Bangalore District Court
Sri.M.Narendra Reddy vs In Both Cases on 12 January, 2022
SCCH-11 1 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
KABC020145092019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY-2022
PRESENT: SRI.RAGHAVENDRA.D, B.COM, LL.B.
I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT
MVC No.3425/2019 C/w MVC No.4488/2019
(1) IN MVC No.3425/2019
PETITIONER : Sri.M.Narendra Reddy,
S/o.Mulinti Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.24, 'A' Block,
Srinidhi Building,
Doddy's Garden Road,
Kammasandra, Hebbagodi,
Bengaluru - 560 099.
Permanent resident of
No.1-32, Mydugolam,
Hindupura Taluk,
Ananthapura District,
Andhra Pradesh - 515 331.
(2) IN MVC No.4488/2019
PETITIONER : Sri.Satyam Mishra,
S/o.Arjun Mishra,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at Dhyana Mandira,
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
5th Main, Muni Reddy Layout,
Begur Main Road,
Honga Sandra,
Bengaluru-560 068.
Permanent resident of:
Qtrs.No.1CTR/63,
Purna Thana Colony,
Riverside Budh Bazar,
Bhurkunda, Patratu, Ramgarh,
Jharkhand - 829135.
(By - By Sri.R.Gopal, Adv. In both cases)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS IN BOTH CASES:
1. Sri.Shiva Kumar.R.,
S/o.Late Ramachandra Reddy,
R/at No.91, 17th Cross,
21st 'A' Main, Vangalahally,
HSR Layout I Sector,
Bengaluru - 560 102.
(R.C.Owner of Car bearing
Regn.No.KA-01-MP-4771).
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Limited,
No.1/2, Golden Heights,
59th Cross, 4th 'M' Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru -10.
(I.P.No.OG-19-1701-1807 - 00058982
Valid from 14.2.2019 to 13.02.2020).
(R.1 - by Sri.M.Mahantesha, Adv.)
(R.2 by Sri.Muralidhar Negavar, Adv.).
SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
COMMON - JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed petitions under Sec.166 of Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- in
MVC.No.3425/2019 and Rs.70,00,000/- in MVC.No.4488/2019 for
injuries sustained by them in road traffic accident.
2. The brief case of the petitioners in both cases
are that on 16.04.2019 at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner
were going on Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-01-HX-7023
from their office towards residence on 17th Cross, HSR Layout
on the left side of road, near Market, HDFC Bank, 4th Sector HSR
Layout, at that time the driver of Car bearing Regn.No.KA-01-MP-
4771 came from opposite direction to his extreme right side i.e.,
on wrong side of road at high speed in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-51-
ES-1669 and caused accident. Due to which, they fell down and
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to
St.John's Hospital, wherein the petitioner in MVC.No.4488/19
took treatment as an inpatient. The petitioner in
MVC.No.3425/19 shifted to Mahaveer Jain Hospital and then
admitted to Nandana (Kaade) Hospital, wherein he took
SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
treatment as an inpatient. The petitioners have incur huge
amount towards medical, conveyance and nourishment,
attendant and other incidental charges.
Prior to the accident, they were hale and healthy and they
were Cashier at Sudharshan Enterprises, 9th Cross, HSR Layout,
Sector 4, Bengaluru and earning a sum of Rs.16,000/- and
Rs.19,569/- per month respectively. Due to the accidental
injuries, they have suffered permanent disabilities. The accident
was occurred purely due to the rash and negligent driving of
driver of car. The respondents being the owner and insurer of
the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to petitioners. As such they have prayed
compensation with future interest from the respondents.
3. In pursuance of notices, respondent No.1 appeared
before the tribunal, but not filed his written statement. The
respondent No.2 appeared before the tribunal and filed its
written statement.
The respondent No.2 has filed counter to petition by
denying the petition averments. Further he disputed the manner
of accident, age of injuries and quantum of compensation
SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
claimed under different heads. It has further contended that, the
alleged accident occurred not due to negligent act of the
offending vehicle. This respondent has admitted the issuance of
Policy No.OG-19-1701-1801-00058982 in favour of respondent
No.1 to Nissan Motor Car bearing No.KA-01-MP-4771 for the
period 14.02.2019 to 13.02.2020 and same was in force as on
the date of accident and the liability if any is subject to the
terms and conditions of policy. Further contended that the
insured i.e., respondent No.1 has knowingly entrusted the
insured vehicle to the diver who had no valid and effective
driving license at the time of alleged accident and further he
was under the influence of alcohol. Further contended that
there is no negligence on the part of driver of insured vehicle in
issue as he was proceeding with due care and cautious by
following traffic rules and regulations. On the contrary the
alleged accident occurred in a junction due to the sole
negligence of petitioner who was riding the same in a rash and
negligent manner and caused the accident without following the
traffic rules and regulations though place of accident is a
junction. The amount claimed by the petitioner is highly
SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
exorbitant, excessive and exaggerated. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the petitions.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, my learned
predecessor in office has framed the following issues:
ISSUES IN MVC.No.3425/2019
1. Whether petitioner proves that, he sustained
grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on
16.04.2019 at about 10.00 p.m., near My Market
and HDFC Bank, 17th Cross, 4th Sector, HSR
Layout, Bengaluru, when he was riding a Motor
Cycle bearing registration No.KA-01-HX-7023 along
with pillion rider, due to the rash and negligent
driving of Car bearing Registration No.KA-01-MP-
4771 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation
as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the
quantum of compensation and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC.No.7452/2018
1. Whether petitioner proves that, he sustained
grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on
16.04.2019 at about 10.00 p.m., on 17th Cross,
near My Market and HDFC Bank, 4th Sector, HSR
Layout, Bengaluru, when he was proceeding in a
Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-01-HX-
7023 as a pillion rider, due to the rash and
negligent driving of Car bearing registration No.KA-
01-MP-4771 by its driver?
SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation
as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the
quantum of compensation and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
5. Since both the cases arose out of one and same
accident, both cases have been clubbed as per order dated
23.01.2020 and common evidence was led in
MVC.No.3425/2019.
6. In order to prove their case, the petitioners in both
cases have been examined as PW.1 & PW.2 and MRD Executive
at Nandhana Hospital got examined as PW.3. The Medical
Record Officer got examined as PW.4 and Dr.Avinash
Parthasarathy got examined as PW.5 and H.R.Manager got
examined as PW.6 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.62 and closed their side of evidence. The ASI, Sudgunte
Palya PS got examined as RW.1 and Senior Executive in
respondent insurance company got examined as RW.2 and got
marked documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6 and closed their side of
evidence.
SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
7. I have heard arguments on both side and perused the
materials available on records. The learned counsel for
petitioner has relied on citations reported in:-
1. 2017 ACJ 114 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
between Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Vineetha Nair and
others.
2. 2016 ACJ 1783 of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal
Pradesh at Shimla between Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs.,
Sangeyum and others.
3. 2016 ACJ 1952 of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh between Khushwinder Singh and another
Vs. Ram Chander and another.
4. 2015 ACJ 627 of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co., Ltd., Vs. Manju Devi and others.
The ratio and the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High
Courts in the above reported judgments are taken into
consideration to decide the above case.
SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
8. My findings on the above issues in both cases are as
follows:
Issue No.1 in both cases: In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 in both cases: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3 in both cases: As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 in both cases:- It is the case of the
petitioners in both the cases that on 16.04.2019 at about 10.00
p.m., 17th Cross, near HDFC Bank, 4th Sector, HSR Layout
Bengaluru, they had met with an accident due to rash and
negligent driving of Car bearing Regn.No.KA-01-MP-4771 by its
driver. After accident, Sri.Muniraju, S/o.Chandra has lodged a
complaint with police on 17.04.2019 by alleging that the car
driver drove the car with high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner and caused accident. On the basis of Ex.P.2 - complaint,
the police registered a case against the driver of car as per
Ex.P.1 for the offences punishable U/s.279, 337 & 338 of IPC and
U/s.134(A), 185 of M.V.Act. After registering the case Police went
near place of accident and drew up Sketch & Spot Mahazar at
Ex.P.3 & 4 by narrating the place of accident. After investigation
police filed charge sheet as per Ex.P.29 against driver of car for
SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
the offences punishable U/s.279, 337 & 338 of IPC and
R/w.Sec.134(A&B), 185 & 187 of M.V.Act. In addition to that
petitioners also produced wound certificate, discharge
summaries and case sheets. On perusal of hospital documents
the petitioners admitted to hospital immediately after accident
and hospital authorities have stated that injuries caused due to
alleged road traffic accident. In order to prove negligence of the
driver of the car, petitioners in both case examined as a PW.1 &
2. On perusal of cross examination of PW.1 & 2, nothing has
been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 & 2 to disprove the
negligence of driver of car. The learned counsel for the
respondent vehemently argued in Ex.P.41-case sheet, it is
mentioned that RTA, where patient was riding two wheeler it
against four wheeler, fell down and sustained multiple injuries.
Further learned counsel for respondent vehemently argued that
the rider of the motor cycle themselves dashed against the car,
as such there was no negligence on the part of driver of car.
The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet against
the driver of car. Only on the basis of case sheet this tribunal
cannot disbelieve the entire charge sheet filed by the I.O.
Moreover the respondent insurance company nothing placed
SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
before the tribunal to show that only due to the negligence on
the part of rider of two wheeler the accident occurred. On
meticulous perusal of entire case record, there is nothing before
the tribunal to disbelieve the case of the petitioners. On perusal
of oral and documents placed by the petitioners it clearly shows
that the driver of car came with high speed and in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against petitioners. So, the
materials placed by the petitioners clearly reveal that the
accident occurred due to actionable negligent act of driver of
Car bearing Regn.No.KA-01-MP-4771. Accordingly, Issue No.1
answered in the Affirmative in both cases.
10. Issue No.2 in MVC No.3425/2019: In view of
holding issue No.1 in the affirmative, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation. To assess the compensation the tribunal has to
look in to several factors like injury, pain and suffering sustained
by petitioners and amount spent by petitioner towards medical
expenses, food, extra nourishment and medical attendant,
conveyance, loss of income during treatment, disability, etc., let
me discuss one by one.
(a) Towards injury and pain and suffering:- The
SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
petitioner contended that due to accident he has sustained
crush injury of right heel extending from medial malleolus to
heal, fracture of right humerus, fracture of right femur, fracture
of both bones of right leg and abrasion over right side of chest
and underwent open reduction with internal fixation for right
femur fracture, right humerus treated conservatively and
discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment. In order
to prove the injuries caused to him, petitioner has produced
wound certificate issued by St.Jonh's Medical College Hospital,
Bengaluru at Ex.P.6. On perusal of Ex.P.6, the
petitioner/Narendra Reddy sustained grievous injuries. On
perusal of records petitioner has produced discharge summaries
marked at Ex.P.14 to 18, it clearly shows that the petitioner has
taken treatment as inpatient. So, on perusal of records, the
petitioner took treatment in the hospital as an inpatient and the
petitioner examined the doctor as PW.5 Dr.Avinash
Parthasarathy and got marked documents at Ex.P.48 to 50 i.e.,
recent examination, assessment proforma and 4 X-rays.
PW.5/doctor has deposed that he examined the petitioner for
assessment of disability. The doctor has assessed the disability
to the whole body at 25.33%. By considering the injury and facts
SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the view that
the compensation of Rs.50,000/- is just and reasonable
towards pain and suffering.
(b) Towards Medical Expenses: The petitioner has
claimed compensation towards medical expenses. The petitioner
contended that he was shifted to St.Jonh's Medical College
Hospital, Bengaluru and then shifted to Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain
and then to Nandhana Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took first
aid treatment and also as an inpatient and discharged with an
advice to follow up treatment and he has spent huge amount
towards future treatment. The petitioner has produced medical
bills at Ex.P.21 for Rs.9,06,758/- and Ex.P.22 31 Advance
receipts. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently
argued that Ex.P.21 bill No.91 to 94, 109 to 111 are manual bills
as such these medical bills cannot be considered. The
respondent insurance company did not place any documents or
evidence to show that these manual bills were created. If the
respondent insurance company succeeded in producing any
evidence to establish that these manual bills produced by
creating to get the higher compensation, then the tribunal can
consider the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for
SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
respondent insurance company. Only on the ground of
production of manual bills, this tribunal cannot discard all the
manual bills placed by the petitioner without proper evidence.
The respondents not disproved these medical bills by placing
cogent evidence. So, Tribunal is of the view that compensation
Rs.9,06,758/- is just and reasonable towards medical
expenses.
(c) Towards food, extra nourishment and medical
attendant charges: On perusal of the records, the accident
occurred on 16.04.2019 and the petitioner took treatment as an
inpatient in the hospitals. On perusal of evidence, the petitioner
was inpatient in the hospital as he has sustained grievous
injuries. So, during the time of treatment the petitioner also
required good food and extra nourishment. The petitioner has
produced Discharge Summaries issued by Nandana Kaade,
Hospital, which shows that the petitioner taken treatment from
17.04.2019 to 01.05.2019, 08.05.2019 and same day
discharged, 11.05.2019 to 18.05.2019, 27.06.2019 to
30.06.2019 and again from 08.08.2019 same day discharged
i.e., totally for a period of 29 days. Considering the said fact
SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
the Tribunal is of the view that compensation of Rs.400/- per
day for 29 days to a sum of Rs.11,600/- is just and
reasonable towards food, extra nourishment and medical
attendant.
(d) Towards Conveyance:
The petitioner is the resident of Srinidhi building, Doddy's
Garden Road, Kammasandra, Hebbagodi, Bengaluru. The
accident occurred on on 17th Cross, near My Market & HDFC
Bank, 4th Sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru. He admitted for
treatment at Hospitals. In order to prove this aspect the
petitioner has produced Discharge Summaries as per Ex.P.14 to
18. The petitioner also produced Ambulance and Travel bills (27
in nos.) for Rs.31,310/- marked at Ex.P.24. The learned counsel
for respondent insurance company argued that all the travels
bills are created for the purpose of compensation, as such these
bills cannot be considered. The petitioner has produced
travelling bills for the tune of Rs.31,310/-. On perusal of
discharge summary, the petitioner sustained M/3rd shaft
fracture right tibia, M/3rd shaft fracture right femur and deglove
injury lateral malleolus fracture right ankle calcaneum and
SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
fracture shaft right humerus. So, on perusal of all injuries, the
petitioner cannot walk to hospital to take treatment, so he has
hired the vehicle. By, considering the injuries and facts of the
case, the petitioner has incurred travelling expenses. Hence,
the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.31,310/-
towards conveyance charges.
(e) Towards loss of income during treatment: The
petitioner has contended that he was working as Cashier at
Sudharshan Enterprises, situated at 17th Cross, HSR Layout,
Sector 4, Bengaluru and drawing salary of Rs.16,000/- per
month. Due to accidental injuries, he was not able to do work
and lost his income. In order to prove his income, the petitioner
has produced Ex.P.7 Notarized copy of Appointment letter,
wherein it shows that he was appointed as cashier and the
annual cost will be Rs.1,20,000/-. The petitioner also produced
Ex.P.12 Salary Certificate, wherein it shows that petitioner was
working as Cashier at Sudharshan Enterprises and his monthly
gross salary was Rs.15,000/- + service charge and also
produced Ex.P.13 - Pay Slips (6 in nos.) for the month of
November, wherein it shows that his gross salary was
Rs.15,000/-, net salary was Rs.13,101/-. Pay Slip for the month
SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
of December 2018, wherein his gross salary was Rs.15,000/-, net
salary was Rs.12,503/-. Pay slip for the month of January 2019,
wherein his Gross salary was Rs.15,000/-, net salary was
Rs.10,003/-. Pay slip for the month of February 2019, wherein
his Gross salary was Rs.15,000/-, net salary was Rs.9,177/-. Pay
slip for the month of March 2019, wherein his Gross salary was
Rs.15,000/-, net salary was Rs.9,641/-. Pay slip for the month of
April 2019, wherein his Gross salary was Rs.15,000/-, net salary
was Rs.9,133/-. In order to prove his income the petitioner has
examined HR Manager at Sudharshan Enterprises as PW.6 and
got marked documents at Ex.P.54 to Ex.P.58 i.e., authorization
letter, salary certificate, pay slip from September 2018 to April
2019. As per Ex.P.56 Pay slip for the month of April 2019 his
Gross Salary was Rs.15,000/- and net salary was Rs.9,133/-.
Hence, considering income mentioned in pay slip for the month
of April 2019, out of Gross salary Rs.15,000/-, Rs.200/- was
deducted for professional tax), so monthly salary of petitioner
was Rs.14,800/- per month. Hence same is considered as
monthly income. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for
Rs.29,600/- (Rs.14,800/- x 2) towards loss of income
during treatment.
SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
f) Towards Permanent Disability:
The petitioner has contended that due to the accident, he
was inpatient at several Hospitals, Bengaluru and sustained
permanent disablement. The petitioner also examined
Dr.Avinash Parthasarathy working as Orthopaedic Surgeon at
Sreenivasa Hospital, Bengaluru as PW.5. Further PW.5 deposed
in his chief examination that, petitioner has sustained fracture
shaft of right femur mid 1/3rd, fracture shaft of right tibia mid
1/3rd, degloving injury right ankle with fracture clacaneum and
fracture of shaft of right humerus and underwent CR and IM
Nailing of right femur done, CR and IM Nailing of right tibia and
ORIF with plate and screws and discharged with an advice to
take follow up treatment. The doctor has assessed the total
disability to the whole body at 25.33%. In order to prove his
disability, doctor has produced Assessment proforma marked at
Ex.P.49. As per Ex.P.49, the doctor has assessed disability
permanent physical impairment to right lower limb at 69% and
to the whole body at 25%. The MRD Executive at Nandhana
(Kaade) Hospital got examined as PW.3 and got marked
documents at Ex.P.41 to Ex.P.43 i.e., authorization letter,
Inpatient case sheet and 4 X-ray films.
SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
11. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance
company argued that the petitioners are still working and there
is no loss of income. The petitioner in order proves in his
earning and loss of income he has been examined PW.6 H.R.
Manager of Sudharshan Enterprises. In his chief examined he
has deposed that petitioner was drawing salary of Rs.16,000/-
per month Further he has deposed that after accident their
company is not paying salary. Even in his cross examination he
has deposed that as petitioner did not attend his work they
have appointed some others person in his place. Further he has
denied re-appointment. On perusal of cross examination of
PW.6, the petitioner not going for work. There is no evidence
before the tribunal to show that he is working in any other
organization. Based on the documents placed by the petitioner
it appears that the petitioner is not working. On perusal of the
injuries to the petitioner, he may face difficulty in day-today
activities. So, it is the opinion of tribunal that considering of loss
of future prospects is just and proper.
By considering the oral and documentary evidence and
facts and circumstances of the case, the functional disability is
assessed at 20%.
SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
12. In order to prove age of the petitioner, he has
produced Notarized copy of SSLC Marks Card of petitioner
marked at Ex.P.8, wherein the date of birth is mentioned as
25.02.1994 and the accident occurred on 16.04.2019, so the age
of petitioner is 26 years at the time of alleged road traffic
accident. As per Smt.Sarla Verma Case appropriate multiplier
is 17 . As per ratio laid down in Raj Kumar V/s. Ajay kumar
and another, this court not deducted personal expenses of
petitioner out of his gross income.
Annual Income before accident : (Rs.14,800/- x 12) =
Rs.1,77,600/- per annum.
Loss of future earning p.a. (20% of prior annual income)
Rs.35,520/-.
Multiplier applicable with reference to age - 17
Loss of future earnings - (35,520/- x 18) = Rs.6,03,840/-.
The petitioner is entitled for Rs.6,03,840/- under the
head of permanent disability.
(g) Deprivation of Future Amenities:- The doctor has
opined that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he is
unable to do his day-today activities as earlier. By considering
SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the
view that compensation of Rs.20,000/- is just and
reasonable under the head deprivation of future
amenities.
h) Towards Future Medical Expenses: The doctor/PW-5
has deposed that petitioner has to undergo three more surgeries
for removal of implants and the estimated cost of said
procedures in hospital would be Rs.60,000/-. By considering the
facts and circumstances of the case Rs.30,000/- is just and
reasonable under the head deprivation of future medical
expenses.
13. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
a. Towards injury pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
b. Towards medical expenses Rs.9,06,758/-
c. Towards food and extra Rs.11,600/-
nourishment and medical
attendant
d. Towards conveyance Rs.31,310/-
e Towards loss of earning during Rs.29,600/-
treatment
f. Towards loss of future earning Rs.6,03,840/-
capacity
SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
g. Deprivation of future amenities Rs.20,000/-
h. Towards Future Medical Expenses Rs.30,000/-
Total compensation Rs.16,83,108/-
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.16,83,108/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization.
14. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4488/2019: In view of
holding issue No.1 in the affirmative, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation. To assess the compensation the tribunal has to
look in to several factors like injury, pain and suffering sustained
by petitioners and amount spent by petitioner towards medical
expenses, food, extra nourishment and medical attendant,
conveyance, loss of income during treatment, disability, etc., let
me discuss one by one.
(a) Towards injury and pain and suffering:- The
petitioner contended that due to accident he has sustained
degloving injury of right leg, fracture of right medial femoral
condyle, transverse fracture of right patella, type III B fracture of
right tibia, fracture proximal fibular shaft and ACL tear with PCL
avulsion of right knee and underwent wound debridement and
SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
external fixation was done for right leg, right knee necrotic patch
with wound debridement was done as an elective procedure for
fracture right tibia treated initially by closed reduction, then
open reduction with implants fixation was done, other fractures
and ACL and PCL tear of right knee treated conservatively and
discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment. In order
to prove the injuries caused to him, petitioner has produced
wound certificate issued by St.Jonh's Medical College Hospital,
Bengaluru at Ex.P.30. On perusal of Ex.P.30, the
petitioner/Satyam Mishra sustained grievous injuries. On perusal
of records petitioner has produced discharge summary marked
at Ex.P.31, it clearly shows that the petitioner has taken
treatment as inpatient. So, on perusal of records, the petitioner
took treatment in the hospital as an inpatient and the petitioner
examined the doctor as PW.5 Dr.Avinash Parthasarathy and got
marked documents at Ex.P.51 to 53 i.e., recent examination,
assessment proforma and 2 X-rays. PW.5/doctor has deposed
that he examined the petitioner for assessment of disability. The
doctor has assessed the disability towards permanent physical
impairment in right lower limb at 65% and to the whole body at
22%. By considering the injury and facts and circumstances of
SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
the case, the tribunal is of the view that the compensation of
Rs.50,000/- is just and reasonable towards pain and
suffering.
(b) Towards Medical Expenses: The petitioner has
claimed compensation towards medical expenses. The petitioner
contended that he was shifted to St.Jonh's Medical College
Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took first aid treatment and also
as an inpatient and discharged with an advice to follow up
treatment and he has spent huge amount towards future
treatment. The petitioner has produced 30 medical bills at
Ex.P.36 for Rs.2,94,153/- and Ex.P.37 - Inpatient Medical bill
settlement receipt. The respondents not disproved these
medical bills by placing cogent evidence. So, Tribunal is of the
view that compensation Rs.2,94,153/- is just and reasonable
towards medical expenses.
(c) Towards food, extra nourishment and medical
attendant charges: On perusal of the records, the accident
occurred on 16.04.2019 and the petitioner took treatment as an
inpatient in the hospitals. On perusal of evidence, the petitioner
was inpatient in the hospital as he has sustained grievous
SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
injuries. So, during the time of treatment the petitioner also
required good food and extra nourishment. The petitioner has
produced Discharge Summary issued by St.Jonh's Medical
College Hospital, which shows that the petitioner taken
treatment from 17.04.2019 to 16.07.2019 i.e., totally for a
period of 91 days. Considering the said fact the Tribunal is of
the view that compensation of Rs.400/- per day for 91 days to a
sum of Rs.36,400/- is just and reasonable towards food,
extra nourishment and medical attendant.
(d) Towards Conveyance:
The petitioner is the resident of Purna Thana Colony,
Riverside Budh Bazar, Bhurkunda, Patratu, Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
The accident occurred on on 17th Cross, near My Market &
HDFC Bank, 4th Sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru. He admitted for
treatment at Hospitals. In order to prove this aspect the
petitioner has produced Discharge Summary as per Ex.P.31.
Considering the injuries and facts of the case, the tribunal is of
the view that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- is just and
proper towards conveyance charges.
SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
(e) Towards loss of income during treatment: The
petitioner has contended that he was working as Cashier at
Sudharshan Enterprises, situated at 17th Cross, HSR Layout,
Sector 4, Bengaluru and drawing salary of Rs.19,569/- per
month. Due to accidental injuries, he was not able to do work
and lost his income. In order to prove his income, the petitioner
has produced Ex.P.32 Notarized copy of Appointment letter,
wherein it shows that he was appointed as cashier and the Gross
Salary will be Rs.1,44,000/-. Ex.P.33 - Letter of confirmation in
Appointment, wherein the petitioner has successfully completed
the probation period. The petitioner also produced Ex.P.34
Salary Certificate, wherein it shows that petitioner was working
as Cashier at Sudharshan Enterprises and his monthly gross
salary is Rs.15,000/- + service charge. Ex.P.60 - Pay Slips for the
month of October 2018, wherein it shows that his gross salary
was Rs.12,000/-, net salary was Rs.10,644/-. Pay Slip for the
month of November 2018, wherein his gross salary was
Rs.12,000/-, net salary was Rs.7,333/-. Pay slip for the month of
December 2018, wherein his Gross salary was Rs.12,000/-, net
salary was Rs.8,806/-. Pay slip for the month of January 2019,
wherein his Gross salary was Rs.13,500/-, net salary was
SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
Rs.18,416/-. Pay slip for the month of February 2019, wherein his
Gross salary was Rs.13,500/-, net salary was Rs.5,823/-. Pay slip
for the month of March 2019, wherein his Gross salary was
Rs.13,500/-, net salary was Rs.12,246/-. In order to prove his
income the petitioner has examined HR Manager at Sudharshan
Enterprises as PW.6 and got marked documents at Ex.P.59 to
Ex.P.62 i.e., salary certificate, pay slip from October 2018 to
March 2019. As per Ex.P.60 Pay slip for the month of March 2019
his Gross Salary was Rs.13,500/- and net salary was Rs.12,246/-.
