.2 Complaint itself has clearly narrated the reasons for delay in lodging the complaint by stating that, immediately after the accident, the driver of the said Maruthi Omni Car had shifted his wife near Varthur College and from there, she was shifted to Vydehi Hospital through 108 Ambulance and thereafter, the driver of the offending vehicle fled away by stating that, he visit to Vydehi Hospital and since his wife taking treatment in the Hospital, the delay is caused in lodging the complaint. From this, it appears that, the Complainant, who is a husband of the Petitioner as well as eye witness of the road traffic accident has clearly explained the delay in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint before the jurisdictional Police.
15. The contents of Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 MVI Reports and Ex.P.7 Spot Hand Sketch further clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, the road on which the accident was taken place was a straight road and it was free from vehicular movements and the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 and there was no negligence on the part of the husband of the Petitioner in riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 and if the driver of the offending Maruthi Car could have taken a little care while driving his Car, he could have avoided the said road traffic accident and while taking offending Maruthi Car on right side in the junction place, the said road traffic accident was taken place, 18 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) which dashed to the Motor Cycle, which was proceeding on straight. The damages caused to the said Motor Cycle are clearly mentioned in Ex.P.4 MVI Report, which clearly disclosed about the terrific impact of the said accident. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 MVI Reports that, the said accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the said Motor Cycle and offending Maruthi Car.
16. The contents of Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate clearly disclosed that, on 09.04.2015 at 9-20 a.m., itself the Petitioner brought to Vydehi Medical Science and Research Centre with a alleged history of road traffic accident, said to have caused on 09.04.2015 and on examination, it is found that, she had sustained cut lacerated wound over right thigh 4 x 2 x 1 cm and X-ray shows fracture of right femur bone, which is grievous in nature.
17. The contents of Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary further clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner was admitted in Vydehi Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre and during the course of treatment, it is diagnosed that, lacerated wound of 3 x 2 cm over right eyebrow and type III C communited right distal femur fracture with intra articular extension, i.e., grievous injury. It is also mentioned in Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary that, with history of road traffic accident when the Petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider colluded with a 4 wheeler around 9- 00 a.m., on 09.04.2015, the Petitioner had sustained said injury.
18. Ex.P.18 Case Sheet and Ex.P.20 X-ray Films clearly disclosed about the said nature of injury sustained by the Petitioner in the said road traffic accident, line of treatment as 19 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) well as length of treatment taken at Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre.
19. Further, the Petitioner has examined the treated Doctor as P.W.2, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Petitioner came to him on 09.04.2015 with alleged history of road traffic accident pillion rider hit by a four wheeler on 09.04.2015 at about 9.00 am., near Varthur Main Road. He has further stated that, on examination, he had a bleeding wound of approximately 2 x 2 cm over right thigh Mid 3rd underlying bone exposed and contamination and the Petitioner had another wound measuring 2 x 1 cm over the leg and there was deformity of thigh and knee joint without any neurovascular and she was stabilized in the emergency and related X-rays were taken, which showed comminuted grade 3B compound fracture of distal femur and type 1 schaatzker fracture tibia condyle on right side.
20. From the above said medical evidence, it is clearly proved that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained fracture of right femur, which is grievous in nature.
21. The contents of Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet further clearly disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found that, due to high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 by its driver, the road traffic accident was taken place on 09.04.2015 at about 9.45 A.M. on Valepura Main Road, which dashed to the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 and due to the said impact, the Petitioner fell down on the road and had sustained grievous injury and the driver of the offending Maruthi Car had not given treatment to 20 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) the Petitioner and has not informed to the nearest Police Station about the accident and fled away from the accidental spot and as such, after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the driver of the offending Maruthi Car for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 134(A & B) R/w Section 187 of IMV Act. There is no allegations leveled by the Investigation Officer in Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet about the negligence in the commission of the said road traffic accident by the husband of the Petitioner in riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686.
22. From the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary, it is clearly proved that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 in the commission of the said road traffic accident and there was no negligence on the part of the husband of the Petitioner in the commission of the said road traffic accident while he was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 and the said offending Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injury. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
23. ISSUE NO.2 :- The P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that, her date of birth is 21.05.1971. The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.10 Adhar Card relating to her, which disclosed that, her date of birth is 21.05.1971. The date of accident is on 09.04.2015. On perusal of the said dates, it appears that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 44 years 21 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) old. Hence, the age of the Petitioner is considered as 44 years at the time of accident.
24. The P.W.1 has stated that, at the time of accident, she was working as an Accountant at M/s. Stup Consultants, Bangalore and drawing monthly salary of Rupees 30,000/-. She has further stated in her cross-examination that, she has B.Com Degree holder and since 8 years, she is working as an Accountant at M/s. Stup Consultancy, Bengaluru. The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.11 Letter dated 03.02.2016 issued by Stuff Consultants Pvt. Ltd., which disclosed that, the Petitioner is working in the said Company since 13.07.2007 as an Assistance Executive (Accountant) and the total corrent income of the Petitioner is of Rupees 26,330/-, which is relating to the month of February 2016. The Petitioner has also produced Ex.P.12 Appointment Letter dated 13.07.2007, which disclosed that, the Petitioner is appointed as Deputy Assistance with effect from 13.07.2007 at Stuff Consultant Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner has also produced Ex.P.13 Letter dated 10.09.2014 along with annexure, which also clearly disclosed that, she is working as an Assistant Executive (Accounts) and her salary was revised with effect from 01.04.2014 and at the time of accident, she was drawing a salary of Rupees 26,330/-. The Petitioner has also produced Ex.P.14 Bank Statement and Ex.P.15 Pay Slips 2 in numbers, which clearly disclosed that, in January 2015, the Petitioner was drawing total salary of Rupees 26,330/- and in February 2015, she was drawing total salary of Rupees 42,542/-. The Petitioner has also produced Ex.P.16 Letter dated 02.03.2016 issued by her employer, i.e., Stuff Consultant Pvt. Ltd., which also disclosed that, at the time of accident, she was working as an Assistant Executive (Accounts) and at the time of accident, she was 22 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) drawing a salary of Rupees 26,330/-, i.e., in March - 2015. No doubt, though the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that, she has no hurdle to examine her employer or its official, she did not care to examine them to consider her avocation and income at the time of accident. But, it no way affect to consider the case of the Petitioner in respect of her avocation and income at the time of accident, as, the above said oral version of P.W.1 as well as the contents of Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.16 clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive (Accounts) at Stuff Consultant Pvt. Ltd., by drawing a salary of Rupees 26,330/-. Hence, the income of the Petitioner is considered as Rupees 26,330/- at the time of accident.
25. The P.W.1 has stated that, she was operated internal fixation, as the injuries were severe and the operation done was complicated, she was kept under treatment in the Hospital and presently, she is under treatment. She has further stated in her cross-examination that, Dr. Hiranya Kumar treated her at Vydehi Hospital. The P.W.2 has stated that, the Petitioner was taken surgery on the same day and underwent open reduction and internal fixation of distal femur with locking plate and screws and cancellous screw fixation for proximal tibia fracture and post operatively Petitioner was immobilized in a plaster slab for 3 weeks and the Petitioner was discharged after healing of wounds and stabilization of general condition on 25th April 2015. He has further stated that, the Petitioner was mobilized non-weight bearing and knee was mobilized four weeks post surgery and she was being routinely followed up in their Orthopedic fourth unit OPD. The P.W.2 has produced Ex.P.17 Outpatient Case Record.
23 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015(SCCH-7)
26. Based on the contents of Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary, Ex.P.18 Case Sheet and Ex.P.20 X- ray Films as well as oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained fracture of right femur, which is grievous in nature and by admitting as an inpatient from 09.04.2015 to 25.04.2015, i.e., for 17 days, she took treatment to the said accidental injury at Vydehi Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary and Ex.P.18 Case Sheet that, during the course of treatment, ORIF with locking distal femur plate cancellous screws for tibia on 09.04.2015, which disclosed about insertion of implants in situ to the fracture site of the Petitioner and at the time of discharge, the Petitioner was advised to non-weight bearing over right movements, can walk with support, bearing weight on left leg, do active anke movements and do static quadriceps, hamstring, strengthening and review after one week at ortho along with medication. Since, the Petitioner had sustained fracture of right femur, which grievous in nature and totally by admitting as an inpatient for 17 days, she took treatment to the said accidental injuries and during the course of treatment, implants are inserted to the fracture site of the Petitioner and even after discharge from the Hospital, the Petitioner could have taken regular follow-up treatment as per the advise of the treated Doctors. Further, the P.W.2 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, the treatment given to the Petitioner during the course of follow-up treatment is mentioned in Ex.P.17 Outpatient Record and as per Ex.P.17 Outpatient Records, the Petitioner had taken follow-up treatment for 3 times. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in respect of the nature of injury sustained by 24 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) the Petitioner in the said road traffic accident, the line of treatment, length of treatment and follow-up treatment taken as per the advise of the treated Doctor even after discharge from the Hospital can very well be believed and accept.
27. The P.W.1 has stated that, due to the grievous injuries and hospitalization, she has undergone enormous pain, suffering and mental agony. She has further stated that, prior to the accident, she was hale and healthy, active and energetic and had no vices and due to the grievous injuries, prolonged treatment she could not attend to her work and lost income. She has further stated that, due to the grievous injuries, she has suffered permanent disability as she is to unable to walk, run, squat, cannot use Indian toilet, ride Motor Cycle, unable to lift heavy weight, cannot do routine work etc.
28. The P.W.2, who is a treated Doctor, has stated that, he has last examined the Petitioner on 17.03.2016 and on examination, the Petitioner had 50% of HIP motion and 20% of knee movements when compared to normal side and tenderness the distal femur fracture site normal ankle movements and a shortening of 4 cms when compared opposite side. He has further stated that, based on evaluated for disability as per guidelines for disability Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Government of India and based on Guidelines and Gazette notification, the P.W.2 has opined that, right limb disability is 90.03% and whole body disability is 30.01% and the Petitioner recent X-ray shows non-union of the distal femur fracture. The P.W.2 has produced Ex.P.19 Recent X-ray Films with Report.
25 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015(SCCH-7)
29. No doubt, the Petitioner has examined the treated Doctor to consider the difficulties and disability, which she is sustaining due to the accidental injuries.
30. But, based on the said oral version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the contents of the above said medical documents, it cannot be believed and accept that, due to the said accidental injury, the Petitioner is suffering from right limb disability is 90.03% and whole body disability is 30.01%, as, though the P.W.2 has stated the said extent of disability in his examination-in-chief, he has not specifically stated about how he came to the opinion of such extent and he has not stated the said extent with clinical notes. Further, Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.16 Letters issued by the employer of the Petitioner disclosed that, after the accident, the Petitioner is on medical leave only and no documents produced by the Petitioner to show that, after the accident, she left the job due to the accidental injury as she is unable to do the said job due to the accidental injury. Further, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has voluntarily stated that, know she is on medical leave. From the said evidence of P.W.1 it is made crystal clear that, the Petitioner has not left the job after the accident, but, she is on medical leave. Further, the P.W.2 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, at the time of discharge, the wounds are healed and no specific report is mentioned in the report annexed to Ex.P.19 Recent X-ray Films. He has further clearly stated that, the Petitioner can do the normal work by sitting on the chair. As this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive (Accounts). The said nature of work of the Petitioner clearly disclosed that, her work was by sitting. Hence, the said 26 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) accidental injury no way affects to the Petitioner to do her job. Furthermore, the P.W.2 has not specifically assessed the physical and functional disability of the Petitioner, which is arising out of the said accidental injury. Therefore, the said extent of right limb disability of 90.03% and whole body disability is 30.01% as stated by the P.W.2 is on higher side and as such, it is not accepted.
31. However, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 44 years old and she had sustained fracture of right femur and by admitting as an inpatient for 17 days, she took treatment to the said accidental injury and the Petitioner is still having implants in situ, by considering the same, this Tribunal feels that, due to the said accidental injury, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and functional disability of 15% to the whole body, which is believable and acceptable one.
32. No doubt, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, due to the accidental injury, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and functional disability of 15% to the whole body. But, based on the same, the Petitioner is not entitled for future loss of income and future medical expenses, as, admittedly, the Petitioner is only on medical leave and she has not left the job. Further, the Petitioner has not produced Medical Bills and Medical Prescriptions in the present petition, which implies that, the Petitioner is having medical reimbursement facility, which is available from her employer. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards future loss of income arising out of the said permanent physical and functional disability of 15% to the 27 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) whole body, which caused to her due to the said accidental injury and future medical expenses.
33. Since, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injury and by admitting as an inpatient totally for 17 days, she took treatment to the said accidental injuries by admitting as an inpatient in the Hospital and she is having 15% permanent physical and functional disability due to the said accidental injury, the Petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
34. As per Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate and evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injury. The Petitioner was in the Hospital as an inpatient from 09.04.2015 to 25.04.2015, i.e., 17 days. Due to the said injury, the Petitioner could have definitely suffered a lot of pain and agony during the course of treatment. Considering the said aspects, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 25,000/- towards pain and suffering.
35. As it is already observed that, the age of the Petitioner was 44 years. She has to lead remaining her entire life with 15% permanent physical and functional disability, which comes in the way of enjoyment of life. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life to the Petitioner.
36. The Petitioner had sustained grievous injury and she was in the Hospital as an inpatient for 17 days . The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.11 Letter dated 03.02.2016 and Ex.P.16 Letter dated 02.03.2016, which clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner was not reported duty from 09.04.2015 till 03.06.2016 28 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) and she is under loss of pay from 09.04.2015 till 02.06.2016 and also she has received her occurred leave emoluments till 15.06.2015. From this material evidence, it is proved that, from April 2015 to May 2016, i.e., for 14 months, the Petitioner not attended the duty and she is on medical leave. Hence, the Petitioner deprived the income for 14 months. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was drawing a salary of Rupees 26,330/- p.m. Therefore, at the rate of Rupees 26,330/- per month, a sum of Rupees 3,68,620/- (Rupees 26,330/- per month X 14 months) is awarded to the Petitioner towards loss of income during the laid up period.
37. The P.W.1 has not stated anything about the future medical assistance and its expenses. The P.W.2 has stated that, the Petitioner's recent X-ray shows non-union of the distal femur fracture, which will require re-surgery, which may cost approximately Rupees 70,000 to Rupees 80,000/-. No doubt, it is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary about ORIF with locking distal femur plate cancellous screws for tibia on 09.04.2015, which disclosed about the insertion of implants in situ and the said implants have to be removed and therefore, the Petitioner requires future medical assistance. But, based on the said ground, the Petitioner is not entitled for compensation towards future medical expenses, as, the Petitioner has not left the job after the accident and the documents produced by her clearly disclosed that, still, the Petitioner is considered as an employee by her employer. Further, in the present petition, the Petitioner has not produced any Medical Bills and Medical Prescriptions to show that, she has spent the amount towards medicine, conveyance, attendance charges, etc. This fact implies 29 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) that, the Petitioner is having medical reimbursement facility from her employer. Further, neither the Petitioner nor P.W.2 produced the estimation for future medical expenses. In this regard, the P.W.2 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, he has not produced the estimation in respect of the future treatment and its expenses incurred by the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for compensation towards future medical expenses.
38. As the Petitioner was taken treatment as an inpatient for 17 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees 3,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rupees 3,000/- towards attendant charges and Rupees 5,000/- towards food, nourishment and diet charges etc.,
39. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 25,000-00
2. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 20,000-00 Loss of income during laid
3. Rs. 3,68,620-00 up period
4. Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000-00
5. Conveyance Rs. 3,000-00
6. Attendant Charges Rs. 3,000-00 Food, Nourishment &
7. Rs. 5,000-00 Diet charges TOTAL Rs. 4,24,620-00
40. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rupees 4,24,620/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per 30 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till payment.
41. The P.W.1 has stated that, the Respondent No.1 is the insurer and the Respondent No.2 is the R.C. Owner of the Maruthi Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 in question and both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as claimed by her.
42. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 in the commission of the said road traffic accident and there was no negligence on the part of the husband of the Petitioner in the commission of the said road traffic accident while he was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-EC-4686 and the said offending Maruthi Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident. The Petitioner in the cause title of the petition has mentioned that, the Respondent No.1 is an insurer and the Respondent No.2 is a R.C. Owner of the offending Maruthi Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958. The Respondent No.1 through R.W.1 has produced Ex.R.2 Insurance Policy. The R.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, as on the date of accident, the Insurance Policy relating to the offending Maruthi Omni Car was valid. The Respondent No.2 in its written statement has clearly admitted that, he is the R.C. Owner of the said Maruthi Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958, all the R.T.O. documents pertaining to the said Car are standing in his name and the same was insured with the Respondent 31 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015 (SCCH-7) No.1, vide Policy No.60525582311000710, valid from 28.03.2015 to 27.03.2016 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the driver, who drove the said Car is having valid and effective driving licence. There is no allegation leveled as against the driver of the offending Maruthi Car in Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet that, at the time of accident, he was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of the offending Maruthi Car. From the said material evidence, it is made crystal clear that, as on the date of accident, the Respondent No.1 was an Insurer and the Respondent No.2 was a R.C. Owner of the offending Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME- 7958 and its Insurance Policy was valid, which covers the date of accident and the driver of the offending Maruthi Car was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of offending Maruthi Car. Though it is stated by the R.W.1 in his examination-in-chief that, there is a gross violation of the terms and condition of the policy and hence, their Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify any liability arising out of the alleged accident, the same has not been proved by the Respondent No.1 by producing acceptable material evidence. From this, it appears that, the violation of the terms and conditions of the admitted Ex.R.2 Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.2 is not proved by the Respondent No.1. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 being the Insurer and the Respondent No.2 being the R.C. Owner of the offending Maruthi Omini Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-7958, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioner. Since the Respondent No.1 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent No.2. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
32 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015(SCCH-7)
43. ISSUE NO.3 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 4,24,620/-
with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, 80% shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Remaining 20% shall be kept in FD in the name of the Petitioner, in any nationalized Bank of her choice, for a period of 3 years.
33 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015(SCCH-7) Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 19th day of August, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER :-
P.W.1 : Smt. Thankamani. K.V.
P.W.2 : Dr. M.N. Karthik
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONER :-
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.4 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.5 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.6 : True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.7 : True copy of Spot Hand Sketch
Ex.P.8 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.9 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P.10 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhar
Card relating to Thankamani. K.V.
Ex.P.11 : Letter dated 03.02.2016
Ex.P.12 : Appointment Letter dated 13.07.2007
Ex.P.13 : Letter dated 10.09.2014 along
with Annexure
Ex.P.14 : Bank Statement
Ex.P.15 : Pay Slips (12 in nos.)
34 M.V.C.NO.2436/2015
(SCCH-7)
Ex.P.16 : Letter dated 02.03.2016
Ex.P.17 : Outpatient Case Record
Ex.P.18 : Case Sheet
Ex.P.19 : Recent X-ray Film with Report
Ex.P.20 : X-ray Films (6 in nos.)
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : Sri. Karthik. M.
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
Ex.R.1 : Authorisation Letter dated 15.04.2016
Ex.R.2 : True copy of Insurance Policy
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR)
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.