Bangalore District Court
Dr.Sandhya Javali vs V.Raju on 5 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated: This 5th day of April 2019.
Present: SRI.MAHANTESH S.DARAGAD
B.Sc., LL.B.,(Spl)
III ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C.No.5206/2017
PETITIONER: Dr.Sandhya Javali,
W/o.J.S.Javali,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at No.669, 6th Main,
2nd Cross, HMT Layout, Ganganagar,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru-560032.
(By Pleader Sri.RKS)
/Vs./
RESPONDENTS: 1. V.Raju,
S/o. Vasu.T.G.
No.4/2, C.Ramaiah Layout,
R.C.Puram Main Road,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru-560097.
(Exparte)
2. M/s.Iffco Tokio Gen. Insu. Co.Ltd.,
2 MVC.No.5206/2017
SCCH-18
No.41, II Floor, Cristu Complex,
Lavelle Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
(By pleader Sri.SRM)
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this petition U/S.166 of M.V. Act against the respondents claiming compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- under different heads on account of injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case narrated are as under:
On 07-11-2016 at about 4.30 P.M., petitioner was pedestrian and she was about to cross the CBI road and step on the foot path near Pai Electronic Shop, R.T.Nagar Main Road, Bengaluru, at that time, the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-AA-9855 drive the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Due to the said impact, petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. Immediately 3 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 after the accident, the injured/petitioner was shifted to Bengaluru Baptist Hospital, Begnaluru, wherein, she has taken treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, after discharge from the hospital and as per the advice of the doctor, she has taken follow-up treatment as an outpatient and till today, she is taking treatment as an outpatient and spent huge amount towards medical expenses and other incidental charges.
3. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, prior to the accident, she was hale and healthy, aged about 63 years, working as a Professional Consultant at Head Start Educational Trust, Bengaluru and earning Rs.5,73,003/-p.m. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, due to accidental injuries, she has suffered permanent disablement and suffered lot and she is not in a position to work as she was doing earlier to the accident and lost her earning capacity and lost the income. 4 MVC.No.5206/2017
SCCH-18
4. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, the respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the alleged car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-AA-9855 and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car and as such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Contending the above facts, she prays to grant for compensation with interest and cost.
5. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed the objection statement. The respondent No.1 has not appeared before the court. Accordingly, he was placed exparte.
6. The brief contents of written statement of respondent No.2 are as under:
The respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy in respect to alleged car and the liability if any is subject to terms 5 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 and conditions mentioned in the policy. Further the respondent No.2 has contended that, the owner of the vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.134(C) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further the respondent No.2 contended that, the driver of the alleged car had no valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and alleged vehicle had no valid permit and FC at the time of accident and thereby the Respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Further he contended that, the alleged accident has occurred solely due to negligence on the part of petitioner, as she was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and injuries sustained by her and treatment taken by her and disablement suffered by her and medical expenses incurred by her. Contending the above facts, 6 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against the respondent No.2 with cost.
7. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, she had sustained grievous injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-AA-9855 on 7-11-2016 at about 4-30 P.M. near Pai Electronics CBI Road, Bengaluru?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate?
From whom?
3. What order or award?
8. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to 34, 40 to 46. In support of her evidence, she has examined one medical record officer in Baptist Hospital, and Dr.S.A.Somashekara as PW-2 and 3 and got marked the 7 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 documents as Ex-P-35 to 38 respectively. Further the branch Manager of ICICI Ins.Co.Ltd., is examined as PW-4 and one Accountant, Head Start Education Academy is examined as PW5 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-39, Ex-P-46(a) to 48.
9. To disprove the case of the petitioner and to prove the defence, the respondent No.2 has not produced any oral and documentary evidence.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
11. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the partly affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
12. ISSUE NO.1: During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner argued by reiterating the contents of petition and also evidence put forth by PW-1 to 5. 8 MVC.No.5206/2017
SCCH-18 Further he argued that, to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-AA-9855, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of police investigation papers and on perusal of the contents of those documents, it clearly goes to show that, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the alleged car. Further he argued that, to prove the disablement suffered by the petitioner, she has examined the doctor as PW-3 and as per the opinion of the doctor, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 39% to the right lower limb and 20% to the whole body. Further he argued that, the petitioner has proved her case as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
13. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following citations: 9 MVC.No.5206/2017
SCCH-18
1. (2017) 3 SCC 351 (Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atual Dande and another)
2. 2014 AIR SCW 2053 (Smt.Savitha Vs. Bindar Singh and others)
3. High Court of Delhi, MAC.A.No.693/2006 (National Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Sh.Aman Kapur and others)
4. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 SCC (National Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others)
5. Civil Appeal Nos.10588, 89/2018 SCC (Sebastian Lakra and others Vs. National Ins.Co.Ltd.,)
6. Civil Appeal Nos.11042/2018 SCC (Vimaladevi and others Vs. National Ins.Co.Ltd.,)
7. High Court of Delhi, MAC.A.No.291/2006 (National Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs.Dinesh Tiwari and others).
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement filed 10 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 by the respondent No.2. Further he argued that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, on the other hand, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of petitioner, as she was crossing the road where there was no zebra cross and without observing vehicles movements on the main road. Further he argued that, the petitioner has failed to prove her occupation and income as contended in the petition by producing proper evidence and documents and also she has failed to prove her case as contended in the petition by producing proper documents. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition as against the respondent No.2 with cost.
15. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has relied upon the following citations:
1. ILR 1998 KAR 1934 (Sri.Narasimhaiah Vs. The General Manager & another) 11 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18
2. ILR 2004 KAR 1104 (Koosappa Poojari Vs. K.Sadabba and others)
3. 2005 ACJ 1323 SC (National Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Prembai Patel and others)
4. ILR 2000 KAR 3443 (United India Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. D.C.Rajanna and another)
5. ILR 2010 KAR 2439 (Sri.Subhas Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and others)
6. 2005 ACJ 344 (M.Jayanna Vs. K.Radha Krishna Reddy and another)
7. ILR 2000 KAR 2009 (KSRTC Vs. George Ninum)
8. 2013 (1) KLJ 624 (DB) (New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Manish Gupta and another).
16. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I intend to discuss the case on merits.
12 MVC.No.5206/2017
SCCH-18 On perusal of the evidence available on record, it reveals that, the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and she has stated in her evidence by reiterating the contents of petition. Further in support of her evidence, she has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 34 & 40 to 46.
17. To prove the involvement of the alleged car and to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car, in support of oral evidence, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of police investigation papers and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 8 & 11 i.e. certified copy of FIR with complaint, spot mahazar, statement of 2 witnesses, notice, reply, MVA report, charge sheet and Wound certificate. On perusal of Ex.P.1 & 8 i.e. certified copy of FIR with complaint and Charge sheet, it reveals that, R.T.Nagar traffic Police have registered a case in Cr.No.552/2016 as against the driver of the alleged car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-AA-9855 and after completion of investigation, 13 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 the concerned police have filed the charge sheet as against the driver of the alleged car for the offences punishable U/s.279, and 338 of IPC. Further on perusal of Ex-P-9 and 10 i.e. certified copy of order sheet and plea in CC.No.18856/2016, it reveals that, driver of alleged car has admitted his guilt and paid the fine.
18. Further on perusal of entire evidence of PW-1, it reveals that, though the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross examined the PW-1 at length, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited from her to nullify case of the petitioner regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car.
19. Further the respondent No.2 has not produced any rebuttal documents and not examined any eyewitness or driver of alleged car to disbelieve the version of the petitioner. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and 14 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the oral version of the petitioner is supported with corroborative documents and as such, the petitioner has proved that, the alleged accident has mainly occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence.
20. Further on perusal of Ex-P-11 i.e., certified copy of Wound certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the above accident.
21. In addenda of this, in a claim for compensation U/S.166 of MV Act, 1988, the claimant has 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 Apex Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 319 (Kusum and others Vs. Satbir and others). 15 MVC.No.5206/2017
SCCH-18
22. Considering the above facts and circumstance of the case and on appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved this issue by producing proper documents. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
23. ISSUE NO.2:- The specific contention of the petitioner is that, she was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 63 years, working as a professional consultant at Head Start Educational Trust, Koramangala, Bengaluru and earning Rs.5,73,003/-P.A. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, she has sustained Fracture of medial malleolus with distal 3rd fibular fracture - right ankle and other grievous injuries in the accident and due to the accidental injuries, she has suffered permanent disablement and she has suffered lot and she is not in a position to work as she 16 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 was doing earlier to the accident and as such, she has lost the earning capacity and lost the income.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has denied the above contention of the petitioner in toto.
24. Further to prove the occupation and income, the petitioner has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex-P-15 to 20 i.e. Income-tax returns for the year 2015 to 2018, letter issued by All India Radio, Letter issued by Head Start Education Academy and experience certificate issued by Mount Carmel PU College, Bengaluru.
25. Further in support of version of petitioner, she has examined the Accountant of Head Start Education Academy as PW-5. On perusal of evidence of PW-5 coupled with contents of Ex-P-15 to 20, it reveals that, petitioner was getting salary of Rs.33,000/- p.m. in the year 2014 and since 7 years, petitioner was working in the Head Start Education Academy and she is 17 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 having other cur-culture activities. Further the petitioner has also produced certificates regarding her educational qualifications and the same are marked as Ex-P-26 to 33. Further the petitioner has also produced the payment receipt book and bank statements for having received the amount. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.33,000/-p.m., certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
26. Further to prove the disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara as PW-3, who has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner has sustained fracture of medial malleolus with distal third fibular fracture of right ankle. Further the PW-2 has stated that, the petitioner has underwent operation in the form of ORIF and stated regarding the difficulties facing by the petitioner and 18 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 disablement suffered by her. Further he has stated that, the petitioner has suffered total physical disability of the right lower limb at 39% and 20% to the whole body.
27. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-3 at length, but nothing tangible is elicited to nullify the case of the petitioner. On perusal of the entire evidence of PW-3, it reveals that, the PW3 is not a treated doctor and the fractures are united.
28. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW-3 coupled with documents and considering the age and occupation of the petitioner and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the disability suffered by the petitioner is considered as 17% to the whole body certainly it would meet the ends the justice.
29. On perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1, she has admitted that she has continued the same job, but she is having 19 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 difficulty to do her work as she was doing earlier to the accident. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2010 KAR 2439 in between Shri Subash Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., rep. by its Manager and others, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of future income.
30. At this juncture I relied the decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2015 KAR 167 in between Dr.Yashawanth Dongre Vs. Salman Rasheed and Others, in which it is held that;
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988---Section
173(1)---Accident claim---Judgment and
Award--- Appealed against ---Claim for
enchancement of compensation---
Respondent-appreciation of evidence on
record----Assessment of disability to the whole body---Courts to add a suitable sum by way of damages having regard to degree 20 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 of physical handicap---HELD, The claimant has got disability to the extent of 46%.
The doctor has not spoken about the disability with regard to the whole body. The claimant has permanent disability and thus has permanent diminution of his earning capacity, but he has been continued in the same employment without deduction of salary, the claimant is entitled for compensation for his handicap in the labour market. In many cases of comparatively not serious injuries, though there is some permanent disability, the disability has no immediate adverse effect on his salary. He may be getting the pre-accident salary.
However, such a man is at a disadvantage when compared with his co-workers in the labour market. It may so happen that he continues to work with difficulty and gets the same salary but if there is reduction in 21 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 the workforce by the employers, this worker with disability is likely to be sent off first.
31. On perusal of the said decision, it is observed that though the claimant is in a position to work physically after the accident as before, the after effects of the accident may make it more difficult for him to find work or to retain his work. There would be some degree of physical handicap. Since the claimant is continuing in her employment, she may be entitled for compensation under the head of reduced eligibility of employment, a suitable sum has to be awarded by way of damages having regard to her disability.
32. In the instant case, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and due to this injury doctor has assessed the disability to the extent of 20% to the whole body. Though the petitioner has continued her work but she has to suffer with the 22 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 said disability throughout her life and eligibility of her employment has been reduced due to the disability sustained by her in a road traffic accident. So, a suitable sum has to be awarded by way of damages having regard to his disability. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-under the head of reduced eligibility of employment or damages due disability.
33. Further on perusal of Ex.P-11 -Wound certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained fracture of medial malleolus with distal 3rd fibular fracture - right ankle Further it reveals that, as per the opinion of doctor, the above injury is grievous in nature.
34. Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of injuries and considering the age and occupation of the petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for 23 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 compensation of Rs.40,000/-under the head of pain and sufferings.
35. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 17% to the whole body and as such, the said disability may affect some extent on the occupation of the petitioner and the petitioner has to suffer throughout her life along with the said disability. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of amenities.
36. Further on perusal of case sheet - Ex.P.12 & Ex-P-14 i.e. discharge summaries, which reveals that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient from 7-11-2016 to 11-11-2016 i.e. for a period of 5 days at Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bengaluru and again from 7-2-2017 to 9-2-2017 i.e. for 3 days. Therefore, petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient totally 24 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 for a period of 8 days. Considering the above facts and looking to the period of hospitalization, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the head of attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges.
37. Further to prove the medical expenses, she has examined the Branch Manager of ICICI Insurance Co.Ltd., as PW-4, who has deposed that, as per Ex-P-39 - health insurance policy, they have reimbursed the medical expenses to the tune of Rs.1,29,000/- and paid the said amount directly to the hospital authority. Further the learned counsel for petitioner has sought reimbursement amount. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent no.2 has strongly objected the allotment of amount. Both the counsels have relied upon the Judgments. The Judgments relied by the counsel for Respondent No.2 do not applicable to the facts of the case. 25 MVC.No.5206/2017
SCCH-18
38. At this juncture, I have gone through the citation reported in 2013 ACJ 2478 (New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Manish Gupta and another), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench) in para No.25 of its Judgment held as under:
"Having said so, we are of the view that the amount received by the claimant under the Medi- claim policy is required to be deducted from the total compensation awardable to the claimants under the head medical expenses. Indeed we hasten to add, if the claimant has not received any amount under the Medi-claim policy, the Tribunal is required to assess the amount expended by the claimant for the medical expenses and suitably award with reference to the bills produced by them. We also observe that if the amount awarded under the Medi- claim policy is much less than the actual amount expended by the claimant towards medical expenses, the shortfall or the balance is also required to be made good by the tort-feasor, Therefore, the determination of compensation on the head of 26 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 medical expenses would in any case have to be made by the Tribunal. In other words, if the amount received under a Mediclaim policy is less than what has been determined by the Tribunal, the former would have to be deducted from the latter. On the other hand, if the amount received under the Mediclaim policy is higher than what is determined by the Tribunal, then no compensation under the head of medical expenses can be awarded by the Tribunal. We hasten to add that any compensation received by the injured claimant on account of an accident policy cannot be deduced from the compensation determined by the Tribunal. Also the determination of compensation on incidental charges is independent of the determination towards medical expenses and has to be paid by the tort-feasor without any reference to a Mediclaim policy that may be obtained by the claimant."27 MVC.No.5206/2017
SCCH-18 In view of the above said observation, the petitioner is not entitled any amount under the head of medical expenses.
39. Further due to accidental injuries, the petitioner might have taken rest at least for a period of 3 months as she has sustained fracture of medial malleolus with distal third fibular fracture of right ankle and she was hospitalized for a period of 8 days and as such, if 3 months income is awarded under the head of loss of income during laid up period and rest period of petitioner, certainly it would meet the ends of justice. For the above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.99,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up period and rest period.
