Bangalore District Court
Peu Paul vs Shamanth .S. Hathwar on 19 June, 2025
SCCH-2 1 M.V.C.No.3717/2022
KABC020204132022
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AND MACT, BENGALURU. (SCCH-2).
M.V.C.No.3717/2022
:: Present ::
Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
VIth Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM and MACT,
Bengaluru.
Dated on this 19th day of June, 2025.
Petitioner : Smt. Peu Paul,
W/o Abhishek Dutta,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at # 193, Sanchita Kunj,
Noapara. P.S., Ichapur Nawabganj,
North Twenty Four Parganas,
West Bengal-743 144.
(By Champa C., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Respondents 1. Shamanth S Hathwar,
S/o Srinivas K.,
R/at No.15, 4th Block,
4th Stage, 17th Cross,
Basaveshwaranagara,
Bangalore-560 079.
(Ex-parte)
SCCH-2 2 M.V.C.No.3717/2022
2. Liberty General Insurance Limited,
Office No.1, Alyssa
1st Floor, Rear Portion,
Old No.28, New No.23,
Richmond Road,
Bengaluru-560 025.
(By Sri. A.N. Hegde, Advocate)
:J U D G M E N T:
This is a claim petition U/Sec.166 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest for the injuries suffered by the petitioner in the Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 17.05.2022.
2. The averments of the petition in brief is as follows:
On 17.05.2022 at about 10.15 a.m., the petitioner was riding her Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-50-W-7105 in order to go to Nitte Meenakshi College. While the petitioner was proceeding slowly and carefully by observing all the traffic rules on BB road, near Bagalur cross, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, the Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ-2830 was riding by its rider with high speed in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the front portion of petitioner's vehicle. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down on the SCCH-2 3 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 road and sustained injuries to her left leg, right hand and other parts of the body and her vehicle was damaged.
Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Deeksha Hospital, Yelahanka, wherein she was admitted as an inpatient from 17.05.2022 to 20.05.2022 and diagnosed the comminuted depressed lateral condyle fracture left knee tibia and comminuted fracture right distal radius. The petitioner has undergone surgery in the form of ORIF left tibial condyle with locking plate and screws and CRIF for right wrist. She has spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medicines, bed charges, transportation, food and conveyance by obtaining loan from her relatives and friends. She has taken follow-up treatment as per the advise of the doctors and she has to undergo future treatment, for which she needs Rs.50,000/-.
Further, prior to the accident, the petitioner was 37 years, she was working as Admission Counsellor at Nitte Meenakshi College and earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries, petitioner cannot work as before the accident, she is suffering from unbearable pain, she SCCH-2 4 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 cannot walk, climb or carry weights and she became permanently disabled.
Further, the accident was occurred due to rash or negligent riding of Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02- KA-2830 by its rider. The Yelahanka Police have registered the case against the rider of above said Bullet in Cr.No.104/2022 for the offence punishable under Sec.279 and 338 of I.P.C.
Further, at the time of accident, 1 st respondent being the R.C. owner and 2nd respondent being the insurer of the above said Bullet are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/R.C. owner of offending vehicle remained absent and he has been placed Ex-parte. The 2nd respondent/insurer appeared through its counsel and filed written statement.
4. The written statement averments of the 2 nd respondent are hereunder:
This respondent has denied that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ-2830 was duly insured with this respondent SCCH-2 5 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 and validity of insurance policy. Inter-alia contended that, the liability if any is limited to terms and conditions of the policy and validity of all vehicular documents. There is no compliance under Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of M.V. Act. The accident was occurred only due to negligence of the petitioner, who was riding the two wheeler in a rash or negligent manner and came into the lane of insured vehicle and suddenly taken right turn without any indication. There is no negligence on the part of rider of Royal Enfield Bullet. The petitioner has filed false petition against the offending vehicle to get compensation. The rider of offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident.
Further, this respondent has denied the injuries sustained by the petitioner, period of treatment taken and amount spent by her, disability sustained by her, occupation and income of petitioner. With these contentions, 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:
SCCH-2 6 M.V.C.No.3717/2022
:ISSUES:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, she has sustained grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 17.05.2022 at about 10.15 a.m., while she was proceeding on Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-40-W-7105 near Bagalur Cross, on BB Road, Yelahanka, Bengaluru City due to rash or negligent riding by the rider of Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ-2830 as stated in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for the compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the case, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18. Further, she examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.24. P.W.1 to P.W.3 were cross-examined from the side of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 did not chosen to lead evidence.
7. Heard the arguments from petitioner side. No arguments addressed from the side of Respondent No.2. SCCH-2 7 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 Perused the records placed before the Tribunal. The findings of this Tribunal to the above referred Issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 :- In the Partly Affirmative.
Issue No.3 :- As per the final order,
for the following:
:REASONS:
8. ISSUE No.1 :- According to the petitioner, she has sustained injuries in the road accident. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ-2830 by its rider. In order to prove this issue, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 by way of filing affidavit in support of her oral examination-in-chief.
Hence, this Tribunal need not to recapitulate the same once again at this juncture. In order to prove this issue, P.W.1 has relied on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. Accordingly, Ex.P.1 is the true copy of FIR. Ex.P.2 is the true copy of complaint. Ex.P.3 is the true copy of spot mahazar. Ex.P.4 is the true copy of spot sketch. Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 are the M.V.A. reports. Ex.P.7 is the true copy of wound certificate. Ex.P.8 is the true copy of charge sheet. Ex.P.9 is the true copy of statement of eye witness. SCCH-2 8 M.V.C.No.3717/2022
9. According to the respondent No.2, the alleged accident was occurred only due to negligence of the petitioner, who was riding the two wheeler in a rash or negligent manner and came into the lane of insured vehicle and suddenly taken right turn without any indication. There is no negligence on the part of rider of Royal Enfield Bullet. The petitioner has filed false petition against the offending vehicle to get compensation.
10. In order to substantiate the same, respondent No.2 has not placed positive evidence. Further, to prove the alleged negligence on the part of petitioner, the Insurance Company has cross-examined the petitioner/P.W.1 in detail. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 to establish that the accident was took place only on the negligence of petitioner. Hence, the 2nd respondent has failed to establish the negligence on the part of petitioner.
11. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 between Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, "it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an SCCH-2 9 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied".
12. Again it is worth to rely on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2003 Karnataka page 493, between Mallamma Vs. Balaji and Others, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held at para 12 as hereunder:
" Filing of the charge sheet against the driver is also a prima-facie case to hold that, the driver of the said lorry was responsible for the accident and burden shifts on him to prove the same".
13. In the instant case, the petitioner has produced police documents. As per Ex.P.2, complaint was lodged before the Yalahanka Police Station. Thereafter, as per Ex.P.1, FIR was lodged against the rider of Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ-2830. On careful perusal of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 SCCH-2 10 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 and Ex.P.8, it appears to this Tribunal that, on the basis of complaint, the police have registered the case against the rider of Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ-2830 and Investigating officer has submitted Charge sheet as per Ex.P.8 after completing investigation. A careful perusal of Ex.P.7, it clearly goes to show that, the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. Further, on perusal of Ex.P.8 i.e., charge sheet, it reveals that, the rider of Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ-2830 has been arrayed as an accused. Therefore the above referred decisions are aptly applicable to the case on hand. There are no documents to disbelieve the case of petitioner. In other words the accident occurred only due to the rash or negligent riding of the Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ-2830 by its rider.
14. At the cost of repetition, the contents of complaint and charge sheet clearly reveals that, when the petitioner was riding the Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-50-W-7105, the the rider of Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ- 2830 came in a rash or negligent manner with high and dashed against the above said Honda Activa. The evidence placed on SCCH-2 11 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 record is clearly goes to show that the rider of Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ-2830 has caused the accident. The evidence of P.W.1 is believable. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
15. ISSUE No.2:- Already this Tribunal has observed that, the accident was caused due to the rash or negligent riding of Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ-2830 by its rider. It is needless to mention that, 1 st respondent is the R.C. owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation.
