1
IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (VII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), WARANGAL.
Wednesday the 24th day of April, 2019
PRESENT: SRI Lal Singh Srinivas Naik,
CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL (VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE), WARANGAL.
M.V.O.P. No. 260 OF 2013 Between:
Bhukya Shyam S/o Mothilal, Age: 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.No. 16-18-358, Society Colony,
Kashibugga, Warangal District. ...Petitioner
and
1. K. Srinivas S/o Yellaiah, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Accident Vehicle, R/o H.No.9-7-106, Yellam Bazar, Warangal.
2. Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Office at SSS Plaza, 11-25-131/1, 131/2, M.G.Road, Warangal.
3. Kunimulla Devender S/o Soma Narsaiah, Age: 26 years, Occ: Driver of the Crime vehicle, R/o H.No.2-10-603, Shivanagar, Warangal (Amended as per the Hon'ble Court)
...Respondents.
This petition is coming on 10/04/2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Nagesh, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri T. Ravinder Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 remained exparte and case against R3 is dismissed; upon hearing, upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:
: : A W A R D : :
1. This claim petition has been filed by the petitioner under S. 166 (1)(A) of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 read with Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.21,50,000/- which is restricted to Rs.15,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 4/8/2012 at 20.30 hours near Vishwakarma Street, Road No.2, Shiva Nagar, Warangal
District, involving the Crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No. AP – 16- TV- 1593.
2
2. A sheet Anchor of case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is college going student and studying for his bright future. On 4/8/2012, the petitioner and his friend Rasamalla Raju went to Katriyal village on their personal work on the CBZ motor Cycle bearing No. AP36-AP–6258 and after completing the work they were returning to home on the said motor cycle, and they reached
Vishwakarma Street No.2 of Shivanagar Warangal from Forte Road petrol pump towards Chinthal, in the meanwhile the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-16-TV- 1593 has drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn negligently turn the lorry towards Vishwakarma Street, as a result, the lorry dashed the motor cycle of the petitioner.
a) It is further submitted that the petitioner met with accident and sustained compound fracture BB Right leg with Vascular injury, compound fracture lateral END of Clavicle right with exposed Subcivian Vessels. Crush injury right leg and foot. Pneumathorax right side with fracture 1st and 2nd ribs. SAH with Diffuse cerebral EDEMA Brashial Plexus inujury. The petitioner was shifted to
MGM Hospital, Warangal for treatment and later for better administration and treatment he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Secundrabad. Due to the accident, the petitioner is unable to move from the bed and sit squat and do any kind of act, much less attend his classes and the fracture injuries resulted permanent disability and the petitioner not in a position to continue his studies and unable to concentrate in reading and writing due to severe pain and suffering and petitioner is at young age and he is deprived bright future is spoiled in view of fracture and other injuries and petitioner has to be under prolonged treatment as such, the petitioner became the permanent disability.
b) It is further submitted that the police Warangal Traffic, registered a case in Cr.No.110/2012 against the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-TV- 1593 under S. 337 and 338 IPC. The petitioner incurred Rs.9,30,000/- towards medicine and treatment. Rs.30,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.30,000/- 3 towards extra nourishment, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of one academic year,
Rs.50,000/- towards damages to motor cycle, Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.5,10,000/- towards continuing and permanent disability and making total amount of Rs. 21,50,000/- same is restricted to
Rs.15,00,000/.Hence, the petition.
3. The Respondent No.2 filed written statement, denied and disputed the claim of the petitioner in toto and that the petitioner was not aged about 20 years and also student as stated by the petitioner in the claim petition. As per the FIR, there is a delay of one day in registering the crime against the driver of the lorry who caused accident, which clearly shows the collusion between the petitioner and owner of the vehicle in order to claim compensation against the respondent. The police concerned did not inform about the alleged accident to the respondent either immediately or after receipt of the information about alleged accident or after filing of charge sheet.
a). It is further submitted that as per Sec.134(c) of MV Act, it is mandatory on part of the driver or insured to give information to the insurer about accident and particulars of a person involved in the accident. The amount claimed of Rs.21,50,000/- claimed by the petitioner in the claim petition against different heads is highly exaggerative, arbitrary and out of proportions and petitioner is not entitled for any amount. The accident took place due to the gross negligence on part of the petitioner since he was unable to ride his Hero
Honda CBZ motor cycle on road by following the traffic rules and observing the
vehicle as the respondent company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
b). It is further submitted that the respondent company does not admit that the petitioner sustained injuries as mentioned in Column No.11 of OP and as taken treatment in Yeshoda Hospital at Hyderabad and incurred an amount Rs.9,30,000/- towards medical expenditure, and the injuries sustained 4 by the petitioner are simple in nature and there is no permanent disability as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, it sought the Court that the claim petition liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.
4. Respondent No.1 remained set exparte. Despite of ample opportunities availed by the petitioner, but failed to take steps, as such, the petition against the respondent No.3 is dismissed.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor in office framed the following issues for trial:
1.Whether the accident took place on 04/08/2012 at about 20.30 hours near Vishwakarma Street No.2, Shivanagar, Warangal District, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TV 1593(Lorry) driven by its driver as per sec. 166 of M.V.Act?
2.Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
3.To what relief?
6. To prove up the contentions of the petitioner, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and got examined PW2 who is doctor, issued disability certificate, and also got examined PW3 who is doctor who treated the PW1 and issued case sheet and got marked Ex.A1 to A8, and Ex.X1 marked through PW3.
Despite of sufficient and ample opportunities availed by the R2, but failed to adduce either oral or documentary evidence, but respondent No.2 availed all the defence by filing an application vide I.A.No.638/2019 u/Sec. 170 M.V.Act.
7. Heard the arguments on both sides, and both parties filed their written arguments to substantiate their contentions.
8.ISSUE NO.1 AND 2:
1. Whether the accident took place on 04/08/2012 at about 20.30 hours near Vishwakarma Street No.2, Shivanagar, Warangal District, due to rash and negligent driving of vehiclebearing No.AP 16 T 1593(Lorry) driven by its driver as per sec. 166 of M.V.Act?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
5
9. It is just and necessary for this court for adjudication of the matter,issues
No.1 and 2 are clubbed and answered together to avoid repetition and replica and also to avoid the controversy between the parties.
a) The evidence of the PW1 is to the same effect as that of the pleadings of the petition on oath. In the cross examination, the PW1 stated that he has not filed any driving licence into the Court, and he has not filed any authentic document proof to establish loss of academic year. It is stated that he has not filed any document to show future expenditure or transport expenditure.
b) Sri Md Yaseen Imran Doctor stated in his examination in chief that he has examined patient Bhukya Shyam and issued disability certificate with a disability of 73% to PW-1, on account of right side Brachial-Plexus injury, which is a permanent disability. He cannot perform daily activities of daily living with right upper limb, namely eating, driving, drinking, writing, combing and wearing cloths etc., Ex.A6 is issued by medical board, wherein he was one of its member.
In the cross examination PW2 stated that the patient has 73% permanent disability and he has not taken x-ray before issuance of Ex.A6. It is denied that the percentage of disability in Ex.A6 is high.
c) Dr. K. Rathnakar Rao got examined as PW3 and he stated in his examination in chief that on 5.8.2012, the patient by name Bhukya Shyam sustained injuries and the patient was operated in two stages and he sustained injuries are grievous in nature and the patient was discharged on 13.8.2012.
Ex.A2 issued by the Yashodha Hospital, in Ex.A5 most of the medical bills are of
Yashodha Super Speciality Hospital and Ex.X1 case sheet the patient is suffering with permanent disability, and the patient treated by Neuro surgeon, Plastic
Surgeon, vascular surgeon, City surgeon and general surgeon at Yashoda
Hospital, the patient has got breachiel plexus palsy (like a paralysis) and not useful i.e., Right hand. In the cross examination PW3 denied that all the injuries sustained by the patient are not of grievous in nature he has not issued 6 disability certificate. It is stated that the patient got 73% of permanent disability(right hand).
