Bangalore District Court
Sri.Sharana Basava Aachari vs North South Logistics Service on 27 May, 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
PRESENT: SRI. SATISH J. BALI,
B.Com., LL.M.,
X Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes
BENGALURU .
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016.
MVC.No.1696/2014
PETITIONER: Sri.Sharana Basava Aachari,
27 years, S/o Monayya Aachari,
R/a No.26, Janatha Colony,
Doddakannalli, Sarjapura Road,
Bengaluru-560 078.
(By Pleader Sri.M.Lakxmanna)
Vs.
RESPONDENT: 1. North South Logistics Service,
Plot No.07, 1st Floor,
Rajiv Nagara, Opp: Payal Cinema,
Old Delhi Road, Behind Cream
RssTorent Sec-14, Gurgaon.
Pin: 122001 (HR)
(RC Owner of lorry bearing
Regn.No.HR-55-K-9547)
(Exparte)
2. Tata AIG Ins.Co.Ltd.,
No.69, J.P.&D.J. Jambukeshwar
Arcade, 3rd Floor, Millers Road,
Bengaluru-52.
(Insurer of lorry bearing
Regn.No.HR-55-K-9547)
(By Pleader Sri.S.Maheshwara)
-o0o-
SCCH-16 2 MVC.1696/2014
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, claiming compensation on account of the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the petition averments are as under:
On 14.12.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. when the petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-52-E-1185 slowly and cautiously observing the traffic rules and regulations on the left side of Bengaluru- Tumakuru NH-4 Kunigal Bypass under bridge, Nelamangala Town, at that time, one lorry bearing Regn.No. HR 55 K 9547 suddenly came from behind and took a turn in high speed, rashly & negligently, while overtaking, came on the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the rear portion of the motor cycle of the petitioner and caused the accident. Due to the impact of the said accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries and his motor cycle was badly damaged. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Sapthagiri Hospital, Hesaraghatta Main Road, Bengaluru wherein he was SCCH-16 3 MVC.1696/2014 admitted as an inpatient and multiple fractures were confirmed. The POP was applied, discharged with advice to take bed rest and follow-up treatment. It is stated that the petitioner is still bed-ridden and undergoing regular check- up. It is stated that prior to the date of the accident, the petitioner was working as Carpenter in Bengaluru and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. Nelamangala Police have registered a case against the driver of lorry bearing No. HR 55 K 9547 in Cr.No.405/2013 under Sec.279 & 337 IPC.
Respondent No.1 is the owner of the above said lorry and respondent No.2 is the insurer and policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, both are liable to pay compensation.
3. In pursuance to the notice issued, respondent No.2 appeared before the Court and filed its objections as below:
The 2nd respondent has admitted the issuance of policy in respect of the above said lorry and contended that the liability to indemnify the risk if any, is subject to terms & conditions of the policy as well as holding valid and effective driving licence, RC, permit & FC. The respondent contended that immediately after the accident, the intimation of SCCH-16 4 MVC.1696/2014 accident was not given by the owner. The jurisdictional Police have not furnished the necessary documents, therefore, there is violation of Sec.134(c) and Sec.158(6) of MV Act. The respondent has contended that on 15.12.2013, after lapse of one day, complaint was lodged without any reasons and the said lorry was falsely implicated. The driver of said lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and owner has handed over the said vehicle to the person who had not possessed valid licence. It is contended that there was no valid permit and fitness to the above said lorry as on the date of accident. The respondent has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
4. Respondent No.1 though served with notice, has not appeared before the court , hence he was placed exparte.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he met with a road traffic accident that occurred on 14.12.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. on Bengaluru-Tumakuru NH.4 Kunigal Bypass under Bridge, Nelamangala Town, Bengaluru and the Petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing Reg.NO.HR-55-K-9547? SCCH-16 5 MVC.1696/2014
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation?
If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
6. The Petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.24. The Medical record Officer was examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.25 to P.28. Orthopaedic Surgeon of Victoria Hospital was examined as PW.3 and got marked documents at Ex.P.29 & P.30. Head of Department, Prosthetic & Orthopaedic of Victoria Hospital was examined as PW.4. Petitioner was further examined and got marked documents at P.31 to P.34. Employer of the petitioner was examined as PW.5 and got marked documents at Ex.P.35 to P.37.
7. Respondent No.2 has not led any evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments and perused materials on record. Respondent No.2 has filed notes of written arguments and both the counsels have relied upon following rulings:
Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2013 ACJ 2122 ( Neerupam Mohan Mathur vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.) SCCH-16 6 MVC.1696/2014
2. 2010 ACJ 1228 (Arshada Banu vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.& another)
3. 2011 ACJ 2845 (Ibrahim vs. Raju & others)
4. 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh & others) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2005 ACJ 1323 SC (National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Prembai Patel & others)
2. AIR 20013 SC 4172 (The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty & another)
3. 2012 AIR SCW 266 (National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Kusuma & another)
4. 2012 AIR SCW 1519 ( New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. Yogesh Devi & others)
5. 2010 ACJ 1228 (Arshada Banu vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.& another)
6. 2003(8) SCC 745 (Narbada Devi Gupta vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal & another) 7.2007 ACJ 1284 SC (Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd. vs. Meena Variyal & others)
9. By considering the evidence on record and because of my below discussed reasons, I answer the above Issues as below:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2 Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3: As per Final Order for the following SCCH-16 7 MVC.1696/2014 reasons:
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1: The petitioner has come up with the specific case that on 14.12.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. when the petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-52-E-1185 slowly and cautiously observing the traffic rules and regulations on the left side of Bengaluru-Tumakuru NH-4 Kunigal Bypass under bridge, Nelamangala Town, at that time, lorry bearing Regn.No. HR - 55-K-9547 came from behind rashly & negligently, while overtaking, came on the extreme right side of the road and dashed against the rear portion of the motor cycle, thereby, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. On looking to the objections, the respondent has contended that there is one day delay in lodging the complaint and above said lorry was falsely implicated.
11. The petitioner who is examined as PW.1, has reiterated the petition averments by way of examination-in- chief. Apart from that, he has stated that in the said accident, he has sustained severe crush injury on left leg and below knee amputation of left lower limb was done. He has also stated that he has sustained comminuted fracture SCCH-16 8 MVC.1696/2014 distal shaft of tibia, fracture distal shaft of fibula and skin laceration. The petitioner has produced FIR at Ex.P.1, complaint at Ex.P.2, charge sheet at Ex.P.3, Mahazar at Ex.P.4, IMV Report at Ex.P.5, wound certificate at Ex.P.6, discharge summary at Ex.P.7 and also MLC extract at Ex.P.26, casesheet at Ex.P.27, x-rays at Ex.P.28, OPD card at Ex.P.29 & x-rays at Ex.P.30.
12. On perusal of the complaint as per 12, one Sri.Veeresh who is the son-in-law of the petitioner has lodged complaint stating that on 14.12.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. they left to the work along with the petitioner on motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-52-E-1185 and it was ridden by the petitioner, the complainant was pillion rider and when they reached near Kunigal Bypass under bridge, Nelamangala Town, at that time, lorry bearing Regn.No. HR 55 K 9547 suddenly came from behind and took a turn, came on the extreme right side and dashed against the rear portion of the motor cycle because of which he sustained injuries. In the complaint itself, he has stated that he was under going treatment and he has filed complaint on 15.12.2013. The FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint by Nelamangala Police in Cr.No.405/2013 against the driver of above said lorry for the offences punishable SCCH-16 9 MVC.1696/2014 under Sec.279 and 337 IPC. Police have conducted Mahazar as per Ex.P.4, IMV Report as per Ex.P.5 and filed charge sheet against the driver of above said lorry for the aforesaid offences. The charge sheet has not been challenged by respondent No.1. The wound certificate which is marked at Ex.P.6 issued by Sapthagiri Hospital reveals that the petitioner has sustained severe crush injury on left leg and below knee amputation of left lower limb, comminuted fracture distal shaft of tibia, fracture distal shaft of fibula and skin laceration. In the opinion of the doctor, said injuries are grievous in nature. The petitioner has also produced discharge summary of Sapthagiri Hospital marked as Ex.P.7 which confirms the above said injuries.
