Bangalore District Court
Shakeel Pasha vs Nalabasannagari Raveendranatha Reddy on 16 November, 2024
KABC020053082023
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-17
Present: Sri.KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L, LL.M.,
Member, MACT
XIX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 16th day of November - 2024
MVC No.1092/2023
PETITIONER/S: Shakeel Pasha,
S/o. Syed Ubed Ulla,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at. Santhekallahalli village,
Santhekallahalli post,
Kaiwara Hobli,
Chintamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District
(By Sri.V. Pille Gowda., Adv.,)
V/s.
RESPONDENTS: 1. Nalabasannagari,
Raveendranatha Reddy,
S/o. N. Chengalarayappa Reddy,
R/at No.28, 104, Kothapeta,
Punganur, Chittoor District,
SCCH-17 2 MVC No.1092/2023
Andhra Pradesh -517 247
(Exparte)
2. The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., No.301, 2B, Unity
Building Annexe,
Near Mission school,
11th A Cross, P. Kalinga Rao Road,
Mission Road, Bangalore - 560 027
(By Smt. Padma S. Uttur, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 30.01.2023.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 30.01.2023 at about 9.30 p.m., the petitioner was traveling in a Tata Indica Car bearing No. KA-02-P- 0530 from Chintamani to his house at Santhekallahalli village and when he reached near Vijakuru gate, Bangalore-Kadappa road, the driver of Ashok Leyland lorry bearing No. AP-04-W-1998 drove the same in a rash SCCH-17 3 MVC No.1092/2023 and negligent manner came in front of the petitioner's vehicle and dashed against the car. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries to face and other parts of the body.
Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Chintamani Govt. Hospital, wherein first aid was given and shifted to KG hospital, Bangalore wherein he took treatment as an inpatient and spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses.
Prior to the accident, petitioner was hale and healthy, aged about 26 years and working as mechanic and also agriculturist and thereby earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries petitioner is suffering from permanent disability.
The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. SCCH-17 4 MVC No.1092/2023 Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest.
3. After service of notices, respondent No.1 owner has not appeared before the court, hence placed Exparte.
Respondent No.2 insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement by denying the issuance of policy in favour of the first respondent. Further contended that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of petitioner himself and there is no negligence on the part of driver of lorry. Further denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The compensation as claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence the respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival contention, the following issues are framed by this court: SCCH-17 5 MVC No.1092/2023
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries due to the actionable negligent driving of lorry bearing No.KA-40-W-1998 by its driver, in RTA took place on 30.1.2023 at about 9.30 p.m., on Ban-
galore-Kadapa road, Vijakuru gate, Chintamani?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 17. Further, Dr.Girish G., who is working as Consultant Maxillofacial Surgeon at KG Hospital is examined as PW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P.18 & 19. Respondent examined the senior specialist at General hospital, Chinthamani as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1 & R2.
6. At the time of arguments it is found that while framing the issues the number of the offending Lorry is wrongly mentioned as KA-40-W-1998 instead of AP-04-W- 1998. Hence the issue No.1 is recasted as follows; SCCH-17 6 MVC No.1092/2023
Recasted Issue No.1:
Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries due to the actionable negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-04-W-1998 by its driver, in RTA took place on 30.1.2023 at about 9.30 p.m., on Ban-
galore-Kadapa road, Vijakuru gate, Chintamani?
7. Heard the arguments and perused the material evidence that are available on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under. Recasted Issue No.1 : In the affirmative;
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final orders
for the following:-
: R E A S O N S:
ISSUE NO.1 :
9. That by reiterating all the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu of- examination in-chief, which is considered as P.W.1. In support of his case, he has produced true copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, wound certificate, statement of SCCH-17 7 MVC No.1092/2023 witness along with photographs and charge sheet, which are marked under Ex.P.1 to 6.
10. On perusal of Ex.P1- FIR which is registered on the basis of Ex.P2 first information given by one Syed gowse who was the brother of the petitioner. After the registration of FIR as per Ex.P1, the Ex.P3 spot mahazar was prepared by the I.O. On perusal of the contents of Ex.P2 complaint and Ex.P3 mahazar, when the petitioner was proceeding from Chintamani towards Bengaluru, the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-04-W-1998 came from opposite side and dashed against the Car of the petitioner.
