Bangalore District Court
In 1. Sri Arun Kumar K.M vs In 1. Smt. R. Vidhya on 17 April, 2023
KABC020306262018
BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Sudeen Kumar D.J.,
B.A., LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC Nos.7264/2018 to 7267/2018
Dated: 17th April 2023
Petitioners in 1. Sri Arun Kumar K.M.,
MVC S/o Muthusamy,
7264/2018 Aged about 37 years,
2. Kumari Harshika,
D/o Johnsi Sathya,
Arun Kumar,
Aged about 7 years,
Both are residing at
No.10/92, 3rd Main, 3rd Cross,
Kathriguppe Main Road,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Srinivasanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
Petitioner No.2 minor
represented by her father
natural guardian
Arun Kumar K.M.
(Sri D.B. Srinivasa Reddy,
Advocate)
2 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
Petitioner in Kumari Harshika,
MVC D/o Arun Kumar K.M.,
7265/2018 Aged about 7 years,
Minor, represented by her father
and natural guardian
Sri Arun Kumar K.M.,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.10/92, 3rd Main,
3rd Cross, Kathriguppe Main Road,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Srinivasanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
(Sri D.B. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate)
Petitioner in Sri Arun Kumar K.M.,
MVC S/o Muthusamy,
7266/2018 Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.10/92, 3rd Main,
3rd Cross, Kathriguppe Main Road,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Srinivasanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
(Sri D.B. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate)
Petitioner in Smt. Leelavathi,
MVC W/o Late Muthuswamy,
7267/2018 Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.10/92, 3rd Main,
3rd Cross, Kathriguppe Main Road,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Srinivasanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
(Sri D.B. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents in 1. Smt. R. Vidhya,
MVC W/o Sekar,
7264/2018, No.3-1-58, Mandapathurkadu,
7265/2018 & Akkamapet, Sankari T.K.,
7267/2018 Salem, Tamilnadu - 837 301.
Owner of lorry No.TN-52-K-1333
(Exparte)
3 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, S.R. Complex,
Rajaman Thottam, Salem,
Bhavani Main Road,
Sankari - 837 301.
Policy
No.650403/31/17/6300001586
valid from 19-05-2017 to
18-05-2018
(Sri V. Shrihari Naidu, Advocate)
3. Sri Arun Kumar K.M.,
S/o Muthu Samy,
R/at No.10/92, 3rd Main,
3rd Cross, Kattriguppe Main
Road, Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Srinivasanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
Owner of Car, No.KA-51-B-6255
Respondents in 1. Smt. R. Vidhya,
MVC W/o Sekar,
7266/2018 No.3-1-58, Mandapathurkadu,
Akkamapet, Sankari T.K.,
Salem, Tamilnadu - 837 301.
Owner of lorry No.TN-52-K-1333
(Exparte)
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, S.R. Complex,
Rajaman Thottam, Salem,
Bhavani Main Road,
Sankari - 837 301.
Policy
No.650403/31/17/6300001586
valid from 19-05-2017 to
18-05-2018
(Sri V. Shrihari Naidu, Advocate)
4 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are filed under Section 166 of M.V.
Act, seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,00,000/- in MVC
7264/2018, Rs.3,00,000/- in MVC 7265/2018,
Rs.2,00,000/- in MVC 7266/2018 and Rs.20,00,000/- in
MVC 7267/2018 from respondents on account of death
of Smt. Johnsi Sathya in MVC 7264/2018 and grievous
injuries sustained by petitioners in MVC 7265/2018 to
7267/2018 in Road Traffic Accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitions are that, on 11-
05-2018 at about 2.25 a.m., all the petitioners and
Johnsi Sathya were proceeding in Toyota Etios Car,
bearing No.KA-51-B-6255, the said vehicle was driven
by petitioner in MVC 7266/2018 carefully observing the
traffic rules and regulations, slowly and cautiously on
extreme left side (returning from native village T.
Kalathur in Tiruchanapalli-Tamilnadu to Bengaluru) on
Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri National High Way,
Kundalapatty PKP Rice Mill's opposite side, near the
house of one Mani driver of lorry bearing No.TN-52-K-
1333 was negligently parked on wrong side of the road
without parking lights, without sign boards, without
following traffic rules and regulations, the petitioners'
car dashed against the lorry. Due to the impact all the
petitioners and Johnsi Sathya sustained grievous
injuries, immediately after the accident they were
shifted to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri by 108
5 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
ambulance, due to fatal injuries Johnsi Sathya was
declared dead in the hospital. Prior to the accident, she
was working as Nurse in NIMHANS Hospital and drawing
salary of Rs.75,028/- per month and she was
maintaining the family out of the aforesaid salary. But,
on account of her untimely death the petitioners lost
the dependency, love and affection.
2(a). Petitioner in MVC 7265/2018 sustained head
injury and wounds on her body, she was shifted to
National Urban Health Mission, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru on
14-05-2018, wherein x-ray and MRI Scan for the head
injury had been taken and then she was referred to
KIMS Hospital, wherein she took treatment. Prior to the
accident, she was a student, studying very well, on
account of the said accident and head injury, she lost
memory and she cannot attend the classes regularly.
2(b). Petitioner in MVC 7266/2018 was shifted to
Apollo Hospital, Bannerghatta road, Bengaluru on 17-
05-2018, wherein he took treatment. Prior to the
accident, he was running/plying his own taxi in
Bengaluru and earning Rs.40,000/- per month. But, due
to the accidental injuries, he became permanently
disabled and whereby lost his earning capacity.
2(c). Petitioner in MVC 7267/2018 was shifted to
Apollo Hospital, Bannerghatta road, Bengaluru on 15-
6 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
05-2018, wherein she took treatment as an inpatient
and discharged from the hospital. The pains and
sufferings were continued, immediately she was shifted
to Apollo Hospital, Tiruchinapally, Tamilnadu, wherein
she took treatment from 07-08-2018 to 09-08-2018 and
from 13-10-2018 to 18-10-2018. Prior to the accident,
she was doing tailoring work and earning a sum of
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. But, due to the
accidental injuries, she became permanently disabled
and whereby lost her earning capacity. Therefore, the
petitioners prayed for compensation.
3. Respondent No.1 remained absent and
therefore, she was placed exparte.
3(a). Respondent No.2 admitted the issuance of
insurance policy in favour of respondent No.1 in respect
of lorry, bearing No.TN-52-K-1333 and its validity as on
the date of accident, denied the petition averments
generally and involvement of the lorry, contended that
the driver of lorry was not holding valid and effective
driving licence to drive the same, the lorry bearing
No.TN-52-K-1333 was not at all responsible for the
cause of the accident as the driver of the lorry parked
the same in extreme left side of the parking place by
taking precautionary measures and by putting parking
and signal light at the time of accident and as such it is
not a necessary and proper party for the adjudication of
7 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
the above petitions, driver of car bearing No.KA-51-B-
6255 driven the same in rash and negligent manner
with high speed and in the drowsy condition early in the
morning at 2.25 a.m., and in the process of overtaking
the on going vehicles lost control over the vehicle and
dashed against the rear portion of the parked lorry, but
the petitioners filed false complaint against the driver
of lorry in colluding with the jurisdictional police, the
accident in question took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of car. Further, it sought
for permission to contest even for respondent No.1 as
provided under Section 170 of M.V. Act, it seeks
protection under Section 147 and 149 of MV Act and
contended that the petitions are bad for non
compliance of provisions under Sections 134(C) and
158(6) of M.V. Act. For all these reasons, it prayed for
the dismissal of the petitions.
4. Based on the pleadings the following issues
came to be framed:
ISSUES IN MVC No.7264/2018
1) Whether the petitioners prove that
deceased Smt. Johnsi Sathya succumbed to
the injuries sustained in vehicular accident
alleged to have occurred on 11-05-2018 due
to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of Lorry, bearing registration No.TN-
52-K-1333?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
8 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
and from whom?
3) What order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.7265/2018
1) Whether the petitioner proves that she
sustained grievous injuries in the road
traffic accident alleged to have occurred on
11-05-2018 at about 2.25 a.m., due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of
Lorry, bearing registration No.TN-52-K-
1333?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom?
3) What order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.7266/2018
1) Whether the petitioner proves that he
sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic
accident alleged to have occurred on 11-05-
2018 at about 2.25 a.m., due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry,
bearing registration No.TN-52-K-1333?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom?
3) What order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.7267/2018
1) Whether the petitioner proves that she
sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic
accident alleged to have occurred on 11-05-
9 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
2018 at about 2.25 a.m., due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry,
bearing registration No.TN-52-K-1333?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom?
3) What order or Award?
5. The first petitioner in MVC 7264/2018, who is
natural guardian as well as father of petitioner in MVC
7265/2018 and also the petitioner in MVC 7266/2018
got himself examined as PW1 to PW3, petitioner in
MVC 7267/2018 got herself examined as PW4, incharge
Administrative Officer and orthopaedic surgeon got
themselves examined as PW5 and PW6 and marked 40
documents. Respondent No.2 examined the driver and
its Assistant Manager-Legal as RW1 and RW2 and
marked 4 documents. Respondent No.1 is exparte.
6. Heard both the sides. Petitioners' counsel has
cited judgment reported in AIR 2018 SC 1143.
Respondent No.2's counsel cited judgments reported in
(2009) 13 SCC 654, 2015 ACJ 102 and judgment passed
in MFA No.2863/2004 c/w MFA 4027/2004. Perused the
pleadings, evidences and observations cited, on the
basis findings on the issues are as under:
IN MVC Nos.7264/2018 to 7267/2018
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
10 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
Issue No.3 : As per final order
REASONS
ISSUE No.1 of ALL THE CASES :
7. All the cases are of from the same incident, for
the sake of convenience as to avoid repetition issue
No.1 in all the four cases have been taken up together
for common discussion.
8. This is being a summary proceedings a sum
and substance of pleadings and evidences are
emphasized. The test for proof is preponderance of
probability herein. Except negligence, the incident,
involvement of vehicles, injuries and death, issuance of
insurance policy and its validity are not in dispute.
9. Regarding the negligence is concerned
petitioner relied on police records viz., FIR, Charge
sheet, Spot Mahazar, Complaint, Statement of victim
and Inquest witnesses, Statement of observation of
Mahazar, Statement of expert witnesses, Statement of
duty doctor with translations, IMV Reports, P.M Report
and Wound certificate, which are marked in Ex.P1 to
Ex.P26 and Ex.P-13.
10. Ex.P2- Charge sheet/ final report shows the
negligence was by the driver of lorry. The finality reads
as follows:
11 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
"In the above case prosecution witness
PW1 Arun Kumar is working as driver in a
travels company at Bangalore and also
residing in Bangalore with his family. On 11-
05-2018 early morning at about 02-25 hours,
within the jurisdiction of Mathiker Palyam
Police Station Dharmapuri to Kundalapatti
PKP Mill PW1 while coming by his car Tayota
Etios bearing registration No.KA-51-B-6255
with his wife (PW1's) Johnshi Sathya aged
about 32 years, Daughter Harshika aged
about 7 years and mother Leelavathi, after
attending his native village of Kalathur in
Trichy District and return to Bangalore by the
some Car from Tricky to Bangalore, the
accused in the above case, driver of the
lorry, bearing registration No.TN-52-K-1333
halted the lorry on the right side of the lorry
in no parking zone of the road without any
signal or indicator and parked the lorry in the
wrong side of the road, the
complainant/informant PW1's car has hit the
lorry and met with the accident. Hence, the
accused is held liable for the offence U/s 279
of IPC and also punishable under the law.
The above said accused has stopped
the lorry on the above said date on the
above said place parked the lorry on the
rigth side of the road on the no parking area
of the road without any signal or indicator for
contain, due to that PW1's car has hit the
lorry and met with the accident. Due to the
accident of PW1's car, his daughter Harshika
who was n the car has got simple injuries
and hence because of that the accused is
held liable for the offence U/s 337 of IPC and
punishable under law.
The accused has stopped the lorry on
the above said date, and time on the above
accident spot on the road on the wrong side
of the road in right side without any signal or
12 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
indicator to contain, the PW1's car has hit
the lorry and met with the accident. Due to
the accident the mother Leelavathi of PW1
who who was in the inside of the car was
seriously injured and hence because of that
the accused is committed the offence U/s
338 of IPC and held punishable under law.
The accused has stopped the lorry on
the above said date, time and place on the
wrong side of the road without any signal or
indicator to contain, due to that the PW1's
car hit the lorry and met with the accident.
Due to the above said accident Smt.
Leelavathi, the wife of PW1 Smt. Johnshi
Sathya who was sitting in the car of PW1 has
got serious head injury with bleeding and
died on the spot itself of the accident. Hence,
the accused is liable for the offence
committed by him U/s 304(A) of IPC and held
liable for the death of the deceased Johnshee
Sathya wife of PW1 and held liable for
punishment under the above Section of law.
Hence, for the above said offences
committed by the accused under the above
mentioned Section of law. Hence, the charge
sheet against the accused."
11. The spot mahazar depicts the scene of
occurrence. The Motor Vehicle Accident Reports show
the incident was not due to mechanical defects of the
vehicles, and damages of both vehicle. The P.M Report
shows Smt Jhansi Sathya died of shock and hemorrhage
due to multiple injuries. The wound certificate
pertaining to petitioner in MVC No.7267/2018 shows
this petitioner sustained (1) right humerus fracture, (2)
right radial neck fracture, (3) right distal femur fracture,
13 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
(4) right proximal tibia fracture and (5) left tibia fibula
shaft fracture and the above said injuries are grievous
in nature.
12. As the incident was not due to mechanical
defects in the vehicles in the sense then that could
have been due to the negligence only. Now whose
negligence was there to the incident to be analyzed. No
spot sketch is produced herein. No independent
eyewitness is examined herein. The first petitioner in
MVC No.7264/2018 and petitioner in MVC No
7267/2018 are as good as eyewitnesses herein.
Petitioner in MVC No.7267/2018 deposed that she slept
in her journey and didn't see the incident. The first
petitioner in MVC No7264/2018 who was driving the
taxi, which involved in the incident, is a professional
driver. He admits that, "ವವಹನದ ಮಮಮಭವಗದ ದದಪ ಅಮದರರ ಹರಡಡ
ಲರಲಟಡ ಅನಮನ ಬರಳಗಸದದರರ 30 ರಮದ 50 ಅಡ ದದರ ಕವಣಸಮತತದರ. ನವನಮ 60
ರಮದ 40 ಕ.ಮದ ವರದಗದಲಲ ವವಹನ ಚಲವಯಸಮತತದರದ. 60 ರಮದ 80 ಕ.ಮದ
ವರದಗದಲಲ ಚಲವಯಸಮತತದದ ವವಹನವನಮನ ಹಠವತತನರ ಸಮಪಪರರ ಬರಬದಕಡ ಹವಕದದರರ
5 ಅಡ ದದರದಲಲ ಸಸಡಡ ಆಗ ನಲಮಲತತದರ. ಲವರಯಮ ಐದಮ ಅಡ ದದರದಲಲ
ಕಮಡದರ ಪರವರದಮ ಮತಮತ ಪಲದಸರಗರ ನದಡದ ಹರದಳಕರಯಲಲ ನನನ ವವಹನವವ
ನಯಮತಬರಕರಸ ಸಗದರ ಲವರಯ ಹಮಭವಗಕರಸ ಡಕಸರವಗತಮತ ಎಮದಮ ನಮದದಸಲವಗದರ
ಎಮದರರ ಹಹದಮ. ಕವರನ ಮಮಮಭವಗ ಪಪತರ ಜಖಮಗರದಮಡದರ" show that this
petitioner failed to control his vehicle. On the other
hand this petitioner denies that, " ಹರಡಡ ಲರಲಟಡ ಹರಲಬದಮಡ ನಲಲ
ಇದವದಗ 100 ಅಡಯವರಗರ ಸಮಲಭವವಗ ಕವಣಸಮತತದರ, ಲವರಯ ಹಮಭವಗಕರಸ ನನನ
ಕವರಮ ಹರದಡರದಮಕರದಮಡತಮತ, ನನಗರ ನದರದ ಮಮಪರಮ ಇತಮತ, ಅತವರದಗ ಮತಮತ
14 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
ನಲರಕಕಕತನವವ ರವರದಮ ಎಮದಮ ಪಲದಸರಮ ಪಬಕರರ ದವಖಲಸದವದರರ,
ಅಪಘವತವವ ಲವರಯ ತಪಪನಮದ ಆಗಲಲ ಮತಮತ ಲವರಯಮ ಪವಕರಮಗಡ ಲರಲಟಡ
ಅಥವವ ಸಗನಲಡ ಲರಲಟಡ ಹರದಮದಲಲದದರಮದ ನವನಮ ಡಕಸ ಮವಡಕರದಳಳಬರದಕವಗತಮತ"
shows he pleaded ignorance. Furthermore, this
petitioner deposed that he was ready to produce spot
sketch, but he didn't produce and on the other breath
admits that, "ರವವವದರದ ಇಮಡಕರದಟರಡ ಇಲಲದರದ ನಲಲಸದದರಮದ ಅಕಸವಸತಡ
ಆಗ ಲವರಯ ಹಮಭವಗಕರಸ ಟಚಡಆಯತಮ".
13. The lorry was parked in the road without
parking light or signal is admitted fact. Driver of the
lorry deposed that the lorry came to be dashed by
another lorry and it was parked there as he sustained
injury and due to the impact all lights of the lorry got
switched off and later when he was in the hospital he
came to know regarding the incident in question.
14. Under the facts and circumstances, though
the lorry was parked in the road, which is undisputed,
the driver of taxi ought to have observed the clearance
of the road ahead of him and he could have proceeded,
that too he being the professional driver as he admitted
he could have been controlled his vehicle if he was in
moderate speed and cautious in his driving. The
scenario is clear that the first petitioner/ petitioner in
MVC No.7266/2018 / driver of the taxi failed to control
his vehicle and was in rash and negligent in his driving
and thereby he also contributed his rash and
15 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
negligence to the incident. It is therefore, it establishes
that the incident occurred not only due to the
negligence of the lorry but also the rash and negligence
by the taxi. The negligence by both vehicle could be
assessed at 50:50 ratio. In view of this, the final report
is partly acceptable; thus the police records stand
considered.
15. Regarding objections by respondent No.2 as to
non compliance of provision under Section 134(c) and
158(6) of MV Act is concerned as the petition reached
its finality and the petitioners approached the Tribunal,
respondent No.2 had already taken all contentions of
respondent No.1 the giving of permission under Section
170 of MV Act, and discussion on the same now does
not arise.
16. Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, it
establishes on preponderance of probability that the
petitioners met with motor vehicle accident occurred on
11-05-2018 due to negligence of lorry bearing No.TN-
52-K-1333 and rash and negligent driving of the driver
of taxi i.e., the first petitioner in MVC No.7264/2018 and
petitioner in MVC No.7266/2018 and in the incident
Smt. Jhansi Sathya died and the petitioners sustained
simple and grievous injuries. Hence, these issues
answered partly affirmatively.
16 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
ISSUE No.2 IN MVC 7264/2018:
17. In determination of this issue avocation,
income, age of the deceased, dependency and future
prospects and other conventional heads for
compensation are need to be ascertained.
Avocation and Income:
It is averred that the deceased was working as
Nurse in NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru and drawing
salary of Rs.75,208/- per month. To substantiate the
same petitioners have produced identity card, bank
statement and bank pass book as per Ex.P27, Ex.P37
and Ex.P38. They have also examined Incharge
Administrative Officer (Personnel) from NIMHANS
Hospital as PW5. He produced appointment order dated
27-05-2015, last pay certificate, pay slip for the month
of April-2018 and death gratuity calculation sheet as
per Ex.P30 to Ex.P33. From these documents it is clear
that the deceased was the Nurse and drawing monthly
salary of Rs.72,441/- less profession tax and income
tax.
Age:
As per Ex.P32-pay slip, date of birth of the
deceased was 17-09-1983 and so that age of the
deceased was 35 years at the time of incident. Hence,
it is considered.
17 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
Dependency:
As per the petition averments petitioners are
husband and daughter of the deceased. The
dependency is not in dispute. Ex.P28 and Ex.P39
aadhar cards prove the identification of the petitioners.
Whereas, for deduction of personal expenses is
concerned only 1/3rd is considered to be deducted in
the monthly notional income, for the personal and living
expenses of the deceased.
Future prospects:
The future prospects is concerned, the age of the
deceased at the time of the death was 35 years, so as
per the principle laid down in, 2018 ACJ 5 (SC) between
Hem Raj vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and others
case, 50% needs to be added to the income of the
deceased. So, 50% is added to the monthly income of
the deceased. Thus, 50% of addition will come to
Rs.36,221/-. In total the monthly salary will be
Rs.1,08,662/-.
Conventional Heads:
As conventional heads, the deceased being wife of
petitioner No.1 spousal consortium and mother of
petitioner No.2 parental consortium is to be considered
as both the petitioners suffered the loss of love and
affection. Hence, in view of the observations made, in
the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Satinder
18 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others, in civil Appeal
No.2705/2020, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, Rs.40,000/-
each is considered to be awarded as compensation for
consortium respectively. The loss of estate is
concerned, as the deceased was with the family, if the
incident could not have been occurred, she could have
been contributed more or less from her savings to the
estate of the family; the incident caused such loss to
the estate of the petitioners. Hence, Rs.15,000/- is need
to be awarded on this head as the principle laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, and others, reported in AIR 2017
SC 5157. Likewise, for the funeral expenses is
concerned awarding of Rs.15,000/- is also just under
the conventional head as observed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. Hence, it is considered to be awarded.
18. Accordingly, compensation is calculated as
under;
Monthly income of Rs.72,441/-.
Future prospects in 50% on the monthly income is
Rs.36,221/-.
Monthly income + future prospects = 1,08,662/-.
For personal and living expenses, after the
deduction of 1/3rd, the total monthly income is
Rs.72,441/-.
19 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
Net monthly income is Rs.72,441/- is calculated to
net annul income as Rs.72,441/- x 12 which is =
8,69,292/-.
Multiplier is 16.
