Bangalore District Court
) Sri H.L.Kirshore Kumar vs V.K.Gopal on 7 September, 2016
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
Dated this the 7th day of September'2016
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L, ., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.,
M.V.C. No.2682/2014
Petitioners: 1) Sri H.L.Kirshore Kumar,
S/o Late Loku @
Lakshminarayan,
Aged about 49 years.
2) Smt.Nagarathna H.A.,
W/o. H.L. Kishore Kumar,
Aged about 44 years.
Both are residing at
No.2697/4, 2nd Block,
Sri M.V.Layout, Kengeri,
Bangalore-560 060.
(By Sri M.B.M.., Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondents: 1. V.K.Gopal,
S/o Late V.Krishnappa Naidu,
No.289,12th Main road,
BSK 1st stage, 2nd Block,
Bangalore-560 050.
Tamil Nadu State.
(R.C.Owner of the Tipper Lorry
No.KA-55-9889)
(By Sri B.Raje Gowda, Advocate)
2. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
T.P.Hub, No.44/45,
Leo Complex,
Residency Cross Road,
M.G.Road, Bangalore -560 001.
2 MVC No.2682/2014
(I/P NO.421801/31/2014/1659
Valid from 14.09.2013 to
13.09.2014)
(By Sri S.Maheshwara)
3. Sri Mahendran,
S/o Aariyan,
Aged major,
R/at No.32,
Indiragandhi Nagar,
3rd Cross, Virudhunagar,
Tamil Nadu-626 001.
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rupees One Crore from the respondents with regard to the death of their daughter Kum.Nikhita K., in the road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are:-
It is the case of the petitioners that on 22.02.2014 at about 13.25 hours, the deceased was riding Honda Activa bearing No.KA-02/EZ-9305 along with a pillion rider by name Sushma B.C., on Uttarahalli Main Road towards Kengeri. At that time, Tipper lorry bearing No. KA-55/9889 came from opposite direction, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and came to the extreme right side of the road and 3 MVC No.2682/2014 dashed against Honda Activa of the deceased. Due to the forced impact, the deceased along with pillion rider fell down and front right side wheel ran over the head of the rider of the Honda Activa and she succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. Thereafter dead body was taken to Rajarajeshwari Medical College and Hospital, wherein postmortem was conducted and handed over to the petitioners and they in turn have conducted the funeral and obsequies ceremonies.
3. It is claimed that the deceased was aged about 21 years and was hale and healthy and was the only daughter for the parents and she was studying in the 6th semester B.E., in Electrical and Electronic at SJB Institute of Technology, Bengaluru. Deceased was very brilliant and meritorious student throughout her academic career and was always aspiring for higher educational qualifications, expertise, technical know-how etc., she was very brilliant in studies and sports and other extra curricular activities and the petitioners in all spent more than Rs.25,00,000/- towards her education and other incidental expenses. The sudden death of the deceased at the prime of her youth had drowned the petitioners in deep grief and sorrow and on account of which, the petitioners are undergoing deep mental shock, agony, sufferings and sleepless nights. The demise of 4 MVC No.2682/2014 the deceased is an irreparable loss to the petitioners and their family and also to the industry.
4. It is averred that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tipper lorry bearing No.KA-55/9889 and the respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
5. In pursuance of this claim petition, this Court has issued notice against the respondents. Respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before the Court through their respective Counsels and have filed written statement separately. The respondent No.3 has remained exparte.
6. Respondent No.1 has filed written statement denying the petition averments. The petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts due to non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of the Honda Activa is not made as parties to the proceedings. This respondent has denied the name, father's name, address, date, time and mode of accident, relationship of the deceased with the petitioners. It is contended that the driver of tipper lorry was driving with moderate speed by observing traffic rules and regulations as on the date of accident but the rider 5 MVC No.2682/2014 of the Honda Activa was riding without observing the vehicles which were coming from the opposite side suddenly came towards right side and dashed against the rear portion of the tipper lorry and hence, this accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of the Honda Activa and not due to the tipper lorry. The Tipper lorry was insured with the respondent No.2 and the policy was valid as on the date of accident and the driver had valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
7. The respondent No.2 has filed written statement denying the petition averments. The issuance of the policy in respect of the tipper lorry bearing No.KA-55/9889 is admitted and it is contended that the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The first respondent owner has not complied the statutory obligation under Section 134(c) of M.V.Act and the concerned police have not complied the provisions of section 158(6) of M.V.Act. The accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased rider of the motor cycle and the insurer of the Honda Activa has not been made as party to the proceedings. It is contended that the driver of the tipper lorry was not holding 6 MVC No.2682/2014 valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and the owner of the vehicle committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent has denied the name, father's name, address, date, time and mode of accident, death of the deceased due to the accidental injuries. It is further contended that the second respondent reserves its right to amend its statement of objection and also to take over the defence of the insured in the event of the owner does not contest the proceedings under section 170 of M.V.Act. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
8. The second respondent has also filed additional written statement contending that the jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-55/9889 namely Mahendran, S/o Ariyan, alleging the rash and negligent driving and the said driver has submitted his driving license before the police. It is further contended that their company has appointed an investigator to procure the documents from the police station, accordingly, the investigator has obtained documents from the police station and the driving licence copy which was available with the police station bearing D.L.No.TN-67-20070004250 pertains to Mahendran S/o Ariyan. When their company investigator secured driving licence extract of driver from Viruduhnagar 7 MVC No.2682/2014 R.T.O., the above said driving licence number has been issued in respect of one Palanisamy S., S/o. Soorashankar and not in respect of Mahendran S/o.Ariyan and this clearly shows that the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-55/9889 did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident. It is also contended that fake driving licence copy has been furnished by the driver of the lorry and this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.
