Bangalore District Court
In : 1. Sri.Raghunath K.B vs In : 1. Sri. Santhosh.H.G on 8 January, 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU (SCCH-5)
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
PRESENT: K. RAJESH KARNAM, B.Sc, LLB.,
VIII ADDL. SCJ & XXXIII ACMM
MEMBER - MACT
BANGALORE
M.V.C Nos.703, 704 & 705/2015
PETITIONERS IN : 1. Sri.Raghunath K.B.
MVC NO.703/2015 S/o. Bramhalingegowda,
Aged about 39 years,
2. Baby Sere
D/o. Raghunath,
Aged about 8 years,
Since minor Rep. by her father
& natural guardian Raghunath,
Both are residing at No.42,
Sai Nivas, 3rd Cross,
Nanjappa Compound,
Bank of Baroda Colony,
J.P.Nagar 7th Phase,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. S.G.Chakrapani, Adv.)
PETITIONER IN : Sri. Raghunath K.B.
MVC NO.704/2015 S/o. Brahmalingegowda
Aged about 39 years
Residing at No.42,
Sai Nivas, 3rd Cross,
Nanjappa Compound,
Bank of Baroda Colony,
J.P.Nagar 7th Phase,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. S.G.Chakrapani, Adv.)
2 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015
SCCH-5
PETITIONER IN : Baby Sere
MVC NO.705/2015 D/o. Raghunath,
Aged about 8 years,
Since minor Rep. by her father
& natural guardian Raghunath K.B.
Residing at No.42,
Sai Nivas, 3rd Cross,
Nanjappa Compound,
Bank of Baroda Colony,
J.P.Nagar 7th Phase,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. S.G.Chakrapani, Adv.)
V/s
RESPONDENTS IN : 1. Sri. Santhosh.H.G.
BOTH THE CASES S/o. Javarashetty,
No.54, Yarane (V)
Karle (P), Kattaya (H)
Hassan District,
Karnataka State
(R.C.Owner of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-09-6930)
(By Sri.H.R.Ramesh, Adv.,)
2. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.14, 2nd Floor,
Monarch Chambers,
Infantry Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(Policy No.10010/31/15/005306,
valid from 10.09.2014 to 09.09.2015)
(By Sri.B.T.Rudra Murthy, Adv.,)
****
3 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015
SCCH-5
JUDGMENT
These petitions are filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation for death of victim in MVC No.703/2015 and injuries sustained by the Petitioners in MVC No.704/2015 & 705/2015, in a road traffic accident.
2. The petition averments are as follows:
On 26.01.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. as deceased along with daughter Sere and one Pradeep Kumar were moving in Bolero Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MJ-2552 driven by the driver Raghunath, near Arya Edigara Mutt, Soluru, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara, another Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-09- 6930 moving ahead in very high speed abruptly stopped in road without giving proper indication and applied sudden brake. Consequently, impact occurred between Bolero Jeep and Lorry. The victim succumbed in the spot. The body was shifted to Nelamangala Government Hospital, where postmortem was conducted and body was handed over to the Petitioners. Petitioners plead due to untimely death of victim, they were obliged to spent about Rs.80,000/- towards funeral and incidental expenses. It is pleaded that, prior to the 4 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 incident deceased was hale and healthy, running Beauty Parlour business in Bangalore, earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. Due to her untimely death, Petitioners are facing hardship.
3. In MVC No.704/2015, it is pleaded as Petitioner was driving Bolero Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MJ-2552 along with family members due to sudden breaking of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-09-6930 accident occurred and he suffered injuries. Immediately, after the accident he was shifted to Nelamangala Government Hospital. After first aid, he was referred to Pepale Tree Hospital, Goraguntepalya, Yeshwanthapura, where he took treatment as inpatient.
4. In MVC No.705/2015, it is pleaded Petitioner was moving along with her parents in Bolero Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MJ-2552 due to sudden breaking of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-09-6930 accident occurred and she suffered injuries. Immediately, after the accident she was shifted to Nelamangala Government Hospital. After first aid, he was referred to Pepale Tree Hospital, Goraguntepalya, Yeshwanthapura, where he took treatment as inpatient.
5. It is pleaded the accident happened due to fault of the Lorry driver bearing Reg.No.KA-09-6930. The 5 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 jurisdictional Kudur Police registered crime No.34/2015 and charge sheeted the Lorry driver. Accordingly, they seek the petition relief.
6. On service of summons, Respondents have appeared through counsel.
7. The Respondent No.1 submits the loss of earnings of the deceased is a falsehood, the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- and paying Income Tax is falsehood. The incident happened only due to fault of Bolero Jeep driver. Therefore, Petitioners be put to strict proof of the petition averments.
8. This Respondent No.1 categorically denies all the petition averments as to incident, shifting deceased and post mortem being conducted on the deceased by spending about Rs.80,000/-. This Respondent submits the Lorry is duly insured with Respondent No.2 as on date of incident, which was effective, as such, the driver having valid driving licence and all the vehicle documents being correct. This Respondent No.1 is to be indemnified from liability. This Respondent No.1 submits claim made by the Petitioners are exorbitant and unreasonable one.
6 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015
SCCH-5
9. This Respondent No.1 categorically denies, Petitioners in MVC No.704 and 705/2015 suffered injuries and was obliged to spend amount towards surgery and incidental expenses.
10. The Respondent No.2 categorically denies the petition averments as to incident and pleads Petitioners be put to strict proof of the petition averments. This Respondent pleads as per Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of IMV Act, neither insured nor the Investigating Officer has given information to this Respondent, as such, for non-compliance the petition be dismissed against this Respondent. This Respondent pleads he may be permitted to take all necessary plea available under Sec.170 of IMV Act.
11. The Respondent No.2 categorically denies the incident happened on 26.01.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. as pleaded by the Petitioners on NH-75, near Arya Edigara Mutt, Solu, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara Dist. This Respondent denies the victim succumbed to the injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry. This Respondent submits neither the driver of the Bolero nor the driver of the Lorry had no any valid driving licence, as such, this Respondent is not 7 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 liable. This Respondent contends the Lorry was moving normally. However, driver of Bolero Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA- 03-MJ-2552 has not left minimum space at the speed they were moving, due to negligence of the Bolero driver, the incident had occurred. Therefore, this Respondent cannot be held liable. This Respondent pleads he may be permitted to take additional plea in case of changed circumstances.
12. This Respondent categorically denies Petitioners in MVC No.704/2015 and 705/2015 suffering injuries as pleaded and pleads Petitioners be put to strict proof of the petition averments. Accordingly, seeks dismissal of petition with costs.
13. On the basis of this plea, the following issues have been framed:
In MVC No.703/2015
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the deceased Smt. Krupa W/o. Raghunath, aged about 30 years, was died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.01.2015 at about 10.30 p.m., on N.H.75 road, Near Arya Edigara Mutt, Solur, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara, whether deceased was proceeding in a Bolero Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-03-MJ-2552, due to rash and negligent act of driving of the Lorry driver, vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-09-6930 as alleged in the petition? 8 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015
SCCH-5
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that they are legal representative of deceased and they are depending on the income of the deceased?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation from whom?
4. What order or award?
Common Issues in MVC No.704/2015 & 705/2015
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that they sustained injuries in road traffic accident that occurred on 26.01.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. on NH-75 Road, near Arya Edigara Mutt, Solur, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara, while they proceeding in Bolero Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MJ-2552, due to rash and negligent act of driving of the Lorry driver, vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-6930, has met with an accident?
2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3 What order?
14. At trial, 1st Petitioner in MVC No.703/2015 got examined as PW-1 on behalf of Petitioners and also other Petitioners in other cases and got placed documents as Ex.P.1 to 16. In response Respondents have not led any evidence.
9 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015
SCCH-5
15. On hearing, this case is reserved for judgment.
16. The above issues are answered as follows:
Issue No.1 in all the : Partly in the Affirmative cases Issue No.2 in : In the Affirmative.
MVC No.703/2015 Issue No.3 in : The Petitioners are entitled for MVC No.703/2015 compensation of Rs.14,63,672/-
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till
realization from Respondents.
Issue No.2 in : The Petitioner is entitled for :
MVC No.704/2015 compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.
from the date of petition till
realization from Respondents.
Issue No.2 in : The Petitioner is entitled for global
MVC No.705/2015 compensation of Rs25,000./- with
interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from
the date of petition till realization from Respondents.
Issue No.4 in MVC : As per final order for the following:
No.703/2015 and
Issue No.3 in MVC
No.704/2015 &
705/2015
10 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015
SCCH-5
REASONS
17. Issue No.1 in all the cases: In proof of Issue No.1 in all the cases, Petitioners have specifically plead in their petitions that, on 26.01.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. as deceased along with daughter Sere and one Pradeep Kumar were moving in Bolero Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MJ-2552 driven by the driver Raghunath, near Arya Edigara Mutt, Soluru, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara, another Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-09-6930 moving ahead in very high speed abruptly stopped in road without giving proper indication and applied sudden brake. Consequently, impact occurred between Bolero Jeep and Lorry. The victim succumbed in the spot. The body was shifted to Nelamangala Government Hospital, where postmortem was conducted and body as handed over to the Petitioners. Petitioners plead due to untimely death of victim, they were obliged to spent about Rs.80,000/- towards funeral and incidental expenses. It is pleaded that, prior to the incident deceased was hale and healthy, running Beauty Parlour business in Bangalore, earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. Due to her untimely death, Petitioners are facing hardship.11 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015
SCCH-5
18. In MVC No.704/2015 and 705/2015, Petitioners specifically plead that they were traveling in Bolero Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MJ-2552 along with family members due to sudden breaking of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-09- 6930 accident occurred and they suffered injuries. Immediately, after the accident they were shifted to Nelamangala Government Hospital. After first aid, from there they were referred to Pepale Tree Hospital, Goraguntepalya, Yeshwanthapura, wherein they he took treatment as inpatient.
19. It is pleaded the accident happened due to fault of the Lorry driver bearing Reg.No.KA-09-6930. The jurisdictional Kudur Police registered crime No.34/2015 and charge sheeted the Lorry driver. Accordingly, they seek the petition relief.
20. Petitioner has reiterated the petition averments in his affidavit evidence. In the cross-examination this witness deposes he is owner of the Bolero Vehicle. He along with his wife, uncle's son Pradeep and daughter were traveling, he was on the driving seat. He admits it is a highway and there is centre median. He deposes road is of about 80 ft. having 12 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 two lane on two sides. He deposes Lorry was moving in the left side of the track, he was also moving in left side. He deposes he had kept distance of 15 ft. between Lorry and his vehicle. He deposes they were moving at speed of 60-80 kms. He denies he tried to overtake Lorry and lost control and struck it. He denies other suggestions made by the learned Respondent counsel. He admits his wife had not obtained any licence to run Beauty Parlor. He deposes he is Surveyor in Revenue Department. He deposes he had valid insurance to his vehicle. He had no impediment to make his insurer as party. He deposes he suffered injuries to face and abdomen. He admits his daughter is studying as before.
21. The learned Respondent counsel argues as per spot sketch and charge sheet, the driver of Lorry alone was charge sheeted. But, as deposed by PW-1 himself as he has left only 15 ft. space between his vehicle and the vehicle moving ahead. Therefore, he is also responsible for the incident and contributory negligence is to be considered based on the materials itself. On going through all the materials on record, this Court has to consider the prayer of 13 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 Respondent counsel. Accordingly, I am obliged to answer Issue No.1 partly in affirmative, in all the cases.
22. Issue No.2 in MVC No.703/2015: In proof of relationship of Petitioners with that of the deceased, Petitioners have specifically pleaded in column No.22 about the relationship. It is pleaded first Petitioner is the husband and second Petitioner is the daughter of the deceased. In consonance with the plea, PW-1 has placed Ex.P.5 Inquest Mahazar, Ex.P.6 P.M.Report, Ex.P.11 Election ID Card of the deceased and Ex.P.16 Driving Licence of the Petitioner No.1. On considering all these documents, Petitioners have placed corroborative materials to prove the relationship. Accordingly, Issue for consideration is answered in the affirmative.
23. Issue No.3 in MVC No.703/2015: In the case on hand, Petitioners have specifically pleads deceased was doing business in Beauty Parlour. They have placed IT Returns to that effect as per Ex.P.9 & 10. In the case on hand, with regard to income from the business in the IT Returns it is shown as Rs.1,18,660/- only. Actually gross income is Rs.2,37,129/-. Therefore, the gross income cannot be taken as income of the deceased. By considering the 14 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 above document, the income of the deceased is considered at Rs.1,18,000/- after deductions per annum.
24. The learned Petitioner counsel has relied on the following citations:
i) (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 421 between Santosh Devi V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and others, wherein it is held that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Ss.166 and 168- Fatal accident- Assessment of compensation - Incremental enhancement of annual income-persons entitled to and quantum of enhancement applicable - Besides government servants, said incremental enhancement, held, is also applicable to self-employed persons or those on fixed salary without the provision of annual increment, to the extent of 30% of annual income at time of death - Rationale why said increment is also applicable to self-employed persons, explained - Tort law - compensation/damages.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Ss 166 and 168 - Fatal accident - assessment of compensation - amount to be deducted for personal expenses if; (a) monthly income of deceased was Rs.1,500/- and (b) there are 5 dependants - in such a fact situation, the deceased, at best, held, would spend 1/10th of his income for his personal expenses and leave the rest for his family - Thus for a low monthly income like Rs.1,500/-, 1/3rd deduction rule for personal expenses would not be applicable - Tort law - compensation / damages. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Ss. 166 and 168 - Fatal accident - quantum of compensation - annual income being Rs.1,500/- - deceased being self-employed - number of dependants being 5 - Total amount payable to the claimants, on facts and by applying 15 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 rules stated in shotnotes A and B above i.e., incremental enhancement of annual income by 30% .
ii) (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 54 between Rajesh and others V/s. Rajbir Singh and others, wherein it is held that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Ss.166 and 168- Fatal accident- computation of compensation - future prospects of deceased-consideration of - addition to be made to actual income of deceased (which existed at the time of his death) towards his future prospects
- Rule laid down as to, in Sarla Verma (2009) 6 SCC 121 in relation to salaried persons - subsequently clarified and also made applicable to persons self- employed or engaged on fixed wages in Santosh Devi (2012) 6 SCC 421-further clarified herein in relation to self-employed persons or those on fixed wages - different additions to actual income for different age groups of such persons - specified.
Held, in case of self-employed persons or persons with fixed wages, the actual income of the deceased must be enhanced for purpose of computation of compensation: (i) by 50% where his age was below 40 yrs, (ii) by 30% where he belonged to age group of 40 to 50 yrs, and (iii) by 15% where he was between age group of 50 to 60 yrs - however, no such addition/enhancement permissible where deceased exceeded the age of 60 yrs - For the above purpose, reiterated, actual income would mean income after paying tax, if any - Tort law - compensation/damages
- future prospects.
iii) (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 347 between Munna Lal Jain and another V/s. Vipin Kumar Sharma and ors., wherein it is held that, 16 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Ss.166 and 168- Fatal accident- compensation - determination of - just compensation - future prospects - self-employed persons - addition to be made to income of -following three judge bench decision in Rajesh, (2013) 9 SCC 54, in case of self-employed persons also, if deceased victim is below 40 years, there must be addition of 50% to actual income of deceased while computing future prospects -deceased being of 30 yrs, 50% is required to be added.
Considering citations referred by the learned Petitioner counsel, award is made considering the job is not being permanent, the future prospects is not considered as it is business.
25. As per Ex.P.11 Election ID Card, date of birth of the deceased is shown as 24.02.1980. Hence, the deceased was aged 35 years on the date of incident, as such, for the age group of 31 - 35 years, '16' multiplier is applicable as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 in case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another. As there are two dependents, out of annual income of Rs.1,18,000/-, 1/3rd of the same to be deducted towards personal expenses. As such, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.78,667/- (1/3rd of Rs.1,18,000/-=Rs.39,333/-). Therefore, loss of dependency would be Rs.78,667/- x 16 = Rs.12,58,672/-. Further, 1st 17 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 Petitioner has been awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium. Second Petitioner has been awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of care and protection. Both Petitioners have been awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate. First Petitioner has been awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and incidental expenses.
26. In all, Petitioners in MVC No.703/2015 are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,63,672/- for the death of Krupa.
27. Issue No.2 in MVC No.704/2015: In proof of Issue No.2, as to the injuries being suffered in the road traffic accident in column No.22, Petitioner has specifically pleads that, after the incident, he was shifted to Nelamangala Government Hospital and from there to Pepale Tree Hospital, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore. It is pleaded that, he was obliged to spend substantial amount towards treatment, in consonance with the plea, in the affidavit evidence at Page No.2 para No.4, this Petitioner submits that, he was obliged to spend amount. He has placed Ex.P.13 Wound Certificate 18 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 along with Discharge Summary, wherein it is mentioned he has suffered 3 grievous injuries.
28. On going through the materials on record, the Petitioner has suffered injuries in road traffic accident is evident. Petitioner has been awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Petitioner has been hospitalized for 4 days. He had suffered nasal bone fracture. Petitioner has been awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities and an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities.
29. In all, Petitioner in MVC No.704/2015 is entitled for total compensation of Rs1,00,000/-.
30. Issue No.2 in MVC No.705/2015: In proof of Issue No.2, as to the injuries being suffered in the road traffic accident in column No.22, Petitioner has specifically pleads that, after the incident, she was shifted to Nelamangala Government Hospital and from there to Pepale Tree Hospital, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore. In consonance with the plea, in the affidavit evidence of PW-1 at Page No.2 para No.4, submits that, she was obliged to spend substantial amount towards medical and incidental expenses. She has placed 19 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 Ex.P.14 Wound Certificate along with Discharge Summary, wherein it is mentioned Petitioner has suffered blunt injury abdomen, which is simple in nature.
31. On going through the materials on record, the Petitioner has suffered injuries in road traffic accident is evident. Accordingly, Petitioner has been awarded global compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
32. In all, Petitioner in MVC No.705/2015 is entitled for global compensation of Rs25,000/-.
33. As per the decision of our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2009 Kar 385, in case of Nazeera Banu, Petitioners in MVC No.704/2015 and 705/2015 are entitled for interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation.
34. On going through the material on record, the Respondent No.1 being the owner is liable to pay compensation, which shall be indemnified by the Respondent No.2. Therefore, Respondents 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. Accordingly, these issues are answered.
20 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015
SCCH-5
35. Issue No.4 in MVC No.703/2015 and Issue No.3 in MVC No.704/2015 and 705/2015: On the basis of discussions made on above Issues, I am obliged to allow these petitions in part and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Claim petition of Petitioners in MVC No. 703/2015, 704/2015 & 705/2015 is partly allowed with cost as against Respondents.
Petitioners in MVC No.703/2015 are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,63,672/-
(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Two Only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
Petitioner in MVC No.704/2015 is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with interest (excluding on the future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-) at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.21 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015
SCCH-5 Petitioner in MVC No.705/2015 is entitled for global compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
2nd Respondent, who is vicariously liable to indemnify the risk of 1st Respondent, has to deposit the compensation amount with interest, within a month from today.
Out of the compensation, Petitioner's in MVC No.703/2015 shall be apportioned in the ratio of 40:60. After the compensation being deposited, 60% of the compensation pertaining to Petitioner No.1 to be released in his favour and remaining 40% to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized or scheduled bank, in his name, for a period of three years. Entire compensation of 2nd Petitioner to be kept in FD in any nationalized or scheduled bank in the name of Petitioner No.2, till she attains majority. Accrued interest on the share of minor Petitioner No.2 to be given to 1st Petitioner. 22 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015
SCCH-5 Out of compensation to the Petitioner in MVC No.704/2015 has been directed to be released 60% and balance 40% shall be kept in FD for a period of three years, in any nationalized or scheduled bank.
Entire compensation of Petitioner in MVC No.705/2015 to be kept in FD in any nationalized or scheduled bank in the name of Petitioner, till she attains majority. Accrued interest on the share of minor Petitioner No.2 to be given to 1st petitioner.
Fee of counsel for petitioner is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in all the cases.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC No. 703/2015 and copy of the same in MVC No.704/2015 & 705/2015.
Draw award accordingly in all the claims. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 8th day of January, 2016) (K. RAJESH KARNAM) VIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE MEMBER, MACT 23 MVC No.703, 704 & 705/2015 SCCH-5 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS IN ALL THE CASES:
PW-1 : Sri. Raghunatha LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN ALL THE CASES:
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS IN ALL THE CASES:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of Complaint Ex.P.2 : Copy of FIR Ex.P.3 : Copy of Mahazar Ex.P.4 : Copy of Spot Sketch Ex.P.5 : Copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.6 : Copy of P.M.Report Ex.P.7 : C.C. of IMV Report Ex.P.8 : C.C. of Charge Sheet Ex.P.9 : Income Tax Returns for the year 2012-13 Ex.P.10 : Income Tax Returns for the year 2013-14 Ex.P.11 : Election ID Card Ex.P.12 : Lease Agreement Ex.P.13 : C.C. of Wound Certificate Ex.P.14 : C.C. of Wound Certificate Ex.P.15 : Authenticated copy of SSLC Marks Card Ex.P.16 : Authenticated copy of Driving Licence
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN ALL THE CASES:
-NIL-
(K. RAJESH KARNAM) VIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE MEMBER, MACT