Net annual income is multiplied by multiplier 16,
which is as Rs.8,69,292/- x 16, will come to
Rs.1,39,08,672/-.
19. So, compensation for loss of dependency is
found at Rs.1,39,08,672/- plus compensation on
conventional heads, such as spousal, parental and filial
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses.
20. The details of compensation proposed to be
awarded are as under:
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency 1,39,08,672-00
2. Loss of filial consortium 80,000-00
3. Loss of estate 15,000-00
4. Funeral expenses 15,000-00
Total 1,40,18,672-00
21. In all, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,40,18,672/-, which can be
rounded off to Rs.1,40,18,700/-. Both petitioner have an
half share in this compensation amount i.e., each
Rs.70,09,350/-. Out of 50% of compensation which is
payable to the first petitioner 50% should be borne by
20 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
himself on his contributory negligence i.e.,
Rs.35,04,675/-. So that, the first petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rs.35,04,675/-, which is of 50% of
his total compensation only.
22. Out of the compensation of the second
petitioner i.e., in Rs.70,09,350/- 50% of compensation
amount should be paid by respondent No.2 and rest
should be paid by respondent No.3 or his insurer; but,
however, insurer of respondent No.3 is not arrayed as
party herein, in the first instance respondent No.2 itself
even pay such rest of 50% compensation amount to the
second petitioner and later it shall recover the same
from respondent No.3 or his insurer with applicable
interest. Keeping in view the interest on the savings by
the nationalized banks and as provided under Section
34 of CPC, in the present case, from the date of petition
only the interest at 6% per annum is considered to be
directed till its realization. So, the petitioners are
entitled to the interest at 6% per annum on the
compensation amount.
ISSUE No.2 IN MVC 7265/2018:
23. In consideration of this issue disability,
avocation, age, income, laid up period, pain and
sufferings, medical bills, amenities, food, nourishment,
conveyance and future medical expenses are need to
be ascertained. But, the petitioner being the minor
21 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
avocation and income are not required to be
ascertained; however regarding the rest of the things
the petitioner has not furnished any documentary
evidences, so that, no other option but only to consider
global compensation in general. Ex.P5-outpatient
records reveal that she sustained injury by piercing of
glass pieces on the scalp and left side of back, she took
treatment as an outpatient in J.P. Nagar UPHC. The
petitioner has not produced her wound certificate and
discharge summary. Father of petitioner averred that
petitioner was shifted to National Urban Health
Mission, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru on 14-05-2018, wherein
x-ray and MRI Scan for the head injury has been taken,
she has sustained head injury and also wounds and
abrasions all over the body. Due to head injury the
doctors have referred to KIMS Hospital, wherein she
took treatment, till today she is taking follow up
treatment as an outpatient by hiring a car to the said
hospital, for which he spent Rs.20,000/- towards
treatment, medicines, conveyance, nourishment and
other incidental charges. To prove the same, he has
produced 2 prescriptions and 5 medical bills amounting
to Rs.4,879/- as per Ex.P6 and Ex.P8. On examination it
is seen that there is no contra evidence to disbelieve
the genuineness of these bills.
24. Admittedly petitioner was student. As averred
that she was studying very well, but on account of the
22 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
said accident and head injury she lost memory and she
cannot attend the classes regularly in the school. But,
no documents in proof of same are forthcoming. The
petitioner is not only in need of pleading but to prove,
hence without proving as such it could not be
ascertained, that too, without any documentary
evidences. Such being the case, it is difficult to
ascertain pain and sufferings, laid up period, amenities
etc. Whereas, here is no medical evidence regarding
petitioner's permanent disablement and deformity. The
petitioner being minor girl child could have suffered
pain and sufferings, could have been nourished with
nutritious food, was attended with the attendants and
there might be conveyance expenses also for her
father.
25. Whereas, the accident made her to suffer,
which is a scar for her life, for which her father as well
as the lorry driver are responsible directly. Fortunately,
she is being tender aged she has every chance of
healing of the injuries, or even chance of lessen in
disablement and deformity, if any, as averred.
Otherwise, she could have suffered more agony. Hence,
though there is no documentary evidences from the
petitioner, considering the wounds and pains suffered
by the petitioner, under the facts and circumstances of
the case, on humanitarian ground, in general and
globally, it is opined that the petitioner should be
23 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
awarded with suitable compensation as she knocked
the door of the temple of justice for compensation.
Hence, if atleast Rs.50,000/- is inclined to be awarded,
it would be just compensation in the interest of justice.
26. In all, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Out of this amount 50%
should be paid by respondent No.2 and rest should be
paid by respondent No.3/his insurer; but, however the
insurer of respondent No.3 is not arrayed as party
herein, in the first instance respondent No.2 itself pay
such rest of 50% compensation amount to this
petitioner and later it shall recover the same from
respondent No.3 or his insurer with applicable interest.
Keeping in view the interest on the savings by the
nationalized banks, in the present case, from the date
of petition only the interest at 6% per annum is
considered to be directed till its realization. So, the
petitioner is entitled to the interest at 6% per annum on
the compensation amount.
ISSUE No.2 IN MVC 7266/2018:
27. In consideration of this issue disability,
avocation, age, income, laid up period, pain and
sufferings, medical bills, amenities, food, nourishment,
conveyance and future medical expenses are need to
be ascertained. The petitioner has not furnished any
documentary evidences, so that, no other option but
24 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
only to consider global compensation in general.
Ex.P10-CT Scan report reveals that he sustained
fracture of left 3rd to 6th ribs. He took treatment as an
outpatient in Apollo Hospital, Bannerghatta road,
Bengaluru. The petitioner has not produced his wound
certificate and discharge summary. The petitioner
averred that he was shifted to Apollo Hospital,
Bengaluru on 17-05-2018, wherein x-ray and CT Scan of
the chest had been taken and noticed the fracture of
left 3rd to 6th ribs and he sustained small wounds and
abrasions all over the body, till today he is taking follow
up treatment as an outpatient by hiring a car to the
said hospital, for which he spent Rs.25,000/- towards
treatment, medicines, conveyance, nourishment and
other incidental charges. To prove the same, he
produced 2 prescriptions, 4 medicals bills amounting to
Rs.750/- and ambulance bill for Rs.8,000/- as per Ex.P9,
Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. All those bills have been examined
with care and caution and found correct. There is no
contra evidence to disbelieve the genuineness of these
bills.
28. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner
was running/playing his own taxi in Bengaluru and
earning a sum of Rs.40,000/-, but on account of the
said accident he cannot attend his duty/work as a car
driver, which resulted in loss of earning capacity and
put him in great financial hardship/difficulties. However,
25 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
no document is forthcoming regarding avocation and
income of petitioner is concerned.
29. The petitioner is not only in need of pleading
but to prove, hence without proving as such it could not
be ascertained, that too, without any documentary
evidences. Such being the case, it is difficult to
ascertain pain and sufferings, laid up period, amenities
etc. Whereas, here is no medical evidence regarding
petitioner's permanent disablement and deformity.
30. Hence, Rs.1,00,000/- is inclined to be
awarded including medical expenses, conveyance and
other expenses, which would be just compensation in
the interest of justice.
31. Out of the total compensation 50% should be
borne by the petitioner himself on his contributory
negligence. So that the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.50,000/-, which is of 50% of total
compensation only. Keeping in view the interest on the
savings by the nationalized banks and as provided
under Section 34 of the CPC, in the present case, from
the date of petition only the interest at 6% per annum
is considered to be directed till its realization. So, the
petitioner is entitled to the interest at 6% per annum on
50% of compensation amount.
26 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
ISSUE No.2 IN MVC 7267/2018:
32. In consideration of this issue disability,
avocation, age, income, laid up period, pain and
sufferings, medical bills, amenities, food, nourishment,
conveyance and future medical expenses are need to
be ascertained.
Disability
Wound certificate Ex.P13 reveals the injuries
caused to the petitioner such as (1) right humerus
fracture, (2) right radial neck fracture, (3) right distal
femur fracture, (4) right proximal tibia fracture and (5)
left tibia fibula shaft fracture. According to it the above
said injuries are grievous in nature. Inpatient records,
which are at Ex.P34 show that the petitioner had taken
treatment as an inpatient from 15-05-2018 to 12-06-
2018 for a period of 29 days in Apollo Hospital,
Bengaluru and underwent surgeries. Because of the
injuries she suffered the disablement and from which
she lost or lessen her earning capacity. In proof of
disablement she examined PW5-Consultant
Orthopaedic Surgeon from Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru,
who assessed disability of the petitioner, opined that
the petitioner suffered permanent disability from limb
at 85% and to the whole body at 21.25%. His evidences
clear that he is the treated doctor, it is stated that two
more surgeries are required to petitioner for removal of
implants and total knee replacement, which means that
disability has been assessed before the completion of
27 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
full treatment. In fact, as per the gazette notification
issued by Ministry of Social Justice of Government of
India, the disability should be assessed after the
treatment is completed. As far as this case is
concerned, if the disability would be assessed after the
future surgery, perhaps, there would have been
reduction in the percentage of disability. Therefore, it
would say that the assessment of disability is
premature and may be excessive. Although, under the
facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to
the nature of injuries, and fractures came to be united,
the disability to the whole body is taken to be
considered at its entirety ie., 21.25% as the
disablement as the disability assessed by the treated
doctor.
Avocation
It is averred that the petitioner was doing tailoring
work. However, no document is forth coming regarding
avocation of petitioner is concerned. Hence it is not
established that the petitioner was doing tailoring work,
hence in the present case, avocation of the petitioner is
need to be considered notionally as she had notional
income only.
Age
As per Ex.P13 - wound certificate and Ex.P34 -
inpatient records age of the petitioner was 65 years at
the time of incident. Hence, these are considered.
28 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
Income
As discussed on the head of avocation, the
petitioner's avocation taken to be considered notionally.
In this regard as per the resolution of the hon'ble
Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, dated 17-02-
2022 notional income for the year 2018 came to be
fixed at Rs.12,500/. In the present case, under the
facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.12,500/- is
taken to be considered as notional income of the
petitioner, per month.
Considering the avocation and income notionally
now loss of future income due to disability needs to be
calculated. As discussed on disability, 21.25% is
considered to be taken in the opinion, opined to the
whole body by the doctor. According to the determined
age of the petitioner multiplier is 5. So, 21.25% of
monthly income comes to Rs.2,656/- x 12 months x
multiplier 5 = Rs.1,59,360/- it is considered as
compensation under the head of loss of future income
due to disability.
Laid up period and Pain and suffering
Petitioner was treated as inpatient from 15-05-
2018 to 12-06-2018. She underwent surgeries. She
suffered fractures. So that, she could have suffered pain
and sufferings and also lost her earnings at the time of
her treatment as well as her nourishment at least for
29 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
the period of 6 months. It is therefore, it is just and
proper to award compensation considering her pains
and sufferings and for her laid up period. Hence, it is of
the opinion of the Tribunal that six months notional
income of Rs.75,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and
sufferings = Rs.1,75,000/- will be just and proper in
compensation for laid up period and pains and
sufferings.
Medical Bills:
It is averred that petitioner spent a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- towards the medical expenses. Ex.P14
contains about 43 medical bills. Bill at serial No.1 is
draft bill, bill at serial No.2, 3 and 5 are duplicate bills,
bill at serial No.11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, 28, 31, 35 and 43
are not in the name of the petitioner, bill at serial
No.23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34 and 36 to 42 do not bear
seal or signature. Hence, these bills are not considered
herein. Except those rest of the medical bills are
considered herein - accordingly total amount of medical
bills, applicable, is Rs.17,245/- for which the petitioner
is entitled for.
Amenities and happiness:
It is established that the petitioner underwent
surgeries for her fractures. The disability is to be
considered herein. With such permanent disablement
and surgical scars she will have to lead her future life.
30 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
From such injuries she suffered pains, difficulties, which
deprived her of leading her happy life and from
enjoying amenities. It is therefore, the petitioner is
entitle for compensation for loss of her such amenities
and happiness. So, It is deemed proper to award
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
Food, Nourishment, Attendant charges and
Conveyance:
Under the facts and circumstances of the case
having considered the nature of the injuries and
permanent disablement, though there is no document
particularly, it could be presumed that the petitioner
might have spent considerable amount for her
nutritional food, nourishment, attendant charges and
conveyance. It is therefore, it is of the opinion of the
Tribunal that for such food, nourishment, attendant
charges and for conveyance is concerned awarding of
Rs.50,000/- as compensation it is just and proper.
Hence, it is considered so.
Future medical expenses
As per the evidence of the doctor petitioner needs
to undergo two more surgeries (1) for removal of
implants which may costs Rs.2,60,000/- approximately
and (2) total knee replacement which would cost
approximately Rs.2,50,000/-. But considering the cost
of Government undertaking hospital 50% of the said
31 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
amount is inclined to be awarded Rs.2,55,000/- under
this head.
33. Accordingly, details of compensations are as
under:
1 Pain and sufferings and Rs. 1,75,000-00
loss of income during
laid up period
2 Attendant charges, extra Rs. 50,000-00
nutritious food and
conveyance expenses
3 Medical expenses Rs. 17,245-00
4 Loss of future income Rs. 1,59,360-00
due to permanent
disability
5 Loss of future amenities Rs. 1,00,000-00
and happiness
6 Future medical expenses Rs. 2,55,000-00
Total Rs.7,56,605-00
34. In all, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.7,56,605/- which can be rounded
off to Rs.7,56,700/-. Out of this amount 50% should be
paid by respondent No.2 and rest should be paid by
respondent No.3 or his insurer; but, however the insurer
of respondent No.3 is not arrayed as party herein, in the
first instance respondent No.2 itself pay such rest of
50% compensation amount to this petitioner and later it
shall recover the same from respondent No.3 or his
insurer with applicable interest. Keeping in view the
interest on the savings by the nationalized banks and
as provided under Section 34 of CPC, in the present
case, from the date of petition only, the interest at 6%
32 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
per annum is considered to be directed till its
realization except future medical expenses. So, the
petitioner is entitled to the interest at 6% per annum on
the compensation amount.
Liability:
35. Issuance of insurance policy and its validity
are admitted. No breeches of policy conditions are
established by the insurer. As found on the discussions
on issue No.1, the negligence was by the driver of
offended lorry and the driver of taxi i.e., the first
petitioner in MVC No.7264/218 and petitioner in MVC
No.7266/2018. On vicarious liability respondent No.1
being the owner of the lorry is responsible, respondent
No.2 being the insurer of respondent No.1 contractually
liable to pay applicable compensation.
36. In MVC No.7264/2018, MVC No.7265/2018 and
MVC No.7267/2018 the driver cum owner of the taxi/
the first petitioner in MVC No.7264/2018 and petitioner
in MVC No.7266/2018 is also made as respondent No.3,
who to pay 50% of compensation to the second
petitioner in MVC 7264/2018, petitioners in MVC
No.7265/2018 and MVC No.7267/2018 for his
contribution of 50% rash and negligence to the
accident.
33 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
37. Both petitioners in MVC 7264/2018 have each
half share in the total compensation. Out of 50% of
compensation which is payable to the first petitioner
50% should be borne by himself on his contributory
negligence.
38. Out of the compensation of the second
petitioner 50% of compensation amount should be paid
by respondent No.2 and rest should be paid by
respondent No.3/ his insurer; but, however, insurer of
respondent No.3 is not arrayed as party herein, in the
first instance respondent No.2 itself even pay such rest
of 50% compensation amount to the second petitioner
and later it shall recover the same from respondent
No.3 or his insurer.
39. The insurer of taxi is not party here. As the
contributory negligence by the taxi i.e., vehicle of
respondent No.3 herein came to be established, the
owner/insured and insurer of the taxi are liable to pay
the inmates or their legal representatives as the claims
like under the composite negligence to them. It is
therefore, though the insurer of taxi is not arrayed as
party its liability shall not gets exonerated, it shall have
to pay respondent No.2 later. In view of this conclusion
herein, the observations, made, in Khenyei vs. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others, by Hon'ble Larger
Bench of the Apex Court will apply. In the light of the
observations it is suitable to direct respondent No.2 to
34 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
pay the second petitioner in MVC 7264/2018,
petitioners in MVC No.7265/2018 and MVC
No.7267/2018 including the liability of the
insured/insurer of taxi and then to recover the same.
Hence, primarily respondent No.2 to satisfy the entire
compensation to petitioners in all the cases and it is at
liberty to recover applicable 50% of compensation in
that in accordance with law from respondent No.3 as
well as his insurer.
40. Thus, respondent No.1 and 2, and 3 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
However, initially respondent No.2 is liable to pay the
determined compensation. The petitioners are only
entitled to such compensation and not fully as claimed
for. Accordingly, these issues stands answered partly
affirmative in all the cases.
ISSUE No.3 OF ALL THE CASES:
41. In view of the findings, all the petitions
deserve to be allowed in part. Hence, the following
order is passed:
ORDER
The petitions in MVC 7264/2018 to 7267/2018 are partly allowed with costs.
Petitioner No.1 in MVC 7264/2018 is entitled for compensation of Rs.35,04,675/- (Rupees thirty five 35 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018 to 7267/2018 lakhs, four thousand, six hundred and seventy five only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount to petitioner No.1 in MVC 7264/2018. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened 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 compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1 in MVC 7264/2018, 30% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for the period of two years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 70% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to him through E- payment on proper identification and verification.
36 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018 to 7267/2018 Petitioner No.2 in MVC 7264/2018 is entitled for compensation of Rs.70,09,350/- (Rupees seventy lakhs, nine thousand, three hundred and fifty only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
Respondent No.2 is directed to pay entire compensation amount to petitioner No.2 in MVC 7264/2018 in the first instance and then recover 50% of compensation amount out of total compensation of Petitioner No.2 with applicable interest from respondent No.3 or his insurer through filing necessary execution petition in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 shall pay the same within 2 months.
Out of the said compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.2 in MVC 7264/2018, 60% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of minor petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank of the choice of her father/natural guardian till she attains majority and the remaining 40% amount with 37 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018 to 7267/2018 proportionate interest shall be released to the father of petitioner through E- payment on proper identification and verification.
The petitioner in MVC 7265/2018 is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
Respondent No.2 is directed to pay entire compensation amount to petitioner in MVC 7265/2018 in the first instance and then recover 50% of compensation amount out of total compensation of this petitioner with applicable interest from respondent No.3 or his insurer through filing necessary execution petition in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 shall pay the same within 2 months.
The entire compensation amount shall be deposited in the name of minor petitioner in MVC 7265/2018 as FD in any nationalized bank of the choice of her father/natural guardian till she attains majority.
38 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018 to 7267/2018 The petitioner in MVC 7266/2018 is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened 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.
The entire compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be released to petitioner in MVC 7266/2018 through E-payment on proper identification and verification.
The petitioner in MVC 7267/2018 is entitled to compensation of Rs.7,56,700/- (Rupees seven lakhs, fifty six thousand and seven hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., (Excluding future medical expenses) from the date of petition till realisation.
Respondent No.2 is directed to pay entire compensation amount to 39 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018 to 7267/2018 petitioner in MVC 7267/2018 in the first instance and then recover 50% of compensation amount out of total compensation of this petitioner with applicable interest from respondent No.3 or his insurer through filing necessary execution petition in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 shall pay the same within 2 months.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner in MVC 7267/2018, 30% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for the period of two years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 70% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to her through E- payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- each in all the cases.
Draw award accordingly in all the cases.
40 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018 to 7267/2018 A copy of this judgment shall be kept in file of MVC 7265/2018 to 7267/2018.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 17th day of April 2023) (Sudeen Kumar D.J.) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
PW1 Sri K.M. Arun Kumar PW2 Sri K.M. Arun Kumar PW3 Sri K.M. Arun Kumar PW4 Smt. Leelavathi PW5 Sri Hema Prabhu V. PW6 Dr. Shashikumar
Documents marked on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P1 FIR
Ex.P1(a) Its translation
Ex.P2 Charge Sheet
Ex.P2(a) Its translation
Ex.P3 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P3(a) English translation
Ex.P4 X-ray Report
Ex.P5 Outpatient Records (2 in nos.)
Ex.P6 Prescriptions (2 in nos.)
Ex.P7 MRI report
Ex.P8 Medical Bills (4 in nos.) for Rs.4,879/-
Ex.P9 Prescriptions (2 in nos.)
Ex.P10 CT Scan Report
Ex.P11 Medical Bills (4 in nos.) for Rs.750/-
Ex.P12 2 Ambulance Bills
41 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018
to 7267/2018
Ex.P13 Wound Certificate
Ex.P14 43 Medical Bills amounting to
Rs.1,93,974/-
Ex.P15 Complaint
Ex.P15(a) English translation Ex.P16 Statement of the Victim Ex.P16(a) English translation Ex.P17 to Three Statements of inquest witnesses Ex.P19 Ex.P17(a) English translations to Ex.P19(a) Ex.P20 Statement of observation mahazar Ex.P20(a) English translation Ex.P21 & Two Statement of expert witnesses Ex.P22 Ex.P21(a) English translation & Ex.P22(a) Ex.P23 Statement of Duty Officer Ex.P23(a) English translation Ex.P24 & IMV Reports Ex.P25 Ex.P26 PM report Ex.P27 Identity Card Ex.P28 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card Ex.P29 Authorization Letter Ex.P30 Appointment Order dated 27-05-2015 Ex.P31 Last Pay Certificate Ex.P32 Pay Slip for the month of April-2018 Ex.P33 Death Gratuity calculation sheet Ex.P34 Inpatient Records (3 in nos.) Ex.P35 C.T. Facial Bones Report Ex.P36 X-ray Report with CD 42 (SCCH-16) MVC 7264/2018 to 7267/2018 Ex.P37 Bank Statement Ex.P38 Bank Pass Book Ex.P39 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of Harshika Ex.P40 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of Leelavathi Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
RW1 Sri Shivagnanaboopati RW2 Sri Himendra Kartantik Simha M.N. Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R1 Notarized copy of Driving Licence Ex.R2 Authorization Letter Ex.R3 True copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R4 Translated copy of Sketch (Sudeen Kumar D.J.) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.