Bangalore District Court
Savitha vs Sabari Ravi on 10 December, 2025
SCCH 15 1 MVC No.3680/2024
KABC020252722024
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.3680/2024
Dated : This the 10th day of December 2025
PETITIONER/S : 1. Smt. Savitha,
W/o Late Ravindra R
Aged about 41 years.
2. Kum. Sahana R
D/o Late Ravindra R
Aged about 20 years.
3. Smt. Sannamma,
W/o Late Gundaiah
Aged about 70 years.
Permanent address:
R/at Basavilnganadoddi,
Ataguru hobli,
Maddur, Mandya District - 571429.
SCCH 15 2 MVC No.3680/2024
All are R/at No.15, Ward No.7,
Ananda Reddy building,
Near Maruthi Home Appliance,
Hebbagodi, Bengaluru South,
Bommasandra Industrial Estate,
Bengaluru - 560099.
(By Sri. BHC, Adv.)
V/S
RESPONDENT/S: 1. Mr. Sabari Ravi,
S/o Ravi,
R/at Thirumalai Nagar,
Thadikkal, Santhanapalli,
Denkanikottai Taluk,
Krishnagiri District - 635107.
Tamilnadu State.
(owner of motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.TN-70-AQ-9819)
(Exparte)
2. The United India Ins. Co. Ltd.,
T.P. Hub, Krushi Bhavan Building,
6th floor, Hudson circle,
Bengaluru - 01.
(Policy No.0407033123P112794995
valid from 04.01.2024 to 03.01.2029)
(By Sri. DMJ, Adv.)
SCCH 15 3 MVC No.3680/2024
:JUDGMENT:
This petition emanates from the Motor Vehicle Accident dated 08.03.2024 wherein the petitioners have sought for compensation with respect to the death of Sri Ravindra 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 is the daughter and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased Ravindra who died in the Road Traffic Accident on 08.03.2024 due to the negligence of the rider of the respondent's vehicle. It is submitted that on 08.03.2024 at about 6.30 p.m., deceased Ravindra was walking on the left side of the road near Huskuru gate bus stand, Hebbagodi village service road, Opposite Millennium Hotel, at that time, rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.TN-70-AQ-9819 (herein after referred to as offending vehicle) came in a rash and negligent manner and endangering to human life and dashed against the SCCH 15 4 MVC No.3680/2024 Ravindra, resulting in the accident. Due to this impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident Ravindra was shifted to Kaveri hospital, Bengaluru and then shifted to Victoria hospital, but he died while under treatment on 16.03.2024.
3. Consequently, on 09.03.2024 FIR No.0153/2024 was registered with the Hebbagodi Police station under Sec.279 and 338 of IPC and charge sheet was filed under Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC and under Sec.181 of MV Act against the rider of the offending vehicle.
4. The Petitioners submit that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of offending vehicle. It is submitted that the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 47 years and was an auto driver and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. at the time of accident and he was the sole bread earner and had good future prospects. Due to untimely death of the deceased the Petitioners have lost love, affection and support which has caused mental agony to the SCCH 15 5 MVC No.3680/2024 petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% p.a in the interest of justice and equity.
5. In pursuance of service of notice issued to the Respondents, Respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed exparte.
The Respondent No.2 has filed written statement submitting as follows:
The respondent No.2 admitted that it has issued insurance policy to the offending vehicle in favour of the respondent No.1.
Without prejudice the liability of the respondent No.2 if any is subject to the validity of driving license and terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driver of the said vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license. It is denied that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that the alleged accident took place due to the sole negligence of the deceased. The age, avocation of the deceased is denied. Hence, on these grounds SCCH 15 6 MVC No.3680/2024 Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
6. Vide order dated 25.11.2024 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
Issues
1) Whether the Petitioners prove that Sri. Ravindra R S/o Late Krishnappa died in the Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 08.03.2024 at about 6.30 p.m., on Huskuru gate bus stand to Hebbagodi village service road, Millennium Hotel, Opposite left service road, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-70-AQ-
9819?
2. Whether the Petitioners further prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased M. Ravindra R. S/o Late Krishnappa?
3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay ?
