Bangalore District Court
Smt. Kulli Veda Jyothi @ K.V.Jyothi vs Sri. Tirupathi Rao Ravini on 21 April, 2017
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(SCCH-23) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL 2017
PRESENT: SRI.N.N.YALAVATTI,Bcom., LLB(Spl)
XXI ADDL. SCJ & XIX ACMM
MEMBER - MACT
BANGALORE
M.V.C.No.1817 of 2016
Petitioners: 1. Smt. Kulli Veda Jyothi @ K.V.Jyothi
W/o late Kulli Ramesh,
Aged about 30 years.
2. Master. Koteswara Rao,
S/o Late Kulli Ramesh,
Aged about 6 years.
3. Master Suresh Babu,
S/o Late Kulli Ramesh,
Aged about 4 years.
4. Smt. Kulli Achamma,
W/o Late Kulli Koteswara Rao,
Aged about 60 years.
Petitioners No.2 and 3 since minors,
Represented by their mother as a
Natural guardian Smt.Kulli Veda Jyothi
@ K.V.Jyothi,
W/o late Kulli Ramesh,
Aged about 30 years.
2 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23
All are R/at No.8-19/1/172,
Arundathinagar, Gurntur (C) Urban,
Guntur - 522001.
(By Sri. M.B.Muralidhara., Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Sri. Tirupathi Rao Ravini,
S/o Narayana,
No.16-6-209, Near Alinagar Mosque,
Old Gunjtur,
Guntur - 522001.
(RC owner of the lorry bearing
No.AP-7-TU-6567)
(Exparte)
2. National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
TP-HUB, Shubharam COmplex,
M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560001.
(I/P No.560701/31/14/6300002593,
Valid from 11.01.2015 to 10.01.2016)
(By Sri. Ravi.S.Samprathi., Advocate)
3. Sri. Balakrishna,
S/o late Nanjundappa,
2nd Cross, Sonnashettyhalli,
Chinthamani Town,
Chikkaballapura District.
(RC owner of the lorry
No.KA-03-A-9219)
3 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23
(By Sri. R.B.Mahesha., Advocate)
4. Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Unit-4, Level-6,
Golden Heights Complex,
59th 'C' Cross, Industrial Subrub,
Rajajinagar 4th Block,
Bangalore - 560010.
(I/P No.3379/00961599/000/01
valid from 21.11.2014 to 20.11.2015)
(By Sri. B.N.Sreekanta Swamy.,
Advocate)
***
JUDGEMENT
These petitions are filed by claimants under Sec.166 of M.V. Act against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as averred in their respective claim petitions are as follows:
On 19.08.2015 at about 10:30 p.m., near KEB Circle, Fly Over, Hosakote Town, Bangalore - Kolar High Way, at Hosakote Tow, the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-06-A-9219 belonging to the 3rd respondent insured with 4th respondent parked negligently 4 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 without indication or indicator light facing towards Bangalore. At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-07-TU-6567 belonging to the 1st respondent insured with 2nd respondent, driven it rashly and negligently and dashed on back side of the parked lorry. Due to that impact, the deceased Ramesh @ Kulli Ramesh who was working as a cleaner in a lorry bearing No.AP- 07-TU-6567 sustained multiple fracture injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Hosakote and then shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore wherein he died to his injuries. The police have registered the case against the driver of the both lorries and filed the charge sheet. The wife, children's and mother of the deceased Kulli Ramesh have filed this claim petition alleging that the deceased Kulli Ramesh was 30 years old on the date of the accident. He was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m., with Rs.100/- daily Bata from his cleaner work. They were depending on his earnings. Due to the untimely death of deceased they were under dark and facing lot of difficulties. This accident was occurred on the negligence of the drivers of both the offending lorries and policy of both the vehicles were in force. Therefore, the 5 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and requested to pass the award as prayed.
3. Inspite of serving the notice of 1st respondent, the 1st respondent remained absent and placed exparte.
4. In response to the notice, the 3rd respondent has appeared through its counsel and failed to contest the case by filing the written statement. The 2nd respondent being the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP-07-TU-6567 and 4th respondent being the insurer of parked lorry bearing No.KA-06-A-9219 have appeared through their counsel and resisted the case of the petitioners by filing objection by contending that the petitioners have filed this petition on imaginary grounds and the compensation amount claimed by the petitioners are excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary. The 2nd respondent being the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP-07-TU-6567 disputes its liability by contending that this accident was occurred purely on a rash and negligent act of the driver of the parked lorry. The lorry was 6 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 parked in the middle of the road without giving any signal or indication. The lorry driver tried his best to avoid this accident by applying the brake. However, he could not avoided this accident. Therefore, this accident was occurred on a rash and negligent act of the driver of the parked lorry. The 2nd respondent further contended that even if in case liability arise, his liability may be fixed under Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act. The 4th respondent being the insurer of the parked lorry has seriously disputes its liability by contending that the driver of their lorry has parked his lorry completely on the left side of the road by following all traffic rules including the indication and indicator of parked vehicle. The driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent driven it rashly and negligently and dashed on the back side of the parked lorry. The brake system of the said lorry was properly working and there was a enough space towards his right side to pass his lorry. Inspite of taking his lorry towards his right side he dashed his lorry on the back side of the stationed lorry. Therefore, this accident was occurred on a rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent. 7 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23 Therefore, the 4th respondent is not liable to pay the compensation amount. The 1st and 2nd respondents have denied the manner of accident, age of the deceased and his earnings and requested to dismiss the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this tribunal has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Sri.Kulli Ramesh @ Ramesh, was died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 19.08.2015 at about 11:00 p.m., near KEB Circle, Fly Over, Hosakote Town, Bangalore -
Kolar Highway, whether deceased was proceeding in a lorry bearing registration No.AP-07-TU-6567, at that time due to rash and negligent act of driving of the both lorries, vehicle bearing No.AP-07-TU-6567 and KA-06- A-9219 as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representative of deceased and they are depending on the income of the deceased? 8 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from whom?
4. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner who is the wife of the deceased got examined herself as PW-1 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13 are got marked. The PW-2 is examined on her behalf.
In order to prove the defence of the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Manager of 2nd respondent got himself examined as RW-1 and document Ex.R-1 is got marked.
In order to prove the defence of the 4th respondent, the Claims Manager of the 4th respondent got himself examined as RW-2 and no documents are got marked.
7. I have heard lengthy arguments from both sides.
8. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments, my findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: The petitioners are entitled
9 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23
compensation of Rs.13,84,000/-
from the 2nd and 4th respondents
with 6% p.a, interest on the said
amount from the date of petition, till
deposit of amount before the Court,
Issue No.3: As per final order,
For the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence of PW-1 along with documents pertaining to the criminal case registered against the driver of the both lorries. It is true that the PW-1 is not an eye witness to the accident. So, we have to rely on the documents pertaining to the criminal case registered against the drivers of both the offending lorries.
10. During the course of argument, the learned senior counsel Sri.RSS appearing on behalf of the RW-2 strenuously contending before me that the driver of the lorry belonging to the 3rd respondent has parked in the middle of the road without giving any signal or indication. The driver of their lorry could not sight the lorry parked on the highway as there was dark and focus lights from the oncoming opposite vehicles. Had the driver of the 10 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 lorry parked the vehicle with an indicator, the driver of the lorry belonging to 1st respondent could have sighted the lorry and avoided the accident. Therefore, this accident was occurred only on account of negligence of the driver of the parked lorry. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation amount. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the 4th respondent Sri.BNS strenuously contending before me that as per the IMV report the brake system of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent was working properly. As per the complaint, the stationed lorry was parked completely on the left side of the road. As per Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 there was a enough space towards the right side of the parked lorry to pass lorry belonging to the 1st respondent. Instead of passing his lorry towards right side of the parked lorry, he had dashed on the back side stationed lorry. It goes to shows that this accident was occurred purely on a rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent. The 4th respondent is not liable to pay the compensation amount.
11 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23
11. I have given careful consideration to the points urged by both the side. It is admitted fact that the lorry bearing No.KA- 06-A-9219 was parked as shown in Ex.P-6. It is admitted fact that the lorry bearing No.AP-07-TU-6567 was moving towards Bangalore. This accident was occurred on the fly over at Hosakote. The road on fly over is upwards manner where this accident was occurred. I have carefully scrutinized the Ex.P-5 which is the spot mahazar drawn by the IO. The Ex.P-5 speaks that the driver of the parked lorry did not put any branches of tree or other materials around the parked lorry to show that the lorry is parked. The advocate of the 2nd respondent Sri.RSS strenuously contending before me that the lorry should not be parked on the high way. Inspite of it, the driver of the lorry belonging to 3rd respondent parked his lorry dangerously, negligently by violating Section 122 of IMV Act. Therefore, he is contributed negligence in occurrance of this accident. Therefore, we shall turn our attention on Section 122 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Section 122 of IMV Act, 1988, bars a person in charge of a motor vehicles from causing or allowing the vehicle or any trailer to be 12 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 abandoned or to remain at rest on any public place in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers. So, it is crystal clear from Section 122 of IMV Act. The Section 122 of IMV Act is bared to park the vehicles on the highways which are causing to inconvenience to the other vehicles. So, the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-06-A-9219 has parked his lorry on almost middle of the road by violating Section 122 of IMV Act. The advocate for the 4th respondent Sri.BNS much argued on complaint, mahazar and rough sketch and submits that there was a enough space towards the right side of the parked lorry. The total width of the road is 40 feet. As per Ex.P-6 there was a 25 feet road was left towards the right side of the parked lorry. So, the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent had a space to pass his lorry easily towards the right side of the parked lorry insite of passing his lorry from the right side of the parked lorry he dashed on the back side of the stationed lorry. Therefore, the driver of the lorry belonging to the 13 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 1st respondent has contributed his negligence. But, I am not going to accept the line of the argument canvassed by the advocate for the 4th respondent. The available records speaks that this accident was occurred at about 11:00 p.m., there was no light at that time. The driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent could not sighted parked lorry because of owing lights of other vehicles oncoming from opposite direction. Apart from this, the driver of the parked lorry has parked his lorry on a almost middle of the road without giving any signal or indication. As I have already stated in my above judgment that the road is steep in upward manner, where this accident was occurred. So, the drivers cannot driver their vehicles in high speed. Therefore, the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent might have been driving in a normal speed of 40 km and unable to sight the parked vehicle because of owing lights of other vehicles oncoming from opposite direction, may be sighted the lorry only at last minute and could not avoide this accident resulting in the death of cleaner.
14 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23
12. It is settled law from various Hon'ble High Court including our own Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the drivers of the lorry are not allowed to park their lorries or vehicles on the highways without indicator or indication and causing obstruction to the other users of the road. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held in Kumari Jyothi's case, ILR 2002 KAR 893 the lorry parked without any sign or indicator on a highway and further by taking into consideration Section 122 of IMV Act as where the place was dark and where the vehicle was parked without any sign or indicator to warn other road users, the negligence is on the driver of the vehicle and not the driver of any other vehicle which has dashed into such parked vehicle.
13. Again, we shall turn our attention on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case of Raj Rani, 2009 ACJ 2003 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case of the car driver driving at normal speed of 40 kmph, owing to lights of another vehicle coming from opposite direction, sighted the truck 15 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 only at last minute and could not avoid the accident resulting in his death. The High Court has held that the drivers of both vehicles were equally negligent. Again, we shall turn our attention on a decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in Asha Prasad's cse, 2011 ACJ 2642 (Karnataka), a truck-trailer was parked in the middle of the road without giving any signal or indication. Victim tried his best to avoid the accident by applying brakes. However, he could not avoid the accident. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court has apportioned the liability in the ratio of 25:75 respectively between offending vehicle and the vehicle driven by the victim. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the vehicles should not be parked on a highways by taking into consideration of Section 122 of IMV Act.
14. In the case on hand, admittedly the lorry bearing No.KA-06-A-9219 was parked on national highway without any sign or indicator warning the other road users. As mentioned about the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-07-TU-6567 could not sighted the lorry parked on highway as it was dark as well as due 16 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 to the focusing lights of oncoming opposite vehicles at that relevant point of time. Had the driver of the lorry parked the lorry with an indicator, the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent could have sighted the lorry and avoided this accident. Therefore, the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-06-A- 9219 has contributed his negligence in a higher degree. At the same time, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-07-TU-6567 could have avoided this accident by taking his lorry towards his right side as there was an enough space to pass his lorry. He has not done so. Therefore, he is also contributed his negligence in occurrence of this accident. Therefore, I am going to apportioned the liability by considering the above discussion in the ratio of 70:30 respectively between the driver of parked lorry and the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-07-TU-6567. Accordingly, the 2nd and 4th respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount. Hence, I answered this issue Accordingly.
15. Issue No.2: I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence of PW-1 along with documents the advocate for the 2nd 17 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 respondent Sri. RSS strenuously contending before me that the charge sheet filed by the IO speak that the cleaner is travelling in a parked lorry bearing No.KA-06-A-9219. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation amount. But, I am not going to accept the line of the argument canvassed by the advocate for the 2nd respondent. I have carefully scrutinized the inquest mahazar marked at Ex.P-8. It indicates that the deceased was travelling in a lorry bearing No.AP-07-TU-6567 as an driver. The advocate for the petitioner filed memo on the date of argument and filed one document which was filed by the IO before the criminal court. This document speaks that due to the typing error, it got wrongly typed as the deceased was travelling in a lorry bearing No.KA-06-A-9219 instead of lorry bearing No. AP- 07-TU-6567. These documents are sufficient to say that the deceased cleaner by name Ramesh @ Kulli Ramesh was working as a cleaner in a lorry bearing No.AP-07-TU-6567. Therefore, the argument canvassed by the advocate for the 2nd respondent Sri.RSS is not sustainable. The advocate for the 2nd respondent Sri.RSS strenuously contending before me that if court in case 18 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 come to the conclusion that the deceased was working as a cleaner in the lorry of 1st respondent, then that there is a employer and employee relationship in between the deceased and the 1st respondent. Therefore, the liability of the 2nd respondent my be fixed by invoking Section 4 of Employees Compensation Act. I have given careful consideration to the points urged by both the side. Here we shall turn our attention on a decision reported in AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 2337, ILR 2003 KAR 3538 and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Orissa State Road Transport V/ Shankar Sahu dated 01.11.1989 and held that it is for the petitioner to chose either of the forums. Section 110-AA of IMV Act gives option to the claimant to seek compensation either under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the case on hand, the claimants have filed their claim petition under Section 166 of IMV Act. Therefore, the claimants have every right to chose option to claim compensation by invoking Section 166 of IMV Act or under 122 of Employees Compensation Act. Therefore, the argument canvassed by the advocate for the 2nd respondent is not 19 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 sustainable. The petitioners are entitle compensation amount under Section 166 of IMV Act.
16. The advocate for the 2nd respondent much argued and submits that the evidence of PW-2 may not be considered. There is no much value attached to his evidence under Evidence Act. The PW-2 is none other than the 1st respondent. He did not appear before the court in response to the notice and he placed exparte, Therefore his evidence may not be considered. It is true that the PW-2 is none other than 1st respondent. He remained absent and placed exparte. However, he came to court in response to the notice and gave evidence under PW-2. I have seriously consider the submission made by Sri.RSS. But, I am going to assess his evidence carefully and taken his evidence only for limited purpose. As per his evidence, the deceased Kulli Ramesh was working in his lorry.
17. The advocate for the petitioner strenuously contending before me that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 are sufficient to say that the Kulli Ramesh was earning Rs.10,000/- 20 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23 p.m., and Rs.100/- per day as Bata. Therefore, the income of the deceased Kulli Ramesh may be fixed at Rs.10,000/-. I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence of PW-1, PW-2 along with other documents. It is true that the deceased Kulli Ramesh was 30 years old on the date of his death. He was working as a cleaner. The PW-2 is not a income tax assessee. He did not produced any scrap of papers to prove that he is paying Rs.10,000/- to the Kulli Ramesh as his salary and in addition to Bata of Rs.100/- per day. He being the lorry owner. He must be maintaining accounts. He ought to have file the copy of accounts maintained by him. But, he has not done so. Therefore, we have to fix the income of the deceased Kulli Ramesh notionally by considering the age, dependency and his profession. Admittedly, he is working as a cleaner and was 30 years old on the date of his accident. Here we shall turn our attention on a decision of our own Hon'ble High Court reported in 2016(1) AKR 29. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnatka has fixed the income of mason who was 40 years old on the date of accident as Rs.9,000/- p.m. That mason was working in rural areas. In the case on hand, the 21 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 deceased Kulli Ramesh was working as a cleaner in a lorry belonging to the 1st respondent. He was 30 years old. Considering his age, avocation and following law laid down by our Hon'ble High Court in the above decision, I am going to fix the income of the deceased Kulli Ramesh at Rs.8,000/- p.m. Out of his monthly income we have to deduct 1/4th towards his personal and living expenses i.e., 8,000 X 1/4th = Rs.6,000/-. As per PM report Ex.P-9 he was 30 years of old. So, the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Therefore, the loss of dependency would work out as 6,000 X 12 X 17 = Rs.12,24,000/-. Hence, I am awarding Rs.12,24,000/- towards "loss of dependency".
18. In addition to this, I am going to award Rs.50,000/- towards "loss of consortium", Rs.50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners) towards "loss of love and affection"
and Rs.25,000/- towards "loss of love and affection to the 4th petitioner" and Rs.35,000/- towards "transportation of dead body and funeral expenses".22 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23
19. In all I award Rs.13,84,000/- under the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1 Loss of dependency Rs.12,24,000/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.50,000/-
3 Loss of love and Rs.50,000/-
affection to the 2nd and
3rd petitioners
4 Loss of love and Rs.25,000/-
affection to the 4th
petitioner
5 Transportation of dead Rs.35,000/-
body and funeral
expenses
Total Rs.13,84,000/-
20. It is proved fact that this accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the offending vehicles and I am going to apportioned the liability by considering the above discussion in the ratio of 30:70 respectively between the driver of parked lorry and the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-07- TU-6567. Accordingly, the 2nd and 4th respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount. Therefore, the petitioners are entitle 30% out of the total awarded compensation amount from 23 MVC No.1817/2016 SCCH-23 the 2nd respondent who is the insurer of lorry bearing No.AP-07- TU-6567 it would workout as Rs.13,84,000 x 30% which comes to Rs.4,15,200/- and the petitioners are entitle 70% out of the total awarded compensation amount who is the insurer of the lorry bearing No.KA-03-A-9219 from the 4th respondent it would workout as Rs.13,84,000 x 70% which comes to Rs.9,68,800/- and Therefore, the 2nd and 4th respondents are directed to deposit the amount to the petitioners as stated in my judgment. With these observation, I answered issue No.2 Accordingly.
21. Issue No.3: In view of the discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The claim petition U/Sec., 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioners are hereby allowed in part with cost.
The petitioners are awarded total compensation of Rs.13,84,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount in the tribunal.24 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23 The 2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount of Rs.4,15,200/- and The 4th respondent shall deposit the compensation amount of Rs.9,68,800/- in the tribunal within the three months from the date of this decree.
Out of the above compensation amount, 1st petitioner is entitle to receive 40% and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are entitle to receive 20% each.
After deposit of the compensation amount, out of share of 1st petitioner, 30% of the same shall be kept in FD in her name in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court branch, Bangalore in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of five years and the balance amount shall be released to her through account payee cheques.
Out of the compensation amount of 2nd and 3rd petitioners being the minor, their entire amount shall be kept in FD in their name in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court branch, Bangalore till they attain the age of majority.
The petitioner No.4 is at liberty to withdraw her entire compensation amount with interest. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.25 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23 Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 22nd day of April 2017) (N.N.YALAVATTI) XXI ADDL. SCJ & XIX ACMM MEMBER - MACT BANGALORE ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
PW-1: Kulli Veda Jyothi @ K.V.Jyothi PW-2: Tirupathi Rao Ravini
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P-1: FIR
Ex.P-2: Complaint
Ex.P-3: Police intimation
Ex.P-4: Charge sheet
Ex.P-5: Mahazar
Ex.P-6: Spot sketch
Ex.P-7: IMV report
Ex.P-8: Inquest report
Ex.P-9: PM report
Ex.P-10: Aadhar card of deceased
Ex.P-11: Aadhar card of 1st petitioner
26 MVC No.1817/2016
SCCH-23
Ex.P-12: Ration card
Ex.P-13: Aadhar card of 4th petitioner
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
RW-1: M.Vijaykumar RW-2: Ananda.M
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R-1: Policy
(N.N.YALAVATTI)
XXI ADDL. SCJ & XIX ACMM
MEMBER - MACT
BANGALORE