Bangalore District Court
Kum.V.Neha Vishwanatha vs The Managing Director on 22 February, 2016
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 4867/2014
Petitioners: 1. Kum.V.Neha Vishwanatha,
D/o . Sri S.Vishwanatha,
Age: 22 years,
Occ.Software Engineer,
R/o NO.164, Sumukhi,
4th 'A' Cross, CFTRI Layout,
Bogadi 2nd stage,
Mysore-570 026.
(By Sri Suresh M.Latur,
Advocate )
- V/s -
Respondents: 1.The Managing Director,
M/s.Sindhu Cargo -Service
Ltd.,
R/o NO.111 and 114,
1st floor, Connection Point
Old Airport Exit Road,
Bangalore -560 017.
(Owner of Canter
Bearing Reg.No.KA-03-D-
7976)
...exparte
SCCH 1 2 MVC No.4867/2014
2. The Regional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance
Co.Ltd.,
No.44/45, Leo Complex,
Residency Road,
Bangalore -560 025.
(Policy No.423000/31/2014/
8263
Valid from 30.11.2013 to
29.11.2014)
(By Sri B.K.Ramachandra,
Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:-
It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.09.2014 at about 9.40 p.m. , when she was travelling in a car bearing No. KA-05-MG-5661 near Bellary road, and when she reached near M.V. junction, at that time canter SCCH 1 3 MVC No.4867/2014 bearing No. KA-03-D-7976 came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against petitioner's car . Due to which petitioner sustained grievous injuries .
3. Immediately after the accident , she was shifted to N.R.V. hospital, wherein she was given first aid treatment and then shifted to M.S.Ramaiah hospital by spending Rs.5,00,000/-. She has suffered permanent disability. Doctor advised her to take regular treatment and she is still under treatment . It is also her case that she has incurred huge amount towards treatment , conveyance and nourishment.
4. It is also her case that she was working as Software Engineer in Altisource business solutions and earning Rs.31,447/p.m. . Due to the accidental injuries she could not attend her work and she has become permanently disabled and she has to depend on others for her day today activities. Respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent NO.2 being the insurer are jointly SCCH 1 4 MVC No.4867/2014 and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
5. In pursuance of this claim petition, this Court has issued notice against both the respondents. Respondent No.1 has not chosen to appear before the Court and has placed exparte. Respondent No.2 has appeared before the Court through his counsel and has filed written statement denying the petition averments. This respondent has denied the issuance of policy and the same is under verification. The involvement of the vehicle , injuries sustained by the petitioner, avocation and income of the petitioner , treatment and expenses , permanent disability and loss of income are all denied. The allegation of negligence against driver of offending vehicle is denied. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
6. In view of contentions raised by both the parties, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES SCCH 1 5 MVC No.4867/2014
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she sustained grievous injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 24.09.2014 at about 09.40 p.m. near M.V.I.T., junction, on Airport road, Bangalore within the jurisdiction of Chikkajala Traffic police station on account of rash and negligent driving of the canter bearing registration No. KA-03-D-7976 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
7. The petitioner in order to prove her case, she examined herself as PW1 and examined four witnesses as PW-2 to 5 and have got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 26. On the other hand, respondents have not led any evidence .
8.Heard arguments of petitioner counsel and respondent Counsel. During the course of his argument petitioner counsel has relied upon the judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 1412 (S.C.) wherein it is held that :
SCCH 1 6 MVC No.4867/2014 Quantum-injury -leg and hand -
amputation of left leg above knee and fracture in left hand, injured was hospitalized for quite long in 3 different hospitals and operated upon twice-
injured aged 24, B.E., degree holder in Mettallurgy working as Quality Engineer in a limited company, drawing Rs.17,200/p.m. suffered permanent disablement of 60 percent -injured is walking with assistance of artificial limb, had to resign his job as Engineer, remained without job for 2 years and then took desk job as Grade B Officer in a bank-Tribunal in the absence of documentary evidence assessed income at Rs.12,840/p.m. and awarded Rs.3,08,160/- as loss of income for 2 years and taking multiplier of 17 and permanent disablement of 60 percent awarded Rs.15,72,000/- as loss of earning capacity plus Rs.70,000/- for pain and agony , Rs.2,50,000/- for loss of amenities , Rs.50,000/- for loss of marriage prospects ,Rs.3,10,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.5,00,000/- for future medical expenses , total Rs.30,60,160/- High court reduced the award to Rs.6,32,000/- Apex Court not only restored the award of the Tribunal but further allowed Rs.50,000/- for pain and agony , Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.50,000/- for loss of marriage prospects and Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses - Award of Rs.6,32,000/- enhanced to Rs.33,10,160/.