16. Age:- According to the petitioner, she was aged 37 years as on the date of accident. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.18 i.e., the notarized copy of her Aadhaar Card. On perusal of this document it appears to this Tribunal that, the date of birth of petitioner is mentioned as 27.02.1984. The accident was occurred on 17.05.2022. Hence, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident is 38 years. Accordingly, the age of the petitioner is considered as 38 years.
SCCH-2 12 M.V.C.No.3717/2022
17. Income:- According to the petitioner, she was working as Admission Counselor at Nitte Meenakshi College and she was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. Per-contra, the 2nd respondent has denied the income of petitioner. To substantiate her income the petitioner has not placed any documentary evidence. At this juncture, it is worth to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka decided in M.F.A. No.101144 of 2020 ( MV-I) on 05.07.2023, between Ananda Vs. Arun and Another, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Para 9 (b) as hereunder:
" In the absence of any cogent material on record, it is for the courts and Tribunals to assess the income notionally. The notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the accident of the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/-. In the absence of any material produced by the claimant to prove his income, it is appropriate to assess the notional income of the injured claimant at Rs.10,250/- per month, and the same is assessed as the monthly income of the injured claimant".SCCH-2 13 M.V.C.No.3717/2022
18. In the absence of reliable document and supportive evidence, the notional income of the petitioner is to be considered by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka referred to above. As per the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the accident in the year 2019 is Rs.14,000/- per month. In the instant case the accident occurred on 17.05.2022. By applying the method adopted by Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, the notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.15,500/- per month.
19. Loss of Future Income due to disability:-
According to the petitioner, she has sustained comminuted depressed lateral condyle fracture left knee tibia and comminuted fracture of right distal radius. In order to substantiate the same, she has relied on Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.12. It is relevant to mention that, respondent No.2 has disputed the injuries caused to P.W.1.
20. In order to prove the injuries, the petitioner examined medical witness namely Dr. S.A. Somashekara, Orthopedic Surgeon, Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, SCCH-2 14 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 Bengaluru as P.W.2. This witness has filed the affidavit in lieu of oral evidence. He has deposed that, on 21.11.2023, he examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and she has sustained above mentioned injuries in the accident. Further deposed that, the petitioner underwent surgery in the from of ORIF with PTLCP and screws for the fracture of lateral condyle tibia and CRIF with K-wiring for fracture of distal end radius.
21. Further deposed that, recent X-rays shows united fracture of distal end radius right and united fracture of lateral condyle tibia left with implants in situ. Finally he has assessed disability of petitioner to both limbs at 59% and 30% to the whole body and deposed that, the said disabilities come in the way of her working. P.W.2 has produced Ex.P.19, the OPD record and Ex.P.20, the X-ray film.
22. P.W.2 was cross-examined from the side of 2 nd respondent at length. During the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that, fractures are united. He also admitted that, he is not the treated doctor.
SCCH-2 15 M.V.C.No.3717/2022
23. Further the petitioner has examined another witness namely Sri. K. Radha Krishna Upadhyaya, Manager, Deeksha Hospital, Bengaluru as P.W.3. P.W.3 has filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. He has produced 4 documents, which have marked as Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.24. Ex.P.21 is the authorization letter. Ex.P.22 is the true copy of M.L.C. register extract. Ex.P.23 is the true copy of police intimation. Ex.P.24 is the case sheet.
24. On evaluation of the discharge summary of petitioner and evidence of medical witness coupled with wound certificate clearly reveals that, petitioner has sustained comminuted depressed lateral condyle fracture left knee tibia and comminuted fracture right distal radius and the said injuries are grievous in nature. Further, the said documents reveal that, the petitioner has undergone two surgeries. As such, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and physical deformity. According to the petitioner, she was working as Admission Counselor. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, she has deposed that, she was under leave for four months. During those period she has not received any salary. SCCH-2 16 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 She also admitted that, she has not produced the documents to show regarding she has not drawing salary for four months. Therefore, it is crystal clear that, after recovery the petitioner had continued her work. The evidence of P.W.2 clearly goes to show that, he has assessed the physical disability and not the functional disability. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under the head of loss of earnings due to accidental injuries.
25. Medical Expenses:- According to the petitioner, she has incurred more than Rs.1.50,000/- towards treatment, medicines, transportation, food and conveyance by obtaining loan from her relatives and friends. In order to substantiate the incurring of medical expenses, the petitioner has produced 19 medical bills marked, as per Ex.P.14 for Rs.1,46,728/-, 2 advance paid bills as per Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17. This Tribunal has carefully perused the medical bills. Apart from that, there is no evidence from the side of respondent No.2 to disbelieve the medical bills. After careful perusal of the medical bills, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,46,728/-, towards medical expenses. SCCH-2 17 M.V.C.No.3717/2022
26. Pain and suffering:- According to the petitioner, immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Deeksha Hospital, Yelahanka, wherein she has taken treatment as an inpatient from 17.05.2022 to 20.05.2022, which is evident from Ex.P.12 the discharge summary. P.W.1 has deposed that, she has sustained comminuted depressed lateral condyle fracture left knee tibia and comminuted fracture right distal radius. Already this Tribunal has observed that, the petitioner has undergone surgery with ORIF left tibial condyle with locking plate and screws and CRIF for right wrist. The petitioner has sustained pain because of said injuries and surgery. Apart from that, as per the evidence of doctor, it appears to this tribunal that, the petitioner has sustained physical deformity and she has undergone two surgeries. Hence, the petitioner has suffered a lot of pain and inconvenience due to accidental injuries. Therefore, by considering all these aspects, the Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of Pain and Sufferings.
27. Loss of income during the laid up period:-
Already this Tribunal has observed that, the petitioner SCCH-2 18 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 has sustained fracture injuries and she has undergone surgery. Further it reveals that, she has taken treatment as an inpatient for the period of 4 days. Naturally it shows that, she might have taken at least two months rest because of the injuries. She has averred that, she was working as an Admission Counsellor at Nitte Meenakshi College and she was earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month. But she has not produced documents to substantiate the same. Hence, this Tribunal has already assessed the income of petitioner as Rs.15,500/- per month. Hence, two months is to be considered as loss of income during laid-up period. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.31,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of income during laid up period.
28. Food, Nourishment and Attendant charges:- In so for as food, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges are concerned, the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatinet for about 4 days i.e., from 17.05.2022 to 20.05.2022. According to petitioner, as per the advise of the doctors at the time of discharge, she has taken follow-up treatment. The petitioner has not produced any documents in this regard. SCCH-2 19 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 Hence, looking to the injuries sustained and the period of treatment taken by the petitioner, she is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,000/- under the head of Food, Nourishment and Atttendant charges.
29. Loss of future amenities and happiness:- The petitioner was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. Already this Tribunal has observed that, the petitioner has sustained fracture of left knee tibia and right distal radius. Therefore, petitioner has to live with the said deformity for the rest of her life. Therefore, she might have suffered discomforts in life and loss of amenities. By considering the age, nature of injuries, percentage of disabiltiy, Rs.30,000/- is awarded under this head.
30. Future medical expenses:- According to petitioner she has to undergo one more surgery and future treatment, for which she has to incur more than Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner has examined the doctor as P.W.2. In his affidavit, P.W.2 has stated that, petitioner needs one more surgery for the removal of implants, which will cost approximately Rs.40,000/- in private set up. In this regard, the petitioner or PW.2 have not SCCH-2 20 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 produced any documents or estimation bill. Hence, by considering the injuries, and treatment and evidence of P.W.2, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses.
31. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
Heads Amount
1.Towards loss of Future income. - Nil -
2. Towards Medical Expenses. Rs. 1,46,728/-
3. Towards Pain & Suffering.
Rs. 40,000/-
4. Loss of income during the laidup
period Rs. 31,000/-
5. Food, Nourishment and Rs. 8,000/-
Atttendant charges:
6. Loss of future amenities and Rs. 30,000/-
happiness.
7. Towards future medical expenses. Rs. 20,000/-
Total. Rs. 2,75,728/-
Hence, petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable amount of Rs.2,75,728/-.
SCCH-2 21 M.V.C.No.3717/2022
32. Regarding liability and interest.
Driving License:- According to respondsent No.2, the rider of offending vehicle has no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. It is relevant to note that, as per Ex.P.11, the owner of the offending vehicle intimated the police regarding the rider of Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ-2830 had possessed the driving licence. Moreover, charge sheet submitted by IO does not reveals that rider of offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without valid and effective DL. Therefore, it can be inferred that, the rider of the offending vehicle was holding valid D.L. to ride the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
Insurance Policy and liability:- In the instant case, respondent No.2 has disputed the issuance of insurance policy with respect to Royal Enfield Bullet bearing Reg.No.KA-02-KJ- 2830. However, the owner of the offending vehicle furnished the policy details and its period in Ex.P.11. As per the contents of Ex.P.1, the policy bearing the No.P17025640 and its period from 02.05.2022 to 01.05.2023. The accident was occurred on 17.05.2022. It is relevant to note that, Ex.P.11 was not SCCH-2 22 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 seriously challegned by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it appears to this Tribunal that, the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, the respondent No.2 shall pay compensation amount to the petitioner.
Interest:-
In view of the decision reported in MFA NO: 30131-2019 dtd, 12.5.2020 and M.F.A.No.100090/2014 C/w M.F.A.No.25107/2013 between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and Others Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and Another, rate of interest on the compensation amount is awarded at 6% p.a. from the date of petitions. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the Partly Affirmative.
33. ISSUE No.3:- In view of discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following.
:ORDER:
Claim petition filed by the Petitioner U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs of the petition.
Petitioner is awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs.2,75,728/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Eight only) with SCCH-2 23 M.V.C.No.3717/2022 interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition to till the date of depositing of the compensation amount in the Tribunal.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation in the Tribunal within 2 months from the date of this judgment.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award Accordingly.
:APPORTIONMENT:
The scheme of investment is dispensed with as the compensation awarded is meager amount.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th June 2025).
(H.P. Mohan Kumar) VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru : ANNEXURE :
List of witnesses examined for petitioner:
P.W.1 : Smt. Peu Paul. P.W.2 : Dr. S.A. Somashekara. P.W.3 : Sri. K. Radha Krishna Upadhyaya
List of exhibited documents marked for petitioner: Ex.P-1 : True copy of FIR pertaining to Cr.No.104/2022.
Ex.P-2 : True copy of complaint.
Ex.P-3 : True copy of spot mahazar.
SCCH-2 24 M.V.C.No.3717/2022
Ex.P-4 : True copy of spot sketch.
Ex.P-5 & 6 : True copy of 2 I.M.V. Reports. Ex.P-7 : True copy of wound certificate.
Ex.P-8 : True copy of charge sheet. Ex.P-9 : True copy of witness. Ex.P-10 : True copy of notice issued U/Sec.133 of M.V. Act. Ex.P-11 : True copy of reply to the notice issued U/Sec.133 of M.V. Act. Ex.P-12 : Discharge summary. Ex.P-13 : Laboratory report. Ex.P-14 : 19 Medical bills. Ex.P-15 : 10 Medical prescriptions. Ex.P-16 & : 2 Advance paid receipts. 17 Ex.P-18 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card pertaining to petitioner. Ex.P-19 : O.P.D. Card. Ex.P-20 : X-ray. Ex.P-21 : Authorization letter pertaining to P.W.3. Ex.P-22 : True copy of M.L.C. Register Extract. Ex.P-23 : True copy of Police Intimation. Ex.P-24 : Case Sheet.
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
- None -
List of exhibited documents marked for the Respondents:
- Nil - Digitally signed by
HP H P MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR Date: 2025.06.20
17:36:22 +0530
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes,
and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru