Bangalore District Court
Mahaveera vs Mohammad Mohin.M. Aurodh on 2 December, 2024
KABC020303972023
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated:- This the 2nd day of December 2024
M.V.C. NO. 6470 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
Sri Mahaveera
S/o Chandaiah,
Aged about 37 years,
Private company employee
C/o. Sharmila Padival
W/o Rathnaraj Padival
Current address: No.27, Shri Nilaya,
8th Main Road, 15th Cross,
Muthyala Nagara, Behind Gate,
Mattikere
Bengaluru-560054.
Permanent Address:
Mahaveera, S/o Chandaiah
Karani Village, Sullaili Post,
Sagar Taluk,
Shivamogga District,
Karnataka -577401.
(By Sri.Mahaveera K. Jain Advocate)
SCCH-24 2 MVC 6470/2022
- Vs -
RESPONDENT/S
1. Mohammad Mohin M. Aurodh
S/o. Mohammad Muneer
Aged about 27 years,
R/at. No.398,
Yalakki Shettar Colony,
Plat No.27A, Dharwad District.
(Driver of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-25-MD-3731)
2. Mohammadh Musthak
S/o. Moula Saheb
Aged about 35 years,
R/at. No.24, Indira Nagara
Badavane, Y.S. Coloney,
Lakkanahalli,
Dharwad District-580004
(RC owner of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-25-MD-3731)
3. The Manager,
Bajaj Alliance Pvt.Ltd.,
No.1/2, 4th Floor,
59th C Cross, Golden Heights,
4th LW Block, Rajajinagara,
Bengaluru -560010.
(Policy No.OG-22-9910-1825-00079056
Valid from 27-10-2021 to 26-10-2024
(R1-By Sri. Parashuramappa G., advocate
R2-By Sri.M.L. Ladkhan advocate
R3-By Sri.Murulidhar Negavar advocate)
SCCH-24 3 MVC 6470/2022
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
That on 12-11-2021 at about 11.30 A.M., the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA- 15-F-0092 from Hubballi towards Dharwad and when he reached near S.D.M Medical Hospital opposite to I.O.C.L petrol bunk on P.B. Road, at that time the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-25-MD-373 came in opposite direction i.e., from Dharwad side in a rash and negligent manner without giving indicator suddenly took U-turn and dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle, result of which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to S.D.M Hospital, Dharwad wherein he was taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 20 days. So far the petitioner has spent Rs.7,50,000/- towards hospitalization and other incidental charges. Further he required huge amount for future treatment. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy. He was working as Senior Executive Director Sales at Modi Care, Indian Direct Marketing and SCCH-24 4 MVC 6470/2022 earning monthly income of Rs.75,000/- per month. Due to the permanent disability sustained in the accident, the petitioner is not in a position to do the said work and he needs an attendant for his daily activities and he has affected physical mentally and financially.
3. The respondent no.1/ the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-25-MD-3731 has filed written statement and contended that there was no negligence on his part and he was having valid driving license as on the date of accident.
4. The respondent no.2/ the RC owner of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-25-MD-3731 has filed written statement and contended that he is the RC owner of the offending vehicle which was insured by the respondent no.3 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The driver of his vehicle was holding valid driving license. His driver and himself were coming from Darwad, at the signal at SDM Hospital the respondent no.1 stopped the car till he gets the green signal to go forward, after the green signal the respondent no.1/driver took U turn by giving indicator to go back to Dharwad when the signal is given to the vehicles the opposite side vehicles are stopped from moving without looking at SCCH-24 5 MVC 6470/2022 traffic signal, the petitioner came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his vehicle .
5. The respondent no 2 has further contended that the petitioner was riding the motorcycle without having number plate and Dharwad traffic police station has registered FIR against the petitioner in which he has pleaded guilty before the Prl. Sr.Civil Judge and CJM Court, Dharwad and the Court has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable u/Sec.177 of MV act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Sec.177 of MV act in default of payment to under SI of 15 days.
6. Respondent no.3- The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,/the insurer of Car bearing Reg.No. KA- 25-MD-3731 has filed written statement and admitted the coverage of insurance policy and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. It is further contended that the alleged accident has taken place on 12-12-2021, whereas the claim petition is filed on 24-11-2022 i.e., after lapse of 11 months 13 days from the date of occurrence of alleged mishap, that there is an inordinate delay on the part of claimant in filing the claim petition. It is further contended that the alleged accident has occurred due to SCCH-24 6 MVC 6470/2022 the sole negligent act of the petitioner and at the time of accident he was not wearing helmet. It is contended that since the accident in question has occurred due to the negligent act on the part of the petitioner, the charge sheet is filed even against the petitioner as accused no.2. It is further contended that the driver of insured vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he had sustained injuries on 12-11-2021 at about 11.30 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Reg No.KA-25-
MD-3731 by its driver as contended in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What Order or Award?