11. The contents of Ex.P3 mahazar reveals the damages of the Car, wherein the Car has got damaged in its front portion. Ex.P3 also contains the photographs of the vehicles involved in the accident wherein the front portion of the Car including the engine portion of the Car has got damaged and the Lorry bearing No. AP-04-W- 1998 has got damaged in its front right side bumper. No SCCH-17 8 MVC No.1092/2023 doubt that as argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 insurance company the petitioner not produced the IMV report but the photograph reveals that the front right side bumper of the Lorry dashed against the front portion of the Car. This establishes that the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-04-W-1998 has dashed against the Car by going to his right side. The respondent No.2 insurance company has not lead any evidence and also has not produced the IMV report to disbelieve the contents of mahazar and photograph. The copies of photographs and the mahazar helped the petitioner to prove the negligence of the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP- 04-W-1998.
12. Further on perusal of the contents of Ex.P3 mahazar and the copies of the photographs reveals the negligence of driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-04-W-1998, thereby no reasons are made out to consider the contributory negligence by the petitioner. SCCH-17 9 MVC No.1092/2023
13. Ex.P6 charge sheet is filed against the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-04-W-1998, the IO has opined that the negligence is on the part of driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-04-W-1998. No other grounds are made out by the respondents to show the contributory negligence from the petitioner. In spite of sufficient opportunities respondent No.2 except filing the written statement and cross examining the PW.1 has not lead any evidence in support of its defence. It is settled principle of law that any amount of evidence in the absence of pleadings cannot be considered. On the basis of summons taken by the respondents the RW.1 i.e., Doctor of the Chintamani appeared and produced Ex.R1 MLC and Ex.R2 police intimation wherein the date, time and history of the accident is properly explained. No other grounds are made out to disbelieve the case of the petitioner.
14. The respondent No.2 has filed written statement by denying the negligence and their liability. SCCH-17 10 MVC No.1092/2023 But the respondent No.2 has not lead any evidence to rebut the case of the petitioner. The owner of the offending vehicle has not chosen to deny the allegations of negligence. Thus, by considering all these points this court is of the opinion that the said accident is caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending Lorry bearing No.AP-04-W-1998.
15. The charge sheet is came to be filed on the rider of Lorry bearing No.AP-04-W-1998 for the offences punishable under Sec.279, 337 & 338 of IPC. At this juncture, I would like to quote the following judgment wherein it states that;
2009 ACJ 287 ( National Ins. Co. V/s.
Pushparama and others), wherein it is held that, Certified copy of the criminal court records such as FIR, recovery and mechanical inspection of the vehicle or documents are of sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that the rider was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings SCCH-17 11 MVC No.1092/2023 in a Civil Court. Hence, strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
16. In a claim for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319 Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others.
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530, wherein it is held that, it was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. SCCH-17 12 MVC No.1092/2023 The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.
17. In support of these documentary evidence, if we perused the oral evidence of the petitioner on this point, even though the respondent no.2 made a suggestions to the petitioner by stating that the accident was occurred by his negligence, nothing being elicited or produced to probabalise the said defence.
18. The contents of Ex.P3 spot mahazar and copies of photographs therein falsifies the contention of respondent no.2 about the contributory negligence of petitioner for the occurrence of accident. In this context by considering the contents of Ex.P1 to 6 this court tilts in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner has to prove the alleged negligence on the basis of the evidence and proof of the same on preponderance of probabilities.
19. As per well settled principle of law, the standard of proof in the claim petition like the present is SCCH-17 13 MVC No.1092/2023 preponderance of the probability. There are no grounds to disbelieve the case of petitioner in the absence of rebuttal evidence. All the materials available on record leading to show that, petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident took place on 30.1.2023 which is caused by the driver of the Ashok Leyland lorry bearing No.AP-04- W-1998 which belongs to respondent No.1. There is no reason to discard the evidence of petitioner. In the claim petition like present one strict proof is not necessary, but preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Accordingly, issue No.1 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
20. As already held herein above, the petitioner has proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which is caused by respondent No.1. Hence, the petitioner is entitle for compensation. Now the quantum of compensation is to be ascertained on different heads.
a) PAIN AND AGONY:- At the time of alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 26 years. SCCH-17 14 MVC No.1092/2023 Aadhaar card produced at Ex.P8 shows the year of birth of the petitioner as 1996, the accident was occurred on 30.1.2023, as on the date of accident petitioner was aged about 27 years. In the petition itself he has averred that immediately after the accident he was shifted to Chintamani Govt. Hospital and later shifted to KG Hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient. As per the discharge summary marked at Ex.P7 the petitioner was an inpatient from 30.1.2023 to 08.02.2023 and sustained teeth injury, lacerated wound over chin and multiple abrasions over face. To prove the nature of injuries sustained by him the petitioner has examined Dr.Girish G.Consultant Maxillofacial Surgeon at KG hospital as PW.2 and through him OPD files and and X- rays were got marked at Ex.P18 & 19. According to the evidence of this witness the petitioner sustained A) Upper and lower incisor teeth injury B) Multiple facial abrasion SCCH-17 15 MVC No.1092/2023 C) Malocclusion D) Lacerated wound over chin and forehead. And finally diagnosed the petitioner sustained mandible fracture and bilateral maxilla lefort I fracture. By considering the nature of the injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident Rs.1,30,000/- may be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
b) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced medical bills as per Ex.P9 & 16, amounting to Rs.3,09,312/- + Rs.2,300/-= Rs.3,11,612/-. These bills are supported by the prescriptions. The medical bills are not seriously disputed by the respondents and no grounds are made out to disbelieving these bills. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in combined with the alleged injuries the petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement of the same by rounding of the same i.e., Rs.3,12,000/-.
SCCH-17 16 MVC No.1092/2023
c) Loss of income during laid up period: The petitioner has stated that he was working as mechanic and also working as agriculturist and earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. To prove the said the petitioner has produced RTC and PAN card as per Ex.P15 & 17. In this regard petitioner has not produced any documents to prove his income. Such being the case, it is just and necessary to consider the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.16,000/- p.m. as the accident is of the year 2023.
As per the discharge summary marked at Ex.P7 the petitioner was admitted to KG hospital for a period of 09 days. Thereafter usually the healing period has to be considered for which in the absence of evidence, this court is of the opinion that in total four months period including 9 days inpatient period may be considered under this head as a loss of income. So, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.16,000 X 4 months = Rs.64,000/- during the laid up period. SCCH-17 17 MVC No.1092/2023
d) Disability;- To prove the nature of injuries sustained by him the petitioner has examined Dr.Girish G. Consultant Maxillofacial Surgeon at KG hospital as PW.2 and through him OPD files and and X-rays were got marked at Ex.P18 & 19. According to the evidence of this witness the petitioner sustained A) Upper and lower incisor teeth injury B) Multiple facial abrasion C) Malocclusion D) Lacerated wound over chin and forehead. And finally diagnosed the petitioner sustained mandible fracture and bilateral maxilla lefort I fracture.
He examined the petitioner for assessment of disability. Petitioner suffered disability of 35% and whole body disability at 12%. This aspect is not impeached during the course of cross-examination. SCCH-17 18 MVC No.1092/2023
The evidence of Pw.2 reveals that the petitioner has got permanent disability due to the fractures at 3 sites and also motor disability of jaw. The petitioner sustained with 4 injuries and diagnosed for mandible fracture and bilateral maxilla lefort I fracture. Further in the clinical examination the petitioner found with tenderness over right and left cheek (butterss), tenderness over mandible (symphsis region), Paresthesia over left and right infraorbital region and left mental nerve (conducted 2 point cotton test) and restricted mouth opening (25 mm).
The evidence of PW.2 also reveals that the petitioner ability of movements of his jaw and mouth is seriously effected. The disability assessed by the PW.2 is related to maxillo facial injury. Maxillo facial trauma is any injury to the face or jaws. The Maxillo facial injuries will effect the person in many ways including his food habits and daily routine works. The movement of jaws and also the bending forward will also be effected by the said maxillo facial injuries. In the Ex.P2 complaint itself it is stated SCCH-17 19 MVC No.1092/2023 that the petitioner was working as mechanic. Certainly the said injuries to his jaw will effect his daily work. The petitioner feel difficulty to bite hard food. Even though the evidence of PW.2 states that the disability of the petitioner in respect of whole body is at 12%, we need to consider the effects of the alleged factors on the working life of the petitioner. The disability in respect jaw and mouth are permanent. The functions of the jaw and mouth is not like earlier. The petitioner lost the ability of chewing hard food. This will certainly make the petitioner to have soft food and his food habits are going to be changed. By this, when the capacity of in taking of food reduces, certainly it will effect the functional ability of the petitioner. Thus, by considering the same the functional disability of the petitioner is assessed to 11% by holding that the alleged injuries will certainly effects his functional ability.
According to the petitioner he was working as mechanic. The disability caused to the petitioner may SCCH-17 20 MVC No.1092/2023 affect on his occupation to some extent. Hence, I hold that the petitioner sustained disability of 11% to the whole body.
At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 27 years. As per Sarala Verma's case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age of petitioner is '17'. Hence, I inclined to award future loss of income at Rs.16,000/- X 12 X 17 X 11 % =Rs.3,59,040/- which is the total loss of future income.
e) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE; As per Ex.P7 discharge summary, the petitioner took treatment as inpatient for a period of 09 days. As per wound certificate marked at Ex.P4 the injuries sustained by the petitioner are simple and grievous in nature. The evidence of PW.2 also reveals that the petitioner ability of movements of his jaw and mouth is seriously effected. The disability assessed by the PW.2 is related to maxillo facial injury. Maxillo facial trauma is any injury to the face or jaws. The Maxillo facial injuries will effect the SCCH-17 21 MVC No.1092/2023 person in many ways including his food habits and daily routine works. The movement of jaws and also the bending forward will also be effected by the said maxillo facial injuries. In the Ex.P2 complaint itself it is stated that the petitioner was working as mechanic. Certainly the said injuries to his jaw will effect his daily work. The petitioner feel difficulty to bite hard food. The disability in respect jaw and mouth are permanent. The functions of the jaw and mouth is not like earlier. The petitioner lost the ability of chewing hard food. This will certainly make the petitioner to have soft food and his food habits are going to be changed. By considering the nature of injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident. Hence looking to the treatment taken by the petitioner and injuries sustained he is entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards food and nourishment, conveyance.
f) ATTENDANT CHARGES: The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The petitioner has spent SCCH-17 22 MVC No.1092/2023 09 days in the hospital and there is no evidence or pleading in this regard to show that the petitioner is in need of attendant. But by considering the nature of the fracture as discussed above, it may be considered to award attendant charges at Rs.1,000/- per day i.e., Rs.9,000/- in total as the petitioner has spent 09 days in the hospital.
g) Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life:
The evidence of PW.2 also reveals that the petitioner ability of movements of his jaw and mouth is seriously effected. The disability assessed by the PW.2 is related to maxillo facial injury. Maxillo facial trauma is any injury to the face or jaws. The Maxillo facial injuries will effect the person in many ways including his food habits and daily routine works. The movement of jaws and also the bending forward will also be effected by the said maxillo facial injuries. In the Ex.P2 complaint itself it is stated that the petitioner was working as mechanic. SCCH-17 23 MVC No.1092/2023 Certainly the said injuries to his jaw will effect his daily work. The petitioner feel difficulty to bite hard food. The disability in respect jaw and mouth are permanent. The functions of the jaw and mouth is not like earlier. The petitioner lost the ability of chewing hard food. This will certainly make the petitioner to have soft food and his food habits are going to be changed. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 insurance company vehemently argued that the maxillo facial injuries will effects only the celebrities and not the petitioner who was working as mechanic. But the said contention cannot be accepted because even though the petitioner was working as mechanic the injuries to his face and jaw certainly effects once personal life and enjoyment. May be the degree comparing to the celebrities is less. Maxillo facial trauma is any injury to the face or jaws. The Maxillo facial injuries will effect the person in many ways including his food habits and daily routine works. The movement of jaws and also the bending forward will also be effected by SCCH-17 24 MVC No.1092/2023 the said maxillo facial injuries. The disability in respect jaw and mouth are permanent. The functions of the jaw and mouth is not like earlier. The petitioner lost the ability of chewing hard food. This will certainly make the petitioner to have soft food and his food habits are going to be changed. The petitioner admitted to the hospitals for the injuries sustained by him, which might certainly have deprived him of the basic comforts and enjoyment. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a reasonable sum of Rs.80,000/- under this head.
Future Medical Expenses: The PW.2 doctor stated that the petitioner has to undergo the surgeries for removal of implants Fetcher surgery of cost of Rs.1,55,000/- and dental expenses of Rs.90,500/- in total Rs.2,45,000/- . In this regard the petitioner also produced Ex.P12 estimation wherein the details of the estimated treatment cost is given and the cost is bifurcated for different heads. As already discussed the petitioner sustained Maxillo facial injury. The implants SCCH-17 25 MVC No.1092/2023 are still in situ. The petitioner is of 27 years old and the removal of implant is really needed. No other evidence is placed by the respondent No.2 insurance company to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P12 & P13. By considering the same Rs.2,30,000/- is awarded under this head as the detailed estimation is given which includes the cost for surgery, investigations, ward, consultation, medicines, treatment, scalling and polishing, route canal treatment and for procelin fused metal crown.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
a. Towards pain and agony Rs. 1,30,000/- b. Towards medical expenses Rs. 3,12,000/- c. Towards loss of income during Rs. 64,000/-
laid up period d. Towards disability Rs. 3,59,040/- e. Towards food, nourishment and Rs. 60,000/-
conveyance f. Towards attendant charges Rs. 9,000/- g. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 80,000/- h. Towards future medical expenses Rs. 2,30,000/-
Total Rs.12,44,040/-SCCH-17 26 MVC No.1092/2023
21. Liability:- According to the petitioner the respondent No.1 & 2 are the owner and insurer of the Ashok Leyland lorry bearing No.AP-04-W-1998. The respondent No.2 in its objection statement denies the issuance of policy in favour of first respondent. But in the charge sheet no offences are invoked by alleging the non existence of insurance policy in respect of offending vehicle. The respondent No.2 insurance company has not lead any evidence in support of their written statement.
The copy of policy is produced by the petitioner which shows that the Ashok Leyland lorry bearing No.AP-04-W- 1998 was duly insured with the respondent No.2 for the period of 25-06-2022 to 24-06-2023. The date of accident is 30-01-2023. No other grounds are made out by showing the violation of policy condition by the respondent No.1 owner. Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 insurance SCCH-17 27 MVC No.1092/2023 company shall indemnify the compensation on behalf of the respondent No.1. The petitioner is entitle for compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, this issue answered partly in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
22. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.12,44,040/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs forty four thousand forty only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses), from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
Out of total compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner, 75% of the same to be released in favour of petitioner through E- payment on his proper identification and SCCH-17 28 MVC No.1092/2023 remaining 25% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in his name.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of November, 2024) Digitally signed by KANCHI KANCHI MAYANNA MAYANNA GOUTAM Date: 2024.11.29 GOUTAM 13:35:36 +0530 (Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) XIX ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Shakeel Pasha PW.2 Dr. Girish G.
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 : FIR
Ex.P2 : Complaint
Ex.P3 : Spot mahazar
Ex.P4 : Wound certificate
Ex.P5 : Statement of witness along with photographs
Ex.P6 : Charge sheet
Ex.P7 : Discharge summary
Ex.P8 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar card
Ex.P9 : Medical bills
Ex.P10 : Medical prescriptions
Ex.P11 : X-ray CT scan along with reports
Ex.P12 & 13: Estimations
Ex.P14 : Notarized copy of DL
Ex.P15 : RTC
SCCH-17 29 MVC No.1092/2023
Ex.P16 : Medical bills
Ex.P17 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar card
Ex.P18 : OPD files
Ex.P19 : X-rays
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 : Manjula.
List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R1 & R2 : Notarized copies of police intimation and MLC register extract KANCHI Digitally signed by KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM MAYANNA Date: 2024.11.29 13:35:42 GOUTAM +0530 XIX ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.