40. Further the PW-3/doctor has stated that, petitioner needs surgery for removal of implant, which cost around Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/-. But he has not produced any supportive documents in this regard. However, the petitioner 28 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 has produced Ex-P-45 i.e. estimation letter issued by Baptist hospital, Bengaluru, which reveals that, said surgery requires Rs.32,810/-. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW-3 and considering the nature of surgery, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of future medical expenses.
41. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- under the following conventional heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Reduced eligibility of employment due Rs. 1,00,000/-
to disability or damages due to
disability
2. Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000/-
3. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
4. Towards attendant, nourishment and Rs. 10,000/-
conveyance charges
5. Towards loss of income during laid up Rs. 99,000/-
period and rest period
6. Towards future medical expenses Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs. 2,94,000/-
29 MVC.No.5206/2017
SCCH-18
42. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of petition and contents of objection statement, it reveals that, the respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the alleged car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-AA-9855 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further as stated above that, the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the alleged vehicle is liable to pay compensation with interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.2 in the partly affirmative.
43. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following; 30 MVC.No.5206/2017
SCCH-18 O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/S. 166 of MV act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- with interest @8% p.a. (future medical expenses does not carry any interest) from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, in view of the policy, the respondent No.2- insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount together with interest, 40% of the amount shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner, in any nationalized/schedule bank of petitioner's choice, for a period of 3 years and remaining 60% of the amount shall be released to the petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
31 MVC.No.5206/2017
SCCH-18 Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 5th day of April 2019).
(MAHANTESH S.DARAGAD) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. Dr.Sandhya Javali PW.2. R.Vimal Raj P.W.3. Dr.S.A.Somashekara P.W.4. Smt.Uday Sharada.S P.W.5. Smt.Suma.T.A List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint of RT Nagar P.S. in Crime No. 552/2016 Ex-P2 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex-P3 &4 Statement of 2 witness Ex-P5 Notice issued U/s 133 of MV act Ex-P6 Reply notice to U/S 133 of Mv act Ex-P7 MVI report Ex-P8 Charge sheet Ex-P9 Order sheet of the MMTC court in CC No. 18856/2016 Ex-P10 Plea in CC No. 18856/2016 Ex-P11 Wound certificate Ex.P12 Discharge summary 32 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 Ex.P13 Letter issued by attending doctor Ex.P14 Discharge Summary EX.P15 to 17 Income tax returns of 2015 to 2018 Ex.P18 Letter issued by All India Radio Ex.P.19 Letter issued by Head Start Education Academy EX.P.20 Experience certificate Ex.P.21 Inpatient Bill Ex.P.22 Payment details of Baptist hospital EX.P23 I.P settlement voucher Ex.P.24 6 X-rays EX.P.25 Notarized copy of Adhara card of me Ex.P26 Notarized copy of Appreciation letter issued by Mysore Hindi Prachara Parisath EX.P27 Notarized copy of Certificate of participation Ex.P.28 Notarized copy of Independent professional agreement Ex.P.29 Notarized copy of certificate of doctor of philosophy Ex.P.30 Notarized copy of Mphil certificate Ex.P.31 Notarized copy of B.AD certificate Ex.P.32 Notarized copy of M.A. certificate Ex.P.33 Notarized copy of B.A. certificate Ex-P.34 Payment receipt book Ex-P.35 Case sheet Ex-P.36 True copy of MLC register Ex-P.37 OPD card with examination report Ex-P.38 One X-ray Ex-P.39 Health Insurance policy Ex-P.40 HDFC Bank statement Ex-P.41 PF statement Ex-P.42 IP settlement voucher Ex-P.43 Union Bank of India statement Ex-P.44 ICICI Claim Settlement statement 33 MVC.No.5206/2017 SCCH-18 Ex-P.45 Estimation letter for removal of implants Ex-P.46 Hindi Book written by petitioner Ex-P.46(a) Authorization letter Ex-P.47 Agreement Ex-P.48 Notarized copy of Aadhar card List of witnesses examined on respondent's side:
-None-
List of documents exhibited on respondent's side:
-Nil-
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.