Bangalore District Court
Sri Purushotham vs The Regional Manager on 4 November, 2016
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 4257/2015
Petitioners: 1. Sri Purushotham,
S/o Late Lingadevachar,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at Irakasandra Colony Post,
Kolala Hobli,
Koratagere Thaluk,
Doddapalanahalli,
A.Venkatapura, Tumkur,
Karnataka -572 129.
(By Sri N.M.S., Advoate)
- V/s -
Respondents: 1. The Regional Manager,
Shriram Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
No.5, Monarch Chambers,
Infantry Road, 2nd floor,
Bangalore -560 001.
(Cover Note No.5050687
Valid from 04.06.2015 to
03.06.2015).
(By Sri H.K.R., Advocate)
2. Mr.Rajesh K.V.
S/o Sri Venkatesh,
R/at NO.573, 3rd Main road,
3rd cross, 'A' Block,
SCCH 1 2 MVC No.4257 /2015
2nd stage, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore -560 010.
(By Sri K.N.R.., Advocate)
*******
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:-
It is the case of the petitioners that on 12.06.2015 at about 2.00 p.m. when he was working as security at Maruthi Rice Mill and when he was opening the gate for the lorry bearing No. KA-05-AA-4879 which was coming in the reverse direction, all of a sudden the said lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without noticing the petitioner when he was giving the direction to the said lorry to stop the vehicle including the signals given by the petitioner dashed against him, as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries.
SCCH 1 3 MVC No.4257 /2015
3. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Sridevi hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given to him and then shifted to Hosmat hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient by spending Rs.5,00,000/- towards medicines and other expenses. The petitioner was hale and healthy before the accident and was working as security guard and earning Rs.8,000/p.m. and due to the accidental injury he could not attend to his work and lost income. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-05-AA-4879 and the respondent No.1 being the insurer and respondent NO.2 being the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. In pursuance of this claim petitions, this Court has issued notices against the respondents. Respondents have appeared before the Court through their respective counsels and have filed written statements separately.
Respondent No.1 has filed written statement denying the petition averments. It further contended that the accident was taken place solely due to the careless and negligence on the part of the petitioner, who was crossing the road without observing coming on going vehicles and himself caused the alleged accident. The date, time SCCH 1 4 MVC No.4257 /2015 and mode of accident, involvement of the vehicle, age , avocation and income of the petitioner, injuries sustained by the petitioner , expenses incurred by him are all denied. It is further contended that the first respondent reserves its right to amend its statement of objection and also to take over the defence of the insured in the event of the owner does not contest the proceedings under section 170 of M.V.Act. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. It is further contended that the driver of the 2nd respondent had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and by allowing such a person to drive the vehicle the respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that the second respondent owner has not complied the statutory obligation under section 134(c) of M.V.Act and the concerned police have not complied the provisions of section 158 (6) of M.V.Act. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Respondent No.2 also filed written statement denying the petition averments. It is contended that the lorry was duly insured with the first respondent and the police was valid as on the date of accident and the driver had valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. This respondent has denied the date, time and SCCH 1 5 MVC No.4257 /2015 mode of accident, age , avocation and income of the petitioner, injuries sustained by the petitioner , expenses incurred by him are all denied. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Based on the pleadings this Court has framed the following common issues in both the cases:-
Issues
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that that occurred on 12-6-2015 at about 2.00 p.m, at Maruthi Rice Mill, Near Sridevi College, Sira Road, Sira Gate, Tumkur Town, Tumkur, within the jurisdiction of Tumkur Town Traffic Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-AA-
4879 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
7. In order to prove his case, petitioner himself is examined as PW-1 and examined one witness as PW-2 and has got marked Ex.P.1 to 20. The respondents have examined one witness as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R.1.
SCCH 1 6 MVC No.4257 /2015
8. Heard the arguments of petitioner counsel, respondent No.1 counsel. Respondent NO.2 counsel is absent and hence taken as no arguments.
9. Having heard the arguments, 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 12.06.2015 at about 2.00 p.m. when he was working as security at Maruthi Rice Mill and when he was opening the gate for the lorry bearing No. KA-05-AA-4879 which was coming in the reverse direction, all of a sudden the said lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without noticing the petitioner when he was giving the direction to the said lorry to stop the vehicle including the signals given by the petitioner dashed against him, as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner in order to prove the allegation of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle he SCCH 1 7 MVC No.4257 /2015 has reiterated the averments of the petition in his affidavit and also he has relied upon the FIR, mahazar , IMV report, charge sheet which are marked at Ex.P.1 to 4. PW-1 was subjected to cross-examination by the respondent No.1 counsel. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he has sustained the injuries in the factory entrance door and he has given the complaint against the owner of the factory and their agency. It is elicited that the owner and agency also responsible for this injury since they have not taken precautions. It is elicited that he has not given the history, when he was taken to hospital. He further admits that lot of lorries comes to the said factory. It is suggested that when he was working in the factory the paddy bags fell on him and hence he has sustained the injuries and the said suggestion is denied. It is suggested that he has given false complaint after two days of the alleged accident and the same was denied. It is also suggested that the offending vehicle is no way concerned to the injuries sustained by him and the said suggestion denied.
11. On the other hand, the respondents have examined the legal Manager of the insurance company as RW-1 and he contended that the accident was on account of the carelessness on the part of the SCCH 1 8 MVC No.4257 /2015 petitioner and owner of the Rice Mill and also security agency. Further contended that owner and Security agency they have not at all taken any precautionary measurements, further the Police have filed a false charge sheet against the driver of the lorry. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that the averments made in para 2 to 4 are false and in order to absolve the liability he has given the evidence before the Court and these suggestions are denied.
12. The counsel for the petitioner in his arguments has contended that the accident is on account of the sole negligence of the driver of the lorry and the driver of the lorry inspite of petitioner giving the signal to stop the vehicle, he did not stop the vehicle and driven the same in reckless manner and dashed against the petitioner.
13. In keeping the contentions urged by both the counsels, this Court has to appreciate the facts. I have already pointed out in the petition an allegation is made against the driver of the offending vehicle stating that without observing he has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent and he moved in a reverse direction and inspite of signal was given to stop the vehicle and the PW-1 has reiterated the same. No doubt in the cross-examination of PW-1 , it is elicited that SCCH 1 9 MVC No.4257 /2015 the owner of the factory and agency are also responsible for the injuries since they have not taken any precautionary measures. It is important to note that when the petitioner was working as security, what precaution owner has to take has not been explained, mere admitting by the PW-1 that the owner and agency are responsible cannot be the ground to fix the contributory negligence. The driver of the lorry who was moving the vehicle in a reverse direction he should have noticed whether there is any person or any object to take the vehicle in a reverse direction and respondent No.l has not disputed the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and petitioner sustaining of injuries. Only contention is that Court has to take contributory negligence and in order to take contributory negligence there must be cogent evidence that owner and agency were responsible and how they are responsible when the offending lorry went in reverse direction and dashed against the petitioner there is no any explanation. I have already pointed out that the accident is not in dispute and the Police have after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry and IMV report which is marked at Ex.P.3 discloses that the lorry sustained damages like only rear door left side scratched due to impact and Ex.P.3 is also not disputed. Police have filed charge sheet SCCH 1 10 MVC No.4257 /2015 in terms of Ex.P.4 after holding an investigation. In the absence fof cogent evidence and though witness who has been examined as RW-1 is not an eye witness he is giving evidence based on the records and driver of the lorry has not been examined and there is no any rebuttal evidence. In order to consider the contributory negligence there must be cogent evidence as held in the judgment reported in (2014 Kant.M.A.C. 330 (SC) ( Meera Devi and another V/s. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others)-No cogent evidence to prove plea of contributory negligence, doctrine of common law cannot be applied. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