SCCH 1 7 MVC No.4867/2014 The Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon 2014 ACJ 1441( V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and another) wherein it is held that:
Quantum -injury-leg and knee -
fracture in both bones of both legs , knee injuries and mal united knee bones, thickness of both legs is reduced and despite multiple surgeries, both her legs have become dysfunctional -knee folding is restricted between 25 degree and 85 degree - injured girl aged 16, brilliant student of class XI, holding first rank in her school, suffered 70 per cent permanent disablement- injured is unable to walk without crutches and suffering severe pain while walking, is not able to squat and sit cross-legged comfortably on floor -Tribunal awarded Rs.6,46,000/- - High Court taking notional income at Rs.6,000 p.m. allowed Rs.18,22,000 -apex Court assessed notional income at Rs.10,000 p.m. added 50 percent for future prospects , taking disablement SCCH 1 8 MVC No.4867/2014 at 70 per cent and multiplier of 18, allowed Rs.22,68,000 for loss of earning capacity plus Rs.2,00,000 for pain and suffering and mental agony Rs.2,00,000 for loss of amenities and attendant charges , Rs.3,00,000 for loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects, Rs.50,000 for cost of crutches and Rs.25,000 for cost of litigation -award of Rs.18,22,000 enhanced to Rs.30,93,000.
The facts and circumstances of the judgment referred above are applicable to the case on hand and the some of the heads which are applicable to this particular case are made applicable while considering the compensation part.
The Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment reported in Civil Appeal No.2078 of 2015 (arising out of SLP (Civil )No.20977/2014. Also relied upon 2014 ACJ 2743 (S.C.), 2014 ACJ 1441 (S.C.), 1995 ACJ (S.C.) 366 and 2014 ACJ 2743 ( Basappa SCCH 1 9 MVC No.4867/2014 Vs. T.Ramesh and another ) . Here, the facts and circumstances of the case is different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
9. Having heard the arguments of both the counsels , based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
1) Issue No.1 ... In the Affirmative,
2) Issue No.2 ... Partly in the Affirmative,
3) Issue No.3 ... As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 : It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.09.2014 at about 9.40 p.m. , when she was travelling in a car bearing No. KA-05-MG-5661 near Bellary road, and when she reached near M.V. junction, at that time canter bearing No. KA-03-D-7976 came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against petitioner's car . Due to which petitioner sustained grievous injuries .
SCCH 1 10 MVC No.4867/2014
11. Petitioner in order to prove her case , she herself is examined as PW-1 and she has reiterated the averments of the petition in her affidavit . In order to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry petitioner has relied upon copy of FIR , charge sheet , sketch, mahazar, wound certificate as per Ex.P.1 to 5 . The petitioner was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination of PW-1 , regarding negligence is concerned , it is elicited that on the date of the accident she was proceeding in the car from Jayanagara to Airport. On the other hand, the respondents have not led any evidence before the Court regarding negligence is concerned. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, this Court has to rely upon the oral and documentary evidence available before the Court. I have already pointed out that no cross-examination in the PW-1 regarding negligence is concerned and the PW-1 in the evidence in the form of affidavit has categorically made an allegation that the accident was taken place on SCCH 1 11 MVC No.4867/2014 account of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further contended that the police have after investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under section 279,338 of IPC . It is elicited in the cross- examination that the petitioner travelling in the car and on perusal of the complaint , which is marked as Ex.P.1, it clearly says that when the driver of the car was proceeding the canter which came from Bettaulsoor in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car and as a result the petitioner and others have sustained injuries. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and complaint was given on the next day at 11.30 hours and accident was occurred on 24.9.2013 at 21.40 hours in the late night. Police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet in terms of Ex.P.2 . Petitioners have also relied upon Ex.P.3 sketch and accident was taken place in the junction and the car driver was proceeding in the main road and the canter SCCH 1 12 MVC No.4867/2014 which came in the opposite direction took right turn and accident was taken place and Ex.P.3 sketch was also not disputed and also there is no rebuttal evidence before the Court. On perusal of the documentary evidence and evidence of PW1 , it is clear that accident was occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the canter . I have already pointed out that the respondents have not disputed the negligence and not placed any material to show that accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of driver of the car and in the absence of rebuttal evidence, for having taken note of the of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence , this Court has to accept the evidence of PW-1. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