SCCH 15 7 MVC No.3680/2024
4) What Order or Award ?
7. In order to substantiate the claim petition, the claimants have examined petitioner No.1 as PW1 and got examined one witness as PW.2 and relied upon Ex.P1 to 22 documents.
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 counsel for the petitioners that the rash and negligent riding of SCCH 15 8 MVC No.3680/2024 rider of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-70-AQ-9819 / offending vehicle caused the accident resulting in the death of Sri Ravindra.
10. In this regard the petitioner No 1 has got herself examined as PW1 and in her chief examination she has deposed that on 08.03.2024 at about 6.30 p.m., deceased Ravindra was walking on the left side of the road near Huskuru gate bus stand, Hebbagodi village service road, Opposite Millennium Hotel, at that time, rider of the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased, and due to this impact, deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries.
11. The petitioners in support of their claim have in addition to describing the course of the accident in line with the facts mentioned in the complaint have relied upon Ex.P1 to 7 documents. Ex.P1 is the FIR filed against the rider of the motorcycle for the offenses under Sec.279 and 338 of IPC on the SCCH 15 9 MVC No.3680/2024 basis of the complaint given by PW.1 as per Ex.P2, hence, there is no delay in lodging the complaint. Ex.P3 is the Spot mahazar with spot sketch which discloses the spot of the accident is almost at the edge of the road of the service road which goes to show that the accident has occurred when deceased was walking beside the road. Spot mahazar also discloses that the offending vehicle hit the pedestrian from backside, resulting in the accident. Ex.P4 is the inquest mahazar and the Ex.P5 is the PM report which discloses that the deceased succumbed to injuries due to the accident. Ex.P7 is the charge sheet filed after completion of investigation against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offenses under Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act on the ground that rider of the offending vehicle did not possess valid DL at the time of the accident. The contents of the charge sheet discloses that the rider of the offending vehicle dashed the pedestrian and was not possessing driving license and knocked the pedestrian from behind, resulting in the accident. Hence, these documents satisfactorily SCCH 15 10 MVC No.3680/2024 establish that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider 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 No.2 and she has admitted that she has not seen the accident and visited the spot on the next day and her husband was walking beside the road and it was not busy road. It is the contention of the respondent No.2 that deceased himself was walking negligently on the road and not on the footpath and accident occurred due to his negligence. Except the suggestion that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased himself, nothing much is elicited in the cross- examination in the cross-examination of PW.1 to prove that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased. 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. The fact that the driver of the offending vehicle has already been charge sheeted for the SCCH 15 11 MVC No.3680/2024 offenses under Sec. 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act itself is strong circumstance to support the oral testimony of PW.1. The certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, IMV report and Spot mahazar also corroborate the oral testimony of PW.1. In view of medical records there is no dispute regarding the death occurred in the above accident. In view of the said discussion it is satisfactorily established that death occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner 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 is the daughter and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased Ravindra. To prove their relationship with the deceased, PW.1 has relied on Ex.P9 to 11 and 22 i.e., the Aadhaar cards of the petitioners and the deceased. Hence, they have a right to apply for compensation due to death of Ravindra in road traffic accident.
SCCH 15 12 MVC No.3680/2024
14.
15. The Petitioner No.1 being the wife, petitioner No.2 is the daughter and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased, being the legal representatives of deceased Ravindra have a right to apply for compensation. As the Petitioners are the LRs of deceased Ravindra and also they have proved that the death of Ravindra has been caused by the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle, they are entitled for just compensation. Hence I answer Issue No 2 in the Affirmative.
16. Issue No.3: Computation of compensation under the various heads is assessed as follows:
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 47 years. Ex.P-13 is the Aadhaar card which shows that the date of birth of the deceased is SCCH 15 13 MVC No.3680/2024 01.06.1973. The alleged accident has taken place on 08.03.2024. Hence, by considering Ex.P13, the age of the deceased is taken as 51 years.
17. Income and avocation: It is stated in the evidence that deceased was an auto driver and was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m., In this regard, petitioners have not produced any document to prove the income and avocation of the deceased. Hence, notional income will have to be taken into consideration. Looking into the age of the deceased and the avocation the notional income as per the minimum wages Act as well as lok Adalath chart it is just and proper to fix the notional income of the deceased as Rs.16,500/- per month. Therefore, the Annual Income of the deceased would be 16,500X 12= 1,98,000/-. Hence for the purpose of computation of claim, the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs.1,98,000/-.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported as (2009) 6 SCC 121 has established SCCH 15 14 MVC No.3680/2024 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. TheIssues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for 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 SCCH 15 15 MVC No.3680/2024 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 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.
Relying on Para 59.4 of Pranay Sethi (supra), while determining the income, an addition of 10% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects should be made, where the deceased is permanently employed and was between the age SCCH 15 16 MVC No.3680/2024 of 50 to 60 years.
19. At the time of the death of the deceased, he was survived by his wife, daughter 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 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
20. In this Petition, the deceased was aged 51 years at the time of accident. Hence, towards future prospects 10% of the income has to be added. So, 10% of Rs.16,500/- comes to Rs.1,650/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.18,150/- p.m. (Rs.16,500/- + Rs.1,650/- = Rs.18,150/-). 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 SCCH 15 17 MVC No.3680/2024 is 11. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has pleased to hold that where the number of dependent of family members is 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
21. After deducting 1/3rd of the income towards his personal expenses in Rs.18,150/- it comes to Rs.12,100/- (Rs.18,150/- - 12,100/-) and multiplier applied is 11, (Rs.12,100/- x 12 = 1,45,200/-, Rs.1,45,200/- x 11 = 15,97,200/-). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,97,200/- towards loss of dependency.
22. Medical expenses: The petitioners have produced Ex.P8
- Medical bills and Ex.P12 - final bill and hence the petitioners are entitled an amount of Rs.2,64,720/- under this head.
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', SCCH 15 18 MVC No.3680/2024 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:
Sl.No. Head Amount
SCCH 15 19 MVC No.3680/2024
1 Annual Income 16,500X 12 Rs.1,98,000/-
2 Future prospects 10% of Rs.16,500/- Rs. 18,150/-
comes to Rs.1,650/-. Income of the
deceased comes to Rs.18,150/- p.m.
(Rs.16,500/ + Rs.1,650/-)
3 Multiplicand 1/3rd towards personal Rs.12,100/-
expenses of Rs.18,150/-, it comes to
Rs.12,100/-
(Rs.18,150/- - 6,050/-)
4 Multiplier (As per Sarla Verma)
applied is 11 Rs.15,97,200/-.
(Rs.12,100/- x 12 = Rs.1,45,200/-,
Rs.1,45,200/- x 11
5 Loss of dependency (A) Rs. 15,97,200/-
6 Funeral expenses (B) Rs. 18,150/-
7 Loss of estate (C) Rs. 18,150/-
8 Medical expenses incurred for the Rs. 2,64,720/-
treatment of deceased (D)
9 Loss of consortium (E)
48,400/- X 3
Rs. 1,45,200/-
10 Total Compensation awarded Rs.20,43,420/-
(A+B+C+D+E)
In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the SCCH 15 20 MVC No.3680/2024 petitioners are entitled to compensation amount of Rs.20,43,420/-.
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: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle. As far as the liability is concerned the learned counsel for the respondent No 2 has got examined its official as RW1 and in his chief examination he has deposed that the offending vehicle SCCH 15 21 MVC No.3680/2024 though has valid insurance as on the date of the accident as per ExR2 policy however the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess effective driving license and hence there is a breach of the policy conditions and hence the respondent No 2 is not liable to indemnify the insured.
RW1 is cross examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein he has admitted that they have not inquired with the RTO regarding existence or non existence of driving license and suggested that only with an intention to avoid liability a false contention is raised. The reply to section 133 notice issued to the owner of the offending vehicle discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license and neither the owner of the vehicle respondent No 1 herein has adduced any evidence to prove that the driver had driving license. In addition the charge sheet is also filed after investigation which point out to the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing driving license. Hence there is satisfactory evidence to show that there is breach of SCCH 15 22 MVC No.3680/2024 policy conditions.
The learned counsel for petitioners in this case has relied on the following decisions:
1. MFA No.202104 of 2024, between The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Nibhaye Vadde Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Pooja and others.
2. MFA No.1780/2024, between ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co.
Ltd., Vs. Smt. Arti Devi and others.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied on the following decisions:
1. MFA No.6154/2019, between Hemalatha @ Hema @ Hemavathi and others Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., & another
2. MFA No.3297/2019 (MV-D), between Smt. Adilakshmamma & others Vs. Raju and another.
On careful glance of the decisions relied upon by the counsel for SCCH 15 23 MVC No.3680/2024 the petitioner and respondent No2 admittedly the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner deals with pay and recovery and the decisions relied upon by the counsel for respondent No 2 are related to the fastening liability on the owner for not possessing Driving license as fundamental breach of policy conditions. Reliance can be placed on the observation in MFA No 202104/24 wherein the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Pappu and others Vs Vinod Kumar it is concluded that though there is a violation of the policy conditions however since the MV Act is a benevolent legislation the claimants cannot be deprived of the compensation so awarded in this case and the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation amount and later to recover the said amount from the insured. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Allahabad High court in MFA No.1780/2024, between ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Arti Devi and others where in a detailed discussion is made on the SCCH 15 24 MVC No.3680/2024 principle of pay and recover. The said decision has also taken into consideration catena of decisions and it is concluded that the Motor vehicles Act Amendment 2019 neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner and the law to this effect remains intact and the principle will still govern protecting third party interest. Hence the principle of law laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Swaran Singh and Ors can be made applicable to this case.
Be it as it may if the case on hand is taken into consideration no doubt not possessing driving license is a fundamental breach of the policy condition however the grant of award of compensation under the MV Act to the victim is a benevolent piece of legislation and hence calls for a harmonious construction so as to give remedy to the victims of road accidents. The contract of insurance is between the insurer and the insured and the intention of making statutory third party insurance is to compensate the road accident victims and their SCCH 15 25 MVC No.3680/2024 remedy cannot be abridged on the ground on of breach of policy conditions since the victims in this case are admittedly not privy to the contract but independent third parties. Hence they are entitled to obtain compensation from respondent no 1 who in turn will have to recover the same from the insured. There is no dispute about the validity of the Policy at the time of the accident. Hence the Respondent No.1 being owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. However, Respondent No.2 will have to deposit the compensation amount and thereafter recover the same from Respondent No.1. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 "Partly in the Affirmative".
26. Issue No.4: From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner No.1 to 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,43,420/- 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 SCCH 15 26 MVC No.3680/2024 Petitioners against the Respondents and under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner No.1 to 3 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.20,43,420/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
However, the Respondent No.2 being the Insurer, is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest as stated above within 60 days from the date of the Award and thereafter recover the same from the Respondent No.1 through due process of law.
The compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 to 3 are apportioned among them are as shown below:
SCCH 15 27 MVC No.3680/2024
1) 80% to the Petitioner No.1
2) 10% to the Petitioner No.2
3) 10% to the petitioner No.4 After deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.2, 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 Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of her choice.
Since, the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.2 and 3 is meager, the entire amount awarded to Petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be released to them by way of E-
payment and after their proper
identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
SCCH 15 28 MVC No.3680/2024 Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 10th day of December 2025) (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. Savitha P.W.2 Sri. Manikanta N
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.3 Spot mahazar with Spot sketch Ex.P.4 Inquest mahazar Ex.P.5 PM report Ex.P.6 IMV report Ex.P.7 Charge sheet Ex.P.8 Medical bills Ex.P.9 to 11 Aadhaar cards Ex.P.12 Final bill SCCH 15 29 MVC No.3680/2024 Ex.P.13 Aadhaar card Ex.P.14 Authorization letter Ex.P.15 MLC extract Ex.P.16 Accident register Ex.P.17 Police intimation Ex.P.18 IP bill Ex.P.19 Case sheet
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents:
RW.1 Sri. Prashanth N.G Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter Ex.R2 Insurance policy Ex.R3 Reply to Sec.133 Notice (RESHMA JANE RODRIGUES) XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACJM,Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.