8. The petitioner got examined himself as Pw1 and two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P28 and closed evidence on his side. The respondent no.3 has examined its Senior Executive as Rw.1 and got SCCH-24 7 MVC 6470/2022 marked documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and one witness is examined as RW.2.
9. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and perused the entire materials placed on record.
10. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative. Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
11. Issue No.1 : - In order to prove the negligence of the driver of the car the P.W.1 has filed his affidavit explaining the vivid picture of the accident that took place on 12-11- 2021 at about 11.30 A.M., when petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-15-F-0092 from Hubballi towards Dharwad and when he reached near S.D.M Medical Hospital opposite to I.O.C.L petrol bunk on P.B. Road, at that time the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-25- MD-373 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) came in opposite direction i.e., from Dharwad side in a rash and negligent manner without giving indicator suddenly took U-turn and dashed to the his motorcycle, result of which he sustained grievous injuries. P.W.1 SCCH-24 8 MVC 6470/2022 further deposed about the nature of injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent for treatment etc.
12. In support of the claim and to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.P1 to 7 which are the police records such as F.I.R with complaint, Statement of injured, spot mahazar with sketch, Seizure mahazar, IMV report, Wound certificate and Charge-sheet are the material documents to prove the present issue.
13. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Sri Raju C, case has been registered against the driver of offending vehicle in Crime No.134/2021 of Dharwad Traffic Police Station for the offence punishable under section 279, 337, 338 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer has filed charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 of IPC and against the petitioner for the offence u/Sec.177 of IMV Act for riding the vehicle without number plate.
14. So far as the allegation made by the petitioner against the driver of offending vehicle as to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of offending vehicle is concerned, the learned counsel for respondent no.3 by referring the evidence of PW.1 so also the IMV report has SCCH-24 9 MVC 6470/2022 submitted that respondent no.1 who is the driver of offending vehicle has already taken U turn and the petitioner who having seen the offending vehicle at a distance of 50 meters has rashly and negligently ride the vehicle and hit to the offending vehicle hence only the left front portion of the offending vehicle was damaged.
15. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 by referring the medical records at another breath has disputed the very involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and submitted that in the case sheet and MLC register at Ex.P19 and 20, there is mention about the petitioner sustained injuries due to skid and fall, hence the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident is doubtful.
16. In the light of the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for respondent no.3, if the materials placed on record are perused, nowhere in the written statement of the respondent no.3 they have disputed the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. It is not in dispute that petitioner has taken treatment at S.D.M college of Medical Science and Hospital, Dharwad. The wound certificate issued from the said hospital discloses the fact of injuries sustained due to "Road Traffic Accident". From S.D.M college of Medical Science and SCCH-24 10 MVC 6470/2022 Hospital the petitioner was shifted KMC Hospital, Manipal. In the outpatient record of KMC Hospital the history of injury is mentioned as "RTA". It is true that in the Nursing Assessment and Document Form dated 14- 12-2021 the history of injury is mentioned as "RTA skid and fall from bike". But in the discharge summary issued by S.D.M college of Medical Science and Hospital the alleged history of injury as mentioned as "fall from bike after hit by four wheeler". The discharge summary issued by S.D.M college of Medical Science is the initial document from where the petitioner has taken primary treatment. Hence, the history of injury mentioned in the discharge summary issued from S.D.M college of Medical Science has to be considered. Further in the evidence of RW.2 who is the driver of offending vehicle he has clearly admitted the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. Even in the written statement filed by the respondent no.1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle though they have disputed the manner of accident and the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle but nowhere have disputed the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. It is only after the medical documents relating to KMC Hospital, Manipal was produced before the court wherein at Ex.P19 the history of accident is mentioned as "RTA skid and fall", by relying upon the said entry, the SCCH-24 11 MVC 6470/2022 respondent no.3 has improved their version by taking defence in the evidence of RW.1 that the offending vehicle is not at all involved in the accident. If IMV report is perused, wherein there is mention about the damage caused even to the offending vehicle. If really offending vehicle was not involved in the accident no damages would have been caused to the said vehicle. There is no explanation from the respondent no.3 as to the way in which damage was caused to the offending vehicle if really offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. Hence, the materials placed on record clearly prove the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident.