Hence, considering income mentioned in pay slip for the month
of March 2019, out of Gross salary Rs.13,500/-, Rs.200/- was
deducted for professional tax), so monthly salary of petitioner
was getting Rs.13,300/- per month. Hence same is considered as
monthly income. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for
Rs.39,300/- (Rs.13,300/- x 3) towards loss of income
during treatment.
f) Towards Permanent Disability:
The petitioner has contended that due to the accident, he
was inpatient at St.John's Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru
and sustained permanent disablement. The petitioner also
SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
examined Dr.Avinash Parthasarathy working as Orthopaedic
Surgeon at Sreenivasa Hospital, Bengaluru as PW.5. Further
PW.5 deposed in his chief examination that, petitioner has
sustained degloving injury right leg, Type III B fracture right tibia
with complete ACL tear and PCL avulsion, proximal fibula
fracture, fracture medial femoral condyle and transverse
fracture of right patella and underwent wound debridement and
external fixation, right knee necrotic patch wound debridement,
CR and IM Nailing for tibia fracture and ORIF with CC screw for
tibial PCL avulsion and discharged with an advice to take follow
up treatment. The doctor has assessed the total disability to the
whole body at 22%. In order to prove his disability, doctor has
produced Assessment proforma marked at Ex.P.52. As per
Ex.P.52, the doctor has assessed disability permanent physical
impairment to right lower limb at 65% and to the whole body at
22%. The Medical Record Officer at St.John's Hospital got
examined as PW.4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.44 to
Ex.P.47 i.e., authorization letter, outpatient case sheet and two
inpatient case sheet. The petitioner has contended that he was
working as Cashier at Sudharshan Enterprises and drawing
salary of Rs.19,569/- per month.
SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
15. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance
company argued that the petitioners are still working and there
is no loss of income. The petitioner in order proves in his
earning and loss of income he has been examined PW.6 H.R.
Manager of Sudharshan Enterprises. In his chief examined he
has deposed that petitioner was drawing salary of Rs.19,569/-
per month. Further he has deposed that after accident their
company is not paying salary. Even in his cross examination he
has deposed that as petitioner did not attend his work they
have appointed some others person in his place. Further he has
denied re-appointment. On perusal of cross examination of
PW.6, the petitioner not going for work. There is no evidence
before the tribunal to show that he is working in any other
organization. Based on the documents placed by the petitioner
it appears that the petitioner is not working. On perusal of the
injuries to the petitioner, he may face difficulty in day-today
activities. So, it is the opinion of tribunal that considering of loss
of future prospects is just and proper.
By considering the oral and documentary evidence and
facts and circumstances of the case the functional disability is
assessed at 16%.
SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
16. In order to prove age of the petitioner, he has not
produced any document. As per Wound Certificate marked at
Ex.P.30, the age of petitioner is mentioned as 28 years . So, the
age of petitioner considered as 28 years at the time of accident.
As per Smt.Sarla Verma Case appropriate multiplier is 17 in
between 26 to 30. As per ratio laid down in Raj Kumar V/s.
Ajay kumar and another, this court not deducted personal
expenses of petitioner out of his gross income.
Annual Income before accident : (Rs.13,300/- x 12) =
Rs.1,59,600/- per annum.
Loss of future earning p.a. (16% of prior annual income)
Rs.25,536/-.
Multiplier applicable with reference to age - 17
Loss of future earnings - (25,536/- x 17) = Rs.4,34,112/-.
The petitioner is entitled for Rs.4,34,112/- under the
head of permanent disability.
(g) Deprivation of Future Amenities:- The doctor has
opined that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he is
unable to do his day-today activities as earlier. By considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the
SCCH-11 31 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
view that compensation of Rs.20,000/- is just and
reasonable under the head deprivation of future
amenities.
h) Towards Future Medical Expenses:
The doctor/PW-5 has deposed that petitioner has to undergo
one more surgery for removal of implants and the estimated
cost of said procedures in hospital would be Rs.35,000/-. By
considering the facts and circumstances of the case
Rs.15,000/- is just and reasonable under the head
deprivation of future medical expenses.
17. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
a. Towards injury pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
b. Towards medical expenses Rs.2,94,153/-
c. Towards food and extra Rs.36,400/-
nourishment and medical
attendant
d. Towards conveyance Rs.10,000/-
e Towards loss of earning during Rs.39,300/-
treatment
f. Towards loss of future earning Rs.4,34,112/-
capacity
g. Deprivation of future amenities Rs.20,000/-
SCCH-11 32 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
h. Towards Future Medical Expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation Rs.8,98,965/-
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.8,98,965/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization.
18. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 insurance
company vehemently argued that the driver of Car bearing
Regn.No.KA-01-MP-4771 was driving by consuming alcohol, as
such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
In order to prove his contention, the respondent insurance
company summoned I.O. and examined as RW.1. RW.1 in his
chief examination, he has deposed that he has sent the driver of
car to the Green View Hospital and conducted LFT Test and by
receiving a report from the hospital, he has filed charge sheet
against the driver of car for the offence punishable U/s.134(A),
187 & 185 of M.V.Act. Further the respondent Insurance
company examined its Senior Executive as RW.2 and his chief
examination, he has also deposed that the driver of car was
driving his car by consuming alcohol, as such he is not liable to
pay compensation. The respondent has produced Ex.R.1 letter
SCCH-11 33 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
issued to the Green View Medical Centre, Bengaluru. Ex.R.4 is
Biochemistry Report. Ex.R.5 is letter issued by Green View
Hospital to the I.O. On the basis report, the I.O has filed charge
sheet against the accused by alleging that he was driving the
car by consuming alcohol. The learned counsel for petitioner
cross examined RW.1 at length. In his cross examination, he has
admitted that the hospital authorities have not stated
percentage of alcohol in the blood of driver of car. Further in his
cross examination, he has deposed that they have not examined
by using alcohol meter in the police station. No material placed
before the tribunal to show percentage of alcohol in the blood.
But as per Ex.R.5 at Para No.4 mentioned that "the person
kushal has self referred himself directly to the Laboratory and
Liver Function Test (LFT) has been conducted. The LFT results
shows derangement/elevation of Liver Enzymes - which could be
associated with alcohol intoxication." Further at Para No.5 stated
that "the liver function test indicates Kushal could have been
under the influence of alcohol. The more specific test is blood
alcohol level estimation (which is not available in our hospital)".