After hearing the arguments on both sides, and perusal of the 10.
evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-3, coupled with the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner under Ex.A1 to Ex.A.8 and Ex.X1, the following admitted facts which are need not be proved under Section-58 of the Indian Evidence Act.
a) There is no dispute that Ex.A1 F.I.R disclose that on 4/8/2012, the PW1 and his friend by name R. Raju went to Katriyal village on Hero Honda CBZ motor cycle bearing No. AP36AP6258, and they met with accident at 8.30 p.m by dashing by the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP16TV1593.
b) There is no dispute that as per Ex.A6 and the evidence of PW2 and
PW3, the PW1 sustained 73% of permanent disability.
c) There is no dispute that as per Ex.A3, the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a negligent manner and committed an offence under Sec. 338 of IPC and Sec. 189 of M.V.Act.
d) There is no dispute that Ex.A5 bunch of medical bills disclose that towards the medical expenditure, the petitioner incurred an expenditure of
Rs.5,95,667/-, but the petitioner failed to file remaining bill amount.
e) There is no dispute that the petitioner failed to file any documentary proof to show that he incurred the future medical expenditure of Rs.5,00,000/-.
f) There is no dispute that the petitioner failed to file any documentary proof to show that he sustained loss of Rs.1,00,000/- of academic year.
g) There is no dispute that Ex.A6 disclose that the pillion rider who is friend of PW1 filed a MVOP 123/2013 and same was decreed, and Tribunal allowed the petition in part by awarding Rs.23,000/- with interest.
11. Now the points for determination is :
i) Whether the petitioner met with road accident due to the rash and negligence act of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 1593?
7 ii) Whether the petitioner sustained grievous injury on 04/08/2012 at about 20.30 hours near Vishwakarma Street No.2, Shivanagar, Warangal District, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.AP-16-TV-1593(Lorry) driven by its driver?
iii) Whether due to the accident, the petitioner sustained permanent disability of 73%?
iv) Whether the petitioner incurred an amount of Rs.9,30,000/- towards medicine and treatment as stated in the petition by the petitioner is correct or not?
v) Whether the petitioner entitled an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards transportation charges as claimed by the petitioner?
vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards Extra nourishment as stated in the petition?
vii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to recovery an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of academic year as stated in the petition?
viii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages to the motor cycle as stated in the petition?
ix) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical expenses as stated in the petition?
X)Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- towards continuing and permanent disability as stated in the petition?
XI) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
12.POINT NO.I:
Whether the petitioner met with road accident due to the rash and negligence act of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 T 1593?
a) On careful perusal of the material on record, this claim petition is filed under Sec. 166 of M.V.Act. It is therefore, under Sec. 101 of Indian Evidence Act initially the onus Prabandhi is heavily rests upon the petitioner to prove his claim and if no convincing evidence let in or offered by the petitioner his claim would be dismissed under Law. Therefore, the initially, the burden is on the petitioner to prove the occurrence of accident which are only due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-TV-1593.
8
b) To prove the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner being injured as well as direct eye witness for the incident testified as PW1 and his evidence testified about the rash and negligence act of the driver of the offending vehicle.
c) In support of his oral evidence, he got marked Ex.A1 the certified copy of F.I.R, Ex.A2 certified copy of medical certificate and Ex.A3 is certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A1 to A3 documents crystal clearly reveals that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle.
d) From above foregoing discussion and reasons, this Court arrived a firm conclusion that the petitioner was met with accident on 4/8/2012 at about 8.30 p.m., only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, this point accordingly answered.
13. POINT NO.II:
Whether the petitioner sustained grievous injury on 04/08/2012 at about 20.30 hours near Vishwakarma Stgree No.2, Shivanagar, Warangal District, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.AP 16 T 1593(Lorry) driven by its driver as per sec. 166 of M.V.Act?
a) On careful perusal of the entire material on record, now the core question is whether the petitioner sustained a grievous injury. On proper analysis and appraisal of the evidence available on record, no doubt the petitioner met with accident due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle.
b) To prove the injuries on the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and PW3 who treated PW1, and their evidence testified that the petitioner sustained the severe grievous injuries.
c) By the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the petitioner sustained the following five injuries:
i) Compound fracture both bones right leg with vascular injury ii) Compound fracture lateral END Cervical right withe exposed sub clavicle, BESSELS. iii) Crush injury right leg and foot 9 iv) Pneumothorax right side with fracture 1st and 2nd ribs.
v) Sah with diffused ceredral - Edema with brachial-plexus injury.
d) On proper appreciation of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ex. A2,
EX.A6, this Court arrived a firm conclusion that the petitioner/PW1 sustained grievous injuries. Moreover, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 clearly and categorically support the version of PW1 with regard to the injuries. Further, the respondent No.2 not placed any substantial evidence before this Court to prove that the PW1 not sustained grievous injuries.
e) From above foregoing discussion and reasons, this Court comes to in escapable conclusion that due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner/PW1 sustained grevious injuries. Hence, the point is accordingly answered.
14. POINT NO.III:
Whether due to the accident, the petitioner sustained permanent disability of 73%?
a) On careful perusal of material on record, in this case, the petitioner mainly contended that due to the accident, he unable to move from the bed and he did not attend any kind of act and he sustained the 73% of permanent disability. To shore up his contentions besides his oral evidence, the petitioner got marked Ex.A6 original Handicapped certificate, which clearly shows that the petitioner sustained 73% disability. Moreover, the evidence of PWs2 and 3 crystal clearly establishes that PW1 had 73% of permanent disability.
Admittedly, the respondent No.2 failed to file any documentary proof to show that the petitioner did not sustained 73% of permanent disability. Moreover, the evidence of PW3, it is crystal clearly establishes that the PW1 got 73% of permanent disability of his right hand.
b) From the above foregoing discussion and reasons, this Court arrived a firm opinion that the petitioner is sustained 73% of permanent disability. Hence, the point is accordingly answered.
10
15. POINT NO. IV: Whether the petitioner incurred an amount of Rs.9,30,000/- towards medicine and treatment as stated in the petition is correct or not?
a) On careful perusal of material on record, in this case, the petitioner is claiming an amount of Rs.9,30,000/- towards medicine and treatment. No doubt, in this case, the petitioner sustained five injuries for which he got treatment and for above five injuries he undergone operation in two stages, it is therefore, he might have incurred expenditure for treatment and other medical expenditure. No doubt, in this case, by examining PW2 and PW3, the petitioner proved that he sustained severe grievous injuries.
b) On careful perusal of Ex.A5 the bunch of medical bills issued by
Guardian Hospital, Warangal and also at Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad an amount of Rs.5,95,667/- incurred the expenditure by the petitioner towards medical treatment and medicine and also under gone operation.
c) On careful perusal of the column No.25 (b) in the petition, the petitioner categorically stated that he is having medical bills amount of Rs.5,30,000/- only and Rs.4,00,000/- worth of bills lost due to serious attendant.
d) On careful perusal of the material on record, in this case, the petitioner failed to file apart from the Ex.A5 to prove that he spend the expenditure after the treatment and also spend money for follow up treatment. Moreover, the petitioner not placed any material document before this Court after discharging from the Yashoda hospital, he regularly approached the doctors and spent the amount for treatment by way of physiotherapy. Moreover, except Ex.A5, the petitioner not placed any material document before this Court to prove that he incurred expenditure for Rs.9,30,000/- towards medical and hospital.
e) From above foregoing discussion and reasons, this Court arrived at firm conclusion that the petitioner establish that he incurred the expenditure
Rs.5,95,667/- only towards medical and hospital treatment. Hence, the point is accordingly answered.
11
16. POINT NO.V:
Whether the petitioner entitled an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards transportation charges as claimed by the petitioner?
a) In this case, the petitioner claiming a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards transport charges. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner failed to place any document to show that he paid Rs.30,000/- towards transport charges from
Warangal to Hyderabad and Hyderabad to Warangal.
b) On proper appraisal of the entire material on record, no doubt, in this case, the petitioner might have incurred transport charges from Warangal to
Hyderabad and also after treatment he incurred the transport charges from
Hyderabad to Warangal. By considering entire material on record, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner incurred the expenditure towards transportation, therefore, this Court award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. Hence, point accordingly answered.
17. POINT NO.VI:
Whether the petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards Extra nourishment as stated in the petition?
a) In this case, the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards extra nourishment. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner failed to file any documentary proof he spend an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards extra nourishment. However, the petitioner stayed in the hospital at Hyderabad along with attendant from 5/8/2012 to 13/8/2012. By considering entire material on record, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner incurred the expenditure towards extra nourishment, therefore, this Court award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. Hence, point accordingly answered.
12
18. POINT NO.VII:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to recovery an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of academic year as stated in the petition?
a) In this case, the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of academic year. On careful perusal of the entire material on record, the petitioner stated in the petition that he is a student, but he did not stated about study details and also which course he studied as on the date of accident. In the absence of any substantial evidence placed by the petitioner, this Court is not in a position to compensate an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of academic year to the petitioner. Hence, the point accordingly answered.
19. POINT NO.VIII:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages to the motor cycle as stated in the petition?
a) In this case, the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages to the motor cycle. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner has not filed any documentary proof to show that his motor cycle was damaged and he incurred the expenditure Rs.50,000/- repairing of the motor cycle. Even though, the petitioner not filed any photograph to show that the motor cycle was completely damaged. In the absence of any ample and concrete evidence placed by the petitioner, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled any amount under this head.
Hence, the point accordingly answered.
20. POINT NO.IX:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical expenses as stated in the petition?
a) In this case, the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to file any documentary proof that even after discharging from hospital, he incurred medical 13 expenditure. Further, PW2 and PW3 have not stated in their evidence that the petitioner has necessary for prolonged treatment, as such to award future medical expenses. Moreover, the petitioner not placed any concrete and cogent evidence before this Court that he is entitled to claim an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to claim an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards future medical expenses.
Hence, the point accordingly answered.
21. POINT NO.X:
X)Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- towards continuing and permanent disability as stated in the petition?
a) In this case, the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- towards continuing and permanent disability. On careful perusal of the entire material on record by the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the petitioner sustained 73% disability which is permanent and he cannot attend his normal duties and also cannot do any hard work. Admittedly, as on the date of incident, the petitioner was a student and aged about 20 years, and the petitioner is a handicapped person and he was sustained 73% disability, therefore, the nominal monthly income of the PW1 is taken as Rs.5000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.5000x12x18x73%=7,88,400/-. Hence, point is accordingly answered.
22. POINT NO.XI:
Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
a) On careful appraisal and analysis of the entire material on record, already this Court come to firm conclusion that due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner sustained grievous injury and also caused permanent disability of 73%, as such, for quick reference the 14 quantum of compensation awarded under various heads are tabulated hereunder:
SL.No. Head Compensation Amount
1. Medical expenditure and treatment Rs.5,95,667=00
2. Transportation charges Rs.10,000=00
3. Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000=00
4. Loss of Income due to Disability Rs.7,88,400=00
Total Rs.14,04,067=00
23. On careful appraisal of the entire material on record, this Court come to the firm opinion that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.14,04,067/-.
24. Now it is to be decided that what percentage of the interest the petitioner is entitled for the said compensation amount. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner is entitled for the interest @ 7.5% P.A as per Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India Ruling reported in Tamilnadu Transport Corporation Ltd., v. Raja
Priya in 2005 (4) ALT, 14 (SC), accordingly, the petitioner is entitled the interest @ 7.5% on the awarded compensation amount of Rs.14,04,067/- from the date of petition till the date of realization.
25. ISSUE NO.3: To what relief?
IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs by granting compensation of
Rs.14,04,067/- to the petitioner with the following reliefs:
a) The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.14,04,067/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. on the awarded amount from the date of petition to till the date of realization.
15
b) The R2 insurance company is directed to deposit the awarded amount with accrued interest within 30 days from the date of award, otherwise, the petitioner is entitled interest @ 9% P.A on the awarded amount.
c) And on making such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest thereon as per the decision reported in
A.V.Padma v. R. Venugopal and other reported in 2012 (1) 457 SC.
d) The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5000/-.
e) The office is directed to verify the deficit Court fee if any, and collect the same before furnishing the copy of award and decree.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2019.)
Sd/-( Lal Singh Srinivas Naik)
CHAIRMAN,
M.A.C.T.-CUM-VII-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONER:
PW-1 : Bhukya Shyam PW-2 : Dr.Mohd Yaseen Imran PW-3 : Dr. K. Rathnakar Rao
FOR RESPONDENTS:
-None-
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PETITIONER:
Ex.A-1:is the Certified Copy of FIR along with complaint Ex.A-2:is the Certified Copy of Medical Certificate Ex.A-3:is the Certified Copy of Charge sheet Ex.A-4:is the OP Receipt Ex.A-5:is the bunch of medical bills of Guardian Hospital and Yashoda Hospital (Total Rs.5,95,667/-) Ex.A-6:is the Original handicapped certificate Ex.A-7:is the Certified copy of Award and Decree connected
OP NO.123/2013
Ex.A-8:is the Certified Copy of MVI report.
16
FOR RESPONDENT:
-Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COURT:
Ex.X-1: Discharge summary issued by Yashoda Hospital including case sheet of Yashoda Hospital.
Sd/-( Lal Singh Srinivas Naik)
CHAIRMAN,
M.A.C.T.-CUM-VII-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,
WARANGAL.