Bangalore District Court
Sudharani .K.S vs Ksrtc on 2 February, 2026
1
SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023
KABC020329932023
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-15
Present : SMT. RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES
M.com., LL.M.,
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
MVC No.6924/2023
Dated : This the 2nd day of February 2026
PETITIONER/S : 1. Sudharani K.S @ Sudhamani K.S
W/o: Late. Somanna @
Somashekara
Aged about 31 years.
2. Divyashree,
D/o: Late. Somanna @ Somashekara
Aged about 15 years, Minor.
3. Tejaswini,
D/o: Late. Somanna @ Somashekara
Aged about 14 years, Minor.
4. Manojkumar,
2
SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023
S/o: Late. Somanna @ Somashekara
Aged about 01 year, Minor.
(Claimant No. 2 to 4 are minors R/by their mother
1st petitioner Sudharani K.S @ Sudhamani K.S.)
5. Dalamma,
W/o: Late Ramappa
Aged about 68 years.
6. Babu,
S/o: Late Ramappa,
Aged about 45 years.
All are Old Residents of
Darinaikanapalya village,
Gowribidanur Taluk.
All the petitioners are present
Residents of Vijayanagara,
Telecom Layout, 2nd Cross,
Bangalore, Bangalore District.
V/S (By Sri. DR, Adv.)
RESPONDENT/S:
The Depot Manager
KSRTC,
Shanthinagara, Tumkuru.
(By Sri. MSB, Adv.)
3
SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023
:JUDGMENT:
This petition emanates from the Motor Vehicle Accident dated 21.08.2023 wherein the petitioners have sought for compensation with respect to the death of Somanna @ Somashekara due to the impact of the accident.
2. Succinctly stated the facts germane to the lis involved in this petition are briefly summarized as follows:
It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 to 4 are the children, petitioner No.5 is the mother and petitioner No.6 is the brother of the deceased Somanna @ Somashekara who died in the Road Traffic Accident on 21.08.2023 due to the negligence of the driver of the respondent's vehicle. It is submitted that on 21.08.2023 at about 3.30 p.m., deceased Somanna @ Somashekara after finishing his regular work, he was riding his motorcycle along with another two pillion riders near Vidurashwatta gate, Hindupura - Bengaluru road, Chikkaballapura district, slowly 4 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 and cautiously observing all traffic rules and regulations, at that time, the respondent's KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40- F-1416 (herein after referred to as offending vehicle) was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's bike, due to the force, Somashekara sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
3. Consequently, on 21.08.2023 FIR No.0170/2023 was registered with the Gowribidanur Rural Police station under Sec.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and charge sheet was filed under Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle.
4. The Petitioners submit that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. It is submitted that the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 35 years and was working as Building contractor / Mason and as Agriculturist at the time of accident and he was the sole bread earner and had good future 5 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 prospects. Due to untimely death of the deceased the Petitioners have lost love, affection and support which has caused mental agony to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% p.a in the interest of justice and equity.
5. In pursuance of service of the notice respondent appeared through its Counsel and filed Objections to the claim petition.
The Respondent has filed written statement submitting as follows:
It is submitted by the respondent that the deceased himself was tortfeasor and the alleged accident took place due to the sole negligence of the deceased. Further submitted that this respondent is not at all responsible for the alleged accident. It is submitted that the amount claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, excessive, arbitrary, unreasonable and without any legal basis. Hence, on these grounds, Respondent 6 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
6. Vide order dated 19.02.2024 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
Issues
1) Whether the Petitioners prove that Sri. Somanna @ Somashekara R S/o Late Ramappa died in the Road Traffic Accident which occurred on 21.08.2023 at about 3.30 p.m., near Vidurashwatta gate, Hindupura - Bengaluru road, Chikkaballapura district, due to rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40-F-1416 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioners further prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased Sri. Somanna @ Somashekara R S/o Late Ramappa?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
7
SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023
4) What Order or Award ?
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition, the claimants have examined petitioner No.1 as PW1 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 14 documents and the respondent got examined one witness as RW.1.
8. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties in this case. Having perused the records my Issue wise findings run as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.4 : As per the Final Order for the following :
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: Before adjudication of the Issue with respect to the compensation it is quintessential to adjudicate on the Issue of negligence. It is the contention of the learned 8 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 counsel for the petitioners that the rash and negligent driving of driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40-F-1416 / offending vehicle caused the accident resulting in the death of Somanna @ Somashekara.
