Bangalore District Court
Sri.S.Udayakumar vs Sri.Nagaraju.L on 12 January, 2023
SCCH-14 1 MVC.2766/2019
KABC020120372019
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH14
Dated : This the 12th day of January 2023
Present : SMT. KUMARI SUJATHA
B.com.L.L.B.,
MEMBER, MACT,
C/C XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.2766/2019
Petitioner: Sri.S.Udayakumar,
S/o late Sadashivam,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.2, 1st Cross,
Anandapuram,
Mysore Road,
Near Vinayaka Talkies,
Bangalore 560 002.
(By Sri.K.Gunde Gowda, Adv)
Vs
SCCH-14 2 MVC.2766/2019
Respondent : 1.Sri.Nagaraju.L
(Since dead Rep.by his Lrs)
1.(a) Smt.Kalavathi,
W/o Late Sri.Nagaraju.L
Aged about 44 years.
1.(b) Satisha,
S/o Late Sri.Nagaraju.L
Aged about 24 years.
1.(c) Archana,
D/o Late Sri.Nagaraju.L
Aged about 19 years.
All are residing at No.262,
Link Road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore 560 020.
(RC owner of Tempo bearing
No.KA122037)
(By Sri.G.S.M., Adv)
2.Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Golden Heights, 4th Floor,
No.1/2, 59th 'C' Cross,
4th 'M' Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore 560 010.
Rep.by its Div.Manager.
(Policy No.OG19179118310004030
Valid from 06092018 to 05092019)
(By Sri.G.S, Adv)
SCCH-14 3 MVC.2766/2019
:JUDGMENT:
This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.20,00,000/ for the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic accident.
2. The substance of averments made in the Petition is as under:
That on 22092019 at about 12.30 noon, when the Petitioner was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing No.KA02 HU4721 near PF Junction, New underpass, Vattal Nagaraj Road, at that time, a Tempo bearing Regn.No.KA122037 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Petitioner's motor cycle and caused the accident. Due to the said accident, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner was shifted to Rajarajeshwari Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Apollo hospital, wherein, he took treatment as an inpatient. SCCH-14 4 MVC.2766/2019 He spent Rs.3,50,000/ towards treatment, conveyance and nourishments and other incidental charges.
Prior to the date of accident, the Petitioner was hale and healthy and he was working in National Tuberculosis Institute as a MTS GroupC and was earning Rs.54,973/ per month. Due to the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries causing permanent disablement.
The Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending Tempo and the Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the Tempo and therefore, both Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. Hence, this Petition.
It is to be noted here that on the death of Respondent No.1, his LR's came on record as Respondent No.1(a) to 1(c) and Amended petition was filed.
3. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents, Respondent No.1(a) to (c) and Respondent No.2 appeared before the court through their counsels and filed objections to the main petition.
SCCH-14 5 MVC.2766/2019
In the Objection Statement of Respondent No.1(a) to (c), they denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioner and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Tempo. Further contended that, the accident took place due to negligent riding of motor cycle bearing No.KA02HU4722. Further they denied the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident and the expenses incurred for the medical treatment. Hence, among these and other grounds, Respondent No.1(a) to (c) have prayed to dismiss the petition against them.
The Respondent No.2 in its Objection Statement has denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioner and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of tempo. Further it has denied the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident and the expenses incurred for the medical treatment. Further, it contended that the driver of the offending Tempo does not possess Driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, it is not liable to pay compensation. SCCH-14 6 MVC.2766/2019 Hence, among these and other grounds, Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following Issues.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 22.02.2019 at about 12.30 afternoon near PF Junction, new Underpass, Vattal Nagaraj road, Bengaluru, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tempo bearing No. KA122037?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award ?