17. If the sketch and spot mahazar is perused, the driver of the offending vehicle by driving his vehicle in the service road from Dharwad through S.D.M Hospital road, in order to go to IOCL Petrol bunk has taken U turn of the vehicle and dashed to the vehicle of the petitioner which was coming from Hubballi towards Dharward. Though the PW.1 has admitted that respondent no.1 has completed the U turn and though the learned counsel for respondent no.3 has bent upon submitted that the respondent no.2 at the time of accident has already taken U turn of the vehicle but if the sketch is perused, the petitioner was proceeding from east to west direction in the straight direction and the respondent no.1 who came from North SCCH-24 12 MVC 6470/2022 to south direction at the spot of accident has taken U turn towards Western side. If really respondent no.1 had already taken U turn and if really the accident in question had occurred due to the sole negligence of the petitioner then the rear portion of the offending vehicle would have been damaged but not the front left portion of the vehicle. If IMV report is perused, the left front portion of both the vehicles is damaged. It is further relevant to state here that the respondent no.1 who got examined as RW.2 though in the written statement has disputed the manner of accident and blamed the petitioner for his causing the accident but during the examination in chief theRW2 has deposed that while he was taking U turn the accident in question has occurred and RW.2 has pleaded ignorance as to on whose fault the accident in question has occurred. It is further relevant to state here that the learned counsel for respondent no.3 having summoned the respondent no.1 and having examined the RW.2 in chief, in the chief examination itself has posed leading question by suggesting the Rw2 to the effect that " the RW.2 by driving his vehicle from service road when reached near Petrol bunk has taken complete U turn and it is after taking U turn the accident in question has occurred in the road margin." Though the RW.2 has admitted the said suggestion of the counsel for respondent no.3 but if the sketch is perused, accident in SCCH-24 13 MVC 6470/2022 question has not occurred in the road margin but in the middle of the road. Further Rw.2 during his cross examination has admitted that he has taken U turn near IOCL petrol bunk without putting any indicator or signal and it is at that time the offending vehicle hit to his vehicle and that he has admitted his guilty before the JMFC Court, Dharward and deposited the fine amount. When it is the serious allegation of the petitioner against the respondent no1 that respondent no.1 without putting indicator or signal has taken U turn and caused for the accident and when Rw.2 who is the driver of the offending vehicle himself has admitted the said fact, under such circumstance it can be said that respondent no.1 alone has contributed negligence Hence, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for respondent no.3 rendered in MFA No.1205/2021 c/w MFA No.1803/2021 and in MFA No.312/2013 c/w MFA No.313/2013 has no application to the case in hand. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
18. Issue No.2:- The petitioner has given evidence to the effect of his sustained grievous injuries. As observed earlier, petitioner has produced medical documents i.e., Wound certificate and Discharge summary which are marked at Ex.P.6 and P14. On going through the medical documents, it reveals that petitioner has taken primary SCCH-24 14 MVC 6470/2022 treatment at Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College of Medical Science and Hospital from 12-12-2021 to 13-12-2021 and taken further treatment as an inpatient at Kasturba Hospital, Manipal from 14-12-2021 to 20-12-2021 and he has taken further treatment as an inpatient from 06-01-2022 to 08-01-2022 in all for a period of 12 days. As per the wound certificate, petitioner has sustained 12 injuries among them injury No.2 to 7, 9 to 12 are grievous in nature and injury No.1 and 8 are simple in nature.
19. Dr.Nagaraj B.N. -Orthopedic surgeon at Sai Ortho and Dental Center is examined as Pw3 and through him Disability Assessment report and X-ray films are got marked as Ex.P.27 and 28. P.W.3 has deposed that he examined the petitioner clinically, radiologically for assessment of disability. PW.3 further deposed that petitioner has suffered permanent disability of left arm at 32% and to the whole body at 28%, that the petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implant the estimate cost of the said surgery is around Rs.60,000/- and needs tendon transfer surgery for the right lower limb foot drop the approximate cost is around Rs.1,00,000/-.
20. Hence, considering the nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment taken this court is of the SCCH-24 15 MVC 6470/2022 opinion that petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads.
21. Towards pain and sufferings, petitioner shown to have sustained 10 grievous injuries. Hence taking in to consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and time taken for treatment and sufferings during the treatment it is reasonable to hold that petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering.
22. So far as the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner is concerned , he has produced medical bill for Rs.75,485/- as per Ex.P.15. In the cross examination of PW.1 nothing worth is elicited to disprove these bills but only suggestions are put about creation of medical bills and said suggestion has been denied by the Pw1. As such petitioner is entitled for Rs.75,485/- under the head medical expenses.
23. It is stated that petitioner was aged about 37 years and he was working as Senior Sales Manager at Modi Care and thereby earning Rs.75,000/- p.m. But to substantiate the said contention, the petitioner has not produced any materials. Hence this court considering the age of the petitioner, the year of accident and place of SCCH-24 16 MVC 6470/2022 residence of the petitioner considers the income of the petitioner as Rs.15,000/- p.m.
24. The petitioner has sustained grievous injury and taken treatment for 11 days as an inpatient. Hence the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner which are grievous in nature it is reasonable to hold that period of three months as complete laid down period. Hence taking in to consideration the avocation of the petitioner and loss of income caused from the said avocation this court takes the loss of income during laid down period as Rs.15,000/- p.m. for three months. Hence petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.45,000/- towards loss of income during the laid down period .
25. From the evidence of Pw1 and as borne out by medical records, petitioner has taken treatment for several times. Further for 11 days of hospitalization requires an attendant, was traveled to hospital for treatment. He has taken nourishment and need further nourishment at this age and incurred other incidental expenses. Therefore all together incidental expenses is assessed at Rs.30,000/- taking in to consideration the cost of living and value of the money during the year 2021.
SCCH-24 17 MVC 6470/202226. The PW.3 has assessed the disability of petitioner on whole body at 28%. If the evidence of PW.3 is carefully perused, at first he is not a treating doctor. At no point of time he had given treatment to the petitioner. It is admitted by PW.3 that he has not verified the document pertaining to the follow up treatment taken by the petitioner. It is only for assessing the disability the petitioner has come to his hospital. As per the evidence of Pw.3 the fractures are united and nowhere in the discharge summary is the nature of sciatic nerve injury mentioned as to whether it is mild, moderate and severe. In spite of that the PW.3 has deposed that the sciatic nerve injury suffered by the petitioner is severe in nature. It is admitted by PW.3 of the suggestion posed by the respondent no.3 that if petitioner has suffered severe sciatic nerve injury same would have been mentioned in the discharge summary. As per the evidence of Pw.3 now it is the right time to remove the implant and that after the removal of implant the petitioner can be suggested to under go physiotherapy treatment. It is further admitted that from physiotherapy treatment, the stability component can be regained. It is further deposed by PW.3 that petitioner has to undergo one more surgery and after undergoing future surgery if disability is assessed there may be reduction in the percentage of disability . From the aforesaid evidence of PW.3 it can be gathered that the SCCH-24 18 MVC 6470/2022 PW.3 has assessed the disability at premature stage. Further though the PW.3 has deposed that petitioner require Rs.1,60,000/- for future treatment but he has not given any estimation to that effect. For the treatment for a period of 11 days taken by the petitioner he had incurred medical expenses only to the tune of Rs.75, 485/-. But the PW.3 states that petitioner requires Rs.1,60,000/- for removal of implant and for tendon transfer surgery. Hence, the evidence given by PW.3 cannot be accepted in whole.
27. The percentage of disability can be considered to assess the loss of future earnings. Now the court has to determine whether due to the accidental injuries sustained by the petitioner it has affected the future earning capacity of the petitioner. If the evidence of PW.1 is read in whole, he deposed that he was working as Senior Sales Manager at Modi Care. In the cross examination, PW.1 has deposed that he has not resigned the job, that even after the accident he can continue the said job but he has not continued the said job, that his employer has not removed him from the job and that the treated doctor or any other medical officer has not given any disability certificate stating that he is unable to continue the earlier job. From the aforesaid evidence of the PW.1 it can be gathered that he is competent and capable SCCH-24 19 MVC 6470/2022 to continue his earlier job but he himself stated to have left the job. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 at this juncture has referred the judgment rendered in MFA No.1449/2023 c/w MFA No.3330/2023 between Iffco Tokio GIC Ltd., Vs. Smt. Jayashree M & Ors., In the said case, the petitioner her own has left the job due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident and she was not removed from job by the employer. In the given set fact it was observed that injured petitioner is not entitled for loss of future income due to the disability suffered by her and therefore he was awarded with compensation under the head loss of amenities and nominal amount was awarded towards the loss of income due to disability.
28. In the present case also, petitioner has sustained some amount of disability but not to the extent as assessed by the Pw.3. Further the petitioner was not removed from the job. Hence, he is not entitled for compensation under the head loss of future income due to disability but he is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of amenities to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. By looking at the facts and circumstances the petitioner suffered facture injuries and definitely it will cause some disability. Hence, he is entitled for compensation towards the loss of income due to disability to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
SCCH-24 20 MVC 6470/202229. As per the evidence of Pw3, the petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implant the estimate of this surgery is around Rs.60,000/- and needs tendon transfer surgery for the right lower limb foot drop the approximate cost is around Rs.1,00,000/-. No estimation is given to the aforesaid effect, hence this court inclines to award compensation under the head future medical expenses only to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Thereby petitioner is entitled to the compensation as under:
Sl.No Heads Amount Rs.
1. Towards pain & sufferings Rs.75,000/-
2. Towards Conveyance, Attendant Rs.30,000/-
charges and nourishing food
3. Towards loss of income during Rs.45,000/-
laid up period
4. Loss of income due to disability Rs.50,000/-
5. Medical expenses Rs.75,485/-
6. Loss of amenities Rs.75,000/-
7. Future medical expenses Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.4,00,485/-
SCCH-24 21 MVC 6470/2022
Therefore this court holds that petitioner is entitled for Rs.4,00,485/- (Rupees Four Lakh Four Hundred Eighty Five only).
30. As regarding liability is concerned, there is no dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with 3rd respondent and policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further the driver of the offending vehicle had driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Hence it can be said that all the documents pertaining to the vehicle in question was valid and in force as on the date of accident. Hence by fastening liability on the respondent no.3 this court directs the respondent no.3 to pay compensation to the petitioner along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment of entire amount. Accordingly Issue No. 2 is answered.
31. Issue No.3: In the light of findings given on Issue No.1 and 2, my finding on this issue is as per the following final order.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
SCCH-24 22 MVC 6470/2022The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,00,485/- (Rupees Four Lakh Four Hundred Eighty Five only) with interest at 6% p.a. on Rs.3,50,485/- from the date of petition till its realization.
The Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation and is directed to deposit the compensation along with interest within two months from the date of award.
On deposit of the compensation amount and interest, 40% of compensation payable to the petitioner shall be deposited in his name in any nationalized bank of the choice of petitioner for a period of 3 years and the remaining 60% shall be released to the petitioner through E-payment on proper identification.
Advocates' fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 2 nd day of December 2024.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
SCCH-24 23 MVC 6470/2022ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of petitioner:-
PW.1 - Mr. Mahaveera PW.2 - Mr. Arun Survana PW.3 - Dr. Nagaraj B.N.,
List of documents marked on behalf of petitioner:-
Ex.P1 - True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 - True copy of statement of injured
Ex.P3 - True copy of Spot mahazar with sketch
Ex.P4 - True copy of Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P5 - True copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 - True copy of Wound certificate
Ex. P7 - True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P8 - True copy of Insurance policy of the
vehicle of petitioner
Ex.P9 - Notarized copy of Aadhar card of
petitioner(compared with original and returned) Ex.P10 - Notarized copy of DL of petitioner (compared with original and returned) Ex.P11 - Notarized copy of RC of petitioner (compared with original and returned) Ex.P12 - True copy of the Insurance policy of the offending vehicle Ex.P13 - True copy of DL of the driver of offending vehicle.
Ex.P14 - Discharge summary
Ex.P15 - Medical bills and Prescription
SCCH-24 24 MVC 6470/2022
Ex.P16 - Invoice for hired bill of vehicle (marked
subject to objection and proof)
Ex.P17 - Prescriptions and hospital receipts
Ex.P.18 - Receipts for vehicle expenses incurred for
hospital purposes
Ex.P.19 - OP records
Ex.P.20 - Admission record IP No.523664
Ex.P.21 - Admission record IP No.519136 admission
record sheets
Ex.P.22 - Attested copy of Police Intimation and
Accident Register (compared with original and original is returned to the party) Ex.P.23 - CT Scan film 1 in no.
Ex.P.24 - X-ray films 4 in nos. Ex.P.25 - Treatment Certificate dated 18-12-2023 Ex.P.26 - Disability Certificate dated 12-12-2023. Ex.P.27 - Disability assessment report Ex.P.28 - X-ray film
List of witness examined on behalf of respondents:-
Rw.1 - Ruchitha Renukesh RW.2 - Mohammed Mohin
List of documents marked on behalf of respondents:-
Ex.R1 - Authorization letter
Ex.R2 - True copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.R3 - Letter sent to insured along with postal
acknowledgment receipts
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.