14. ISSUE No.2: It is the contention of the petitioner that he sustained injuries in the road traffic accident In order to substantiate his contention he has produced wound certificate at Ex.P.5 which discloses that petitioner has sustained comminuted fracture of left ulna, comminuted fracture of left radius, crush injury to forearm. Doctor has opined that the injuries No.1 to 3 are grievous in nature. Discharge summaries which are marked at Ex.P.6 to 10 discloses that petitioner was inpatient from 12.6.2015 to 22.6.2015 i.e, for a period of 11 days. Again petitioner was admitted to hospital on 29.6.2015 to 06.07.2015 i.e. for a period of 8 days. He took treatment SCCH 1 11 MVC No.4257 /2015 as inpatient from 21.7.2015 to 25.7.2015 i.e., for a period of 5 days and he was also inpatient from 04.08.2015 to 07.08.2015 i.e, for a period of 4 days. In all the petitioner was inpatient for a period of 28 days. During the course of inpatient petitioner underwent wound debridement and exploration left forearm on 15.6.15, again on 01.07.2015 he underwent wound debridement left forearm, on 22.7.2015 flap division and inset left forearm, on 05.08.2015 wound debvridement , split skin grafting left forearm was done. For having taken note of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, I award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
15. The PW-1 has examined the doctor as PW-2 and he states in his affidavit evidence that the petitioner has sustained type III open segmental fracture of both bones left forearm with severe crushing, laceration and contamination and near total amputation and he was discharged on 23.6.2015. PW-2 further says that on 12.6.2015 thorough wound debridement and external fixation and rush nailing of both bones left forearm was done. Thorough wound debridement with removal of dead muscle and suturing of remaining muscles on 15.6.2015, on 17.6.2015 major wound debridement with abdominal flap with inset was done with extensor tendon repair and this was SCCH 1 12 MVC No.4257 /2015 done to achieve wound coverage of the left forearm. On second admission on 01.07.2015 wound debridement left forearm was done to remove the dead portion of the flap and to ensure flap viability. On 3rd admission flap division and inset left forearm was done and on 4th admission wound debridement and removal of infected dead portions of flap was done to left forearm. The amputation of left forearm was avoided and wound closure was achieved but the fractures of the left forearm have gone for non-union, united with a large disfiguration in the form of a large skin flap and graft with prominent muscle bump. He has severe restriction of movement left elbow with complete stiffness and pain left wrist and left fingers with severe wrist pain. He has numbness over the skin graft with dryness and itching over the grafted and donor areas. Doctor has assessed the disability as per the Government of India Manual the upper limb disability of a below elbow amputee is 71% and this is equivalent to a whole body disability of 35% . However, after achievement of union the whole body disability is likely to be approximately 28 to 30%. He further says patient needs upper limb socks and daily application of Vaseline on the skin graft areas which will cost Rs.5000 to 6000/-. He needs open reduction and internal fixation of his left forearm with bone SCCH 1 13 MVC No.4257 /2015 grafting and physiotherapy which will cost Rs.1.5 lakhs. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he says he has not treated the patient. He only assessed the disability. He further says he has discussed with the treated doctor and he has not given any opinion in writing. He admits that he to follow the guidelines issued by the Central Government while assessing the disability for upper limb and lower limb. He admits that he has not assessed the range of movement and restrictions. He further admits that he has not referred the combined formula. It is suggested that, fracture is united and the said suggestion is denied. He says 35% of disability is inrespect of whole body and to particular limb 71% disability and the same is equallent to amputation since the same is not functioning. He says he can do the work with the right hand in the sitting posture. This Court also noticed the left hand of the petitioner is not functioning.
16. Now let me appreciate both the oral and documentary evidence available before the Court regarding disability is concerned. PW-1 says that due to the fracture and non-union of the fracture he could not able to work in his left hand and the same is not functioning. PW-2 in the cross-examination he says he has assessed only disability and he has not treated the patient. When the doctor has not treated the SCCH 1 14 MVC No.4257 /2015 patient this Court has to appreciate the evidence with due care and caution. Doctor has assessed disability at 71% to particular limb and 35% to whole body. PW-2 categorically admits that he has to follow the guidelines issued by the Central Government while assessing the disability for upper limb and movement and restrictions. He has not referred the combined formula while assessing the disability. For having taken note of this aspect into consideration, this Court also noticed the left hand of the petitioner below elbow is not functioning and disability assessed by the petitioner at 35% is little on higher side. PW-2 says the disability is equivalent to amputation since the same is not functioning. He also admits that there is chances of reunion if corrective steps are taken and then percentage of disability will be reduced. PW-2 in the affidavit he categorically says after achievement of union the whole body disability is likely to be approximately 28 to 30%. All these answers are elicited from the mouth of PW-2 and the disability assessed by him is on higher side and no doubt the left hand of the petitioner below the elbow is not functioning and hence, I am of the opinion that the whole body disability can be assessed at 25% which is just and reasonable and it SCCH 1 15 MVC No.4257 /2015 is a functional disability and not physical disability. Hence, I have taken the disability at 25% to whole body.
