Bangalore District Court
Lekkalapudi Reddappa Naidu vs Prathap.S on 6 May, 2025
KABC020175182023
BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM &
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MAY - 2025
PRESENT: SRI.NARENDRA.B.R., B.Sc, L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT
MVC No.3942/2023
PETITIONER:
Sri.Lekkalapudi Reddappa Naidu,
S/o.Late.L.Krishnama Naidu,
Aged about 60 years,
No.3-33, K.Venkatapuram Village,
K.Venkatapuram Post,
Gangadharanellore Mandalam,
Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh - 517 125.
Also at:
No.24/1, T.C.Palya,
K.R.Puram, Bengaluru - 560 036.
(By Sri.Naveen Kumar.N.S.., Adv.)
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS:
1. Mr.Prathap.S. S/o.Sadasivan,
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.3942/2023
Aged 30 years,
No.443, Munuswamy Koil Street,
Mangavaram, Gummidipoondi,
Thiruvallur - 601 201.
(RC Owner of the Maruti Swift Desire
Car bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AX-8725).
2. National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
R.O.No.144, 2nd Floor,
Shubharam Complex,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
Insurer of Vehicle Maruti Swift Desire
Car bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AX-8725.
(Policy 50240031221348171530
Valid from 09.09.2022 to 08.09.2023).
(R1 - Exparte)
(R2 - Sri.V.Rajashekar Reddy, Adv.)
J U D G M E N T
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner claiming compensation of ₹.30,00,000/- with interest from the date of petition till its realization for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 22.03.2023 at about 11.15 a.m., when petitioner was riding his Scooter bearing Regn.No.KA-05-JK-7036 SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.3942/2023 on Chittoor-Puttur Road, near Velkur Mitta, G.D.Nellore Mandal, a Maruti Swift Dezire Car bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AX-8725 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner's scooter. Due to said accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained multiple injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to District Head Quarters, Hospital, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh and then shifted to Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences & Research District H.Q., Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh and later shifted to DBR and SK Super Speciality Hospital, Tirupathi, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient and spent huge amount towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges.
Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was doing Agriculture work and was earning ₹.30,000/- per month. Due to the accidental SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.3942/2023 injuries, the petitioner suffered permanent disability. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of car by its driver. The respondents, being the R.C. owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
3. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1 not appeared before the tribunal and hence, he has been placed ex-parte. The respondent No.2 appeared before the tribunal through the counsel and filed the written statement.
4. In the Written Statement, the respondent No.2 denied the contents of claim petition specifically and categorically. The respondent No.2 also denied age, occupation and income of petitioner as well as place, time and manner of accident. Further respondent No.2 contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.3942/2023 in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. Further this respondent has not issued the policy No.50240031221348171530 valid from 09.09.2022 to 08.09.2023 in respect of car bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AX-8725 in favour of the first respondent and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of policy. Further at the time of accident the car was running on the road where there is accident taken place, the insured car was not having permit to run in the state of Andra Pradesh, the said vehicle is having permit to run in Tamil Nadu only. Further contended that the rider of motor cycle without having valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle without wearing head-guard/helmet with rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules by oversight caused the alleged accident and injured and there is no negligence on the part of offending SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.3942/2023 car driver. The amount claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, learned predecessor in office has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 22.03.2023 at about 11.15 a.m., on Chittoor-Puttur Road, near Velkur Mitta, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, when he was riding a motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-05-JK-7036, due to the rash and negligent driving of Car bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AX-8725 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the contention of the petition, petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara, working as Orthopaedic SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.3942/2023 Surgeon at Orthopaedic Surgeon as PW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P18 & 19 and closed their side of evidence. On the other hand, the respondent insurance company examined its Administrative Officer as RW.1 and driver of car by name Sri.S.Prathap examined himself as RW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.
7. Heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. Findings of this tribunal on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative;
Issue No.3 : As per final order for
the following:-
-:REASONS:-
9. Issue No.1:- The petitioner contended that SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.3942/2023 on 22.03.2023 at about 11.15 a.m., accident occurred on Chittoor-Puttur Road, near Velkur Mitta, G.D.Nellore Mandal, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, when he was riding a Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-05- JK-7036, due to the rash and negligent driving of Car bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AX-8725 by its driver in which he sustained grievous injuries.
10. In order to prove rash and negligent driving of Car bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AX-8725 by its driver, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1. In the chief examination, PW.1 deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of car by its driver, the accident occurred. On perusal of cross-examination of PW.1, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to disprove or disbelieve the case of petitioner. In the cross examination, nothing to dispute or disbelieve the contention of petitioner related to accident and negligence of driver of offending SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.3942/2023 vehicle could be elicited from the witness. Nothing to dispute or rebut the contention of petitioner related to the accident and cause of accident could be elicited during the cross examination.
11. Further, in order to prove the accident and negligence of the driver of car, the petitioner produced Ex.P.2 First Information statement lodged by one Sri.B.Dayalan S/o Late Doraswamy with the police on 22.03.2023 and its translated version is marked as Ex.P.2(a). On the basis of first information lodged by said Dayalan, the police registered the FIR against the driver of offending vehicle as per Ex.P.1 for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC. In the first information statement as well as FIR, the accident is stated to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle. The accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.3942/2023 part of driver of offending vehicle. In the first information statement, there is allegation of rashness and negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. The FIR is registered against the driver of offending vehicle. The petitioner also furnished spot sketch which is marked as Ex.P.4 and its translated version is marked as Ex.P.4(a). The said document discloses that the police visited the place of incident after registration of FIR and the place of incident is described in the said document. No satisfactory materials are placed before the Tribunal to show that the facts at the place of incident, as described in the sketch, are contrary to the actual facts. Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate which discloses the aspect of injuries sustained by the petitioner. The I.O., after completion of investigation, filed the final report against the SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.3942/2023 owner of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable U/s.279, 337 & 338 of IPC as per Ex.P.6. In the final report also, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. The police filed the final report after detailed investigation. The driver or owner of offending vehicle does not appear to have questioned the correctness of the investigation. No satisfactory materials are placed by the respondents to show that the investigation is not conducted in a proper manner. The driver or owner of offending vehicle does not appear to have challenged or questioned the FIR or final report filed by the police. In the FIR as well as final report, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle which aspect does not appear to have been challenged in any manner. The respondents not SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.3942/2023 furnished any satisfactory materials in order to rebut or controvert the documents furnished by petitioner related to negligence of driver of offending vehicle. PW.1 is cross examined on behalf of respondents and in the cross examination also, nothing to disprove or disbelieve the contention of petitioners could be elicited. No satisfactory materials are being placed before the Tribunal to disprove the contention of petitioners pertaining to the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident.
12. The respondents not placed satisfactory materials before the tribunal to disprove case of petitioner. In the absence of sufficient and satisfactory materials to the contrary, the documents furnished by the petitioner are to be considered for ascertaining the aspect of negligence. The respondents not furnished any SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.3942/2023 materials to show that there is no negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. On perusal of entire record, it discloses that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of driver of insured vehicle and the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents produced as per Exs.P.1 to P.6, this tribunal is of the opinion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AX-8725 by its driver and same has resulted in injuries to the Petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.1 answered in the Affirmative.
13. Issue No.2: In view of answering issue No.1 in the Affirmative, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. In order to assess the compensation, the Tribunal has to look into several factors like SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.3942/2023 injury, pain and suffering sustained by the petitioner and amount spent by the petitioner towards medical expenses, food and extra nourishment and medical attendants, conveyance, loss of income during treatment, disability, loss of amenities etc.
i) Towards injury, pain and suffering:- The petitioner contended that due to accident, he sustained injuries and underwent surgery and later discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment. In order to prove the injuries sustained, the petitioner produced Wound certificate issued by Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, which is marked at Ex.P.5. The said document discloses the aspect of injuries sustained by petitioner and the injuries are grievous in nature. As per the materials placed before the Tribunal, the petitioner appears to have taken treatment at the hospital as an inpatient. In order to substantiate the said aspect, the SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.3942/2023 petitioner produced Ex.P13 & 14 - Discharge Summaries, issued by DBR & SK Super Speciality Hospital and examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara as PW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P18 & 19. PW.2/doctor has deposed that he examined the petitioner for assessment of permanent physical disability and stated that the petitioner is having disability to left upper limb at 29% and to the whole body at 15%. By considering the injuries and facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the view that the compensation of ₹.50,000/- appears just and reasonable towards pain and suffering.
(ii) Towards Medical Expenses: The petitioner has claimed compensation towards medical expenses. The petitioner contended that he took treatment at Hospital. The petitioner has produced 47 medical bills amounting to ₹.1,82,675/- marked at Ex.P.15, 2 medical prescriptions marked at Ex.P.12 and advance SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.3942/2023 receipts marked at Ex.P.16. The respondents not furnished any satisfactory materials in order to rebut or disprove the said documents. PW.1 is cross examined on behalf of respondents and in the cross examination also, nothing to rebut or doubt the medical bills, is elicited. The respondents not rebutted the medical bills by placing cogent evidence. So, this tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.1,82,675/- appears just and reasonable towards medical expenses.
(iii) Towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant charges: On perusal of records, the accident occurred on 22.03.2023 and the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient at the hospital. On perusal of evidence, the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient at Hospital as he sustained injuries. During the time of treatment, the petitioner might have required good food and extra nourishment. The SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.3942/2023 petitioner produced Discharge Summaries, wherein it discloses that petitioner took treatment as an inpatient from 02.06.2023 to 04.06.2023 and again from 29.03.2023 to 01.04.2023 i.e., for a period of 07 days. Considering the said facts, the Tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.500/- per day for 07 days to a sum of ₹.3,500/- appears just and reasonable towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant.
(iv) Towards Conveyance:
The petitioner is the resident of Venkatapuram Village, K.Venkatapuram Post, Gangadharanellore, Mandalam, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh and he got admitted to the hospital for availing treatment. In order to prove this aspect, the petitioner has produced Discharge Summaries marked at Ex.P.13 & 14. The petitioner might have incurred expenses for conveyance during the period of treatment. SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.3942/2023 Considering the injuries and facts of the case, the tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.10,000/- appears just and proper towards conveyance charges.
(v) Towards loss of income during treatment: The petitioner contended that he was doing Agriculture work and earning a sum of ₹.30,000/- per month. In order to prove the income, the petitioner not produced any satisfactory documents. The petitioner not furnished any satisfactory materials to show that he was earning ₹.30,000/- per month, as contended by him. No materials are placed by petitioner in order to substantiate his contention pertaining to his occupation and income. In the absence of satisfactory materials, the notional income of petitioner is to be taken into consideration. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the notional income of SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.3942/2023 the petitioner considered as ₹.16,000/-. On perusal of record, it appears that petitioner might not have attended his work for some time due to accidental injuries. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for ₹.20,000/- towards loss of income during treatment.
(vi) Towards Loss of future earning capacity:
The petitioner contended that due to accident, he got admitted as an inpatient at the hospital and sustained permanent disablement. The petitioner also examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara, working as Orthopaedic Surgeon at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital and examined as PW.2. PW.2/Doctor examined the patient clinically and radiologically to assess disabilities. The doctor deposed that petitioner sustained left clavicle fracture with hypertension and underwent surgery in the form of ORIF with plate and screws done on 30.03.2023 and revision surgery SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.3942/2023 done on 02.06.2023 and later discharged. Further, on recent examination for the purpose of assessment of disability, it was noticed that there was pain and difficulty in using left upper limb for activities of daily living. Further, on examination, diffuse swelling of left shoulder and arm is seen and surgical scars are seen over left clavicle. Further in recent x-rays, which reveals that united fracture of clavicle left with LCDCP in situ. The doctor examined the petitioner for assessment of disability and assessed the disability to left upper limb at 29% and to the whole body at 15%. In order to prove the disability, doctor has produced Ex.P.18 & 19 i.e., X-ray and OP Record for assessment of disability. The fractures are stated to have been united which aspect is stated by PW.2 also. PW.2 not stated that the petitioner will not be able to do any work at all. On perusal of materials on record, SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.3942/2023 it appears that the petitioner is able to do his work with some difficulties. No satisfactory materials are placed before the Tribunal to show that it is not possible for the petitioner to do any work due to accidental injuries. By considering the oral and documentary evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner can do his work with difficulty. As per ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar V/s. Ajay kumar and another and considering facts and circumstances of the case, the functional disability is assessed at 10%.
In order to prove age, the petitioner produced Ex.P.9 - Notarized Copy of Aadhaar Card, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 05.10.1962. The respondents not furnished any satisfactory materials in order to controvert or rebut the documents furnished by petitioner related to the age. As per SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.3942/2023 the documents furnished by petitioner, his age appears to be 60 years at the time of accident. Accident occurred on 22.03.2023. In the absence of materials to the contrary, the documents furnished by petitioner are to be considered for ascertaining the age. As per the materials on record, the age of petitioner is 60 years at the time of accident and same is taken into consideration for applying multiplier. As per Smt.Sarla Verma case multiplier applicable is '09'. As per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar V/s. Ajay Kumar and another, this tribunal not deducted personal expenses of petitioner out of his gross income. Hence, future earning capacity of the petitioner due to permanent disability works out as under : Annual Income before accident : (₹.16,000/- x 12) = ₹.1,92,000/-
Loss of future earning p.a. (10% of prior annual income)= ₹.19,200/-.SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.3942/2023
Multiplier applicable with reference to age - 09 Loss of future earnings - (₹.19,200/- x 09) = ₹.1,72,800/-.
The petitioner is entitled for ₹.1,72,800/- under the head of loss of future earning capacity.
(vii) Deprivation of Future Amenities:- As per the materials on record, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to the accident. The materials on record disclose that the petitioner will be able to do his activities with some difficulties. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.10,000/- appears just and reasonable under the head deprivation of future amenities.
(viii) Towards Future Medical Expenses:
The doctor/PW.2 has opined that the petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implant the estimate of this surgery is around ₹.40,000/-. No SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.3942/2023 satisfactory materials are placed before the Tribunal in order to show the actual expense that may be incurred for future surgery. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case ₹.25,000/- appears just and reasonable under the head deprivation of future medical expenses.
14. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
a. Towards injury pain and ₹.50,000/-
suffering
b. Towards Medical Expenses ₹.1,82,675/-
c. Towards food and extra ₹.3,500/-
nourishment and medical
attendant
d. Towards conveyance ₹.10,000/-
e. Towards loss of income ₹.20,000/-
during treatment
f. Towards loss of future ₹.1,72,800/-
earning
g. Deprivation of future ₹.10,000/-
amenities
h. Towards future medical ₹.25,000/-
expenses
Total compensation ₹.4,73,975/-
SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.3942/2023
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of ₹.4,73,975/-.
15. In view of ratio and dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA.No.100090 of 2014 C/w. MFA.No.25107 of 2013 between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another, the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
16. The petitioner filed the petition against the respondents. It is already held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Swift Dezire Car bearing Regn.No.TN-18-AX-
8725. There appears to be no dispute related to ownership of respondent No.1 with respect to the offending vehicle. The materials on record disclose that the vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.3942/2023 the policy of insurance is valid and effective at the time of accident. The respondent No.2 specifically contended that the vehicle was plied in an area where permit was not extended and as such, there is violation of conditions of policy due to which respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.2 contended that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit to drive the vehicle in the jurisdiction where the accident took place. The respondent No.2, who is the owner of the offending vehicle got examined as RW.2 and furnished the notarized copy of permit, which is marked as Ex.R.4. The respondent No.2 also furnished the copy of permit, which is marked as Ex.R.2. On perusal of Ex.R.4, it discloses the aspect of grant of permit pertaining to the offending vehicle by Transport Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said document discloses the aspect of the SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.3942/2023 vehicle having permit to ply in the area where accident took place. The said document discloses the validity of permit throughout the India. It is mentioned in the said document that the permit is valid throughout India which appeared to cover the jurisdiction where the accident took place. Ex.R4 also discloses the aspect of permit being obtained in Tamil Nadu also which is stated to be home State. Ex.R.4 clearly discloses the aspect of permit being in existence at the time of accident pertaining to the vehicle and it also discloses that the permit is valid with respect to the jurisdiction where the accident took place. The said document negates the contention raised by respondent No.2. It is also pertinent to note that respondent No.1 appeared before the tribunal and stated that the vehicle was having valid permit to ply in the jurisdiction where the accident took place. Nothing contrary to the SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.3942/2023 said aspect could be elicited through the witness in the cross examination. The contention of respondent No.2 that the vehicle was not having valid permit is contradicted by evidence of RW.2 and Ex.R.4. Ex.R4 and evidence of RW.2 clearly indicates the aspect of vehicle having valid permit to ply in the jurisdiction where the accident took place. As such, the contention of respondent No.2 does not sustain for consideration.
17. The counsel for respondent No.2 relied on decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA.No.967 of 2017 (MV-D) in between Sri.Venkatesh Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co., Ltd., and others.
18. The said decision is carefully perused by the tribunal and the ratio laid down in the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. In the said decision, there is violation of permit SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.3942/2023 which aspect has been noted by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Para.10 of the said Judgment. But, in the case on hand, Ex.R4 clearly discloses the aspect of grant of permit to the vehicle it is valid throughout India and thus, the vehicle is having valid permit to ply the vehicle in the jurisdiction where the accident took place. As such, the decision relied by counsel for respondent No.2 is not applicable to the case on hand. As the materials on record discloses that respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and it also discloses that the offending vehicle was having valid and effective policy of insurance at the time of accident, respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. So, the respondents, being the R.C. owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.3942/2023 the petitioner. Hence, Issue No.2 answered Partly in the Affirmative.
19. Issue No.3: In view of the findings given on the above said issues, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following:
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of ₹.4,73,975/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Five only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioner. Respondent No.2 being the
insurer is primarily liable to deposit the SCCH-11 31 MVC.No.3942/2023 said compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of award.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount, 40% shall be deposited in the name of petitioner for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank and the remaining 60% shall be released in favour of petitioner on proper identification.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court in MFA.No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioner hereby directed to produce particulars of his Bank Account, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contained compulsorily photographs of petitioner, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioner shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar SCCH-11 32 MVC.No.3942/2023 Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest thereon by respondent, the petitioner is entitled to receive amount as mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
Bank shall not advance loan on such FD, and shall not cause premature release of FD without permission from the Tribunal.
Bank shall release amount along with interest thereon in favour of petitioner on proper verification and identification or credit said amount to her account after expiry of three years period of deposit, without waiting for further order of court. The Advocate fee is fixed at ₹.1,000/-. Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer over computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 06th day of May, 2025.) [ (NARENDRA.B.R) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-11 33 MVC.No.3942/2023 A N N E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
PW.1 Sri.Lekkalapudi Reddappa Naidu PW.2 Dr.S.A.Somashekara DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P1 FIR
Ex.P2 Complaint
Ex.P2(a) Translated copy of complaint
Ex.P3 AIR Details
Ex.P4-4(a) Sketch and its translated copy
Ex.P5 Wound Certificate
Ex.P6 Charge Sheet
Ex.P7 Copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of DL
Ex.P9 Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card
Ex.P10 Copy of DL
Ex.P11 Outpatient Card
Ex.P12 Medical prescriptions
SCCH-11 34 MVC.No.3942/2023
Ex.P13-14 Discharge Summaries
Ex.P15 Medical bills
Ex.P16 Advance Receipts
Ex.P17 X-ray films
Ex.P18 X-ray
Ex.P19 OP Record for assessment of
disability
LIST OF WITNESSES ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 Sri.Himendra Kartantik Simha.M.N
RW.2 Sri.Prathap
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS :
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Copy of Permit Extract
Ex.R3 Copy of Policy
Ex.R4 Notarized copy of Permit
(NARENDRA.B.R.)
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU