1 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair)
IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS TRIBUNAL-
CUM-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GODAVARIKHANI
PRESENT:Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy,
Principal District Judge,
Karimnagar, FAC:Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal-cum-
Additional District Judge,
GODAVARIKHANI.
Thursday, the 24th day of October, 2019
M.V. O.P. NO. 59 OF 2015
Between:
Katam Venkataiah, S/o. Ramulu, Age: 51 years, Occ: Assistant Superintendent Gr.A (SLU) at F & A SRP Mine/Department, BPA- Srirampur area (Emp.Code # 02642109, R/o. Qr.No. C2-24, RK-8 Colony, Srirampur proper and mandal, Adilabad district, now residing at H.No. 16-10-3-4/2, L.B. Nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam mandal, Karimnagar district. ….Petitioner.
and
1.Gidigi Bhumanna, S/o. Narayana, Age: 45 years, Occ: Driver-cum- Owner of Swift Car bearing No. AP 01 AD 6261, R/o. H.No. 7-2/7, M.R.O., Road, Luxettipet proper and mandal of Adilabad district.
2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune. (Vide Policy No.OG-13-1810-1801-00003558, Valid from 29.03.2013 to 28.03.2014). ….Respondents.
Petition filed under Section 166 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Motor Vehicle Act.
This petition coming on before me on 8-8-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Parameshwar, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Narendula Surender, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Sri M.V. Ranga Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2, upon perusal of the material on record, having been heard and stood over consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:
O R D E R
1.This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 (1) (a) of Motor
Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 9-3-2014, at about 2:00 p.m., at Srinivasa Garden,
Mancherial on SH-1 road.
2 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair) 2.00The facts of the case are that petitioner is working as Assistant
Superintendent, Gr-A (SLU) at F & A SRP Mine/Department, BPA-Srirampur area (Emp.Code# 02642109).
2.01On 9-3-2014, petitioner while proceeding towards Mancherial on his scooter bearing No. AP 01 A 3753 and when he reached near Srinivasa
Garden, SH-1 road, Mancherial, at about 2.00 p.m., Respondent No.1 came driving his Maruthi Swift Car bearing No. AP 01 AD 6261 from his back side at high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter of the petitioner from back side and as such petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his neck, head, knees and hands and the vehicle of the petitioner was also damaged.
2.02Immediately the petitioner was shifted to the hospital at
Mancherial and after first-aid he was shifted to Laxmi Bhadrakali Hospital,
Karimnagar. Later the petitioner was shifted to Krishna Institute of Medical
Sciences, Secunderabad for better treatment where he was treated as an in- patient from 10-3-2014 to 14-3-2014 vide I.P.No. 162499. Again the petitioner was admitted in the said hospital and he was in-patient from 3-4- 2014 to 8-4-2014 and he underwent C5-C6 laminectomy and C2, C4, C7 lateral mass fixation was done on 4-4-2014. At the time of discharge, petitioner was advised to come for follow-up treatment for a period of one year and to take bed rest.
2.03Subsequently, petitioner took treatment of physiotherapy in
Rakshitha Hospital, Hyderabad for six months and incurred huge expenditure towards his treatment.
2.04The petitioner was having Health Insurance Policy in ICICI
Prudential Life Insurance vide Medical Card No. 16133459 and he claimed the medical insurance since the accident covered the policy.
3 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair) 3.00Based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner with the said facts, the Police of Mancherial registered the case in Crime No.96 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and after completion of entire investigation filed the Charge Sheet against Respondent No.1.
4.00The petitioner was hale and healthy and he was working as
Assistant Superintendent, Gr-A (SLU) at F & A SRP Mine/Department, BPA-
Srirampur area (Emp.Code# 02642109) and used to earn Rs.54,000/- per month towards his salary. Due to the accident and injuries, petitioner lost his earnings for a period of four months i.e., to a tune of Rs.2,16,000/-. Even now the petitioner is not able to pursue his ordinary works without the assistance of attendant. Due to the injuries, the petitioner is suffering with poor actability of both upper and lower limbs and his bladder and bowl control is also adversely affected. Despite surgical intervention of laminectomy and lateral mass fixation and physiotherapy normality of his physical activity is not restored as his physical frame is totally shattered and battered. Even now he is suffering with disability and the injuries may affect his future life. Therefore, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation.
