Bangalore District Court
H.H. Udaya vs National Ins Co Ltd on 20 June, 2025
KABC020059892021
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025
MVC No.1039/2021
PETITIONER: Sri. H.H.Udaya
S/o Hoovanna Gowda,
Aged about 43 years,
No.31, Herur,
Sakaleshpura Taluk,
Hassan District,
Karnataka - 573 137.
(By Sri. B.R.Srinath,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. The National Ins. Co.
Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.144, "Shubaram
Complex,"
M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(Insurer),
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.1039/2021
Policy No.
60490031206160002396
Valid from 16.08.2020 to
15.08.2021
Car No.KA-13-N-71.
(Sri. S.R.Murthy, Advocate.)
2. Sri. B.D.Vijay
S/o Dharmappa,
Byakaravalli Village,
Sakaleshpura Taluk,
Hassan District,
Karnataka - 573 134.
(Insured)
(By Sri.P. Mahadeva Swamy,
Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed
by the claimant against respondents under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred as “Act”) praying to award
compensation in respect of the injuries sustained
in the road traffic accident occurred on
27.12.2020.
2. The case of the claimant in nutshell is
that:
On 27.12.2020 at about 7.45am, the petitioner was
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.1039/2021going as an Occupant in a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-
13-N-71 from Sakaleshpura to Bangalore on NH-75,
Hassan Road. Mr. Vijay was driving the said Car
carefully and cautiously. When the petitioner
reached near Yantaganahalli, all of a sudden the
driver of the said Car drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed, neglecting all the
traffic rules and regulations. While so proceeding a
motorcycle which was going infront of the petitioner’s
Car suddenly applied brake and in order to avoid the
accident the driver of the said Car suddenly took left
turn and dashed to the rear portion of the moving
Lorry. As a result of this, the petitioner sustained
grievous injuries on his left and and other part of the
body.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner
that, Immediately after the accident, the petitioner
was taken to celora Diagnostic Center, provided first
aid. Later he was shifted to Vikram Hospital,
underwent open reduction internal fixation with
philos plate. He was in the hospital as an inpatient
from 28.12.2020 to 01.01.2021 and discharged with
advice to take complete bed rest. So far he has spent
Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical and nourishment
expenses. The petitioner is suffering with permanent
SCCH-25 4 MVC No.1039/2021
disability. He is not able to lead a normal life as prior
to the accident.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner
that, prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale
and healthy, 43 years, he was doing Coffee Business
(self Employee) and earning Rs.40,000/- per month.
Due to the accident he lost the income.
5. The accident has taken place solely due
to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
Car bearing Reg.No.KA-13-N-71 and in this regard a
case has been registered by Neleamangala Traffic
Police under Cr.No.10/2021. Hence, the respondents
being the insurer and the RC Owner of the Car
bearing No.KA-13-N-71 are joint and severally liable
to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence,
petitioner prays for award for the total
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
6. In pursuance of notice, the respondents
have appeared through their respective counsels.
But the respondent No.1 alone has filed written
statement.
The 1st respondent in its written statement has
denied the entire petition averments except
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.1039/2021
admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-13-N-71. There is a non
compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. It has
denied the manner of accident. It has denied the age,
occupation, medical expenses etc., Further
contended that the compensation claimed by the
petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant.
Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition
against it.
7. Basing on the pleadings of the parties,
the following issues are framed for determination.
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioners
proves that, the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving
by the driver of Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-13-N-71 and in the said
accident petitioner sustained
injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner
is entitled for compensation? If so.
What is the quantum? From
whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
8. In order to substantiate the claim petition
contention, the petitioner has examined himself as
PW.1 and got marked 9 documents as per Exs.P.1 to
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.1039/2021
9. Mr. Pavan Kalyan Reddy – Manager at Sarojini
Health Centre got examined as PW.2 and and got
marked Exs.P.10 & 11. Mr. Vijay B.D. – RC Owner of
the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-13-n-0071 got examined
himself as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.12. He has
also got examined Dr.Chirag as PW.4 and got
marked Exs.P13 to 16. On the other side, the
respondents did not examine any witness nor
produced any documents on their behalf.
9. I have heard the arguments canvassed by
the learned counsel for the petitioners. The counsel
for the Respondent No.1 has submitted the written
arguments.
10. On perusal of oral and documentary
evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my
answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order for the
foregoing:
SCCH-25 7 MVC No.1039/2021
#REASONS#
11. Issue No.1:
In order to substantiate the claim petition
contention, the petitioner has examined himself as
PW.1. The petitioner has examined doctor as PW.4.
Exs.P1 to 9 were marked through PW.1. The PW.4
has got marked Exs.P13 to 16. The details of the
exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
12. The chief examination of the PW.1 is
nothing but a repetition of plaint averments. The
PW.1 has been subjected to cross examination.
Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of the
petitioner.
13. It is undisputed fact that the there was a
delay in lodging the case. The First information
report indicates that, the informant had not lodged
the complaint in time as he was unaware of legal
proceedings. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer
the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of RAVI V/s. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that
“in accident cases, human nature and
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.1039/2021
family responsibilities occupy the mind
of kith and kin to such an extent that
they give more importance to get the
victim treated rather than to rush to the
Police Station. Under such
circumstances, they are not expected to
act mechanically with promptitude in
lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in
lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the
ground to deny justice to the victim. In
cases of delay, the Courts are required
to examine the evidence with a closer
scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of
the FIR should also be scrutinized more
carefully. If court finds that there is no
indication of fabrication or it has not
been concocted or engineered to
implicate innocent persons then, even if
there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the
claim cannot be dismissed merely on
that ground although lodging of FIR is
vital in deciding motor accident claim
cases. Delay in lodging the claim should
not be treated as fatal for such
proceedings, if claimant has been able to
demonstrate satisfactory and cogent
reasons for it. There could be variety of
reasons in genuine cases for delayed
lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the
authenticity of the FIR assumes much
more significance than delay in lodging
thereof.”
14. In the light of the Judgment referred to
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.1039/2021
supra in RAVI’s case, it is manifestly clear delay in
lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice
to the victim. However, the claim has to be
examined with a closer scrutiny, particularly the
contents of the FIR. The First Information report
indicates that, the informant had not lodged the
complaint within time as he was unaware of legal
proceedings. So, the informant has shown the
reason for lodging the complaint with delay. Same
has been highlighted in the relevant column of FIR.
So, the reasons assigned by the informant is
satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be
variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed
lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of
the FIR assumes much more significance than delay
in lodging thereof. It is well settled position of law
that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are
summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation
and the evidence required about negligence act is
sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of
probability.
15. The petitioner has totally relied on the
police documents to establish the negligence on the
part of the driver of the Car. It is no doubt the police
have submitted the charge sheet against the driver
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.1039/2021
of the offending Car after thorough investigation. The
sketch appended to spot mahazar indicates that the
driver of the offending Car tried to avoid the accident
with on going front scooter who has suddenly
applied break. At the time of avoiding of accident
with the on going scooter, the driver of the Car
dashed to the another front going Lorry to its
backside. The Accident spot was NH-75 from Hassan
towards Bangalore Road. The insurance company
has denied the manner of accident. But the material
on record are clearly depicts that the driver of the
offending car was not maintained the safe distance
in between the vehicles. if the driver of the offending
car had taken minimal care, the accident would have
been postponed or not occurred. So, it is indicates
that the driver of the offending vehicle was in
hurried and negligent manner. Apart from this, the
damages referred in the Motor Vehicle Report clearly
demonstrates the gravity of the accident or manner
of driving of offending vehicle’s driver. So, the
arguments does not holds any kind of water. The
material on records are clearly indicates that the
accident has occurred sole negligence on the
offending vehicle’s driver.
16. The contention of the insurance
SCCH-25 11 MVC No.1039/2021
company that the driver of the offending Vehicle was
not having valid driving license at the time of
accident. To prove the same it has not examined any
witness nor produced any documents.
17. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police
have submitted the charge sheet against the accused
or respondent No.2 herein. The police have referred
section 279 & 338 of IPC against the accused.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a
decision 12018 (5) SCC 656 held
“24. It will be useful to advert to the
dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M.
Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v.
M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein it was
contended by the vehicle owner that the
criminal case in relation to the accident
had ended in acquittal and for which
reason the claim under the Motor
Vehicles Act ought to be rejected. This
Court negatived the said argument by
observing that the nature of proof
required to establish culpable rashness,
punishable under IPC, is more stringent
than negligence sufficient under the law
of tort to create liability. The observation
made in para 3 of the judgment would
1
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
SCCH-25 12 MVC No.1039/2021throw some light as to what should be the
approach of the Tribunal in motor
accident cases. The same reads thus :
“3. Road accidents are one of the top
killers in our country, specially when
truck and bus drivers operate
nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness
often persuades the courts, as has been
observed by us earlier in other cases, to
draw an initial presumption in several
cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take
special care to see that innocent victims
do not suffer and drivers and owners do
not escape liability merely because of
some doubt here or some obscurity there.
Save in plain cases, culpability must be
inferred from the circumstances where it
is fairly reasonable. The court should not
succumb to niceties, technicalities and
mystic maybes. We are emphasising this
aspect because we are often distressed by
transport operators getting away with it
thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact
that they do not exercise sufficient
disciplinary control over the drivers in
the matter of careful driving. The heavy
economic impact of culpable driving of
public transport must bring owner and
driver to their responsibility to their
neighbor. Indeed, the State must
seriously consider no-fault liability by
legislation. A second aspect which pains
us is the inadequacy of the compensation
SCCH-25 13 MVC No.1039/2021or undue parsimony practiced by
tribunals. We must remember that
judicial tribunals are State organs and
Article 41 of the Constitution lays the
jurisprudential foundation for State relief
against accidental disablement of
citizens. There is no justification for
niggardliness in compensation. A third
factor which is harrowing is the enormous
delay in disposal of accident cases
resulting in compensation, even if
awarded, being postponed by several
years. The States must appoint sufficient
number of tribunals and the High Courts
should insist upon quick disposals so that
the trauma and tragedy already sustained
may not be magnified by the injustice of
delayed justice. Many States are unjustly
indifferent in this regard.”
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz,
(2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73
: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court
examined similar situation where the
evidence of claimant’s eyewitness was
discarded by the Tribunal and that the
respondent in that case was acquitted in
the criminal case concerning the
accident. This Court, however, opined
that it cannot be overlooked that upon
investigation of the case registered
against the respondent, prima facie,
materials showing negligence were found
to put him on trial. The Court restated
SCCH-25 14 MVC No.1039/2021
the settled principle that the evidence of
the claimants ought to be examined by
the Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and
certainly the standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt could not have been
applied”
19. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as
conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and
negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent
vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials
regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and
insurance company for payment of compensation.
Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be
adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the
part of driver of the insured. The materials on
records are clearly indicates that the accident was
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
respondent No.1. So, I hold issue No.1 in the
affirmative
20. Issue No.2: The petitioner has produced
the wound certificate and call the medical records
from the concerned hospital. The wound certificate
(Ex.P6) discloses that, the petitioner has sustained
grievous injuries. In this regard, the petitioner has
examined one Dr. Chirag as P.W.4. The PW.4 has
SCCH-25 15 MVC No.1039/2021stated in the chief examination affidavit that on
examination the patient had sustained comminuted
left proximal Humerus fracture and the patient
underwent ORIF with philos plate. Further said that
the petitioner was on regular follow up and the
fractures are united. The PW.4 has opined that the
petitioner suffers permanent disability of 30% to the
left upper limb and 10% to the whole body which is
permanent in nature. He further stated petitioner
needs another surgery for the removal of implants
and the estimation of this surgery is around
Rs.1,40,300/-. The PW.4 has been subjected to cross
examination. The PW.4 has deposed that he was
treated the petitioner. He had no idea about
petitioner’s avocation as such he has not given any
avocational disability and the petitioner can do his
day to day activities with some amount of restriction.
He has seen only discharge summary. Fractures are
united. Implants are in situ.
21. Before discussing on this point, it is
necessary to advert to the observations made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay
Kumar. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that,
the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes
it clear that the award must be just, which means
SCCH-25 16 MVC No.1039/2021that compensation should, to the extent possible,
fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result
of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair,
reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or
Tribunal shall have to assess the damages
objectively and exclude from consideration any
speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with
reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to
be compensated for the physical injury, but also for
the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury.
This means that he is to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those
normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but
for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as
he used to earn or could have earned.
22. Our Hon’ble High Court has held in a
case MFA.811 OF 2015 (MV-I) decided on 18 July,
2019 in between Rajanna @ Raju and another V/s
Srinivas and another that“It is necessary to understand the
meaning of the expression “permanent
disability”, which has been elucidated in
SCCH-25 17 MVC No.1039/2021Rajkumar. According to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, disability refers to any
restriction or lack of ability to perform an
activity in the manner considered normal
for a human being. Permanent disability
refers to the residuary incapacity or loss
of use of some part of the body, found
existing at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation, after
achieving the maximum bodily
improvement or recovery which is likely
to remain for the remainder life of the
injured. Temporary disability refers to the
incapacity or loss of use of some part of
the body on account of the injury, which
will cease to exist at the end of the period
of treatment and recuperation.
Permanent disability can be either partial
or total. Partial permanent disability
refers to a person’s inability to perform
all the duties and bodily functions that he
could perform before the accident,
though he is able to perform some of
them and is still able to engage in some
gainful activity. Total permanent
disability refers to a person’s inability to
perform any avocation or employment
related activities as a result of the
accident. The permanent disabilities that
may arise from motor accidents injuries,
are of a much wider range when compared
to the physical disabilities which are
enumerated in the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
SCCH-25 18 MVC No.1039/2021Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Disabilities
Act”, for short). But if any of the
disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of
the Disabilities Act are the result of
injuries sustained in a motor accident,
they can be permanent disabilities for the
purpose of claiming compensation.
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first
decide whether there is any permanent
disability and, if so, the extent of such
permanent disability. This means that the
Tribunal should consider and decide with
reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement
is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is
permanent, whether it is permanent total
disablement or permanent partial
disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is
expressed with reference to any specific
limb, then the effect of such disablement of
the limb on the functioning of the entire
body, that is, the permanent disability
suffered by the person.”
23. By considering the dictum of Hon’ble
Supreme Court and Our Hon’ble High Court and also
SCCH-25 19 MVC No.1039/2021
evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to
Court that, the petitioner has sustained grievous
injuries. And it certainly affected on functioning of
left upper limb. The medical officer has given
physical disability of 10% Points for functional loss
of malocclusion. As such, the petitioner has has
suffered permanent physical disability of 10%.
Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the
compensation under the following heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
I. Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation,
nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
24. The claimant has contended that he has
taken treatment at Celora Diagostic Centre, provided
first aid, later he was shifted to Vikram Hospital for
further treatment. Further the Discharge Summary
of petitioner produced by the PW.1 indicates that,
the petitioner was admitted on 28.12.2020 and
discharged on 01.01.2021 at Vikram Hospital. On
careful perusal of the medical bills, it is appears to
Court that there is no repetitive bills, advance bills.
Hence, I award a sum of Rs.1,71,745/- as
compensation to the claimant under the head of
treatment and medical expenses. As supra said,
SCCH-25 20 MVC No.1039/2021
the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospitals as
inpatient for a period of nearly 05 days. Hence, it is
just and proper to award a sum of Rs.250/-per day
for attendant and Rs.250/- for food and
nourishment charges, which would comes
Rs.2,500/–. A sum of Rs.2,500/- is awarded
under the head of attendant, food and
nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
25. The claimant has contended that, he was
doing Coffee business (Self Employee) and was
earning of Rs.40,000/- per month. In this regard, the
petitioner has not placed any kind of document. He
has failed to prove his exact income. So, considering
the nature of work notional income of Rs.14,500/-
P.M. is calculated to award loss of earning, it would
meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award
Rs.2,400/- to the claimant under the head of loss of
earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF
PERMANENT DISABILITY:
26. The claimant has examined the Doctor to
substantiate the disability as PW-4. As already
discussed above, the petitioner was suffered
SCCH-25 21 MVC No.1039/2021
disability. The PW.4 has opined that the petitioner
has disability of 10% Points for functional disability.
As per the petition averments, the age of the
claimant is 43 years. But, the Aadhar Card marked
at EX.P8 clearly discloses that, the age of the
petitioner was 42 years. Therefore, the age of the
claimant is considered as 42 years to assess the loss
of future earning and the multiplier is 14. As I have
already stated the notional income of the claimant is
Rs.14,500/-PM, The loss of future earning is
calculated as Rs.14,500/- (Monthly income) X 12
(Months) X 14 (multiplier) X10% (disability)100 =
Rs.2,43,600/- which is the just and proper
compensation payable to claimant. Even if any
amount were to be granted under head, the
petitioner will not be entitled for interest on this
amount, in view of the decision in ILR 2000 Kar 1954
(Bhaskar @ Bhaskar Devaram Bangad Vs.
R.K.Srinivasan & Another), wherein it is held that
“the ratio in the said case would show that interest
would not be payable in respect of future expenditure
under different heads”.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(GENERAL DAMAGES)
SCCH-25 22 MVC No.1039/2021
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma
consequence of the injuries.
27. The claimant has undergone pain and
suffering during the accident and during the
rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award
Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the claimant under
the head of pain and suffering.
28. The claimant in all entitled for just
compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE COMPENSATION
No.
HEADS
01 Medical Expenses Rs.1,71,745=00
02 Loss of income during Rs.2,400=00
treatment
03 Attendant, Food & Rs.2,500 =00
Nourishment charges
04 Pain and Suffering Rs.20,000=00
05 Loss of future earning Rs.2,43,600 =00
on account of disability
TOTAL Rs.4,40,245=00
29. Thus, petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.4,40,245/-. As the petitioner is
not entitled for interest on the loss of future income
SCCH-25 23 MVC No.1039/2021
due to disability, it is relevant to note that total
compensation amount awarded under (5) supra is
Rs.2,43,600/-. Deducting the same from
Rs.4,40,245/-, the amount that would fetch interest
will be Rs.1,96,645/-. Hence, the petitioner is
entitled for compensation of Rs.4,40,245/- with
interest at 6% per annum on Rs.1,96,645/- from the
date of petition till realization.
30. The next question is the liability to pay
the said compensation. As the respondents failed to
prove their defense. The petitioner proved that as on
the date of accident the policy was in force.
Therefore, Respondent No.1 is to indemnify the
respondent No.2 and liable to pay compensation to
the petitioner. Hence, I answer issue No.2 partly in
affirmative.
31. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings to the
above Issues, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petition filed by
claimant under section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in
part as against respondent No.1.
SCCH-25 24 MVC No.1039/2021
The Petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,40,245/- (Rupees
four Lakh Forty thousand two hundred
and forty five only) with interest at 6%
per annum on Rs.1,96,645/- (Rupees
one Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Six
Hundred and Forty Five only) from the
date of petition till realization.
The petitioner is not entitled for
interest on Rs.2,43,600/-(Rupees two
lakhs forty three thousand six hundred
only) which is the compensation
awarded towards future loss of income
due to disability.
The respondent No.1 is liable to
pay the compensation to the claimant
and directed to deposit the same within
60 days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation, the
claimant is entitled withdraw 70% and
remaining 30% shall be invested as FD
in any nationalized bank for a period of
three years.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/-
fixed.
SCCH-25 25 MVC No.1039/2021
Draw the award accordingly.
((Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me
then pronounced in the open Court on this the 20th day of June, 2025)
(RAGHAVENDRA.R)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Sri. H.H.Udaya PW.2 Pavan Kalyan Reddy PW.3 Vijay B.D. PW.4 Dr.Chirag
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of Spot mahazar
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P4 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P5 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P6 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P7 Discharge summary
Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of
petitionerEx.P9 Medical bills 5 in nos
Ex.P10 Authorization letter
SCCH-25 26 MVC No.1039/2021Ex.P11 First Aid notes
Ex.P12 Notarized copy of DL of PW-3
Ex.P13 Inpatient file
Ex.P14 Estimation letter
Ex.P15 One medical bill
Ex.P16 X-rayList of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
— NIL —
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
— NIL —
(RAGHAVENDRA.R)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
Digitally signed by
RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA
RAGHAVENDRA
Date: 2025.06.24
10:45:01 +0530