10. In this regard the petitioner No 1 has got herself examined as PW1 and in her chief examination she has deposed that on 21.08.2023 at about 3.30 p.m., after finishing regular work, in order to return to home, was going in the bike along with two pillion riders and when he reached near Vidurashwatta gate, Hindupura - Bengaluru road, Chikkaballapura district and going on the left side of the road slowly and cautiously wearing helmet, the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's bike, resulting in the accident. As a result, deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
11. The petitioners in support of their claim have in addition to describing the course of the accident in line with the 9 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 facts mentioned in the complaint have relied upon Ex.P1 to 7 documents. Ex.P1 is the FIR filed against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offenses under Sec.279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC on the basis of the complaint given by Venkatesha on 21.08.2023, hence, there is no delay in lodging the complaint. Ex.P4 is the spot mahazar and sketch which discloses that the accident has occurred at the middle of the road and there is divider in the center, dividing the road and width of the road is about 30 feet, the spot of the accident discloses that the bike was proceeding from Hindupura towards Gowribidanur road and the bus was coming from the opposite direction and it has dashed the bike, resulting in the accident. The bus has dashed the bike from the front side resulting in the accident. In addition Ex.P5 is the inquest report and Ex.P7 is the PM report which discloses that the deceased succumbed to the injuries, due to impact of the accident. Ex.P6 is the IMV report which discloses the damages sustained to the vehicles in the accident. Ex.P3 is the charge sheet filed after completion of investigation 10 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offenses under Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. Hence, these documents satisfactorily discloses that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. As far as the manner of the accident is concerned PW.1 is cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent and in the cross-examination of PW.1, she has deposed that her husband did not have DL and she has not produced insurance copy of the motorcycle and admitted that she has not seen the accident. She has stated that she has seen the spot of the accident and denied that her husband was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident. It is suggested in the cross- examination of Pw1 that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving slowly and deceased went to Vidurashwatha gate in order to stop near bus stop and her husband went from the opposite direction of the bus and due to his negligence accident has occurred. It is also suggested that bike was overloaded with 11 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 triple riders and consumed alcohol and came to the extreme right side and dashed the bus, resulting in the accident. Except the suggestion that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the deceased nothing much is elicited in the cross- examination of PW.1 to prove that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of deceased. PW.1 has clearly and categorically deposed about the manner of the accident. The oral testimony of PW.1 has stood unrebutted and PW1 has withstood the cross-examination of Respondent. There is no material on record which suggests falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of PW.1 as to the facts and circumstances surrounding cause of the accident. PW.1 has also declined the suggestion imputing the cause of the accident to be due to her husband's negligence. The fact that the driver of the offending vehicle has already been charge sheeted for the offenses under Sec.279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC itself is strong circumstance to support the oral testimony of PW.1. The certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, IMV report and Spot 12 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 mahazar also corroborate the oral testimony of PW.1. In view of medical records there is no dispute regarding the death occurred due to the injuries sustained in the above accident. In view of the said discussion it is satisfactorily established that the accident occurred on account of rashness and negligence of driver, driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Be it as it may in addition it is pertinent to note that it is admitted by PW1 in her cross-examination that the deceased had no DL and neither copy of any DL is produced by the petitioners and the deceased was also triple driving. Hence there is certain amount of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and in the 'Affirmative'.
13. Issue No.2: It is stated in the Petition as well as in the evidence of PW.1 that the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 to 4 are the children, petitioner No.5 is the mother and petitioner No.6 is the brother of the deceased 13 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 Somanna @ Somashekara. To prove their relationship with the deceased, PW.1 has relied on Ex.P8 to 12 and 14 i.e., the Aadhaar cards of the deceased and petitioners. Hence, they have a right to apply for compensation due to death of Somanna @ Somashekara in road traffic accident.
14. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 to 4 are the children, petitioner No.5 is the mother and petitioner No.6 is the brother of the deceased, being the legal representatives of deceased Somanna @ Somashekara have a right to apply for compensation. As the Petitioners are the LRs of deceased Somanna @ Somashekara and also they have proved that the death of Somanna @ Somashekara has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, they are entitled for just compensation. Hence I answer Issue No 2 in the Affirmative.
15. Issue No.3: Computation of compensation under the various heads is assessed as follows:
14
SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023
1. Loss of dependency
Age factor: In order to assess the compensation under the head of loss of dependency the age, avocation and income of the deceased needs to be ascertained. In the present case, the age of the deceased is shown as 35 years. Ex.P-14 is the Aadhaar card which shows that the date of birth of the deceased is 27.06.1988. The alleged accident has taken place on 21.08.2023. Hence, by considering Ex.P14, the age of the deceased is taken as 35 years.
16. Income and avocation: It is stated in the evidence that deceased was working as a Building Contractor / Mason and agriculturist and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. However in cross-examination of PW.1 she has deposed that she has not produced any documents to show avocation and income of the deceased. Hence in the absence of evidence to prove the actual income of the deceased, the notional income will have to be taken into consideration. On the basis of the guidelines of 15 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 KSLSA and the minimum wages and looking into the age and avocation of the deceased it is just and proper to fix the notional income of the deceased as Rs.16,000/- per month for the purpose of assessing compensation. Therefore, the Annual Income of the deceased would be 16,000X 12= 1,92,000/-. Hence for the purpose of computation of claim, the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs.1,92,000/-.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 has established the golden principles in considering compensation in cases of death. Relevant part of the judgment at paras 18- 19 is reproduced hereunder:
"18. The criteria which are to be taken into consideration for assessing compensation in the case of death are: (i) the age of the deceased at the time of his death; (ii) the number of dependents left behind by the deceased; and (iii) the income of the deceased at the time of his death. The Issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for 16 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in these decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
"Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a Table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said Table with 17 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 reference to the age of the deceased."
Moving forward with the Issue of future prospects, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680, held that Future prospects are to be awarded on the basis of:
(i) The nature of the deceased's employment; and
(ii) The age of the deceased.
18. Relying on Para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra), while determining the income, an addition of 40% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects should be made, where the deceased is permanently employed and was below the age of 40 years.
The petition discloses that petitioner no 6 is the major brother of the deceased and hence he cannot be considered as dependent of the deceased. Hence the petitioner No 1 to 5 to be considered as dependents of the deceased and entitled for loss of dependency.
18
SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023
19. At the time of the death of the deceased, he was survived by his wife, children and mother. Hence while calculating the deductions towards the personal expenses, the number of dependents at the time of the death of the deceased is to be considered. As per the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India where the number of dependents of family members is 4 to 6, 1/4th of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
20. In this Petition, the deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident. Hence, towards future prospects 40% of the income has to be added. So, 40% of Rs.16,000/- comes to Rs.6,400/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.22,400/- p.m. (Rs.16,000/- + Rs.6,400/- = Rs.22,400/-). Further, as per the principles laid down in decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) the multiplier applicable is 16. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of 19 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 India held that where the number of dependent of family members is 4 to 6, 1/4th of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
21. After deducting 1/4th of the income towards his personal expenses in Rs.22,400/- it comes to Rs.16,800/- (Rs.22,400/- - 5,600/-) and multiplier applied is 16, (Rs.16,800/- x 12 = 2,01,600/-, 2,01,600/- x 16 = 32,25,600/-). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.32,25,600/- towards loss of dependency.
22. Medical expenses: The petitioners have not produced any medical bills to show any expenses incurred in the hospital. Hence the actual medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the deceased or any hospital charges are taken an Nil.
23. 'Loss of Estate', Loss of Consortium' and 'Funeral Expenses' In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra), the conventional heads, namely, 'Loss of Estate', Loss of Consortium' and 'Funeral Expenses', 20 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 amount of compensation is fixed as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-, respectively with an increase of 10% after a period of 3 years. It is further observed in the aforesaid Judgment amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. The said Judgment was rendered on 30.10.2017. By applying the said observation made in the aforesaid case, since, more than 6 years lapsed from the date of Order, the consortium fixed in the said case should be enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.48,400/-. Further, the loss of estate and funeral expenses also extended to Rs.18,150/- each. In view of the decision in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur and Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 780, no compensation is to be granted under the head 'Loss of Love and Affection'.
In light of the above discussion, the claimants are awarded compensation as follows:
21
SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023
Sl.No. Head Amount
1 Annual Income 16,000 X 12 Rs.1,92,000/-
2 Future prospects 40% of Rs.16,000/- Rs. 22,400/-
comes to Rs.6,400/-. Income of the
deceased comes to Rs.22,400/- p.m.
(Rs.16,000/ + Rs.6,400/-)
3 Multiplicand 1/4th towards personal Rs.16,800/-
expenses of Rs.22,400/-, it comes to
Rs.16,800/- (Rs.22,400/- - 5,600/-)
4 Multiplier (As per Sarla Verma)
applied is 16 Rs.32,25,600/-.
(Rs.16,800/- x 12 = Rs.2,01,600/-,
Rs.2,01,600/- x 16
5 Loss of dependency (A) Rs.32,25,600/-
6 Funeral expenses (B) Rs. 18,150/-
7 Loss of estate (C) Rs. 18,150/-
8 Medical expenses incurred for the ----
treatment of deceased (D)
9 Loss of consortium (E)
48,400/- X 5
Rs. 2,42,000/-
10 Total Compensation awarded Rs.35,03,900/-
(A+B+C+D+E)
In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the petitioners are entitled to compensation amount of 22 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 Rs.35,03,900/-.
24. Regarding rate of interest: As far as the rate of interest is concerned the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. RAJASTAN VS. SMT. LAXMI reported in 2018 (4) AKR 808 has held that in case of motor accident claims rate of interest awarded is 6% per annum and the Hon'ble High court has been consistently granting 6% interest in Motor Vehicles Accident Claims and Compensation cases. Hence the rate of interest is set at 6% per annum in this case.
25. Regarding Liability: As far as the liability is concerned the learned counsel for the respondent has seriously disputed the manner of the accident and submitted that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is also submitted that the deceased was proceeding with two pillion rider and it is admitted that they were triple riding and the deceased had no DL to ride the motor cycle.
23
SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 The learned counsel for respondent in this case has relied on the following decisions:
1. (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 172, between National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs Prembai Patel and others
2. (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 428, between Oriental Ins.
Co. Ltd., Vs. Meena Variyal and others
3. (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 476, between Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Premlata Shukla and others
4. 2005 ACJ 1359, between P.S. Somaish and another Vs. Director, Bengaluru Dairy and others
5. MFA No.10770 of 2010 (MV) c/w MFA No.10771 & 10767/2010 (MV), between Shivanna & others Vs. KSRTC
6. MFA No.30284/2008 (MV), between Ramalingappa Vs Shivarao & others
7. (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 254, between Lachoo Ram and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation 24 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023
8. MFA No.2829/2009 (MV), between Manju Vs. Mathue & another.
26. In these decision the only point highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the aspect of negligence will have to be established by preponderance of evidence that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. The petitioners in this case have produced the police documents and have adduced oral and documentary evidence to establish negligence of bus driver on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities. On the other hand it is for the respondent to prove facts which are within their knowledge since the burden is on the person who affirms a particular fact of negligence on the part of the deceased. In addition there is absolutely no evidence nor any whisper in any of the documents or medical documents to point out that the deceased had consumed alcohol or was riding in an intoxicated state which incapacitated him in driving cautiously. There is no cogent 25 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 evidence to show that the charge sheet filed by police is a fabricated document only with an intention to help the petitioners to make an unlawful gain. Hence the dictum and principle of law laid down in the afore stated decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be made applicable against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent in this petition. The learned counsel for the respondent has deposed that the deceased was not holding driving license and as far as triple riding is concerned no doubt it is elicited in the evidence that the was going with two other pillion riders. No doubt triple riding and negligence are distinct concepts and in every case of triple riding and absence of DL there is no necessity of negligent driving. However it is admitted by PW1 in her cross-examination that the deceased had no DL and neither copy of any DL is produced by the petitioners and the deceased was also triple driving. Hence there is certain amount of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence the negligence could be attributed in the ratio of 90:10 to 26 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 the driver of the bus and the deceased in this case. In this case, the Respondent is the R.C. Owner cum Internal Insurer of KSRTC bus. Therefore, the Respondent has to pay 90% of the compensation amount to the Petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 "Partly in the Affirmative".
27. Issue No.4: From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled for compensation of Rs.35,03,900/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition. In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent and under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs. The Petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.35,03,900/- along with cost and simple interest at the 27 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent being the owner and internal insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit 90% of the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
The compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 to 5 are apportioned among them are as shown below:
1) 60% to the Petitioner No.1
2) 10% each to the Petitioner No.2 to 5 After deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1, 50% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.1 by way of E-payment and after her proper identification and the remaining 50% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 in any Nationalized or 28 SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of her choice.
The entire amount awarded to the Petitioner No.2 to 4 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in their names in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank till they attain age of majority. Further, the natural guardian/mother of the minor Petitioner No.2 to 4 is permitted to withdraw the interest on the said Fixed deposit periodically to the best interest of the minor Petitioners.
Since, the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.5 is meager, the entire amount awarded to Petitioner No.5 shall be released to her by way of E- payment and after her proper identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award accordingly.
29
SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023 (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 2nd day of February, 2026) (RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES) XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACJM, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 Smt. Sudhamani K.S Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 Complaint
Ex.P3 Charge sheet
Ex.P4 Spot mahazar with sketch
Ex.P5 Inquest mahazar
Ex.P6 IMV report
Ex.P7 PM report
Ex.P8 to
12 & 14 Aadhaar cards
Ex.P13 Ration card
30
SCCH 15 MVC No.6924/2023
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents:
RW.1 Sri. Santhosh K. Reddy Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents:
-Nil-
(RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES) XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACJM,Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.