17. It is the case of the petitioner that he was aged 52 years and working as Security and earning Rs.8,000/p.m. To substantiate the same petitioner has not produced any documentary proof. In the cross- examination, he admits that he can examine the employer and also the security agency but he has not examined any of them and also he has not produced any document to show that he was working as security. He also admits that as per the document he was aged 56 years as on the date of accident. For having taken note of his age as well as nature of the job, in the absence of documentary proof, this Court has to take the income of the petitioner at Rs.7,500/p.m. as the accident is of the year 2015. This Court has to take note of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, his left lower limb is not functioning and he has to led rest of his life with the disability of 25%, hence, in view of the judgment of Apex Court reported in 2014 ACJ 627 (Syed Sqdiq and Others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India assessed the income at Rs.6,500/- per month for a vegetable vendor and assessed the permanent functional disability at 85% and added 50% income for SCCH 1 16 MVC No.4257 /2015 future prospects and also awarded compensation on other heads such as cost of artificial leg, for pain and suffering, for loss of expectation of life, loss of amenities in life, for medical and incidental expenses and litigation costs.
18. Further, it is also held in the judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 653 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and others) wherein it is held that :
Amputation of right leg above knee-
injured was hospitalized for 46 days and remained under treatment for 3 months -
injured an embroiderer, earning Rs.4,500/p.m. and as per entry 18, Par II, Schedule I of Workmen's Compensation Act, suffered 70 percent loss of earning capacity- Tribunal taking into consideration minimum wages for unskilled worker assessed income at Rs.3,166/p.m. , adopted multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs.4,83,472/-. High Court adopted multiplier of 18 and enhanced the award to Rs.6,35,808/-. Apex Court taking into consideration that injured was a skilled worker, accepted his claim of income of Rs.4,500/p.m. allowed 50 percent increase for future prospects , took loss of earning capacity at 70 percent, adopted multiplier of 18 and allowed Rs.10,20,600/- plus Rs.13,500/- for loss of income during treatment, Rs.75,000/- for medical expenses, attendant and conveyance, Rs.75,000/- for loss of marriage prospects, Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony and pain and suffering , Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities and SCCH 1 17 MVC No.4257 /2015 Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation. Award of Rs.6,35,808/- was enhanced to Rs.14,59,100/-.
In the case on hand, the income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.7,500/- per month. In the judgment referred supra, the Apex Court has allowed 50% of income for future prospects. Thus, the total income of petitioner works out to Rs.11,250/-. This Court has taken the disability suffered by the petitioner at 25%. Petitioner in the cross- examination admits that as per the document he was aged 56 years as on the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier applicable is 9. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of earning due to disability as : Rs.11,250x12x9x25/100 = Rs.3,03,750/. Hence, I award Rs.3,03,750/- towards future loss of earning due to permanent disability.
19. The petitioner has produced medical bills to the tune of Rs.3,05,137/- at Ex.P.11. The petitioner has produced 53 prescriptions also at Ex.P.12. The petitioner has taken treatment in the hospital as inpatient on four different dates. There is an inpatient bill amounting to Rs.1,75,000/- for the period from June 12th 2015 to June 23rd 2015 and it includes Rs.16,670/- drug charges. In the same there is another SCCH 1 18 MVC No.4257 /2015 inpatient bill amounting to Rs.27,000/- for the period from 29-6-2015 to 06.07.2015 and it includes medicines purchased for Rs.5,379/-. Another inpatient bill for the period from 21.7.2015 to 25.7.2015 amounting to Rs.28,230/- and it includes medicines purchased for Rs.5,629/-. Again one more inpatient bill for the period from 4.8.2015 to 8.8.2015 amounting to Rs.20,000/- and the medicines purchased includes 6,828/-. At Sl.No.100 there is a bill for Rs.500/- and it is paid by Kamalamma in the name of petitioner towards Co-operative bank. Hence, the same is deducted. Other bills are pertaining to the medicines purchased by the petitioner. Hence, I have considered the remaining bills to the tune of Rs.3,04,637/- and the same is rounded off to Rs.3,05,000/-. Hence, I award Rs.3,05,000/- towards Medical expenses.
20. The petitioner took treatment as inpatient in the hospital for a period of 28 days and he had undergone wound debridement many times and also he lost the functioning of left lower limb, therefore, he could not earn for a period of 6 months. Hence, I award Rs.45,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period .
SCCH 1 19 MVC No.4257 /2015
21. The petitioner took treatment in the hospital as inpatient from 12.6.2015 to 22.6.2015 i.e, for a period of 11 days and again petitioner was admitted to hospital on 29.6.2015 to 06.07.2015 i.e. for a period of 8 days and also he was inpatient from 21.7.2015 to 25.7.2015 i.e., for a period of 5 days and he was inpatient from 04.08.2015 to 07.08.2015 i.e, for a period of 4 days. In all, the petitioner was inpatient for a period of 28 days. During that period, he might have spent some amount towards conveyance, food and nourishment etc., Hence, I award Rs.30,000/- as compensation under the head of food and nourishment, conveyance, attendant charges and other incidental charges.
22. The petitioner is aged about 56 years and he has suffered 25% disability and he has lost the functioning of left lower limb. He has to live with this permanent disability through out his life. Hence, considering the above circumstances, I award Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities .
23. The doctor says petitioner is in need of one more surgery of open reduction and internal fixation of his left fore arm with bone grafting and physiotherapy which will cost Rs.1.5 lakhs. In the cross- examination, he categorically admits that he has not given any SCCH 1 20 MVC No.4257 /2015 estimation. In the absence of any estimation, the oral evidence of PW2 cannot be accepted to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. No doubt he denied the reunion of fracture but it requires a corrective steps. It is also the evidence of PW-2 that if corrective steps are taken then percentage of disability will be reduced. For having taken note of the present case that too he has to undergo open reduction and internal fixation of his left forearm with bone grafting, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.60,000/- under the head of future treatment. Hence, I award Rs.60,000/- towards future medical expenses.
24. It is also the evidence of PW-2 that petitioner requires the upper limb socks and daily application of Vaseline on the skin graft areas which will cost Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- annually. In the cross- examination, he admits that he has not assessed the range of movement and restrictions and also this Court has to take note of the fact that he was subjected to wound debridement several times and also subjected to skin grafting. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards purchase of upper limb socks and Vaseline during his life time.
SCCH 1 21 MVC No.4257 /2015
25. The details of compensation, I propose to award are as under:
Sl. Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 50,000-00
2. Medical expenses Rs. 3,05,000-00
3. Food and nourishment, conveyance , Rs. 30,000-00
attendant charges and other
incidental expenses
4. Loss of future earning due to Rs. 3,03,750-00
permanent disability
5. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000-00
6. Loss of income during the period of Rs. 45,000-00
treatment of the petitioner
7. Future medical expenses(surgery) Rs. 60,000-00
8. Purchase of Upper limb socks and Rs. 20,000-00
for Vaseline during his life time
Total Rs. 8,43,750-00
26. In all the petitioner is entitled for Rs.8,43,750/-. But the petitioner is not entitled for interest on Rs.60,000/- awarded under the head of future medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- awarded under the head of purchase of socks and Vaseline during the life time of the petitioner.
SCCH 1 22 MVC No.4257 /2015
27. 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 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.
28. As regards the liability is concerned, admittedly the respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of lorry bearing No. KA-05-AA-4879, hence, both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
SCCH 1 23 MVC No.4257 /2015 However, primary liability is fixed on respondent No.1 to satisfy the award. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
29. Issue No.3: 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 petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,43,750/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs.7,63,750/- from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.1- Insurance Company and he is directed 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, 40% with proportionate interest shall be kept in F.D. in his name in any nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of 5 years and the remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to him.
SCCH 1 24 MVC No.4257 /2015
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 4th day of November 2016) (H.P.SANDESH,) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : : Purushotham P.W.2 : Dr.Krishan Prasad
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : Copy of FIR Ex.P-2 : Copy of mahazar Ex.P-3 : Copy of IMV report Ex.P-4 : Copy of charge sheet Ex.P-5 : Copy of wound certificate Ex.P-6 to Discharge summaries 10 Ex.P-11 Medical bills(112) Ex.P-12 Prescriptions (53) Ex.P.13 X-ray report and lab report Ex.P.14 Photographs with CD (3) Ex.P.15 Out patient FILE Ex.P.16 to Inpatient records(3) 18 SCCH 1 25 MVC No.4257 /2015 Ex.P.19 Recent examination report Ex.P.20 X-rays with reports(2)
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW-1 Chaitresh D.Habbu Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 Copy of Policy
(H.P.SANDESH)
Member, Prl., M.A .C.T. Bangalore