5. In order to substantiate the case of the Petitioner, the Petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 14 SCCH-14 7 MVC.2766/2019 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.14. He also examined a witness as P.W.2 and got marked a document as per Ex.P15 and closed his side evidence. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1(b) got examined himself as RW.1 and got marked 7 documents as per Ex.R.3 to R.9. In the cross examination of PW.1, Respondent No.1 got marked Ex.R.1 and R.2. Further Respondent No.2 got examined its Senior Executive as RW.2 and got marked 4 documents as per Ex.R.10 to R.13 and closed their side evidence.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the following citations.
1. 2019 ACJ 713 (Gurmail Singh Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., and another)
2. AIR 2018 SC 592 (Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another)
3. CIVIL APPEAL NO.6902/2021 (Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another) SCCH-14 8 MVC.2766/2019
4. 2022 Live Law (SC) 646 (Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others) The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 has relied on the following citations.
1. MFA 100226/2016 (Smt.Padma and others Vs. Ramanjali Naidu)
2. CIVIL APPEAL NO.72207221/11 (Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar and another)
3. ILR 2010 KAR 2439 (Sri.Subash Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Manager and others)
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents and upon perusal of the depositions, documents exhibited and materials available on record and the citations relied on by the learned counsel for Petitioner and Respondents, my answer to the above Issues are as under:
SCCH-14 9 MVC.2766/2019
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No. 2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No. 3 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
REASONS
7. Issue No. 1 : It is the case of the Petitioner that he had sustained grievous injuries in the Road Traffic accident that occurred on 22022019 at about 12.30 afternoon due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo bearing Regn.No.KA122037.
8. On the other hand, the Respondents have denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Tempo.
9. In order to prove the case of the Petitioner, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and he also examined a witness as P.W.2 and got marked 15 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P15. P.W.1 has reiterated the Petition averments in his chief affidavit. Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are the True copies of FIR with SCCH-14 10 MVC.2766/2019 Complaint, Spot Panchanama along with Sketch, Statement of Witnesses, IMV report, Charge sheet and Wound Certificate. Ex.P.7 is the Discharge summaries, Ex.P.8 is the Prescriptions, Ex.P.9 is the Medical bills, Ex.P.10 is the Advance receipts, Ex.P.11 is the Salary slip, Ex.P.12 is the Certificate recommended for leave, Ex.P.13 is the copy of Aadhar card and Ex.P.14 is the Photographs along with CD.
10. Upon going through Ex.P1, it shows that on the complaint lodged by one Srinivas before Malleswaram Police Station, the PSI of the concerned Police Station has registered the case against the driver of the Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA12 2037 for the offences punishable under Sec. 279, 337 of IPC. Ex.P2 is the Spot Panchanama along with sketch which shows that the concerned police had drawn mahazar at the spot in the presence of panchas. Ex.P.3 is the Statement of witnesses. Ex.P4 is the IMV report which shows that the accident does not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the motor vehicles. Ex.P5 is the Certified copy of the Charge sheet which SCCH-14 11 MVC.2766/2019 shows that after thorough investigation, the ASI of Malleshwaram Police Station has submitted Chargesheet against the driver of the offending Tempo for the offences punishable under Sec. 279, 338 of IPC and u/s 181 of IMV Act. Ex.P6 is the Wound Certificate in respect of the Petitioner which shows that the Petitioner had sustained Extensive degloving injury of right lower abdomen, buttock, whole of right thigh and knee with extensive muscle necrosis and right saphaeno femoral artery injury with hypovolum shock. As per the opinion of the Doctor, Injury No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature.
11. Upon going through the Chargesheet i.e., Ex.P5 Column No.17 reads as under:
"ದನನನಕ 22072019 ರನದದ ಮಧನಹಹ ಸದಮನರದ 1230 ಗನಟಟ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ಈ ಪಪಕರಣದ ದಟದದಷನರಟದದಪಣನ ಪಟಟಯಲಲನ ಕನಲನ ನನಬರರ 12 ರಲಲ ನಮದದಸರದವ ಆರಟದದಪಯದ ಟಟನಪದ ನನಬರರ KA 122037 ರ ಚನಲಕನನಗದದದ ತನಹ ವನಹನವನದಹ ಮಲಟಲದಶಶರನ ಸನಚನರ ಪದಲಸರ ಠನಣನ ಸರಹದದಗಟ ಸಟದರದ ವನಟನಳರ ನನಗರನಜರ ರಸಟಸ ಪ.ಎಫರ SCCH-14 12 MVC.2766/2019 ಜನಕಕನರಹಟದಸನ ಅನಡರರ ಪನಸರಬಳ ಪಪವರ ದನದ ಪಶಶಮ ದಕಕನ ಕಡಟಗಟ ತನಹ ವನಹನವನದಹ ಅತವಟದಗ ಮತದಸ ನಲರಕಕತನದನದ ಚನಲನಟ ಮನಡಕಟದನಡದ ಬನದದ ಅದಟದ ಸಮಯದಲಲ ಸನಕಕ02 ರವರದ ತಮಮ ಸದಜಕ ಆಕಕಸಸರ ಸದಕಟರರ ನನಬರರ KA02HU4721 ವನಹನವನದಹ ಅದಟದ ಮನಗರವನಗ ಚನಲನಟ ಮನಡಕಟದನಡದ ಹಟದದಗದತಸದನದಗ ಆರಟದದಪ ಟಟನಪದ ಚನಲಕ ಹನಬದಯನದ ಬನದದ ಸನಕಕ 02 ರವರಗಟ ಡಕಕ ಮನಡದ ಪರಣನಮ ವನಹನ ಜಖನ ಆಗದದದ ಸನಕಕ 02 ರವರಗಟ ತದವಪ ಸಶರದಪದ ಗನಯಗಳನಗಲದ ಆರಟದದಪ ಟಟನಪದ ಚನಲಕ ಕನರಣರನಗರದತನಸರಟ. ಆರಟದದಪಗಟ ಸನವರಜನಕ ರಸಟಸಯಲಲ ವನಹನ ಚನಲನಟ ಮನಡಲದ ಚನಲನನ ಪತಪ ಇರದವವದಲಲ.
ಆದದರನದ ಮದಲಕನಡ ಕಲನ ರದತನತ ಈ ದಟದದಷನರಟದದಪಣನ ಆಗರದತಸದಟ."
12. Further, P.W.1 examined Dr.Pradeep.Y.V as P.W.2 and he also reiterated about the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in a RTA.
13. To rebut the evidence of P.W.1, the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1(a) to (c) and 2 have cross examined the P.W.1. In the crossexamination P.W.1 has denied the suggestions of the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1(a) to
(c) and 2 and nothing could be elicited to disbelieve the SCCH-14 13 MVC.2766/2019 contentions of the Petitioner.
14. Further, the Respondent No.1(b) got examined himself as RW.1 and he reiterated the Objection statement contentions in his chief affidavit and got marked 9 documents as per Ex.R.3 to Ex.R.9 and he also got marked Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 in the crossexamination of PW.1. In the cross examination, he admitted that the offending vehicle is belonging to his father and Charge sheet was filed against his father and his father has not challenged the same. Further, Respondent No.2 got examined its Senior Executive by name Prerana as RW.2 and got marked 4 documents as per Ex.R.10 to Ex.R.13 and she has denied the suggestions. But, she admitted that at the time of accident, the policy was valid. It is to be noted here that though the Learned counsel for the Respondents cross examined PW.1 about the date of accident which was mentioned as 18.02.2019 in Ex.P.4 i.e., IMV report, in this regard, the Respondent has not examined either IMV Inspector or Investigating Officer to prove his contention. SCCH-14 14 MVC.2766/2019
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the depositions and documents exhibited, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident is caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Tempo and in the said accident, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 1 in the 'Affirmative'.
15. Issue No. 2 : As the petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Tempo by its driver, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
16. In the petition, the Petitioner has shown his age as 56 years. He has produced Aadhar card to prove his age. In the Aadhar card, the date of birth of the Petitioner was shown as 10.08.1962. The accident taken place on 22.02.2019. Hence, the age of the Petitioner as on the date of accident was 57 years and the same is to be taken for consideration.
17. Further, the petitioner has averred that he was SCCH-14 15 MVC.2766/2019 working in National Tuberculoses Institute as a MTS GroupC and was earning Rs.54,973/ per month. In this regard, he has produced Salary slip for the month of February 2019 to show that he was drawing salary of Rs.54,973/ p.m. There is no dispute about his occupation. Therefore, by deducting the Professional Tax of Rs.200/, the income has to be taken into consideration at Rs.54,773/ for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
18. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioner is entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I COMPENSATION TOWARDS PAIN, SHOCK AND SUFFERING:
19. The Wound Certificate i.e., Ex.P6 and other medical records reveals that in the accident the Petitioner has sustained Extensive degloving injury of right lower abdomen, buttock, SCCH-14 16 MVC.2766/2019 whole of right thigh and knee with extensive muscle necrosis and right saphaeno femoral artery injury with hypovolum shock. Further, the Doctor has opined that Injuries are grievous in nature.
Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.75,000/ under this head would be just and reasonable.
I COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES :
20. Bearing in mind the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ under this head would be just and reasonable.
III COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID -UP PERIOD:
21. The Petitioner has averred in the petition as well as in his evidence that he was admitted as an inpatient from SCCH-14 17 MVC.2766/2019 07.05.2019 to 11.05.2019 and from 22.02.2019 to 01.04.2019 at Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru. Further, P.W.2 Dr.Pradeep has also reiterated the same in his evidence.
Upon going through Ex.P.7 i.e., the Discharge summary which shows that the Petitioner was admitted as an inpatient from 07.05.2019 to 11.05.2019 and from 22.02.2019 to 01.04.2019 i.e., totally for 43 days. Therefore, the total period which the petitioner was admitted as inpatient is 43 days.
But, in the cross examination, PW.1 has admitted that he has received his salary during the laid up period. Therefore, he is not entitled for compensation under this head.
IV COMPENSATION TOWARDS ATTENDANT'S CHARGES, EXTRA DIET & NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE :
22. Admittedly, the Petitioner has sustained injuries and during the laid up period, the Petitioner might have engaged an attendant and also he might have spent some amount towards SCCH-14 18 MVC.2766/2019 extra diet and nourishment and for his conveyance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding compensation of Rs.9,000/ towards attendants charges, Rs.9,000/ towards extra diet and nourishment and Rs.9,000/ towards conveyance would be just and reasonable. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.27,000/ under this head.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENCES :
23. The Petitioner has deposed that he spent more than ₹ 3,00,000/ towards medical expenses and other expenses. In order to prove this fact, he has produced 39 medical bills i.e., Ex.P.9 which is totally amounting to Rs.72,277.36/. I have gone through the medical bills and the same are acceptable.
Hence, by rounding off the same, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.72,300/as a compensation under this head. VI COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS/COMPENSATION TOWARDS PERMANENT DISABILITY :
24. The Petitioner has alleged that due to the injuries SCCH-14 19 MVC.2766/2019 sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disablement and he is unable to walk, stand, sit and sleep properly for long hours and long distance, unable to do any hard work and also travel for long distance and unable to lift weight and drive any vehicle, unable to do any strenuous work as earlier and getting regular pain in right leg. Even in his evidence, P.W.1 has deposed to that effect.
Further, the Petitioner got examined doctor by name Dr. Pradeep as P.W.2 who also deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and examination he made. Further, he got marked inpatient records at Ex.P.15. He assessed whole body disability at 48%.
He has denied the suggestions putforth to him by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2. In the cross examination he admitted that in the second admission the Petitioner was gradually improved. Further, he admitted that the external wounds are healed. Further, PW.1 in his cross SCCH-14 20 MVC.2766/2019 examination admitted that his injuries are healed.
It is to be noted here that in the cross examination, PW.1 has admitted that he drawn salary of Rs.58,000/ on the last month. It showed that he is continued in the same job and he is earning. Hence, he is not entitled for any compensation under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
25. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering Rs. 75,000/
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000/
3. Attendant's charges, Extra Rs. 27,000/ diet, and conveyance
4. Medical expenses Rs. 72,300/
5. Loss of income during the Rs. laid up period
6. Loss of Future income Rs. Total Rs.2,74,300/ Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.2,74,300/ with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from SCCH-14 21 MVC.2766/2019 the date of this petition till the date of realization.
26. Regarding Liability: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has been occurred by the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA122037.
In this case, the Respondent No.2 has contended that the driver of the offending Tempo does not had valid Driving licence at the time of Accident. The Charge sheet i.e., Ex.P.5 also shows that after investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the driver of the offending Tempo for the offences punishable under Section 181 of IMV Act for not holding Driving Licence at the time of accident along with Section 279 and 338 of IPC. Apart from this, the Respondent No.1(a) to (c) have also not produced Driving licence of the driver of the Tempo.
The Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 646 in between (Rishi SCCH-14 22 MVC.2766/2019 Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and others) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has pleased to observed as under:
Motor Accident Claims The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving licence before appointing a driver.
Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving licence issued to the drive.
However, the policy of the offending vehicle is valid at the time of accident. In the decision reported in 2004(3) SCC 297 in between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Swarn Singh and others, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has pleased to held that the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which has been compelled to pay the third party under the award of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court has highlighted the concept of pay and recovery. SCCH-14 23 MVC.2766/2019
In the instant case, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and there is a breach of the policy conditions. It is a settled law that where the driver does not possess a valid driving licence, the insurer would still have to satisfy the compensation and thereafter to recover the said amount from the owner. Hence, by relying on the above said dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court, this Tribunal is of the opinion that at the first instance, it is necessary to direct the insurer i.e., Respondent No.2 to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners and thereafter, recover the same from the Respondent No.1(a) to 1(c) i.e., insured. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 "Partly in the Affirmative".
27. Point No. 3 : In view of my findings on Points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER SCCH-14 24 MVC.2766/2019 The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents U/Sec. 166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for Compensation of Rs.2,74,300/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of Award amount.
The Respondent No.1(a) to 1(c) are liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
The Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award and thereafter recover the same from the Respondent No.1(a) to 1(c) through due process of law.
SCCH-14 25 MVC.2766/2019
On deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.2, since the same is meager one, the entire amount shall be released to the Petitioner by way of E Payment after his proper identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1000/.
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 12th day of January 2023) (SMT.KUMARI SUJATHA) MEMBER, MACT, C/C XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : S.Udhya Kumar P.W.2 : Dr.Pradeep.Y.V Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P.2 : True Copy of Spot Panchanama along with sketch map SCCH-14 26 MVC.2766/2019 Ex.P.3 : True copy of statement of witnesses Ex.P.4 : True copy of MVI report Ex.P.5 : True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P.6 : True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P.7 : Discharge summaries (2 in nos.) Ex.P.8 : Prescriptions (11 in nos.) Ex.P.9 : Medical bills (39 in nos.) Ex.P.10 : Advance receipts (2 in nos.) Ex.P.11 : Salary slip Ex.P.12 : Certificate recommended for leave (3 in nos.) Ex.P.13 : Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P.14 : Photographs (8 in nos.) along with CD Ex.P.15 : Inpatient records (3 in nos.) Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 : Sathisha RW.2 : Prerana V.N. Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents : Ex.R1 : Photos Ex.R2 : Sketch Ex.R3 : Certified copy of order sheet in CC.3694/2019 Ex.R4: Original Insurance policy Ex.R5: Letter SCCH-14 27 MVC.2766/2019 Ex.R6: Letter Ex.R7: Discharge summary Ex.R8: Discharge card Ex.R9: CT Scan report Ex.R10: Notarised copy of policy Ex.R11: Copy of notice Ex.R12: Postal receipt Ex.R13: Postal acknowledgement (SMT.KUMARI SUJATHA) MEMBER, MACT, C/C XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.