Bangalore District Court
Anne Nirmala.J vs Kanimozhi.P on 1 August, 2025
KABC020113342022
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDGE AND MEMBER,
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT TRIBUNAL & ACJM,
BENGALURU (SCCH-6)
Present: Smt. Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV Addl., Judge & MACT &
ACJM, Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF AUGUST 2025
M.V.C.No.1867 OF 2022
Smt. J.Anne Nirmala,
W/o Anthonappa,
Aged about 55 years
R/a # 468/492, 11th Cross,
Girinagar 2nd Phase,
Bengaluru-560085.
(By Sri. K.T.Madhu - Advocate)
.. Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Smt. Kanimozhi.P,
W/o. Prakash,
# 98/32, VOC Nagar,
Pudupet Post,
Attur Taluk,
SCCH-6 2 MVC.1867/2022
Salem District,
Tamil Nadu-636141.
(Owner of Lorry No.TN-77-M-7799)
(EXPARTE )
2. The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.9/2, 2nd Floor,
Mahalakshmi Chambers,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-01.
(Policy No.72040831210100000440
Valid from 13.05.2021 to 12.05.2022)
..... Respondents
(By Sri. Praveena.S - Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a petition filed u/s.166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, claiming for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest from respondents on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident.
2. The petitioner's case in brief as follows:
On 3-11-2021 at about 8.30 a.m. when the petitioner was travelling in the Innova car bearing No.KA-41-N-8669 from Bangalore towards Salem near AVR Roundana circle, SCCH-6 3 MVC.1867/2022 on service road, at that time, driver of the lorry bearing No.TN-77-M-7799 came with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly took right turn without observing the vehicles plying behind and right side of the said road and dashed against the Innovo car, due to impact, petitioner sustained injuries and took treatment at hospital as inpatient and spent money for treatment. Prior to the accident, petitioner was doing business and earning Rs.25,000/-p.m. and due to accidental injuries, she is unable to attend her day today normal activities and petitioner is suffering from disability and discomfort. Hence prays to award compensation of Rs.10 lakhs from the respondents.
3. In response of Tribunal process, the respondent No.1 remained absent and placed exparte. The respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement.
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement contended that driver of the lorry does not possess valid DL, SCCH-6 4 MVC.1867/2022 not having valid permit and FC and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. There is a violation of Section 134(c), 158(6) of MV Act. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is without any basis, arbitrary. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
5. From the above said pleadings this tribunal has framed the following issues :
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN-77-M-7799 on 3-11-2021 at about 8.30 a.m. from Bengaluru towards Selam near AVR Roundana circle, on service road, Selam city, Tamilnadu?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate?
From whom?
3. What Order or Award?
6. The petitioner examined himself as P.W1 and examined one witness as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 documents. The respondent No.1 got examined its SCCH-6 5 MVC.1867/2022 Administrative officer as RW-1 and got marked Ex-R1 to Ex-R5.
7. Heard arguments and perused the entire materials placed on record.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed following citation:-(1) 2020 ACJ 2560-New India Assurance co., Ltd Vs Yallavva and another
9. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 fled following citation:-1) MFA No.3297/2019- Smt.Adilakshmamma and others Vs Sri.Raju B and another
2. Spl.Leave petition No.11757/2025 (SC) -Mahaveer Vs The Branch Manager, United India Insurance co., Ltd., and others
3. 2024 ACJ 1914 (HC)-National insurance co., Ltd Vs Munaka Devi and others
10. My answers to 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 rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, petitioner SCCH-6 6 MVC.1867/2022 examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex-P1 to 9 documents i.e., FIR, rough sketch, IMV report, charge sheet, wound certificate, discharge summaries, medical bills and adhaar card.
12. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that at the time of the accident the driver of the lorry did not possess the valid DL to drive the lorry and not having valid permit and FC and contended that the accident has been taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car only.
13. In this regard on perusal of the evidence and materials on record Salnegil has lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional police based on which the City police registered FIR against the driver of the lorry bearing reg No.TN-77-M-7799. Thereafter the jurisdiction police after conducting the detailed evidence filed the charge sheet against the driver of the lorry bearing reg No.TN-77-M-7799 Senthil Kumar for the offence punishable under Section SCCH-6 7 MVC.1867/2022 279, 338 by holding that on 03.11.2021 that the complainant was the driving the car from Bengaluru in his own car bearing reg no. KA-41-N-8669 with his mother Anil Nirmala and his father Anthonappan to Velanganni at 8.30 a.m when he was in Salem road, opposite to the Krishna hospital at that time one lorry bearing reg No.TN-77-M- 7799 which was going in front of the car driven by the driver Senthil Kumar in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and regulation suddenly turn towards right side of the road and dashed against the car driven by the complainant and thereby caused the accident and due to the impact the petitioner who was sitting in the back side of the car sustained injuries to her leg.
14. On perusal of the sketch Ex.P2, the sketch both the vehicles were moving on the same road in the same direction and accident has been taken place on the left side of the road, the width of the road was 30 feet road. Even during the cross examination of the PW-1, PW-1 clearly SCCH-6 8 MVC.1867/2022 admitted that it was a service road and width of 20 feet and the lorry came from the right side and hit to the right side of the car and the said fact deposed by the PW-1 is not at all denied by the counsel for the respondent. Though counsel for the respondent suggested that accident has been taken place as the drier of the Innova car has not maintained the safe distance and due to his rash and negligence, accident has been taken place, but the said suggestion has been outrightly denied by the PW-1. Even PW-1 further stated that the driver of the lorry came in a high speed and hit to the car. Further PW-1 clearly stated that the driver of the lorry came from the opposite direction and hit to the right side of their car. Further PW-1 denied that due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the car, accident has been taken place. Further PW-1 clearly stated that as the driver of the lorry was in a high speed and hit to their car and this fact has not been denied by the respondent. Apart from this, respondent counsel has not placed any material SCCH-6 9 MVC.1867/2022 to prove that the charge sheet filed by the police is defective and collusive. Even respondent has not examined the IO or the driver of the lorry to disprove the evidence of the PW-1 or to prove their defence.
15. At this juncture, It is necessary to apply the citation reported in AIR 2011 SC 1504 between Parmeshwari -vs- Amir Chand & Ors - wherein it has been held that -
"In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. 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. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
16. Mere taking of defence is not sufficient to dislodge the testimony of other side, which has no sanctity in the eyes of Law. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 which is supported by police documents has to be SCCH-6 10 MVC.1867/2022 accepted. Consequently, I hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the driver of offending vehicle.
17. In addenda, in a claim for compensation U/Sec.166 of M.V Act, 1988, the claimant has to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'MANGALA RAM VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656. With this observation issue No.1 is answered as 'In the Affirmative'.
18. ISSUE NO.2:- As already discussed above the petitioner has proved that the accident took place due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for compensation.
19. AGE, AVOCATION AND INCOME: So far as the age of petitioner is concerned, the petitioner contended that at the time of accident she was aged 55 years. The SCCH-6 11 MVC.1867/2022 petitioner has produced the Adhaar card as per Ex.P.9, it disclose the year of birth of the petitioner as 1966 and the accident took place on 3-11-2021. So, as on the date of accident the petitioner was aged 55. The petitioner has stated that she was doing business and earning Rs.25,000/-p.m. The petitioner has not produced any document regarding her avocation and income. Therefore, the income of the petitioner has to be taken into consideration as notional income. In the absence of proof taking into consideration the date of accident, age of the petitioner and nature of her work, if her income is assessed at Rs.15,000/- p.m, it would meet the ends of justice.
20. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME DUE TO DISABILITY:- As per the Ex-P5-wound certificate, the petitioner has sustained injuries i.e., distal 1/3 tibia fracture. Ex.P6-discharge summary of Hosmat hospital the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient from 3-11- 2021 to 6-11-2021 and from 19-1-2022 to 20-1-2022 for SCCH-6 12 MVC.1867/2022 total period of 6 days.
21. It is the specific case of the petitioner that owing to the accidental injuries he has become disabled and has lost her earning capacity. Therefore she got examined Dr.Krishan Prasad as PW.2 who stated that petitioner had sustained injuries i.e., fracture left leg distal one third left leg with intra articular comminution. PW-2 assessed the disability of 49% to the lower limb and 17% to the wholebody.
22. From the careful examination of the medical records, it is seen that PW.2 has assessed the disability on the higher side. Be that as it may, the law is well settled that it is the impact of the physical disability on the particular avocation of the petitioner which is relevant for the purpose of assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future income as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajkumar's case reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. With regard to the disability in RTA cases, the same has to be SCCH-6 13 MVC.1867/2022 assessed on the principles laid down in 2011(1) Supreme Court cases 343 in between Rajkumar -vs- Ajay Kumar and Another.
23. Considering the nature of injuries, age of petitioner, occupation of petitioner, line of treatment and on appreciation of the clinical findings noted by the doctor, the possibility of the fact that the petitioner was doing business, certainly has to face some difficulty and disability to carry his avocation. Hence, economical or functional disability to the extent of 14%, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I consider the functional disability of petitioner at 14%. As per Sarla Verma's case, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of 51 to 55 is '11'. This Tribunal has already assessed the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.15,000/-p.m. Hence a sum of Rs.2,77,200/- (Rs.15,000 X 12 X 11 X 14/100) is awarded under this head.
SCCH-6 14 MVC.1867/2022
24. PAIN & SUFFERINGS : As per the medical records the petitioner has sustained the fracture and grievous injuries in the accident and he has sustained severe pain and sufferings due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and petitioner had sustained injuries i.e., distal 1/3 tibia fracture. Ex.P6-discharge summary of Hosmat hospital the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient from 3-11-2021 to 6-11-2021 and from 19-1- 2022 to 20-1-2022 for total period of 6 days. Hence petitioner is suffering from whole physical and mental pain and agony due to the injuries sustained by her on account of the accidental injuries. The petitioner being 55 years, certainly undergone severe pain and mental agony. Looking into the nature of the wounds and age of the petitioner, this Tribunal awards a sum of Rs.75,000/- under this head.
25. LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID-UP PERIOD:
By considering the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner and treatment taken by her and duration of her SCCH-6 15 MVC.1867/2022 stay in the in the hospital and sustained distal 1/3 tibia fracture. Ex.P6-discharge summary of Hosmat hospital the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient from 3-11- 2021 to 6-11-2021 and from 19-1-2022 to 20-1-2022 for total period of 6 days, it is quite natural that petitioner could not have carried out his avocation for at least 5 months. Thus by taking into account the notional income of the petitioner, this Tribunal awards Rs.75,000/- (15,000 X
5) under the head loss of income during the laid up period.
26. ATTENDANT CHARGES, EXTRA NUTRITIOUS FOOD & CONVEYANCE CHARGES: Admittedly as per the materials available on record, petitioner is a resident of Girinagar 2nd phase, Bangalore and has taken treatment at Hosmat hospital as inpatient from 3-11-2021 to 6-11-2021 and from 19-1-2022 to 20-1-2022 for total period of 6 days. and certainly, it cannot be disputed that petitioner is dependent on the others and during the course of treatment, the petitioner might have spent more amount SCCH-6 16 MVC.1867/2022 towards attendant charges, conveyance, extra nutritious food etc. Hence a sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head.
27. LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS :
The disability referred above would have necessarily caused physical deformity with which the petitioner has to live the rest of her life. Thereby the petitioner being aged of 55 years would obviously face depression, anxiety, disappointment & frustration and also suffer discomfort in enjoying the normal pleasures & joys of human life.