9. Based on the pleadings, this Court has framed the following:-
1) Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Kum.Nikita K.?
2) Whether the Petitioners prove that the death of Kum. Nikita K. on 22.02.2014 at about 13.25 hrs is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tipper lorry bearing No.KA-02/EZ.9305 by who dashed the said vehicle against the Honda Activa on Uttarahali main road, near Savan Darbar Ashram compound Bangalore?
3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
From whom payable?
4) What Order or award?
8 MVC No.2682/2014
10. On reading issue No,2 the tipper lorry number is wrongly mentioned and therefore, the same is corrected as KA-55/9889.
11. In order to prove their claim, the first petitioner is examined as PW-1 and have got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to 22. On the other hand, the respondents have examined four witnesses as RW-1 to RW-4 and have got marked Ex.R.1 to 4.
12. I have heard the arguments of petitioner counsel and respondents No.1 and 2 counsels.
13. The Counsel for the petitioners' in support of his case relied upon the following judgments:
1) 2013 AIR SCW 6505
2) (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 700
3) (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297
4) Unreported judgment in MFA No.9308/2011 of High Court of Karnataka.
5) 2015 AIR SCW 3105
14. The Counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon the following judgments:
1) 2007 ACJ 721 SC
2) 2010 ACJ 709 SC
3) 2013 ACJ 2129 SC 9 MVC No.2682/2014
4) 2007 ACJ 1067 SC
5) 2014 ACJ 2739 Kar
15. I have given my anxious consideration to the principles laid down in the above judgments.
16. Having heard the arguments, based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1.In the affirmative Issue No.2.In the affirmative Issue No.3.Partly in the affirmative Issue No.4.As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
17. Issue No.1:- The case of the petitioners' is that they are the father and mother of the deceased Nikitha and in order to substantiate the same, they have produced Ex.P.8 Birth Certificate of the deceased Nikita K., which discloses name of her father as Kishore Kumar H.L. and mother's name as H.A.Nagaratna. They have also produced Ex.P.10 Aadhaar Card of the deceased, which discloses her father's name as Kishore Kumar H.L. Driving licence of the deceased is also produced at Ex.P.11 which also discloses her father's name Kishore Kumar H.L. They have also produced ration card which discloses the father's name of the deceased as 10 MVC No.2682/2014 Kishore Kumar and mother's name as Nagarathna H.A. Ex.P.15 Aadhaar Card is the petitioner No.2, which discloses her husband's name as Kishore Kumar H.L. In the school and college records of the deceased, her father's name is mentioned as Kishore Kumar H.L., and Ex.P.20 letter from Central Bank of India discloses the loan is taken in the joint name of the deceased and Kishore Kumar H.L., wherein it is mentioned father cum Principal borrower. All these documents clearly show that the deceased was the daughter of Kishore Kumar H.L. and Nagaratna H.A., who are the petitioners' herein. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
18. Issue No.2: It is the case of the petitioners that on 22.02.2014 at about 01.25 p.m., their daughter Kum.Nikitha as rider and her friend as pillion rider were proceeding on Honda Activa bearing No.KA-02/EZ-9305 and while so going on Uttarahalli Main Road towards Kengeri, at that time, the driver of Tipper lorry bearing No. KA-55/9889 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and having come to the extreme right side of the road, dashed against the Honda Activa Scooter. Due to the forced impact, the front right side wheel of the Tipper Lorry ran over the head of the rider of the Honda Activa causing her instantaneous death. Thus, it is 11 MVC No.2682/2014 the case of the petitioner that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper lorry. On the other hand, respondents have contended that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased herself.
19. In order to prove their case, the first petitioner has been examined herself as PW-1 and he reiterated the averment of the petition contending that the accident was on account of the negligent driving of the tipper lorry by its driver. Apart from his oral evidence by way of affidavit, the first petitioner has also relied upon FIR, Charge Sheet, Sketch, Mahazar, IMV Report as Ex.P.1 to 5. He was subjected to cross-examination.
20. In the cross-examination, he admits that he did not witness the accident and it is elicited that he does not know who has lodged the complaint, but admits that it is a head on collision. It is elicited from him that Sketch which is marked as Ex.P.3 is correctly drawn. It is suggested that the accident has occurred at the middle of the road and the said suggestion was denied. He admits that front portion of scooter of his daughter was damaged and no damage was caused to the lorry. It is suggested that his daughter has 12 MVC No.2682/2014 driven the motorcycle in high speed and she only caused the accident and the accident has not occurred due to the negligence the driver of the tipper lorry and the said suggestion has been denied by him.
21. Respondent No.2 has examined its Deputy Manager as RW-1 and she in her evidence reiterated the contentions taken in the objection statement and additional objection statement, stating that the rider of the Honda Activa was at negligence and not the driver of the tipper lorry. In the cross- examination of RW 1, nothing is brought out to disbelieve the case of the petitioner alleging negligence to the driver of the lorry.
22. The respondent No.1 got himself examined as RW 4 and in his evidence, RW 4 deposes that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver of the tipper lorry since the lorry was driven carefully and cautiously by its driver and the Honda Active came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and while overtaking another vehicle, dashed against the tipper lorry. Even in the cross- examination of RW 4, nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of petitioner with regard to the negligence attributed to the driver of the tipper lorry.
13 MVC No.2682/2014
23. Now, let me appreciate the evidence let in by both the parties and documentary evidence brought on record, with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the negligence.
24. The petitioner, as stated above, in order to prove her case produced Ex.P.1 - FIR. A perusal of the same reveals that the pillion rider of the scooter has lodged the complaint alleging total negligence to the driver of the tipper lorry. It has to be noted that the complaint is filed within a span of 1 hour of the accident. Ex.P.3 and P.4 are the Spot Sketch and the Spot Mahazar drawn by the Police during the course of investigation. Sketch reveals that the road on which the accident occurred is of the width of 25 feet. Both the vehicles were moving in opposite direction. The Sketch further shows that the scooter, on which the petitioner was riding pillion, driven by the deceased was shown to be moving at a distance of 5 feet from the edge of the road from its side. The tipper lorry which was coming from opposite direction after having deviated from its lane, came to the extreme right portion of the road. Even if it is assumed, as per the contention of the respondent No.1 and 2, that the deceased while overtaking another vehicle came towards right portion 14 MVC No.2682/2014 of the road, in that situation also, the scooter was well within the left half portion of the road. From the contents of the sketch, which has not been disputed or denied by the respondents, a prudent person can easily say that it is the driver of the tipper lorry, who for no reason, other than negligence and high speed, came to the right portion of the road and dashed against the scooter and thereby caused the accident. Ex.P.5 is the IMV Report of both the vehicles. No visible damages were noticed in respect of tipper lorry, but as far as the scooter is concerned, front left side, indicator side, guard scratched, rear right side body dented and rear right side exhaust manifold damaged. The jurisdictional Police after investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of the tipper lorry as per Ex.P.2. The respondents No.1 and 2 in their statement of objections, having denied the negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper lorry for the accident, have not examined the driver of the lorry, nor any other witness, who witnessed the accident. Therefore, the evidence of PW 1 coupled with the police documents discussed above, make it abundantly clear that the accident in question has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry by its driver and in the accident, petitioners' daughter died at 15 MVC No.2682/2014 the spot. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
25. Issue No.3:- Regarding the compensation is concerned, it is contended by the petitioners that the deceased, being their daughter, was aged 21 years and prosecuting 6th Semester of BE in Electrical and Electronics at SJB Engineering College, Benglauru and that deceased being a bright and meritorious student, had passed her primary and secondary education meritoriously and also used to participate in curricular activities and that the petitioners have lost their daughter and on account of her death, the petitioners' life has become miserable and also they have lost future prospectus.
26. So far as age and avocation of the deceased, the petitioners have relied upon Ex.P.8 - Birth Certificate of the deceased, which reveals that the deceased having born on 15.03.1993 and the accident having occurred on 22.02.2014, was running 21 years at the time of accident. The petitioners have also produced Ex.P.1- Aadhaar Card and Ex.P.11 - DL Extract of the deceased, which corroborated the date of birth of the deceased as shown in the Birth Certificate. 16 MVC No.2682/2014
27. The petitioners have also produced Ex.P.13 - Identity Card issued by SJB Institute of Technology, Bengaluru. Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 are the SSLC and II PU Marks Card. Ex.P.18 - Marks Cards of I, II, IV and V Semester BE Course of the deceased. In the SSLC Final Exam, deceased secured 70%, in the II PUC Final Exam, she secured 86% and in BE Course, on a average, she secured 73% in the Semester Exams. The petitioners have also produced Ex.P.19 - 53 Certificates showing the extra curricular activities of the deceased and another Certificate issued by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, for having excellently completed Project Work on In Plant Training at MCSRDC Design Complex, Bengaluru. PW1 though was subjected to cross-examination, not even a single question is posed to him disputing the age and avocation of the deceased.
28. Thus, from Ex.P.13 to 19, it can be gathered that the deceased was running 21 years at the time of accident and prosecuting VI Semester BE Course in Electrical and Electronics Engineer. From the above marks cards and the Certificates of extra-curricular activities, it appears that the deceased was a bright student and she was yet to complete 17 MVC No.2682/2014 the Bachelor Engineering and at that time, she met with accident and lost her life.
29. The counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the deceased was a bright student and secured distinction in II PUC and also secured maximum marks in SSLC and secured good marks in her Engineering Course which she was prosecuting at the time of accident and death and hence, prayed this Tribunal to take the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, since the petitioners have lost their daughter, who was bright and meritorious in studies.
30. In a case reported in 2013 ACJ 2498 ( Om Prakash Gupta and others Vs. Wajeer Ahmed Ali Nayak Wadi and another), while dealing with a case relating a student of third year Engineering, aged 21 years the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and awarded the compensation. Further, in a case reported in (2003) 7 SCC 484, the Supreme Court, has observed as under :
"7. It has to be kept in view that the Tribunal constituted under the Act as provided in Section 168 is required to make an award determining the amount of compensation which is to be in the real sense "damages" which in turn appears to it to 18 MVC No.2682/2014 be "just and reasonable". It has to be borne in mind that compensation for loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. But at the same time, it has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall for the victim. Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit; but the same should not be a pittance". The Courts and Tribunal have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just".
32. Further, the Apex Court in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 ( Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others) has dealt with regard to awarding of loss of consortium and also with regard to awarding loss of future prospectus.
33. Now, let me appreciate both oral and documentary evidence available before the Court with regard to the compensation to be awarded to the petitioners for the death of their daughter in the accident.
34. No doubt, the documentary proof, ie., Marks Cards of SSLC, PUC and BE Course at Ex.P.13 to 19 discloses that the deceased is a meritorious student, since the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2013 ACJ 2498, has observed that junior engineer in initial stages of career gets a package between Rs.3 lakhs to 5 lakhs and by considering the same 19 MVC No.2682/2014 and further considering that the deceased being a third year student of engineering, had taken his income at Rs.15,000/- per month, but in the case on hand, the deceased was prosecuting VI semester Engineering in Eletrical and Electronics and thus, keeping the said fact in mind, I prefer to take the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month, which in my opinion would meet the ends of justice. Further, as held in the case of 2013 ACJ 1403 ( Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others), 50% of the income so arrived, has to be taken as loss of future prospectus and thus, in all it works out to Rs.18,000/-.
35. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 held that the Court has to take age of the deceased and not age of the dependants, since there is no nexus between the computation of compensation with the age of the dependants. Hence, relevant multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 18 since the deceased was aged 21 years at the time of accident.
36. After deducting 50% from Rs.18,000/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased had she been alive, since the deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, the monthly loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,000/-. Thus, the 20 MVC No.2682/2014 annual loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,08,000/- (9000x12), and if the said amount is multiplied by 18 multiplier applicable to the case on hand, it works out to Rs.19,44,000/-, to which the petitioners are entitled to under the head loss of dependency.
37. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, since the deceased has left behind her parents, I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (parents) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
38. Further, the petitioners have also produced Ex.P.20
- Letter issued by the Bank and Ex.p.21 - Pass Book of the deceased and contended that they have spent an amount of 21 MVC No.2682/2014 Rs.25 lakhs for the education of the deceased and had the deceased been alive, she would have got better prospectus and cleared the said loan, however, on account of her untimely death, the burden of clearing the said loan is on them and hence, prayed to award Rs.25 lakhs towards the same.
39. I have gone through Ex.P.20, which is the original letter of sanction of loan for education purpose, to the extent of Rs.3,88,000/-. A further perusal of the said letter makes it clear that the said loan amount was to be disbursed in instalments. That means, entire loan amount was not disbursed prior to the accident since, the deceased at the time of her death, was prosecuting VI Semester. The total loan amount, if divided by 8, considering the fact that BE course consists of VIII semesters, then for each semester, the petitioners have incurred Rs.48,500/- and for 6 completed semesters, they incurred Rs.2,91,000/-, to which the petitioners are entitled to under the head expenses incurred by the petitioners for the education of the deceased.
40. The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
22 MVC No.2682/2014
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1 Loss of dependency
19,44,000.00
2 Compensation to the family 1,00,000.00
members (children and family
members other than wife) for
loss of love and affection,
deprivation of protection,
social security etc.
3 Cost incurred on account of 10,000.00
funeral and ritual expenses
4 Education/Tuition fee paid 2,91,000.00
Total 23,45,000.00
41. As far as liability to pay the compensation amount is concerned, the petitioner has arrayed the respondent No.1 as owner and the respondent No.2 as insurer and the respondent No.3 as the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident and sought to fix the liability to pay the compensation amount on the respondent No.1 and 2, since the vehicle was validly insured with the respondent No.2 as on the date of the accident.
42. The respondent No.1, the owner of the lorry, examined himself as RW 4 and in his evidence, reiterated that Mahendran was the driver of the Tipper lorry at the time of accident, who was holding valid and effective driving licence and he after ensuring the fact that the said Mahendran is capable of driving such vehicles and knowledge of the same and after taking driving skill test, had appointed 23 MVC No.2682/2014 him as driver and hence, contended that the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle, prayed to saddle the responsibility on respondent No.2
43. RW 4 has been cross-examined by the counsel for respondent No.2, wherein it is elicited from him that Mahendra was working as driver with him since 2013. It is suggested to him that Mahendra was not having the effective and valid driving licence as on the date of the accident and the said suggestion has been denied by him and he volunteers that he has collected the driving licence and thereafter, he appointed him as driver and the Police have collected the same when the complaint was registered and he has not verified the driving licence in the RTO Office. It is suggested to him that Mahendran was having fake driving licence and the said suggestion has been denied by him. He admits that it was his duty to verify whether the driver is having valid and effective driving licence while appointing him as driver. It is suggested to him that driving Licence No.TN.672007004250 was issued in favour of one Palaniswamy not in favour of Mahendran and the said suggestion has been denied by him. He says that he did not verify in the RTO whether the driving licence is fake or valid even after taking the defence of the said document is fake 24 MVC No.2682/2014 document. It is suggested to him that he has not verified the genuineness of the driving licence before appointing him and the said suggestion has been denied by him. It is suggested to him that he has aware that Mahendran was not having driving licence and in spite of that, allowed him to drive the vehicle and violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, he is liable to pay compensation and the said suggestion has been denied by him.
44. RW 4 was also cross-examined by the Counsel for the petitioners, in which, he admits that a case has been registered in the Kengeri Police Station and the Police after investigation, filed charge sheet against his driver and that his driver Mahendra was arrested and driving licence was seized. He further admits that the driving licence which was seized by police is the same and the same is marked as Ex.P.22.
45. The second respondent, the insurer of the tipper lorry No.KA.55/9889, in the statement of objections, while admitting that the vehicle was covered by insurance policy and that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy, has filed additional written statement contending that the jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-55/9889 namely 25 MVC No.2682/2014 Mahendran, S/o.Ariyan alleging the rash and negligent driving and the said driver has submitted his driving licence before the police. Further contends that their company has appointed an investigator to procure the documents from the police station and accordingly, the investigator has obtained documents from the police station and the driving licence copy which was available with the police station bearing D.L.No.TN-67-20070004250 pertains to Mahendran S/o Ariyan. When their company investigator secured driving licence extract of driver from Viruddhnagar R.T.O., the above said driving licence number has been issued in respect of one Palanisamy S., S/o. Soorashankar and not in respect of Mahendran S/o.Ariyan and this clearly shows that the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-55/9889 did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident. It is also contended that fake driving license copy has been furnished by the driver of the lorry and this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.
46. In order to substantiate its contentions, the respondent No.2 has examined one of its Officers as RW 1 and in her evidence, while reiterating the contentions taken up in the statement of objections, further deposed that the driver of the tipper lorry did not possess valid and effective 26 MVC No.2682/2014 driving license and the owner has willfully entrusted the vehicle to the driver, who was not having valid and effective driving license and hence, he has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. It is her contention that jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the tipper lorry and the company had appointed an investigator and he has collected the driving license extract from Viruddhnagar R.T.O., and the same stands in the name of Palanisamy S., S/o Soorashankar and not in the name of Mahendran, S/o Ariyan. She says that their company had appointed an Investigator to procure the driving licence extract of the driver of tipper lorry from Viruduhnagar R.T.O. and accordingly their investigator procured the driving licence extract and the same is issued to one Palanisamy, S/o. Soorashankar and not in respect of Mahendran S/o Ariyan and this clearly shows that the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-55-9889 did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident and the driving license produced by the driver is a fake license copy and hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
27 MVC No.2682/2014
47. She was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, she admits that she has not produced the Xerox copy of the driving license which their investigator has obtained from the police station. Further, she says she does not know about seizing of the original driving license by the Police Officer. She says that she has not ascertained from their investigator whether the police have seized the original driving license or not. It is suggested to her that Ex.R.1 is created to absolve their liability and the said suggestion has been denied by her. She admits she has produced copy of policy in MVC No.1824/2014 another case filed in respect of the same accident. It is suggested that respondent No.3 was having the valid driving license on the date of the accident and she is giving false evidence before the Court to absolve their liability and the same is denied.
48. Witness RW 1 was further cross-examined by the petitioner's Counsel and in the cross-examination, it is elicited that they have conducted their own investigation in respect of this accident and they have sent a letter to insured and they have not received any reply and he has not produced either the notice copy or the postal acknowledgement. Further admits that the police while 28 MVC No.2682/2014 filing the charge sheet, have not invoked 3(1) of M.V Act. It is further elicited that she does not know about any notice given by the police to the owner under Section 133 of M.V. Act. She says that he has not produced the Section 133 Reply Notice copy. She further admits they have not applied for driving licence of the driver in respect of address mentioned in the Charge Sheet. It is suggested that, they have obtained the driving licence of some other person and giving evidence before the Court that the driver was not having the valid driving license and the said suggestion was denied.
49. The respondents have examined the Deputy Superintendent of Police, High Court Vigilance as examined as RW-2, and in his evidence, he has deposed that during 2014-15, he was working as Police Inspector at Kengeri. He states in his chief examination that on 22.2.2014 at about 20.15 hours, he went to Rajarajeshwari Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Kum.Sushma and registered FIR No.31/2014 and on the same day, he has conducted the Inquest mahazar of Kum. Nikitha and subjected the body for postmortem. He admits that he has recorded the statement of CW-3 to 6 and on 23-2-2014, he has visited the spot and conducted the spot mahazar and 29 MVC No.2682/2014 also prepared the rough sketch and he has also recorded the statement of eye witness CW-7. On 25-2-2014, CW-11 appeared before him and he has served Section 133 Notice to him and he gave the reply to the said notice. The Eye witness has identified the accused and he has been arrested and released on bail. He admits that he has subjected both the vehicles for IMV Inspection. He also obtained the wound certificate, IMV report and after the conclusion of the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet.
50. It is further elicited that the driver is one Mahendra @ Aryan as per the Section 133 reply and he has filed Charge Sheet against him. He also admits that the driver is having the driving licence and original was sent to R.T.O., for cancellation of the driving license bearing No.TN6720070004250. He says he does not know the status of the document and request sent to the RTO for cancellation. The driving licence was issued by Assistant Licensing authority R.T.O Virudhunagar and he has not cross verified the driving licence regarding its genuineness.
51. This witness was treated as hostile and cross- examined by respondent No.2 Counsel. In the cross- examination, RW-2 admits that he has sent a letter on 30 MVC No.2682/2014 20-03-2014 to R.T.O., Virudhunagar for suspension of the license. It is suggested that on 24-03-2014, a letter was sent to him by the R.T.O., of Virudhunagar stating that driving licence is not issued in favour of Mahendran and the said suggestion was denied and the witness volunteers that he has not received any such letter. It is further suggested that, inspite of receiving the letter he is giving false evidence before the Court that he has have not received the same and the said suggestion has been denied by him. It is further suggested that even though he came to know that the said driver was not having the driving license, he has not taken any action against him and he is aware of the fact that the said number driving license belongs to some other person and these suggestions were denied. It is suggested that, in collusion with the owner of the vehicle and the petitioner, he is giving false evidence before the Court and the same was denied.
52. RW-2 was also cross-examined by respondent No.1. In the cross-examination, he admits that the original driving license which he has collected from the driver is smart card and the license contains the photo of the driver. He has confirmed the photo and the driver who appeared before him and the driving license also having the Tamil Nadu 31 MVC No.2682/2014 Government hologram sticker and contains the signature of the issuing authority.
53. The respondents have examined the Junior Assistant, R.T.O. Office, Virudunagar as RW-3. In the chief examination, he admits he has produced driving licence Form No.4 Register in respect of driving license of Palani Swamy and the driving license bearing No.TN-67-20070004250 was issued in favour of Thiru S. Palani Swamy and not in respect of Mahendran and their office has not issued any license in favour of Mahendran in respect of the above number and their office has given the reply to the Kengeri Police in respect of the said license.
54. He was cross-examined by respondent No.1. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the letter sent by the Kengeri Police along with the original driving license is available in their office and he has not brought the same today and he says he has seen the original license sent by the Police Inspector to the RTO for suspension. He admits the license sent by the police was in the name of the Mahendran and the same is smart card and he does not remember the said smart card is having the Tamil Nadu state hologram and they have not issued the said license. RW-3 again says the said smart card containing the Tamil Nadu state hologram 32 MVC No.2682/2014 and they have not initiated any action against the said Mahendran, but we have communicated the same to the Kengeri Police that the same was fake. It is suggested that the license sent by the police was original license and only in order to help the insurance company, the Ex.R.2 and 4 are created and the said suggestion was denied. RW-3 says he is not aware of whether the original driving license sent by Kengeri police is in their office or returned to the police and he can verify and produce the said original driving license if it is in their office.
55. The respondent No.1, who is the owner of the tipper lorry, has been examined as RW 4 and in his evidence, as regards the liability is concerned, he has deposed that the tipper lorry No.KA.55/9889 was duly insured with the respondent No.1 at the time of accident and the lorry was driven by one Mahendran, the respondent No.3
56. The Counsel for the petitioner, in his arguments, vehemently contended that the respondent No.3 was driving the tipper lorry at the time of accident, who had valid driving license to drive heavy transport vehicle and he had engaged him only after testing his skills and also after verifying the original driving license 33 MVC No.2682/2014 which had authorized him to drive a heavy transport vehicle, till 20.02.2016 bearing No.TN.6720070004250 issued by Virudhunagar RTO Office, Tamilnadu, containing the seal, signature of RTO with hologram sticker of Tamilnadu State Government. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent No.1 had exercised his duty in ensuring the validity of the driving license, so also the knowledge of driving of the respondent No.3 and hence, the respondent No.2 cannot seek to disown its liability.
57. The petitioner's counsel has relied upon the judgment reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6505 ( Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd.) wherein it is held that :
Insurer's liability-Driver allegedly possessing fake driving licence -Employer while employing respondent as driver put him to a driving test and also imparted training -Accident took place only after six years of his service-Insured not at fault merely because licence of driver was found to be fake -Insurance Company liable to pay compensation.
The petitioner's counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in (2007) 3 Supremem Court Cases 700 ( National 34 MVC No.2682/2014 Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut) wherein it is held that :
Insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party risks - Liabilities and obligations relatable to third parties - Nature of - Held, they are crated by fiction of Ss.147 and 149 and are not contractual -Statute Law-Legal fiction .
The petitioner's Counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297( National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others) wherein it is held that :
A person cannot be said to be "duly licensed" unless he has been granted a permanent licence for driving a particular vehicle in terms of the provisions of Chapter II of the Act and thus, a vehicle cannot be held to be driven by a person "duly licensed" therefore if (a) he does not hold a licence (b) he holds a fake licence (c) he holds a licence but the validity thereof has expired or (d) he does not hold a licence for the type of vehicle which he was driving in terms of Chapter Ii of the Act (e) he holds merely a learner's licence.
The petitioner's counsel has relied upon the unreported judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A. NO.9308/2011 ( United India Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.Rathna and others) wherein it is held that :
..... To hold that the driver of the insured vehicle had no driving licence as on the date of accident, there must be 35 MVC No.2682/2014 clear evidence on the record of the case to that effect. Police charge sheet is no evidence to hold that the driver of the insured vehicle had not driving licence as on the date of accident .........
58. The Advocate for respondent No.2, in his arguments, whilst countering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.1, vehemently argued that the Investigation done by their investigator clearly and categorically revealed that the driving license relied on by the respondent No.3 was in fact belonged to one Palanisamy S., S/o.Soorashankar and not that of Mahendran, S/o.Ariyan and thereby, the at the time of accident, the driver had no valid license to drive the vehicle in question and there being breach of policy conditions, the respondent No.2 is absolved from indemnifying the respondent No.1 and hence, sought to dismiss the petition as against the respondent No.2. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following judgments :
2007 ACJ 721 SC (National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut) wherein it is held that:36 MVC No.2682/2014
Motor insurance-driving licence Fake licence- whether renewal of a fake licence in accordance with law can cure the inherent defect Held: No; renewal cannot transform a fake licence as genuine.
Motor insurance- driving licence- Fake licence -Defences available to insurance company -Whether insurance company has to indemnify the amount in a third party claim where the driving licence is found to be fake and it may recover the same from the insured. Held: yes.
2010 ACJ 709 SC (National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Harbhajan Lal ) wherein it is held that:
Motor insurance-own damage claim- driving licence -fake licence -liability of insurance company -insurance company was able to prove that driving licence of driver was fake-whethr insurance company is liable for own claim b the insured- Held: No;
2013 ACJ 2129 SC (United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sujata Arora and others ) wherein it is held that:37 MVC No.2682/2014
Motor insurance-driving licence- Fake licence- Liability of insurance company - Tribunal found that offending van was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and exonerated insurance company from liability- Single Judge in appeal found that driver having fake licence would not exonerate insurance company as he was not negligent in driving whether driver possessing fake licence would completely exonerate insurance company- Held : Yes; driver holding a valid licence is the requirement of law.
2007 ACJ 1067 SC (Ishwar Chandra and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others) wherein it is held that:
Motor insurance-driving licence- liability of insurance company - licence of driver of offending vehicle had expired on 27.8.1994 and licence was got renewed only after 28.4.1995 the date of accident-
whether the driver had a valid licence on the date of accident and insurance company is liable Held No; as application 38 MVC No.2682/2014 for renewal of licence was filed after 30 days from the date of expiry, it shall be renewed from the date of renewal;
insurance company directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with option to recover the amount from the insured by initiating proceedings before the executing Court.
2014 ACJ 2739 Kar. (Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Sivan and another) wherein it is held that:
Motor insurance-driving licence- Fake licence-Liability of insurance company -
Pay and recover order-Tribunal found that driver of offending vehicle was negligent in causing accident, he had a fake licence and directed insurance company to satisfy the award but passed no order for recovery of the amount from owner or driver-Appeal by insurance company seeking recovery rights against owner or driver on account of violation of conditions of policy-forgery of licence was so perfect that even police could not detect it-
contention that owner cannot be faulted for the driver driving the vehicle without a valid licence -Owner takes vicarious liability and insurance company takes 39 MVC No.2682/2014 upon itself by virtue of contract of Insurance the primary liability of the driver - Driver is no stranger to insurance contrat between insurance company and insured . By undertaking to drive the vehicle on behalf of the insure, there arises a quasi contract between driver and insurance company- Whether driver alone to the exclusion of owner is liable to reimburse the insurance company the amount paid by it to the claimants-Held:
yes; driver committed a fraudulent and criminal act by driving the vehicle with forged licence without knowledge of owner and driver has violated policy condition.
59. Now, let me consider the contentions of the rival parties with regard to the liability is concerned, in the light of the arguments advanced, evidence let in by the witnesses examined by both sides and the principles laid down in the judgments relied upon by both sides.
60. On the one hand, the respondent No.1, who has been examined as RW 4, specifically contends that the driver of the tipper lorry viz., Mahendran S/o.Ariyan had valid licence No.TN.67 20070004250 to drive heavy transport 40 MVC No.2682/2014 vehicle and he had engaged him only after testing his skills and also after verifying the original driving licence which had authorized him to drive a heavy transport vehicle, till 20.02.2016 issued by Virudhunagar RTO Office, Tamilnad, containing the seal, signature of RTO with hologram sticker of Tamilnadu State Government.
61. On the other, the bone of contention of the respondent No.2 is that, they had appointed an investigator to procure the D.L. extract of the driver of the vehicle ie., Mahendran from Virudhunagar RTO and on verification of the same, it revealed that the said driving licence was issued in the name of Palaniswamy S., S/o.Soorashankar and not in respect of Mahendran, which exposes the fact that the driver of the vehicle had no licence, at the time of accident and the said person had produced a fake driving licence before Police Station and there being violation of policy conditions, the respondent No.2 is absolved from indemnifying the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1, who has been examined as RW 4, has stoutly denied the same in his statement of objections as well as evidence as RW 4.
62. As stated above, the respondent No.2 has examined the Investigating Officer as RW 2, however, he has given 41 MVC No.2682/2014 evidence contrary to the case of the respondent, in as much as, the driver is one Mahendran S/o.Ariyan as per reply to Section 133 Notice and further says that he has filed charge sheet against him and the said driver is having the driving licence and original was sent to RTO for cancellation of the same and he says that he does not know the status of the document and request sent to RTO for cancellation. He further says that the driving licence was issued by Assistant Licencing Authority, RTO, Virudhunagar and he has not cross verified the driving licence regarding its genuineness. Considering the answer given by RW 2, he has been treated as hostile and even in his cross-examination, though RW 2 says that he has sent a letter on 20.03.2014 to RTO Virudhunagar for suspension of the licence, however, he denies the suggestion that on 24.03.2014, a letter was sent to him by RTO of Virudhunagar stating that driving license is not issued in favour of Mahendran. He volunteers that he has not received any such letter and in the cross-examination of RW 2 by the counsel for the respondent No.1, he says that the original driving license which he has collected from the driver is a smart card and the license contains the photo of the driver and the driving license also having the Tamil Nadu Government hologram sticker and it also contains the 42 MVC No.2682/2014 signature of the issuing authority. Quite contrary to the evidence of RW 2, another witness examined for respondent No.2, ie., RW 3 has deposed that he has produced the driving license Form No.4 in respect of Palaniswamy and the same is marked as Ex.R.4 and the modification form which is marked as Ex.R.5 and he further says that license No.TN.67 20070004250 was issued to S.Palaniswamy and not Mahendran. He also says that their office has given the reply to Kengeri Police in respect of the said license on 25.05.2015.
63. However, here it has to be seen that though RW 3 says that their office has sent letter on 25.05.2015 to Kengeri Police in response to their letter dated 20.03.2014, but as clearly admitted by RW 3, he has not produced the said reply and he says that the letter sent by Kengeri Police along with original driving licence is available in their office and he has not brought the same to Court and he further admits that the license sent by Police was in the name of Mahendran and the same is smart card, though he says that he does not remember whether the said smart card is having the Tamilnadu State Hologram, however in another breath, he says that the said smart card containing the Tamilnadu State Hologram. Added to that, if really the said licence was fake as contended by the respondent No.2, then certainly, RTO 43 MVC No.2682/2014 Officials would have initiated action against the said person, on the contrary, RW 3 says that they have not initiated any action against Mahendran. More importantly, RW 3 again says that he is not aware whether the original driving licence sent by Kengeri Police is in their office or returned to police and though, he says that he can verify and produce the said original driving licence, if it is in their office, but he has not done so.
64. Here, it has to be stated that when respondent No.1-RW 4 categorically says that he after making inquiry about the experience, work and conduct of the driver and having been satisfied with his driving licence he had engaged the driver to drive the offending vehicle and that the said driver was working with him since 2013, the testimony of owner proves that that he had taken precaution before giving employment to the driver and was satisfied that driver was having a valid licence and was perfect in driving, as held in the the judgment reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6505 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners, are applicable to the case on hand. Further, in a case reported in (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 338 , the Apex Court held that " Fake licence of the driver when does not constitute - Liability and rights of insurer in such a case - Where prior to hiring the 44 MVC No.2682/2014 driver, the owner satisfied himself that the driver had a licence and was driving competently, held, there would be no breach of S.149(2)(a)(ii) and the insurer would not be absolved of liability - If ultimately the licence is found to be fake, the insurer would continue to be liable unless he proves that the owner/insured was aware of the fact and had still permitted that person to drive - Even in such case, the insurer would remain liable to be innocent third party but may be able to recover the amount from the insured".
65. In the case on hand also, as admitted by RW 2 and 3, the driver was having the driving licence and original was sent to RTO for cancellation of the driving licence and when RW 3 another witness examined for the respondent No.2 categorically admits that the license sent by Police was in the name of Mahendran and the same is smart card and it contains Tamil Nadu State Hologram and when questioned to RW 3 whether, they have initiated any action against the said Mahendran, for the alleged fake license, to which he replied that no such action is initiated and the principles laid down in the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondent No.2, as extracted above, being not applicable to the case on hand, in as much as, in those cases, it was found that the driver was holding a fake licence and hence, the liability 45 MVC No.2682/2014 of the insurance company was exonerated, it is a fit case to fix the liability on the respondent No.2 as contended by the petitioner as well as respondent No.1. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court referred supra, the onus is on the insurer to prove that the owner of vehicle failed to take reasonable care in employing a qualified and competitive driver having valid license. It is further observed that if owner had taken reasonable care, he need not further verify genuineness of license from Licensing Authority before appointing a driver. In the case on hand, the driver showed original driving license and the same is having Tamilnadu Hologram and he tested the competitiveness of the driver and appointed him as driver and the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2013) 10 SCC 217 was delivered on 26th August 2013 and the same is recent judgment compared to the judgment referred by the respondent No.2 reported in 2013 ACJ 2129 (SC) and the same was delivered on 10-01-2012 and the facts and circumstances are different. Above all, important person in this regard is none other than the driver-respondent No.3. He has not been examined and had he been examined, though arrayed as respondent No.3 and therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent No.2 for 46 MVC No.2682/2014 the same. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner and the respondent no.2 being the insurer shall indemnify the respondent No.1 and pay the compensation amount. Since the respondent No.3 was the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident, the petition as against him deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered.
66. In a case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy), the Supreme Court has held that the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the present day cost of living and thereby awarded, interest on the compensation amount at 9% p.a. I have no reasons to deviate from the said view of the Apex Court. Accordingly, interest on compensation amount is awarded at 9% p.a.
67. Issue No.4:- In view of my answer to the above issue accordingly, I pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2.47 MVC No.2682/2014
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 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 he is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
The compensation amount is equally apportioned amongst the petitioners.
Out of the compensation amount apportioned in favour of petitioners, 50% each with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in the favour of the respective petitioner's and remaining 50% each with proportionate interest is ordered to be deposited in the name of the respective petitioners in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years.
Petition as against the respondent No.3 is dismissed. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected, revised and then pronounced in Open Court on 7.9.2016) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore 48 MVC No.2682/2014 ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W-1 H.L.Kishore Kumar Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW-1 Lynette Suares RW-2 L.Nagesh RW-3 G.Thirukannan RW-4 V.K.Gopal Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : Copy of spot sketch
Ex.P-3 : Copy of sketch
Ex.P-4 : Copy of mahazar
Ex.P-5 : Copy of IMV Report
Ex.P-6 : Copy of Inquest report
Ex.P-7 Copy of P.M.Report
Ex.P.8 Birth certificate
Ex.P.9 Death certificate
Ex.P.10 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of deceased (original
compared)
Ex.P.11 Notarised copy of driving licence (original is
compared)
Ex.P.12 Notarised copy of Pan card (original compared)
Ex.P.13 Notarised copy of College identity card (original
compared)
Ex.P.14 Notarised copy of ration card (original compared)
Ex.P.15 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner NO.2
Ex.P.16 Notarised copy of SSLC marks card
Ex.P.17 Notarised copy of PUC marks card
Ex.P.18 Engineering marks cards (5)
Ex.P.19 Certificates(53)
Ex.P.20 Letter issued by bank
Ex.P.21 Pass book of the deceased
49 MVC No.2682/2014
Ex.P.22 Copy of driving licence
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 Driving licence extract
Ex.R.2 Authorisation letter
Ex.R.3 Driving licence Form No.4 register in respect of
driving licence of Palaniswamy
Ex.R.4 Modification form
(H.P.SANDESH)
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore