Bangalore District Court
Devaraju vs Manjula on 1 March, 2025
KABC020369112022
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
SMT. PRAKRITI KALYANPUR, B.A(L),LL.B., LL.M.
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF MARCH 2025
MVC No.6974/2022
PETITIONER: Sri. Devaraju
S/o Sri. Venkatesh,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.6, 2nd Floor,
Sharadha Nilaya,
CMR School Road,
Kacharakanahalli,
Bangalore South,
Karnataka - 560 084.
(By Sri. Sridhara N,
Sri.K.V.Pradeepa and
Kusuma V.P., Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt. Majula
D/o Gangahanumaiah,
Major,
R/at Bugadihalli,
Narasipura Post,
Sompura (H),
Nelamangala,
Bangalore Rural,
SCCH - 25 2 MVC No.6974/2022
Karnataka - 562 111.
(Ex-parte.)
2. The Regional Manager
HDFC ERGO Gen. Ins. Co.
Ltd.,
Office at No.25/1, 2nd Floor,
Building No.2,
Shankaranarayana Building,
MG Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(Policy No.2312910167416700000
policy period from 23.02.2022 to
22.02.2027)
(By Smt. Nagarathna P.,
Advocate.)
......
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of the
M.V. Act, seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the
injuries suffered by him in a road traffic accident dated
05.03.2022.
2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that,
On 05.03.2022 at about 10.00pm, when the petitioner
was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-JV-3193
SCCH – 25 3 MVC No.6974/2022
in a careful manner, following all the traffic rules and he
reached near Makenahalli, Somura (H), Nelamangala (T),
Bengaluru Dist. Karnataka – 562 111, a motorcycle bearing
Engine No.HA11EYM5L61048, Ch No.BMLHAW128M5L23658
came from opposite side, ridden by its rider with high speed,
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner’s
motorcycle. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down and
suffered grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to
Sparsh Hospital, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthapur, Bangalore
and Premier Sanjeevini Hospital and finally admitted to
Ramaiah Medical College Hospital, Bangalore wherein treated
as an inpatient for a period of 49 days, underwent surgery and
discharged with advice. So far he has spent Rs.5,00,000/-
towards hospital, medicines, food and nourishment,
conveyances, attendant and other charges.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to
the date of accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy,
working as Senior Process Consultant at Berkmeer India
SCCH – 25 4 MVC No.6974/2022
Private Ltd., and was earning a sum of Rs.26,000/- per
month. But due to the accident he is unable to do his work
and lost the future income and future prospective life and lost
his earnings. The Dabbaspet Police have registered a case
against the rider of Motorcycle bearing Engine
No.KA11EYM5L61048 Ch No.BMLHAW128M5L23658 in
Cr.No.0050/2022 P/u/Sec.279, 337 of IPC. The accident has
taken place solely on account of the rash and negligent riding
of the rider of the motorcycle. The 1St respondent being the RC
owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence
this petition.
4. In response to notice issued by this Tribunal, the
Respondent No.2 appeared and filed Written Statement. In
spite of due service of summons, the Respondent No.1 did not
appear hence, placed ex-parte.
5. The objections of the Respondent No.2.
SCCH – 25 5 MVC No.6974/2022
This respondent denied the averments made in the claim
petition except admitting the issuance of policy in respect of
the motorcycle bearing Engine No.HA11EYM5L61048 and
Chassis No.BMLHAW128M5L23658 in favour of the 1 st
Respondent. Further submitted that the petition has been filed
on 15.12.2022 and the alleged accident occurred on
05.03.2022. Thus this petition is barred by limitation under
Sec.166(3) MV (Amendment) Act 2019. Hence the same is
liable to be dismissed. There is a delay of 3 days in lodging the
complaint. Further denied the occurrence of the accident,
involvement of the vehicle in the accident. The rider of the
offending vehicle did not have a valid DL as on the date of
accident. The alleged accident occurred due to the sole
negligence of the petitioner who being the rider rode the same
in a rash and negligent manner without wearing helmet and
without following the traffic rules and regulations and caused
the accident. This petition is not maintainable for non-
compliance of Sec.134(C) and Sec.158(6) of MV Act. Further it
has denied the age, occupation, income, medical expenses of
SCCH – 25 6 MVC No.6974/2022
the petitioner and contended that the compensation claimed
by the petitioner is highly exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
6. On the above rival contentions of the parties, this
court has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that,
the accident occurred on 05.03.2022
at 10.00pm, due to rash and negligent
riding of rider of motorcycle bearing
Engine No.KA11EYM5L61048, Ch
No.BMLHAW128M5L23658 and in the
said accident petitioner sustained
injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
Compensation? If so, what is the
quantum? From whom?