12. ISSUE No.2: It is the case of the petitioner that on account of the accident she has sustained grievous injuries and she has relied upon wound certificate as per SCCH 1 13 MVC No.4867/2014 Ex.P.5 which discloses the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:
1. Fracture of mid shaft of right femur, TIC with deformity and abnormal mobility over right thigh
2. Fracture of distal end of left femur (comminuted ) TIC with deformity and abnormal mobility over distal left thigh 3 Fracture of both bones of right distal forearm TIC with deformity and abnormal mobility over right distal forearm
4. Swelling and tenderness over right hand , fracture of 5th bone Doctor has opined the above injuries are grievous in nature. She took first aid treatment in NRV hospital and then took treatment in M.S.Ramaiah hospital . She was inpatient from 25.9.2014 to 15.10.2014 for a period of 25 days. It is also her case that she was visiting said hospital once in a week for a period of 2 weeks and she has spent an amount of Rs.2000/- per trip for follow up treatment. Discharge summary discloses that the petitioner has suffered right femur mid shaft fracture , left femur distal 1/3rd comminuted fracture, right distal SCCH 1 14 MVC No.4867/2014 radius ulna fracture, right head of 5th metacarpal fracture and she had under gone ORIF with 7 holed LCP for left femur, CRIF with zimmer sirus nail for right femur on 26.9.2014 and again on 27.9.2014 she had under gone ORIF with plating for right distal radius, ORIF with K wiring for right distal ulna, ORIF with K wiring for right 5th metacarpal. For having taken note of the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner , I award a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards Pain and sufferings.
13. Petitioner in order to prove his disability he has examined the doctor as PW-2 and he reiterated in his affidavit regarding nature of injuries and the treatment provided to the petitioner . Petitioner has sustained fracture mid shaft right femur and comminuted fracture distal 1/3rd left femur , fracture distal radius and ulna right sided and fracture head of 5th metacarpal right sided and she under went surgeries like ORIF with 7 holed LCP left femur, CRIF with 10x360 mm Zimmer SCCH 1 15 MVC No.4867/2014 sirus nail for right and again on 27.9.2014 ORIF with plating for right distal radius, ORIF with K wiring for right distal ulna, ORIF with K wiring for right 5th metatacarpal . The petitioner underwent surgery on 19.2.2015 dynamisation and bone grafting for fracture right femur and implant removal , ORIF with distal femoral locking plate for fracture left femur . PW-2 assessed the disability of right upper limb at 31% , both lower limbs at 69% and whole body at 41% . The disabilities come in the way of her activities of daily life and she needs surgery for implant removal at 3 sites which would cost around Rs.50,000/- in private hospital. In the cross-examination , PW-2 admits that he has not treated patient. He assessed the disability only. It is admitted that fracture is united and she is having nerve injury. It is suggested that he is not competent to assess the disability since he has not treated the patient and the disability assessed by him on higher side and said suggestions were denied.
SCCH 1 16 MVC No.4867/2014
14. Petitioner also examined PW-3 , who is working as Assistant at Medical Records Department and he has produced case sheet which is marked as Ex.P.16. In the cross-examination , he admits that petitioner was admitted to hospital on 16.2.2015 and discharged on 22.2.2015. The petitioner also examined another medical records Technician at M.S.Ramaiah hospital and got marked the OP file , inpatient file , C.T.Scan , x-ray with report which is marked at Ex.P.18 to 21. In the cross- examination , it is suggested that the documents are not related to petitioner and the same are created to help the petitioner and the said suggestion was denied. The employer has been examined as PW-5, who is the Director of Human Resources Department and in his evidence he has produced attendance register , pay slip for the month of June to December 2014 and January to March 2015 , resignation letter , relieving letter, full and final settlement document. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the insured has joined their company in the SCCH 1 17 MVC No.4867/2014 month of May 2014 and resigned in the month of March 2015. The petitioner did not attend the duty from September 2014 till March 2015 and during that period they have not paid the salary. However, he admits in the month of March 2015 they made the payment of Rs.26,251/-. Witness says the petitioner has given the resignation since she has suffered injuries in the accident and she is not able to continue the job. Further says she has mentioned in the resignation letter that she is unable to rejoin back due to medical emergency. He is not aware of whether she is working in any other company . He is not aware whether petitioner has joined some other company for better prospectus and hence, she has resigned.
15. Now , let me appreciate both oral and documentary evidence available on record. On perusal of wound certificate which is marked at Ex.P.5 , it is clear that the petitioner has sustained fracture of mid shaft of right femur, TIC with deformity and abnormal mobility SCCH 1 18 MVC No.4867/2014 over right thigh, fracture of distal end of left femur (comminuted ) TIC with deformity and abnormal mobility over distal left thigh , fracture of both bones of right distal forearm TIC with deformity and abnormal mobility over right distal forearm , swelling and tenderness over right hand , fracture of 5th bone . Doctor has opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. Doctor has assessed the disability to upper limb at 31% , both lower limbs at 69% and to whole body at 41%. For having taken note of the injuries suffered by the petitioner , treatment taken by her , I am of the opinion that , it is a fit case to assess the disability to 30% .
16. It is the case of the petitioner that she was aged 22 years and she was working as software engineer and earning Rs.31,447/-p.m. in Altisource Business Solutions. Due to the accidental injuries she was forced to resign from her service . In the cross-examination , it is admitted that she has not produced any documents to SCCH 1 19 MVC No.4867/2014 show that they have forced him to resign. It is admitted that she was relieved in the month of March 2015 and she could not able to attend the duty after the accident. She has not produced any leave certificate for not attending the duty. It is further admitted that she has not produced any salary certificate for the month of September 2014. It is also suggested that even after the accident , she was working in the very same company and now she has got better prospectus and hence, she is falsely claiming that she was forced to resign from the job and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that salary certificates are created for the purpose of this case and the same was denied.
17. Let me appreciate the evidence available on record. Regarding employment is concerned , the petitioner has got marked Ex.P.6 appointment letter and salary slip as Ex.P.7and mail copy of resignation letter as Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.12 acceptance letter is produced. For having taken note of the Ex.P.22 to 26 produced by SCCH 1 20 MVC No.4867/2014 PW-5, I have to assess the salary of the petitioner . Ex.P.23 discloses the petitioner has received Rs.36,755/- for the month of June 2014 , Rs.43,183/- for the month of July 2014 , Rs.37,971/- for the month of August 2014, Rs.35,996/- for the month of September 2014 , Rs.21,395/- for the month of October 2015, Rs.2,096/- for the month of November 2014 , Rs.1,015/- for the month of December 2014, Rs.2028/- for the month of January 2015, nil for the month of February 2015 and Rs.24,753/- for the month of March 2015. It is important to note that she only tendered resignation and the resignation was accepted and the employer has not removed her from the service. By taking the average of salary i.e., only basic , HRA , medical allowance it comes to Rs.27,372/-p.m. and annual salary would be Rs.3,28,464/-.After deducting income tax, the annual salary of the petitioner is Rs.3,20,618/-. In the petition she has mentioned her age as 22 years and in the salary slip her date of birth is mentioned as 25.2.1992. Hence, SCCH 1 21 MVC No.4867/2014 she is aged 22 years as on the date of accident and the relevant multiplier applicable is 18. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of earning due to disability as : Rs.320618x18x30/100 = Rs.17,31,372/-. Hence, I award Rs.17,31,372/- towards loss of earning due to permanent disability.
18. Regarding loss of income is concerned the petitioner was inpatient for a period of 19 days i.e., from 25.9.2014 to 15.10.2014 and from 16.2.15 to 23.02.14 and she has sustained grievous injuries. Hence, she could not earn for 6 months. She has not attended her duty from October 2015 to March 2015. The company has given her some payment during October to March. Hence, after deducting the amount paid by the company to her during the months from October 2014 to March 2015, remaining amount comes to Rs.1,28,533/-. Hence, I award Rs.1,28,533/- towards loss of income during the treatment period .
SCCH 1 22 MVC No.4867/2014
19. Petitioner in the cross-examination admitted that she got the benefit of medical reimbursement and hence, she has not produced discharge summary before the Court and also admitted that the expenses she incurred at Mysore also she got benefit of medical reimbursement. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for the compensation under the head of medical expenses.
20. The petitioner took treatment in the hospital as inpatient from 25.9.2014 to 15.10.2014 and from 16.2.15 to 23.02.14 i.e in all for a period of 19 days . In the cross- examination, it is admitted that she has not produced bills for having spent Rs.2000/- per trip for follow up treatment . It is suggested that she has not taken any follow up treatment and hence, she has not produced the bills and the same was denied. Petitioner had sustained grievous injuries and she took treatment as inpatient for a period of 19 days. During that period she might have SCCH 1 23 MVC No.4867/2014 spent some amount towards conveyance, food and nourishment etc., Hence, I award Rs.20,000/- as compensation under the head of food and nourishment, conveyance, attendant charges and other incidental charges.
21. The petitioner is aged about 22 years and she has to lead rest of her life with this disability of 30%. For having taken said fact into consideration , I award Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities.
22. It is the case of the petitioner that she requires one more surgery and doctor who has been examined before the Court as PW2, also says that petitioner needs surgeries for implant removal at 3 sites which would cost around Rs.50,000/- in private hospital. It is suggested that implants are removed and the same was denied. In the cross-examination, PW-2 says that the patient was subjected to surgery 2nd time and the implants are in situ SCCH 1 24 MVC No.4867/2014 were removed and fresh implants are inserted. It is further admitted in the cross-examination that the cost of removal of implants will varies from one hospital to another hospital . Petitioner had undergone three to four surgeries . For having taken note of the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner and the implants are in situ, I award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses.
23. Petitioner is aged about 22 years and she is not married and she has sustained right femur mid shaft fracture, left femur distal 1/3rd comminuted fracture, right distal radius , ulna fracture , right head of 5th metacarpal fracture and had undergone five surgeries. Considering the nature of the treatment taken and the result of the treatment , I award a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of marriage prospects.
24. The details of compensation, I propose to award are as under:
SCCH 1 25 MVC No.4867/2014
Sl. Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 75,000-00
2. Medical expenses Rs. nil
3. Loss of income during the Rs. 1,28,533-00
period of inpatient and period
of treatment.
4. Food and nourishment, Rs. 20,000-00
conveyance , attendant
charges and other incidental
expenses
5. Future loss of earning due to Rs. 17,31,372-00 disability
6. Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000-00
7. Future surgery Rs. 50,000-00
8. Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 50,000-00 Total Rs. 21,04,905-00
25. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others), with SCCH 1 26 MVC No.4867/2014 regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para 13 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that Insurance Company is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment and also by following the principles laid down in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy). In view of the above judgments with regard to the rate of interest, and also it is settled law that while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the rate of interest at 9% cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
26. As regards the liability to be fixed on the respondents, admittedly the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent NO.2 is the insurer of the canter bearing No. KA-03-D-7976, hence, both respondents are SCCH 1 27 MVC No.4867/2014 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, primary liability is fixed on respondent No.2 insurance company to satisfy the award. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
27. Issue No.4: In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.21,04,905/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.20,54,905/- from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and he is directed SCCH 1 28 MVC No.4867/2014 to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled, 50% with proportionate interest shall be kept in F.D. in her name in any nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to her.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, Computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of February, 2016) (H.P.SANDESH,) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : V.Neha Vishwanatha P.W.2 : Dr.S.A.Somashekara PW-3 : Manjunath P.W.-4 : Padma K.V. P.W.5 : Somnath Mitra SCCH 1 29 MVC No.4867/2014
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P-2 Copy of charge sheet
Ex.P.3 Copy of sketch
Ex.P-4 : Copy of mahazar
Ex.P-5 : Copy of wound certificate
Ex.P-6 : Appointment letter
Ex.P-7 : Salary slip
Ex.P-8 : Mail copy of resignation letter
Ex.P-9 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar card
(original compared)
Ex.P-10 : Medical bills (6)
Ex.P-11 : Notarised copy of engineering degree certificate (original compared) Ex.P.12 Acceptance letter Ex.P.13 OPD record Ex.P.14 X-ray Ex.P.15 Authorisation letter Ex.P.16 Case sheet Ex.P.17 Authorisation letter Ex.P.18 OP file Ex.P.19 Inpatient file Ex.P.20 COMPLAINANT scan with report Ex.P.21 X-rays with report (2) Ex.P.22 Attendance register Ex.P.23 Attested copy of pay slip for the month of June to December 2014 and also January to March 2015 SCCH 1 30 MVC No.4867/2014 Ex.P.24 Copy of resignation letter Ex.P.26 Relieving letter Ex.P.26 Full and final settlement document Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
- Nil -
(H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl., M.A .C.T. Bangalore