5.00Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition in a general manner. Respondent No.1 contended that he is owner of Swift Car bearing No. AP 01 AD 6261, but denied the accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and medical expenses incurred by the petitioner.
Respondent No.1 further contended that the claim made by the petitioner is highly excessive and further contended that the crime vehicle is insured with
Respondent No.1 company I.g., Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Limited, GE Plaza, AIRPORT road, Yerawada, Pune vide Policy No. OG 13 1810 1801 00003558 valid from 29-3-2013 to 28-3-2014 and as such if any liability 4 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair) is fixed, it has to be paid by Respondent No.2 only and hence prayed the
Court to dismiss the petition against Respondent No.1.
6.00Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition in a general manner. Respondent No.2 denied the involvement of
Swift Car bearing No. AP 01 AD 6261 in the accident and insurance policy to it. Respondent No.2 further contended that Respondent No.1 was not holding any Driving Licence at the time of accident and thereby contravened the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. Respondent No.2 sought protection under Sections 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicle Act. Respondent No.2 put the petitioner to strict proof all the averments made in the petition.
7.00Respondent No.2 denied the avocation of petitioner and his income at Rs.54,147/- per month. Respondent No.2 contended that the claim made by the petitioner at Rs.20,00,000/- is highly excessive and hence prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
8.00Based on the above pleadings, following issues are settled for trial:
1. Whether the motor vehicle accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle ?
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, to what amount and if so, from whom ?
3.To what relief ?
9.00On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and Ex.A.1 to A.27 are marked. On the other hand, R.Ws.1 and 2 are examined on behalf of the respondents and Ex.B.1 and B.2 and B.2/1 are marked.
10.00Heard the counsel for both parties. Perused the record.
11.00ISSUE NO.1 5 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair)
The contention of the petitioner is that on 9-3-2014 in order to attend a function at Srinivasa Garden, Mancherial and while he was proceeding towards Mancherial on his scooter bearing No. AP 01 A 3753 and when he reached near Srinivasa Garden, SH-1 road, Mancherial, at about 2.00 p.m., Respondent No.1 drove his Maruthi Swift Car bearing No. AP 01 AD 6261 from his back side at high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter of the petitioner from back side and as such petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his neck, head, knees and hands and the vehicle of the petitioner was also damaged. Whereas Respondents
No.1 and 2 denied the total averments including accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and also the claim made by the petitioner.
12.00Since Respondents No.1 and 2 denied the allegations, it is pertinent to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove the allegations for grant of compensation.
13.00The petitioner/injured (Katam Venkatesh) is examined as PW.1 and he filed his chief-affidavit which is replica of the contents of the petition.
In support of his claim, petitioner got marked Ex.A.1 to A.27 and the contents and their relevancy will be discussed to the extent required.
14.00In the cross-examination, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that there was no rash or negligence act on the part of Respondent No.1 in driving the crime vehicle. He admitted that he did not file any bill to prove the damages caused to his scooter. He also denied the suggestion that he sustained only simple injuries. He further denied the suggestion that the accident occurred only due to his negligence and that he has fabricated Ex.A.1 to A.27 for the purpose of this claim.
15.00As against the said evidence, Respondent No.2 examined RW.1 (Jetla Mahesh, Assistant Manager-Claims Legal in Bajaj Allianz Insurance
Company Limited) and his evidence disclose that their company issued 6 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair)
Insurance Policy for the car bearing No. AP 01 AD 6261 vide Policy No. OG- 13-1810-1801-00003558 which was valid from 29-3-2013 to 28-3-2014 and the accident occurred on 9-3-2014 and as such the policy was in force. RW.1 stated that Ex.A.27 (Disability Certificate) is in-correct and the disability mentioned at 60% is also in-correct. RW.1 further testified that as per the investigation done by their company Investigator, petitioner drove the
Scooty bearing No. AP 01 A 3753 under the influence of alcohol and dashed the car bearing No. AP 01 AD 6261 and further testified that as the accident took place only due to the negligence of petitioner while driving the Scooty, the owner and Insurance Company of said Scooty are necessary parties, but as the petitioner failed to make them necessary parties, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
16.00Respondent No.1 himself examined as RW.2 (G. Bhoomanna) and he testified that on the date of accident, he was proceeding in his Car bearing No. AP 01 AD 6261 and at the place of accident, petitioner came on to the road on his Bajaj Scooter and dashed his Car and at that time petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and that he gave statement to the Investigator appointed by Respondent No.2 which is marked as Ex.B.2/1.
In the cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance whether he presented any
Police report against the petitioner or not. He admitted that he did not mention in his counter that petitioner drove his Scooter in drunken condition and dashed against his Car.
17.00A perusal of Ex.A.1 (Attested Copy of First Information
Report) disclose that petitioner preferred report on the same date of accident i.e.,on9-3-2014 whichdisclosethe involvement of Car bearing No. AP 01 AD 6261 being driven by its driver is mentioned. A perusal of Ex.A.2 (Attested Copy of Charge Sheet) disclose the 7 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair) name of Respondent No.1 as driver and involvement of crime vehicle and
Ex.A.3 (Attested Copy of Form No.54) also disclose the same. Though
Respondents No.1 and 2 contended that accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner who drove his Scooty in drunken condition and dashed the Car of Respondent No.1, said fact is not at all found in Ex.A.2 (Attested Copy of Charge Sheet) which is filed after due investigation. If at all there was negligence of petitioner in the accident, certainly the Charge
Sheet filed by the Police would have reflected his name, but Ex.A.2 only disclose that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of Car by
Respondent No.1 and so holding laid Charge Sheet against him. Hence the contention of Respondents No.1 and 2 that the crime vehicle is not involved in the accident and that petitioner was responsible for the accident has no force. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to A.3 established that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Respondent No.1 in driving the crime vehicle. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against Respondents No.1 and 2.
18.00ISSUE NO.2
The petitioner/injured who sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident is entitled to claim the compensation under the following heads:
1.Pain and suffering
2. Medical Expenses
3. Transportation and Extra Nourishment
4. Loss of earnings
5. Partial and permanent disability, if any. 19.00According to the petitioner, he sustained injuries in the said accident. In support of the same, P.W.1 also examined P.Ws.3 and 4 and got marked Ex.A.4 (Attested Copy of Medical Certificate).
20.00The evidence of P.W.3 (Dr. Manas Panigrahi, Neuro Surgeon) disclose that on 10-3-2014, petitioner was admitted in their hospital as an in- patient No. 162499 and he was treated upto 14-3-2014 with a history of Road
Traffic Accident occurred on 9-3-2014. P.W.3 testified that on examination of 8 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair) petitioner, he found C3-C6 OPLL with compressive spondylotic mylopathy with C3-C4 cord contusion. He testified that said injuries were grievous in nature and the petitioner was treated conservatively and he advised surgery. He further testified that petitioner was again admitted in their hospital on 3-4-2014 vide I.P. No. 164542 and underwent surgery on 4- 4-2014 i.e., C5-C6 laminate and C2-C4-C7 lateral mass fixation on 4-4-2014 and the petitioner was discharged on 8-4-2014 with an advise to come for regular follow-up. He further testified that petitioner came for follow-up treatment on 20-3-2014 and 28-3-2014 and Ex.A.22 is the Discharge
Summary and Ex.A.23-27 are follow-up treatment of out-patient treatment were issued by their hospital. He further testified that Ex.A.4 (Medical
Certificate) was issued by their hospital. In the cross-examination by the counsel for Respondent No.2, P.W.3 admitted that the patient improved from the time of accident, but he is normal. He denied the suggestion that exhibits are under the name and style of KIMS Hospital were issued to help the petitioner.
21.00The evidence of P.W.4 (Dr. Shiva Kumar Vallapu, Private Medical
Practitioner/Physiotherapist) disclose that he treated the petitioner who met with an accident in the year 2014 and his survical nerve was damaged i.e.,
C3 to C6 was damaged and due to the said damage, both hands and legs of petitioner were paralysed and he was bed-ridden. He stated that he started physiotherapy on 15-3-2014. He further testified that the petitioner recovered, but he is able to walk with the assistance of other persons and he has to depend upon the service of other persons throughout the life. He further testified that he issued ExA.11 (five bills) towards his fee. Though
P.W.4 testified that the petitioner was referred to him from KIMS Hospital but in the cross-examination he admitted that there is no mention in Ex.A.11 that the petitioner was referred from KIMS Hospital. P.W.4 denied the suggestion that Ex.A.11 was issued to help the petitioner.
9 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair) 22.00As seen from the record, the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and Ex.A.4 are establishing the same. The record reveals that petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident and at first he was shifted to the hospital at Mancherial and after first-aid he was shifted to Laxmi Bhadrakali Hospital, Karimnagar and later he was shifted to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Secunderabad for better treatment where he was treated as an in-patient from 10-3-2014 to 14-3-2014 vide I.P.No. 162499. Again the petitioner was admitted in the said hospital and he was in-patient from 3-4-2014 to 8-4-2014 and he underwent
C5-C6 laminectomy and C2, C4, C7 lateral mass fixation was done on 4-4- 2014. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 is establishing the injuries and treatment taken by the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.4 disclose that petitioner sustained grievous injuries i.e., C3-C6 OPLL with compressive spondylotic mylopathy with C3-C4 cord contusion. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, injuries sustained by the petitioner, evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and Ex.A.4, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards pain and suffering.
23.00Petitioner contended that he sustained injuries in the accident and also incurred huge expenditure towards his treatment and in support of his contentions, he has also filed Ex.A.8 to A.20 and A.26 (medical bills).
Though the petitioner contended the same, but a perusal of bills i.e., Ex.A.8 for Rs.41,151/-, Ex.A.9 for Rs.10,000/- and Ex.A.10 for Rs.2,39,299/- disclose he was treated under the organization as ICICI Prudential Life Insurance. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner as P.W.1 admitted he has taken treatment under ICICI Prudential Insurance and it was cashless treatment and as such it can be construed that the bills covered under Ex.A.8 to A.10 must have been borne by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance organization. Hence the amount covered under Ex.A.8 to A.10 are not considered.
10 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair) 24.00Petitioner has also filed medical bills i.e., Ex.A.12 to A.15, A.17 to
A.20 and A.26 are to a tune of Rs.44,264/-. Considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and evidence of P.W.3, the amount covered under the above exhibits i.e., Rs.44,264/- is awarded to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
25.00Petitioner has also examined P.W.4 (Physiotherapist) to prove the physiotherapy treatment given to him. P.W.4 testified the treatment given by him to the petitioner and about issuance of Ex.A.11. A perusal of evidence of
P.W.4 and Ex.A.11 disclose that P.W.4 has received an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month for a period of five months (Rs.1,000/- per trip for five months) for the physiotherapy provided to the petitioner. Though P.W.4 stated the same and Ex.A.11 disclose the amount received by him for the said treatment, since no receipt issued by P.W.4 is filed by the petitioner, the same cannot be considered. However, considering the evidence of P.W.3 that he advised the petitioner to undergo physiotherapy treatment and considering the evidence of P.W.4 that he provided physiotherapy treatment, an amount of
Rs.30,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards physiotherapy treatment.
26.00According to the petitioner, he is working as Assistant
Superintendent, Gr-A (SLU) at F & A SRP Mine/Department, BPA-Srirampur area (Emp.Code# 02642109) and due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, he could not attend his duties for a period of almost four months and thereby he lost his earnings to a tune of Rs.2,16,000/-. To prove the same, petitioner has examined P.W.2 who is working as Senior Personnel
Officer, SCC Limited, Srirampur. P.W.2 testified that petitioner is working as
Assistant Superintendent, Gr-A (SLU) at F & A SRP Mine/Department, BPA-
Srirampur area (Emp.Code# 02642109) and in view of the injuries sustained by the petitioner he was absent to duties for a period of four months and petitioner availed Earned Leave for the said period. P.W.2 has issued Ex.X.2 11 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair) i.e., wage particulars of the petitioner from March, 2014 to March, 2015. He further testified that if the Medical Board disqualifies him, he will be terminated from service at any moment. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 testified that as per Ex.X.2, the petitioner availed leave for a period of (139) days and he must have exhausted Earned Leave for a period of (120) days and other leave on medical grounds. He admitted that the petitioner was paid his salary during the same period. P.W.2 admitted that there is no change in the salary of petitioner.
27.00A perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 disclose that the petitioner was absent to duties for almost four months. P.W.2 admitted that the petitioner availed leave for a period of (139) days. Though P.W.2 admitted that the petitioner was paid salary during the period of his absence to the duties, it is clear that due to the untoward incident he lost his leave period.
Though petitioner was paid salary for the said period, had the leave title remained as it is, he would have utilised the said leave for some other purposes or for his necessities and he would not have lost the leave.
Therefore, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.X.2 an amount of
Rs.1,78,634/- is awarded to the petitioner towards loss of earnings for a period of (139) days covered under Ex.X.2 i.e., from the month of March, 2014 to June, 2014.
28.00In view of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the said accident, the petitioner was taken to several hospitals at Mancherial,
Karimnagar and also at Hyderabad and as such he must have incurred expenses towards transport charges. Though no document is filed before the
Court to prove the transportation, considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he would not have used any public conveyance to visit the hospitals at Mancherial, Karimnagar and Hyderabad and, therefore, an amount of Rs10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards transportation charges.
12 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair) 29.00Though the petitioner has not filed any document to prove that he was prescribed with certain special diet, he must have incurred some expenditure towards extra nourishment for his recovery. Hence an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards Extra Nourishment.
30.00In addition to the above, the evidence of P.W.2 disclose that now the petitioner is attending the Office with the help of one attendant since he cannot come on his own. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and difficulty being faced by the petitioner due to the injuries sustained by him, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to him towards attendant charges.
31.00Petitioner has filed Ex.A.27 (copy of Disability Certificate) issued by Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad and said document disclose that petitioner sustained 60% disability. Though petitioner filed the same, but a perusal of evidence of P.W.3 disclose that petitioner is attending to his duties and admitted that there is no change in the salary of petitioner. Hence the disability as stated by petitioner and as seen from Ex.A.27 is not affecting the income of the petitioner. Therefore, no amount is awarded under the head of Permanent and Partial disability.
32.00According to the evidence of P.W.1 due to the injuries he is not able to attend to his normal works as he used to earlier. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.2 disclose that in view of the accident the petitioner is unable to move freely and he cannot sit and squat easily and he needs to pay to the attendants. No doubt the injuries sustained by the petitioner must have lead to some complications to him which may not be permitting him to become normal. Considering the same, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life.
33.00Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to the following amounts:
13 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair)
1. Rs. 50,000-00 Towards pain and suffering
2. Rs. 44,264-00Towards medical bills
3. Rs. 30,000-00Towards physiotherapy treatment
4. Rs. 20,000-00Towards Attendant charges
5. Rs. 1,78,634-00Towards loss of earnings
6. Rs. 10,000-00Towards Transportation charges
7. Rs. 10,000-00Towards Extra Nourishment
8. Rs. 50,000-00Towards loss of amenities of life --------------------- Total : Rs.3,92,898-00 ---------------------
In total, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.3,92,898/- rounded to Rs.3,93,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety three thousand only) towards compensation.
34.00Now coming to the aspect of payment of compensation amount to the petitioner is concerned, Respondents No.1 and 2 contended that there was no negligence on the part of Respondent No.1 in the accident, crime vehicle was not involved in the accident and there was negligence on the part of petitioner himself and also examined RW.2 to prove the same. But in view of discussion made in Issue No.1, it is established beyond doubt that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle driven by Respondent No.1. As seen from Ex.B.1 the Insurance Policy i.e., Policy No. OG 13 1810 1801 00003558 was issued to the crime vehicle which is valid from 29-3-2013 to 28-3-2014. As seen from the record, the accident took place on 9-3-2014 and hence the Insurance Policy was very much in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, Respondent No.1 being the driver-cum-owner and Respondent No.2 being the Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation amount to the petitioner. With this observation, Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against Respondents No.1 and 2.
35.00ISSUE NO.3
In the result, the petition is partly allowed and an amount of
Rs.3,93,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety three thousand only) is awarded to 14 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair) the petitionertowards compensation with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to the petitioner and they are directed to deposit the said compensation amount along with proportionate costs and interest within one month from the date of this order. Since the petitioner has sustained injuries and incurred expenses for his treatment, he is permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded in this petition. Advocate Fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24th day of October, 2019.
Principal District Judge, Karimnagar,
FAC: Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PETITIONER: FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 : Katam VenkataiahRW.1 : Jetla Mahesh
PW.2 : A. Uday MohanRW.2 : G. Bhoomanna
PW.3 : Manas Panigrahi
PW.4 : Dr. Shiva Kumar Vallapu
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PETITIONER :
Ext.A109.03.2014Attested copy of First Information Report with complaint.
Ext.A221.06.2014Attested copy of Charge Sheet.
Ext.A3--Attested copy of Form No.54.
Ext.A406.06.2014Attested copy of Medical Certificate
Ext.A517.04.2014Attested copy of Salary Certificate of injured for the month of March, 2014.
Ext.A6--Original Fit Certificate issued by S.C.C.L.
Ext.A714.04.2014Certificate of recommendation for leave.
Ext.A814.03.2014Inpatient Final Bill (for the period from 10.03.2014 to 15 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair) 14.03.2014) for Rs.41,151/- (paid by insurance company).
Ext.A910.03.2014Inpatient Final Bill (for the period from 10.03.2014 to 14.03.2014) for Rs.10,000/- (paid by petitioner).
Ext.A1007.04.2014Inpatient bill (for the period from 03.04.2014 to 07.04.2014) for Rs.2,39,299/-.
Ext.A1116.04.2014Certificate-cum-bills (5) in number issued by Rakshitha Hospital, Hyderabad.
Ext.A1210.03.2014Receipt for differential amount of Rs.10,000/- issued by KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad.
Ext.A1308.04.2014Receipt for differential amount of Rs.3,538/- issued by KIMS Hospital.
Ext.A1414.03.2014Bunch of pharmacy receipts (10) in number.
Ext.A15--Bunch of outpatient bills-cum-receipts (7) in number.
Ext.A1609.03.2014Registration receipt issued by KIMS hospital, Hyderabad.
Ext.A1718.03.2014Cash Bill issued by Escorts Surgical Enterprises, Hyderabad (2) in number for Rs.6,930/-.
Ext.A1814.03.2014Cash Bill issued by Amar India Surgical Company, Hyderabad for Rs.1,050/-.
Ext.A1909.03.2014Receipt No.380 issued by Sri Lakshmi Bhadrakali Neuro Trauma Hospital, Karimnagar for Rs.1,000/-.
Ext.A2009.03.2014Cash receipt No.4771 issued by Anantha Laxmi C.T. Scan, Karimnagar for Rs.1,400/-.
Ext.A2108.04.20142ndDischarge Summary (from 03.04.2014 to 08.04.2014 issued by Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad along with investigation report.
Ext.A2209.03.2014Outpatient assessment record (6) sheets.
Ext.A2322.06.2016Outpatient assessment record.
Ext.A2407.04.2014Outpatient assessment record.
Ext.A2522.06.2016Consultation & Pharmacy receipts (4) in number.
Ext.A26--Medical Bills (3) number.
Ext.A2706.06.2014Photocopy of disability certificate (compared with the original which is produced by the witness and original returned to him).
Ext.X109.01.2018Authorization Letter No.SRP/GMO/P.21/520 issued by SCCL, Srirampur Area.
Ext.X209.01.2018Wage particulars of the petitioner from March, 2014 to March, 2015.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Ex.B-1 : True copy of Insurance Policy along with terms and conditions.
16 M.V.O.P. No. 59 of 2015 (Fair)
Ex.B-2 : Investigation report of Respondent No.1.
Principal District Judge, Karimnagar,
FAC: Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani. -:-