13. PW.1 was cross-examined by the counsel for respondent No.2 wherein he has stated that his brother-in- law lodged complaint on the very next day and immediately after the accident he was taken to Nelamangala Govt.Hospital and from there, he was shifted to Sapthagiri Hospital. He has stated that he narrated about the road traffic accident in Sapthagiri Hospital. A suggestion was put to PW.1 that the lorry has not caused the accident and due to his own negligence, the accident occurred. It is also suggested that the petitioner has sustained only simple SCCH-16 10 MVC.1696/2014 injuries and no amount has been spent towards medical expenses, conveyance, food and nourishment. Rest of the cross-examination is in respect of the avocation, future medical expenses, etc. Though PW.1 was extensively cross- examination by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 he was not successful in eliciting from the mouth of PW.1 which helps to the case of the respondent No.2. Moreover, respondent No.2 has not made any efforts to examine the driver of the offending lorry. The said driver is proper person to speak regarding the circumstances in which the accident occurred. The owner of the lorry has not appeared before the court in spite of service of notice, he was placed exparte. If at all the said lorry was not at all involved in the accident, respondent No.2 ought to have examined any of its officials and produced the investigation report which would help to contest the case but no such efforts have been made by respondent No.2. Therefore, viewed from any angle, it is quite clear that the accident was due to rash & negligent driving by the driver of lorry bearing No.HR-55-K-9547. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. ISSUE No.2: This issue is in respect of the quantum of compensation and in respect of the liability. The Wound Certificate & discharge summary of petitioner SCCH-16 11 MVC.1696/2014 which are marked at Ex.P.6 & P.7 reveals that, the petitioner has sustained severe crush injury on left leg and below knee amputation of left lower limb. The discharge summary of Sapthagiri hospital also reveals that he was treated as an inpatient from 14.12.2013 to 13.1.2014. Casesheet which is marked at Ex.P.27 also reveals that petitioner was treated as inpatient for 31 days in the said hospital. The discharge summary and casesheet reveals that due to crush injury to lower 3rd of left leg, there was total amputation of lower 3rd of left leg. Hence, looking to the above said injuries and the period which the petitioner was under treatment, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head pain and sufferings.
15. The Petitioner has produced medical bills as per Ex.P.9 worth Rs.23,636/- and prescriptions at Ex.P.8. The medical bills are in accordance with the prescriptions. These medical bills have not been disputed by the Respondent. I have meticulously gone through the said medical bills and prescriptions and satisfied that the medical bills are genuine. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.23,636/- under the head medical expenses and the same is awarded under the head medical expenses. SCCH-16 12 MVC.1696/2014
16. The discharge summary of Sapthagiri Hospital reveals that petitioner underwent treatment as an inpatient from 14.12.2013 to 13.1.2014 for a period of 31 days and during the said period, petitioner has incurred expenses towards conveyance, attendant charges and nutritious food. The petitioner was under follow-up treatment eve after discharge. Considering the length of time the petitioner underwent treatment and also the follow-up treatment, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner towards attendant charges, nutritious food and conveyance charges.
17. The petitioner has stated that he is a carpenter by profession and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. By examining PW.5, he has tried to impress upon this tribunal that he was working as Carpenter under M/s M.M.Construction from 2010 till 2013 and was earning Rs.15,000/- to 20,000/- p.m. PW.5 has produced certificate issued by M.M.Construction marked at Ex.P.35, estimation at Ex.P.36, notarized copy of Aadhaar card at Ex.P.37. In his cross- examination, PW.5 has admitted that he has not produced any documents to show that he is the owner of M/s M.M.Constructions as well as he has not produced the service tax returns. He has admitted that he has not taken SCCH-16 13 MVC.1696/2014 licence from the B.B.M.P. in order to run their company. Suggestions were put to falsify Ex.P.35 and P.36 which are denied. PW.5 admitted that there is no document to show that petitioner was paid Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- p.m. towards salary. I have perused Ex.P.35 which is certificate issued by M.M.Constructions which reveals that petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to R.20,000/- for his carpentry work. It is admitted by PW.5 that he has not produced any document to show the expenses of M.M.Construction company. If at all the said company was in existence, the document to that effect ought to have been produced before the court. Though Ex.P.35 speaks that petitioner was paid salary of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20.000/- p.m., but if all the said salary was paid to the petitioner as stated in Ex.P.35, the same should have been reflected in books of account of the said company. PW.5 has not produced any such accounts even, he has not produced his bank statement for having paid the said salary to the petitioner. Looking to Ex.P.10 and P.11, notarised copy of ID card issued by Karnataka Vishwakarma Mahamandala, it is clear that the petitioner was a carpenter. Further the photographs at Ex.P.16 reveals that petitioner was a carpenter by profession. Ex.P.17 the disability certificate SCCH-16 14 MVC.1696/2014 issued by the department of Handicap & Senior Citizens Welfare reveals that petitioner has sustained 50% disability. Ex.P.18 is the Disability Certificate and Identity card which reveals that petitioner has sustained 50% disability in the accident.
18. Merely on production of Ex.P.35 certificate issued by M.M.Constructions, it cannot be come to the conclusion that the petitioner was drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- p.m. The Driving licence of the petitioner marked at Ex.P.13 reveals that he was born on 20.2.1985, so, as on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 28 years. The accident occurred in the year 2013. Hence, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the petitioner by doing carpenter work, earning Rs.9,000/- p.m.
19. The petitioner has sustained severe crush injury on left leg and below knee amputation of left lower limb, he underwent surgeries for the said injuries and he took treatment as an inpatient for 31 days in Sapthagiri Hospital and further he has taken follow-up treatment. Looking to the injuries and due to below knee amputation of left leg, in order to recover from injuries, at least a minimum period this Tribunal is of the opinion that he requires atleast six months for recovery from said injuries. Hence, at the rate of SCCH-16 15 MVC.1696/2014 Rs.9,000/- p.m., a sum of Rs.54,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head loss of income during laid up period.
20. The petitioner has sustained severe crush injury on left leg and below knee amputation of left lower limb. He has examined PW.3 who has stated that petitioner underwent below knee amputation left leg and sustained left comminuted fracture distal shaft tibia and fibula. In his cross-examination, he has assess the permanent physical disability suffered by the petitioner at 80% to left lower limb which is 40% to the whole body. From this admission, it is clear that PW.3 is not treated doctor and he has assessed the disability suffered by the petitioner. Though petitioner has stated that there is restriction of joint movements of left knee by 20%, but he has not shown the details of restriction of joint movements. PW.3 has not given evidence regarding the stability and mobility components, hence, the whole body disability of 40% assessed by PW.3 appears to be on higher side. Due to amputation of below knee left leg and comminuted fracture distal shaft of left tibia and fibula this Tribunal deems it fit to take the whole body disability of the petitioner at 35%. The petitioner was aged 28 years as on the date of accident and his income is considered at SCCH-16 16 MVC.1696/2014 Rs.9,000/- p.m. The proper multiplier applicable for age group 26 - 30 years is '17'. By considering the notional income of Rs.9,000/- p.m. and the whole body disability at 35%, the loss of income due to disability comes to Rs.6,42,600/- (Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 17 x 35%) under the head loss of future income due to permanent disability.
21. The petitioner was aged about 28 years when the accident took place. His left leg is amputated. The petitioner has lost is 1/3rd below knee left leg at the age of 27- 28 years, he is totally crippled, he can not stand, sit or walk as prior to the accident, he has to depend upon the crutches through out his life and he has to depend on others to carry on his day to day activities. He has lost amenities in the life. Therefore, considering the age, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and percentage of disability, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and future happiness.
22. The petitioner by examining PW.4 who is Orthopaedic and Prosthetic Department at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, has stated that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is required for the suction socket trasfemoral prosthesis with micro processor knee. He has produced Ex.P.19 which is SCCH-16 17 MVC.1696/2014 the estimation for the purchase of artificial limb. I have carefully perused the said estimation. PW.4 in the said estimation has stated that the total cost of artificial limb is Rs.4,30,000/-. This fact is admitted by PW.4 in his cross- examination. In his cross-examination, PW.4 has stated that there are different company for artificial limbs and he has given estimation of Otto Back company and Endolite India Pvt. Ltd. He has admitted that at lest costs, artificial limbs are available. On careful perusal of the estimation Ex.P.19 and cross-examination of PW.4, it is clear that the cost of artificial limb varies from company to company and he has given estimation of Otto back company and Endolite India Pvt.Ltd., he has also admitted that the artificial limb is also available at lesser cost. Hence, it cannot be believed that a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- is required for the artificial limb. Therefore, keeping in view, the cost of artifical limb, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards purchase of artificial limb.
23. By looking to the injuries , the petitioner has to appear for regular follow-up treatment. He has below 1/3rd left leg amputated and he has sustained comminuted fracture shaft of left tibia and fibula. Considering the medical expenses in future also, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is SCCH-16 18 MVC.1696/2014 awarded under the head future medical expenses which will not carry interest.
So the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under these following heads:-
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 60,000/-
2 Conveyance, attendant and Rs. 25,000/-
nutritious charges 3 Medical expenses Rs. 23,636/-
4 Loss of income during laid up Rs. 54,000/-
period 5 Loss of future income due to Rs. 6,42,600/-
permanent disability 6 Loss of future amenities and Rs. 50,000/-
enjoyment 7 Future medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- 8 For purchase of prosthesis Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs. 10,05,236/-
In total, the Petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,05,236/-.
Interest:
24. 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 SCCH-16 19 MVC.1696/2014 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. Liability:
25. Though respondent No.2 has taken up a contention that the driver of the offending lorry did not possess valid driving licence and the vehicle had no valid fitness certificate and permit, but he has not placed any evidence on the said aspect. The official of respondent No.2 company has also not been examined. Hence, in the absence of any evidence, they are only bald contentions. The Respondent No.2 has admitted that as on the date of the accident the policy was in force. The Respondent No.1 being the owner and Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending lorry bearing Reg.No.HR 55 K 9547 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. However, primary SCCH-16 20 MVC.1696/2014 liability is on the Respondent No.2 to pay the compensation. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.
26. ISSUE No.3:- In view of my above findings, the petition deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed in part. The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,05,236/- (Rs. ten lakhs five thousand two hundred thirty-six only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.50,000/-) from the date of petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2
- Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the said compensation amount awarded, 40% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years (without any SCCH-16 21 MVC.1696/2014 encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 27th May, 2016.) (SATISH.J.BALI) MEMBER:MACT, BENGALURU .
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Petitioner:
PW.1 : Sharana Basava Achari
PW.2 : Kiran Kumar.T.K.
PW.3 : Dr.B.Ramesh
PW.4 : Kevin Fernandez
PW.5 : B.Muniraju
Documents marked on behalf of Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : Copy of Statement
Ex.P.3 : Copy of sketch
Ex.P.4 : Copy of mahazar
Ex.P.5 : Copy of IMV Report
Ex.P.6 : Copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P.7 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.8 : 31 Prescriptions
Ex.P.9 : 50 Medical bills
SCCH-16 22 MVC.1696/2014
Ex.P10 & 11 : Notarised copy of ID card
(marked after comparing with
the original)
Ex.P.12 : Notarised copy of RC (marked
after comparing with the
original)
Ex.P.13 : Notarised copy of DL (marked
after comparing with the
original)
Ex.P.14 : Notarised copy of gas passbook
(marked after comparing with
the original)
Ex.P.15 : Notarised copy of gas bill
(marked after comparing with
the original)
Ex.P.16 : 8 Photos
Ex.P.16(a) : CD
Ex.P.17 : Notarised copy of disability
certificate (marked after
comparing with the original)
Ex.P.18 : Notarised copy of disability
Certificate and ID car (marked
after comparing with the
original)
Ex.P.19 : Estimate
Ex.P.20 : 2 Medical bills
Ex.P.21 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar
card(marked after comparing
with the original)
Ex.P.22 : Notarised copy of LIC Bonds
(marked after comparing with
the original)
Ex.P.23 : Gas bills
Ex.P.24 : 4 Photos
Ex.P.24(a) : CD
Ex.P.25 : Authorisation letter
Ex.P.26 : MLC Extract
Ex.P.27 : Casesheet
Ex.P.28 : 2 X-rays
Ex.P.29 : OPD card
Ex.P.30 : X-ray
Ex.P.31 : Notarised copy of election ID
card (marked after comparing
with the original)
Ex.P.32 : Quotation Book
Ex.P.33 : Rough sketch book
SCCH-16 23 MVC.1696/2014
Ex.P.34 : One medical bills
Ex.P.35 : Certificate issued by MM
Constructions
Ex.P.36 : Estimation
Ex.P.37 : NC of Aadhaar card (marked
after comparing with the
original)
Witnesses examined on behalf of Respondent:
-NIL-
Documents marked on behalf of the Respondent:
-NIL-
(SATISH.J.BALI) MEMBER:MACT, BENGALURU .