Considering the age and occupation of the petitioner and the nature of injuries, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under this head.
28. MEDICAL EXPENSES: As regard to claim of medical expenses, the petitioner got marked the medical bills as per Ex-P8 for Rs.1,04,037/-. In the cross examination, PW-1 clearly admitted that they have taken the reimbursement from the Star Health insurance and SCCH-6 17 MVC.1867/2022 hence they have produced the duplicate bills. Further PW-1 clearly stated that in respect of bill No.5 to 41, they have not claimed the reimbursement. In this regard, on perusal of the bill No.5 to 41, they are not the duplicate bills. Hence, petitioner is entitle for the medical bills in respect of the bill No.5 to 41 for Rs.54,073/-. Upon considering the above bills and injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, the resultant disability suffered by him due to such injuries, I proceed to award Rs.54,073/- under the head of medical expenses.
29. Future medical expenses:- PW-2 doctor has stated that petitioner may need fusion of the ankle in future if there is severe increase in pain, this will cost Rs.1 lakh only. The petitioner has not produced any document regarding his future medical expenses. However, by considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and say of doctor, this tribunal awarding Rs.80,000/- towards future medical expenses. SCCH-6 18 MVC.1867/2022
30. The calculation table stands as follows :
1 Loss of future income : 2,77,200=00 due to disability 2P Pain & sufferings : 75,000=00 3 Loss of income during : 75,000=00 laid-up period 4A Attendant charges, extra : 15,000=00 nutritious food &conveyance charges 5 Loss of future amenities R: 25,000=00 & happiness 1, 6 Medical expenses :
54,073=00 7 Future medical expenses : 80,000=00 Total 6,01,273=00 Hence petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,01,273=00.
31. INTEREST & LIABILITY: Counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence as on the date of the accident and hence the respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle has committed the breach of the fundamental terms of policy and hence respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. In support of his SCCH-6 19 MVC.1867/2022 contention, respondent No.2 examined RW-1 and produced Ex-R1 to 5 documents. RW-1 deposed that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective DL as on the date of the accident. Further on perusal of Ex-R3 Form AIR, the class of the offending vehicle is HGV and the DL with respect to the transport vehicle was expired on 1- 12-2020. As per Ex-R5 extract of the DL, it is clearly stated that the DL was renewed on 10-11-2021 and it was valid upto 9-11-2026. Further as per Ex-R5 it is clearly stated that the DL with respect to the transport vehicle was not valid for a period from 2-12-2020 to 9-11-2021 and it was valid from 10-11-2021 to 9-11-2026. The date of the accident is 3-11-2021. Thus it is clear that as on the date of the accident i.e., on 3-11-2021, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid DL. Thus respondent No.1 has committed the breach of the fundamental terms of the policy.
32. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner relying on the SCCH-6 20 MVC.1867/2022 decision- In ILR 2020 KAR 2239 New India Assurance Company Ltd Bijapuar by its Divisional Manager / Yallavva and another where in also similar observation is made and held that " the insurer is liable to pay the third party and recover from the insured even if there is breach of any condition recognized under section 149(2), even if it is a fundamental breach and the insure proves the said breach I view of the mandate under section 149(1) of the Act. But no such order can be passed against the insurer, if on the facts and circumstances of the case, a findings is given by the court that the third party ( injured or deceased ) had played any fraud or was in collusion with the insured individually or collectively for a wrongful gain to themselves or cause wrongful loss to the insurer.
33. On the other hand, respondent No.2 counsel relying on the decisions reported in MFA No.3297/2019- Smt.Adilakshmamma and others Vs Sri.Raju B and another -and argued that the insurance company cannot SCCH-6 21 MVC.1867/2022 be fastened with the liability to pay and recover when there is a clear breach of policy conditions and liability to pay the compensation is on the respondent No.1 himself.
34. In this regard this court has relied on decision reported in (2018) 3 Supreme Court cases 208 between Pappu Vs Vinod Kumar wherein the Hon'ble Apex court in para No.17 to 20 held that-
This issue has been answered in National insurance co., Ltd., In that case, it was contended by the insurance company that once the defence taken by the insurer is accepted by the Tribunal, it is bound to discharge the insurer and fix the liability only on the owner and /or the driver of the vehicle. However, this court held that even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the court can direct the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claimant(s) and in turn, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The three Judge Bench after SCCH-6 22 MVC.1867/2022 analyzing the earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well settled principle.
35. In the case of third party risks, as per the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh the insurer had to indemnify the compensation amount payable to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Doctrine of "pay and recover" was considered by the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh case wherein the Supreme Court examined the liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver and held that in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the compensation amount to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Elaborately considering the insurer's contractual liability as well as statutory liability vis-a-vis the claims of third SCCH-6 23 MVC.1867/2022 parties, the Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines as to how and in what circumstances, "pay and recover" can be ordered.
In para (110), the Supreme Court summarised its conclusions as under:-
"110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows:
(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in SCCH-6 24 MVC.1867/2022 themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
(iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish "breach" on the part of the owner of the vehicle;
the burden of proof wherefore would be on them, (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose"
and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of SCCH-6 25 MVC.1867/2022 the Act.
(vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.
36. Applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid ruling to the facts of the present case, admittedly petitioner is a third party to the contract between respondent No.1 and 2 and respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. In further it is not the case of the respondent No.2 and it is not even proved that there is a fraud played by the petitioner in collusion with respondent No.1 and driver of the offending vehicle in order to get wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the insurer.
37. Under the given circumstances this court finds it just to order the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner and then to recover the said SCCH-6 26 MVC.1867/2022 amount from the respondent No.1 under pay and recovery theory. Hence by fastening liability on the respondent No.2, this court directs the respondent No.2 to pay compensation to the petitioner along with interest at 6 % p.a. from the date of accident till the date of deposit of entire amount and then to recover the said amount from the respondent No.1. Hence this issue is answered as 'Partly in the Affirmative'.
38. ISSUE NO.3: In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
-: O R D E R :-
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,01,273=00 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pay the aforesaid award amount together with interest to the petitioner within 30 days from the SCCH-6 27 MVC.1867/2022 date of this order, with liberty to recover the same from the insured/respondent No.1 in appropriate execution proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd V/s Nanjappan & others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224.
After deposit of the compensation amount to the petitioner, 40% shall be deposited in her name in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of her choice for a period of 3 years and the remaining 60% shall be released to her through E-payment on proper identification and verification. However the said petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on her deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 1st day of August 2025).
(Chetana S.F.) IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.SCCH-6 28 MVC.1867/2022
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Smt.Anne Nirmala PW.2 : Sri. Krishan Prasad
List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 & : FIR and translated copy 1(a) Ex.P.2 & : Rough sketch and its translated copy 2(a) Ex.P.3 : IMV report Ex.P.4 & : Charge Sheet and its translated copy 4(a) Ex.P.5 : Wound certificate Ex.P.6 & 7 : Discharge Summaries Ex P.8 : Medical bills Ex.P.9 : Notarized copy of Aadhar card Ex.P.10 & : 2 Inpatient files 11 Ex.P.12 & : 2 Out patient files 13 Ex.P.14 : 7 X-rays
List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW-1 - Rajendhar Badhavath List of documents marked for the respondent/s:
Ex.R1 - Authorization letter Ex.R2 - Notice and postal receipt SCCH-6 29 MVC.1867/2022 Ex.R3 - AIR Ex.R4 - Insurance Policy Ex.R5 - DL extract copy (Chetana S.F.) IV Addl., Small Cause Judge & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.SCCH-6 30 MVC.1867/2022 SCCH-6 31 MVC.1867/2022