3. What order or award?
7. The Petitioner in order to prove his case, has
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 11.
Dr.S.A.Somashekara got examined as PW.2 and got marked
Exs.P.12 & P.13. He has also got examined Dr.Shailesh A.V.
as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.14 to 17. On the other side,
SCCH – 25 7 MVC No.6974/2022
the Respondent No.2 got examined its official as RW.1 and got
marked Exs.R.1 to R.3.
8. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on
record.
The counsel for the Respondent No.2 has relied upon the
following decisions:
(i) MFA No.3288/2013 C/W MFA No.3287/2023 : M/s
Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. ltd., Vs. Mrs. Sunitha @ Nagaveni and
Ors. And M/s Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Sri. Lale Sab
and Ors.
(ii) MFA No.6154/2019 : Hemalatha @ Hema @
Hemavathi and Anr. Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and
Anr.
(iii) 2018 (1) Kar L R 249: The oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs.
Annemma and Ors.
9. On hearing both sides and perusal of the evidence
on record this court answers the above issues as follows:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2: In the affirmative,
Issue No.3: As per the final order,
for the following:-
SCCH - 25 8 MVC No.6974/2022
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:-
In order to prove that the accident occurred due to the
actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the offending
vehicle, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. He has reiterated the contents of the
petition in his affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination.
The Respondent No.2 has denied the involvement of the
offending motorcycle in the accident. Further contended that
the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the
petitioner himself who being the rider rode the motorcycle in a
negligently. There is a delay of 3 days in lodging the
complaint. He was not wearing the helmet as on the date of
accident. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has stated
that the bike which he was riding is in the name of his Mother
Amara. Further admitted that as per Ex.P.5 front portions of
both the vehicle are damaged. The accident occurred around
8.30 – 9.00pm. He saw the offending vehicle from 50 meters
away. Further stated that the offending vehicle tried to avoid
SCCH – 25 9 MVC No.6974/2022
road pothole and hit him. The density of vehicles is very low at
the time of accident. Apache bike is 160CC and it is capable of
going in high speed.
11. The FIR at Ex.P.1 was registered on 08.03.2022 i.e.,
4 days after the accident on the complaint of one
Smt. Ashwini, who is the wife of the petitioner. Ex.P.2 spot
mahazar was conducted on 08.03.2022 at about 1.00pm to
2.00pm. Ex.P.3 Sketch shows that the accident was caused in
the middle of the Road. Ex.P.4 wound certificate states that on
05.03.2022 the petitioner suffered injuries in an RTA. Ex.P.5
MVA report reveals that the offending vehicle bearing
Ch.No.MBLHAW128M5L23658 was damaged to its Front
mudguard, front fork, head light assembly, front both side
indicator, handle bar and both sides rear view mirror
damaged. Similarly petitioner’s motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-
JV-3193 got damaged to its Front mudguard, front fork, head
light assembly, speedometer, front both sides indicator and
handle bar damaged. This shows that both vehicles collided
with each other. Ex.P.6 Charge sheet filed by the IO after
SCCH – 25 10 MVC No.6974/2022
thorough investigation against the rider of the offending
vehicle for offences p/u/Sec.279, 338 and 181 of MV Act.
These documents are in accordance with the statement given
by the petitioner. No contrary evidence is led against these
documents from the side of respondent No.2. As such, there
are no reasons to discard or disbelieve the version of the
Petitioner/PW.1.
12. As per Ex.P.4/Wound Certificate, the petitioner
sustained injuries on 05.03.2022 in an RTA. This shows that
on account of the accident the Petitioner has sustained
grievous injuries. As per Ex.P.5, the accident was not due to
any mechanical defect of the vehicles. Therefore, on overall
perusal of Exs.P.1 to 6 it is clear that the accident occurred on
05.03.2022 and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries as
mentioned in Ex.P.4 and the sole reason for the occurrence of
the accident was rash and negligent riding by the rider of the
motorcycle bearing Engine No.HA11EYM5L61048, Ch
No.MLHAW128M5L23658. Accordingly, issue No.1 is held in
the affirmative.
SCCH - 25 11 MVC No.6974/2022
13. Issue No.2:-
In order to prove the injuries and disability suffered by
the petitioner, the petitioner has produced the wound
certificate as per Ex.P.4. As per Ex.P.4, the Petitioner has
sustained – Head injury and injury over left hand which is
grievous in nature.
14. The petitioner has got examined
Dr.S.A.Somashekara – Orthopeadic Surgeon at Victoria
Hospital, Bangalore as PW.2. He has deposed the details of
surgery and that he was diagnosed with RTA with Traumatic
brain injury, diffuse Axonal injury and B/L frontal to be
atrophy, Malunited Lt. Distal Radius fracture and underwent
surgery in the form of corrective osteotomy with internal
fixation under SA. Pw.2 further stated about the total
disability of Lt. Lower limb at 38% and that of to the whole
body at 19%. PW.2 has produced 2 documents as per Exs.P.12
& 13, OPD Card and X-ray of the petitioner respectively.
SCCH – 25 12 MVC No.6974/2022
15. In his cross examination by the counsel for R-2,
PW.2 stated that, he has not treated petitioner. Further
admitted that as per latest X-ray the fracture is united.
Witness further stated that the joint has suffered arthritis. The
solution for arthritis is to fuse the joints. The reason for
arthritis is due to delay of 3 months in the surgery from the
date of accident. Implants are in situ. He has further stated
that the radiologist has not given report to him stating that
there is arthritis. Further admitted that all the 3 discharge
summaries only state about fracture of radius. As per
discharge summary dated 05.07.2022 deformity correction
was done. The fractures are united after the corrective surgery.
The petitioner is an adult and the union of fracture is fast in
patients of such age. The regular use of affected limb will lead
to improvement in the efficiency, muscle power and stability
and ROM.
16. The petitioner has also got examined Dr.Shailesh
A.V. as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.14 to 17, clinical notes,
MRI Scan report, Neuro Psychological assessment report and
SCCH – 25 13 MVC No.6974/2022
mini mental state examination. He has deposed that the
petitioner was treated for Diffuse Axonal injury with frontal
lobe atrophy. He was disoriented, irritable, not obeying
commands, talking irrelevantly and had rigidity in all limbs.
He underwent orthopedic surgery on 27.06.2022 he had
multiple episodes of seizures. During the cross-examination of
PW.3, he has stated that, he has not treated the petitioner at
any point of time. The petitioner was treated conservatively for
head injuries. The petitioner was never referred for neuro
rehabilitation center at any point of time. This kind of injury
heals within a year. There was no deficit found in the
treatment given to the petitioner. There were no complications
in the healing process for head injury. Further admitted that
the injuries suffered by the petitioner is healed. Further sates
that only the external injuries are healed and internal injuries
persists. As per MRI which shows scarring in the brain and
scarring in the brain may not heal and it is permanent feature.
SCCH - 25 14 MVC No.6974/2022
Disability:
17. On perusal of the evidence of Pws.2 & 3 it is clear
that they have assessed the disability of the petitioner. The
injuries suffered by the petitioner have affected his mental and
physical ability. From the evidence of Pws.2 & 3 it can be seen
that the disability being suffered by the petitioner will impact
on his daily activities. Pw.2 has assessed the disability of Lt.
Lower limb at 38% and that of his whole body at 19% and
PW.3 has assessed the neuro Psychological Assessment, IQ
was 77 (90-109). he is below average in thinking and
reasoning. His frontal and parietal lobes were inadequate in
functioning. On Ideas, he obtained a score of 15, suggestive of
70-99% disability. The petitioner has Borderline Intellectual
disability with mild left sided weakness. This amounts to a
disability of around 20%. This disability is pertaining to whole
body and is likely to be permanent. By using the telescopic
formula i.e., x = a+(b(100-a)/100, the total disability comes to
30.4%.
SCCH - 25 15 MVC No.6974/2022
Monthly income:
18. The Petitioner has deposed in his evidence that, he
was a Senior Process Consultant at Berkmeer India Pvt. Ltd.,
Sagility and earning sum of Rs.26,000/- per month. In this
regard he has not examined any witness nor produced any
documents on his behalf. At the time of accident the
Petitioner was aged about 27 years as could be made out
from Exs.P.10 & 11/Notarized copy of Aadhar Card & DL. He
was hale and healthy before the accident. The accident took
place in the year 2022. Therefore, this court deems it fit to
fix the income of the deceased at Rs.15,500/- per month.
Keeping all the above things in mind, Petitioner is entitled to
the following compensation:-
i) PAIN AND SUFFERING:-
After the accident, the Petitioner was treated at Sparsh
Hospital and Premier Sanjeevini Hospital and finally admitted
to Ramaiah Medical College Hospital, Bangalore wherein he
was treated as in inpatient for 49 days, underwent surgery
SCCH – 25 16 MVC No.6974/2022
and after necessary treatment discharged with advice to take
follow up treatment. In this regard, he has produced Ex.P.7
Premier Sanjeevini Hospital and Ramaiah Medical College
Hospital. Considering that the nature of injuries he has
undergone is grievous, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
ii) MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The Petitioner has pleaded that he has spent a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and
other incidental charges etc., In this regard, he has produced
medical bills as per Ex.P.9 for a sum of Rs.32,863/-. There is
no contrary evidence from the respondents to disprove the
medical expenses by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled for total sum of Rs.32,863/- under this head.
iii) LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD:-
As mentioned above the petitioner has sustained grievous
injuries. The petitioner has taken treatment for about 49 days
at Premir Sanjeevini Hospital and Ramaiah Hospital which can
SCCH – 25 17 MVC No.6974/2022be made out from Ex.P.7 Discharge summaries. Therefore,
considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment it
can be said that the Petitioner may have required at least
Three months time for recovering from the injuries sustained
by him. Hence, he is entitled only for a sum of Rs.46,500/-
under this head.
iv) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME:-
On perusal of Exs.P.10 & 11/Notarized copy of Aadhar
Card and DL, the age of the petitioner is 27 years as on the
date of accident. As per the dictum laid down in Sarala
Verma’s case, the appropriate multiplier applicable to his age
is 17. During the cross examination of PW.1 he has stated
that he took leave for 5 months and out of which he received
salary for 20 days. He has not produced any document to
show that he continued or discontinued the job. However, as
per the evidence of PW.3, he is suffering from intellectual
disability and left sided weakness. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled to Rs.9,61,248/-. (Rs.15,500/- x 12 x 30.4% x 17 =
Rs.9,61,248/- ).
SCCH - 25 18 MVC No.6974/2022
(v) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
HAPPINESS:-
The Petitioner was aged about 27 years at the time of
accident. He has sustained grievous injuries and as per
consideration of this Tribunal, he is suffering from 30.4%
functional disability. The Petitioner has to suffer this disability
throughout his life. Because of this he will have to lose some
of the amenities and comforts. Therefore, considering the age
and nature of injuries that the Petitioner has suffered, a sum
of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head.
(vi) ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND
NOURISHMENT CHARGES:
After the accident, the Petitioner was treated in the above
said hospitals, admitted for 49 days as an inpatient and
discharged with advise. However, during this period he has
spent considerable amount on his food and nourishment,
conveyance and attendant expenses. Therefore, the Petitioner
is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- under this head.
SCCH – 25 19 MVC No.6974/2022
(vii) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:
As per the version of PW.2, the Petitioner has to undergo
another surgery for removal of implant, the estimate of this
surgery is around Rs.40,000/-. In this regard the petitioner or
PW.2 has not issued the estimation letter. Therefore, looking
at the earlier treatment cost and nature of injury and the
evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an
amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under this
head. Therefore, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of
Rs.20,000/- under this head.
19. The Petitioner is entitled to compensation under
the following heads:
1. Pain & suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.32,863/-
3. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.46,500/-
4. Loss of future income Rs.9,61,248/-
5. Loss of future amenities and Rs.50,000/-
happiness
6. Attendant, conveyance, food and Rs.40,000/-
nourishment charges
7. Future Medical Expenses Rs.20,000/-
TOTAL Rs.12,50,611/- SCCH - 25 20 MVC No.6974/2022
If it is rounded off it comes to around Rs.12,50,700/- and
same is awarded to the Petitioner.
LIABILITY
20. The Respondent No.2 got examined its official as
RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to 3 copy of policy with terms
and conditions, copy of notice sent to insured with postal
receipt and unserved RPAD cover and notice inside it as
Ex.R.3(a). In the cross examination of RW.1, he has stated
that the policy was valid as on the date of accident. The
Respondent No.1 in the written statement has specifically
contended that the rider of the insured motorcycle did not
have valid DL. It is to be noted here that the charge sheet is
also filed under Sec.181 of MV Act against the rider of the
insured vehicle. Therefore, on the basis of documents before
the Tribunal it is clear that the rider of the offending vehicle
did not have a DL and the respondent No.1 has breached the
conditions of policy with respondent No.2. It is pertinent to
refer to the following decisions:
SCCH – 25 21 MVC No.6974/2022
(i) (2004) 3 SCC 297 : National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran
Singh and Ors.
Wherein the Supreme court has laid down the
guidelines for Pay and Recovery.
(ii). MFA No.9624/2013 : B.S.Subbegowda and Ors.
Vs. P.P.Pramod and Ors.
wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has
held by referring to (i)New India Assurance Company
Limited s. Kusum and others with United India
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Darshan Singh and
Ors. Reported in (2009) 8 SCC 377 (ii) Oriental
Insurance company Ltd., Vs. Angad Kol and Ors.
Reported in (2009) 11 SC 356, (iii) United India Ins.
Co. Ltd., Vs. Lehru and Ors reported in (2003) 3 SCC
338 that in the presence of insurance policy even if
charge sheet is filed for non possession of DL, pay
and recovery may be ordered.
(iii). ILR 2020 KAR 2239: New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Bijapur by its Divisional Manager Vs. Yallavva and Anr.
wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has
held that the Tribunal may order for pay and
recovery when the insurance company successfully
establishes that there is breach of any condition
recognize u/Sec.149(2).
(iv). (2018) 3 SC Cases 208 : Pappu & Anr. Vs. Vinod
Kumar Lamba & Anr.
(v). (2018) SC Cases 650 : Shamanna & Anr. Vs. Divisional
Manager, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., and Ors.
“mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or
disqualification of the driver for driving at the
relevant time, are not in themselves defences
available to the insurer against either the insured
SCCH – 25 22 MVC No.6974/2022or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards
the insured, the insurer has to prove that the
insured was guilty of negligence and failed to
exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling
the condition of the policy regarding use of
vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was
not disqualified to drive at the relevant time”.
Further the apex court has held that
‘the Tribunal can direct the insurance company to
pay the award amount to the claimants and
inturn recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle”.
The counsel for the Respondent No.2 has relied upon the
following decisions:
(i) MFA No.3288/2013 C/W MFA No.3287/2023 : M/s
Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. ltd., Vs. Mrs. Sunitha @ Nagaveni
and Ors. And M/s Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Sri. Lale
Sab and Ors.
Wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has
absolved the insurance company from the liability
on the ground of no DL to the Driver of the insured
vehicle.
(ii) MFA No.6154/2019 : Hemalatha @ Hema @
Hemavathi and Anr. Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
and Anr.
Wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has
absolved the insurance company from the liability
on the ground of no DL to the Driver of the insured
vehicle.
SCCH – 25 23 MVC No.6974/2022
(iii) 2018 (1) Kar L R 249: The oriental Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Vs. Annemma and Ors.
Wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has
absolved the insurance company from the liability
on the ground of no DL to the Driver of the insured
vehicle.
Therefore, on perusal of these decisions it is clear that in
Pappu and Shamanna case it is observed that if the owner
consciously hands over the vehicle to a person without DL
then it amounts to breach of the contract.
21. In the case on hand the respondent No.1 i.e., the
owner of the Bike is the daughter of the rider of the
motorcycle. Therefore, she has consciously handed over the
motorcycle to a person without DL. Therefore, the respondent
No.2 has proved that there is breach of the terms of the
insurance by the respondent No.1. Hence, the entire liability
of paying the award amount is on the Respondent No.1.
22. Therefore, the respondent No.1 is directed to pay
the compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has
claimed for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- but he is entitled only
SCCH – 25 24 MVC No.6974/2022
for a sum of Rs.12,50,700/- with interest @6% per annum
from the date of petition till its realization. Therefore, the
petition needs to allowed. Accordingly, issue No.3 held in
the Affirmative.
23. Issue No.4:-
In view of the findings on the above issue Nos.1 to 3, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Petition filed by the Petitioner under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby
allowed with cost.
The Petitioner is entitled for
Compensation of Rs.12,50,700/- (Rupees
Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousand and Seven Hun-
dred only) alongwith interest at the rate of 6%
p.a., (except on future medical expenses) from
the date of Petition, till the date of deposit of
the Award amount.
SCCH – 25 25 MVC No.6974/2022
The Respondent No.1/Owner is directed to
deposit the award amount and interest before
this Tribunal within 60 days from the date of
this Judgement.
The petition as against the Respondent
No.2 is hereby dismissed.
On deposit of the award amount and
interest, 25% shall be deposited in the name of
the petitioner for a period of 3 years in any
Bank of his choice and remaining amount
shall be released to the petitioner through e-
payment on proper identification and due
acknowledgment as per rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by the Stenographer, corrected
and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 1st Day of March 2025).
(PRAKRITI KALYANPUR)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bangalore.
SCCH - 25 26 MVC No.6974/2022
ANNEXURE
List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Sri. Devaraju PW.2 Dr.S.A.Somashekara PW.3 Dr.Shailesh A.V.
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with Complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Mahazar Ex.P3 True copy of spot sketch Ex.P4 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report Ex.P6 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P7 Discharge summary 3 in Nos. Ex.P8 10 Medical Prescriptions Ex.P9 Medical bills (62 in Nos.) Ex.P10 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card Ex.P11 Notarized copy of DL Ex.P12 OPD card Ex.P13 X-ray Ex.P14 Clinical notes Ex.P15 MRI scan report Ex.P16 Neuro psychological Assessment report Ex.P17 Mini mental state examination SCCH - 25 27 MVC No.6974/2022
List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Sri. Suresh G.
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Copy of Policy with terms and conditions
Ex.R.2 Copy of Notice sent to insured with postal
receiptEx.R.3 Unserved RPAD cover and notice inside it as
Ex.R.3(a)(PRAKRITI KALYANPUR)
XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT,
Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by PRAKRITI
KALYANPUR
PRAKRITI
KALYANPUR Date:
2025.03.14
13:13:06
+0530