So, on perusal of Ex.R.5, the hospital authorities have stated
that they have no facilities of testing of alcohol level in blood.
SCCH-11 34 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
Now, on the basis of LFT, the police have filed charge sheet
against the driver of car. So, there is no evidence before the
tribunal to show how much percentage of alcohol contain in the
blood of driver of car.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
decisions reported in:
1. 2017 ACJ 114 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
between Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Vineetha Nair and
others, wherein it is held that:
"Motor Vehciles Act, 1988, sections 149(2) and 185 -
Motor Insurance - Drunken driving - Doctrine of volenti non fit
injuria- Liability of insurance company - Car hit a lorry from
behind resulting in death of driver of car and passenger
travelling in it - Tribunal awarded compensation and fastened
liability on insurance company of car - contention that driver
of car was in inebriated state at the time of accident and
passenger entered the vehicle knowing well that driver had
consumed alcohol, therefore principle of volenti non fit injuria
comes into play and claimants are not entitled to
compensation and insurance company should be absolved
from liability - Post mortem report states that stomach of
driver contained clear fluid having alcoholic smell and only
because there is alcoholic smell it cannot be held that driver
was under the influence of alcohol - Even in prosecution
under section 185 there should be clear allegation to the
effect that alcohol content is 30 mg per 100 ml of blood - No
evidence that owner of vehicle permitted or gave consent to
driver to drive in such state - whether insurance company
could establish that driver of car was under the influence of
alcohol at the time of accident and doctrine of volenti non fit
injuria is applicable - Held; no; moreover mere consumption
of alcohol is not a defense available to insurance company
under section 149 (2)."
SCCH-11 35 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
2. 2016 ACJ 1783 of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal
Pradesh at Shimla between Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs.,
Sangeyum and others.
"Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, sections 147(1) and 149(2) -
Motor insurance - Policy - Breach of - Drunken driving -
Liability of insurance company - Insurance company disputes
its liability on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle
was driving the vehicle in the state of intoxication - Whether
there was breach of policy and insurance company can be
exempted from liability - Held no; intoxication of driver is not
a ground available to insurance company under section 149.
(2011 ACJ 74 (HP) followed."
3. 2016 ACJ 1952 of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh between Khushwinder Singh and another
Vs. Ram Chander and another.
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 147 (1), 149 and 185 -
Motor insurance - policy - Breach of - Drunken driving -
Liability of insurance company - Pay and recover order -
Tribunal holding that offending vehicle was being driven by
the driver under the influence of liquor thereby violating the
provisions of section 185 directed insurance company to pay
and recover - As per the medical report driver had consumed
alcohol but he was not under the influence of alcohol and the
same does not raise a presumption that accident had taken
place because of rash and negligent driving of driver and on
that account insurance company can be absolved from
liability - Mere consumption of liquor within permissible limit
is not an offence even as per the provisions of section 185 -
Whether Tribunal was justified in directing insurance company
to pay compensation and then recover the same from the
owner and driver of offending vehicle."
SCCH-11 36 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
4. 2015 ACJ 627 of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co., Ltd., Vs. Manju Devi and others.
"Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, sections 147(1), 149 and 185 -
Motor Insurance - Policy - Drunken driving - liability of
insurance company - Insurance company disputes its liability
on the ground that driver of offending car was in inebriated
state at the time of accident, lost control over the vehicle on
account of his intoxication, which was more than the
permissible limit under section 185, thereby caused the
accident killing a traffic constable on duty - Policy exempts
insurance company from liability towards owner or driver in
case of drunk and drive under personal accident cover but
deceased was a third party - Policy contains clauses regarding
eligibility to drive the vehicle by the driver but fit state of
mind was not included in the eligibility clause - consciousness
and senses of the driver in inebriated state was impaired, he
became unfit to drive but insurance company is not entitled
to be exonerated from payment of compensation - Inebriated
state of driver was not within the knowledge of the insured -
Whether drunk and driving is a ground to exonerate
insurance company from liability."
20. I have carefully perused the above reported
judgments, with due respect to the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala,
Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana and Andhra Pradesh,
the ratio and dictum laid down in the above reported judgments
are aptly applicable to the case on hand. Wherein the Hon'ble
High Court held that the consumption of alcohol is not a defence
available to insurance company U/s.149. Moreover case on
hand, the respondents have not proved the percentage of
alcohol in the blood of driver of car. Under these circumstances,
SCCH-11 37 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
only on the basis of Ex.R.5, the liability of respondent insurance
company cannot be exonerated. The respondent insurance
company contended that the driver of car did not possess valid
driving license at the time of accident. In order to prove their
contention, the respondent insurance company examined I.O
and Senior Executive as RW.1 & 2. Except examining RW.1 & 2,
the respondent insurance company did not placed any materials
before the tribunal to prove the driver of car did not possess
valid driving license. Hence, the contention taken by the
respondent insurance company is not tenable. In view of above
reported judgment, the insurance company is liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners in both the cases.
Accordingly, Issue No.2 is held Partly in the Affirmative in
both the cases.
21. Issue No.3 in both the cases: For the forgoing
reasons and in view of the above discussion I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
In MVC No.3425 of 2019 SCCH-11 38 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w. 4488/2019 The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner/Sri.M.Narendra Reddy is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.16,83,108/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred and Eight Only) with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. (future medical expenses shall not carry any interest).
Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 being the insurer is primarily liable to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
Out of said compensation, 60% shall be released to petitioner and remaining 40% balance amount shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank nearer to his place for three years without encumbrance. He is entitled for interest that accrues on FD periodically.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High SCCH-11 39 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w. 4488/2019 Court in MFA.No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioner hereby directed to produce particulars of his Bank Account, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contained compulsorily photographs of petitioner, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioner shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest thereon by respondent, the petitioner is entitled to receive amount as mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
Bank shall not advance loan on such FD, and shall not cause premature release of FD without permission from the Tribunal.
Bank shall release amount along with interest thereon in favor of petitioner on proper verification and identification or credit said amount to his account after expiry of three years period of deposit, without waiting for further order of court.
ORDER In MVC No.4488 of 2019 SCCH-11 40 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w. 4488/2019 The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner/Sri.Satyam Mishra is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.8,98,965/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Five Only) with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. (future medical expenses shall not carry any interest).
Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 being the insurer is primarily liable to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
Out of said compensation, 60% shall be released to petitioner and remaining 40% balance amount shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank nearer to his place for three years without encumbrance. He is entitled for interest that accrues on FD periodically.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High SCCH-11 41 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w. 4488/2019 Court in MFA.No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioner hereby directed to produce particulars of his Bank Account, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contained compulsorily photographs of petitioner, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioner shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest thereon by respondent, the petitioner is entitled to receive amount as mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
Bank shall not advance loan on such FD, and shall not cause premature release of FD without permission from the Tribunal.
Bank shall release amount along with interest thereon in favor of petitioner on proper verification and identification or credit said amount to his account after expiry of three years period of deposit, without waiting for further order of court.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case.
Draw awards accordingly.
SCCH-11 42 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.4488/2019 The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.3425/2019.
The office is directed to keep an authenticate copy of this judgment in MVC.No.3425/2019.
(Dictated to the stenographer over computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 12th day of January, 2022.) (D.RAGHAVENDRA) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER/S:
P.W.1 : Sri.M.Narendra Reddy P.W.2 : SRI.SATYAM MISHRA PW.3 : SMT.SRIKALA PW.4 : SRI.ANIL KUMAR.S PW.5 : DR.AVINASH PARTHASARATHY PW.6 : SRI.K.SUDHAKAR LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER/S:
Ex.P.1 : FIR
Ex.P.2 : Compliant
Ex.P.3 : Sketch
Ex.P.4 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5 : IMV Report
Ex.P.6 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P.7 : Notarized copy of Appointment letter
Ex.P.8 : Notarized copy of SSLC Marks Card
Ex.P.9 : Notarized copy of PUC Marks Card
Ex.P.10 : Notarized copy of Computer training
certificate
SCCH-11 43 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w.
4488/2019
Ex.P.11 : Notarized copy of NCC appreciation and
participation certificate
Ex.P.12 : Salary Certificate
Ex.P.13 : Pay Slips (6 in nos.)
Ex.P.14 to 18 : 5 Discharge Summaries Ex.P.19 : Outpatient records (3 in nos.) Ex.P.20 : Lab Reports (6 in nos.) Ex.P.21 : Medical bills amount of Rs.9,06,758/- Ex.P.22 : 31 Advance Receipts Ex.P.23 : Prescriptions (58 in nos.) Ex.P.24 : Ambulance and travel bills (27 in nos.) amount of Rs.31,310/-
Ex.P.25 : 8 Photos with CD Ex.P.26 : X-ray films (17 in nos.) Ex.P.27 : CT Scan films (4 in nos.) Ex.P.28 : Letter issued by Sudarshan Enterprises Ex.P.29 : Charge Sheet Ex.P.30 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.31 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.32 : Notarized copy of Appointment letter Ex.P.33 : Letter of confirmation in Appointment Ex.P.34 : Salary Certificate Ex.P.35 : Certificate issued by the Employer Ex.P.36 : 30 Medical bills for Rs.2,94,153/- Ex.P.37 : Inpatient Medical bill settlement receipt Ex.P.38 : 124 Prescriptions Ex.P.39 : 3 Photographs with CD Ex.P.40 : X-rays 4 in nos. Ex.P.41 : Authorization letter Ex.P.42 : Inpatient case sheet Ex.P.43 : 4 X-ray films Ex.P.44 : Authorization letter Ex.P.45 : Outpatient Case sheet Ex.P.46 & 47 : 2 Inpatient case sheet Ex.P.48 : Recent Examination notes Ex.P.49 : Assessment Proforma Ex.P.50 : 4 X-ray films Ex.P.51 : Recent Examination notes Ex.P.52 : Assessment Proforma Ex.P.53 : 2 X-ray films Ex.P.54 : Authorization letter SCCH-11 44 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w. 4488/2019 Ex.P.55 : Salary Certificate Ex.P.56 : Pay Slip September 2018 to Apr.2019 Ex.P.57 : Letter issued by Sudarshan Enterprises Ex.P.58 : Attendance Register Ex.P.59 : Salary Certificate Ex.P.60 : Pay Slip from Oct.2018 to Mar.2019 Ex.P.61 : Letter issued by Sudarshan Enterprises Ex.P.62 : Attendance Register LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: RW.1 : Sri.K.S.Suresh RW.2 : Sri.Chaitresh Habbu LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Ex.R1 : Letter Ex.R2 : LRT Ex.R3 : Cash bill Ex.R4 : Lab Report Ex.R5 : Report issued by hospital Ex.R6 : Copy of Insurance Policy. I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT. SCCH-11 45 MVC.No.3425/2019 C/w. 4488/2019