High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePartly allowed (appeal partly allowed; enhanced...
Prasad Joseph v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Case / Petition Number:MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Devan Ramachandran
- Judgment Date
- 2023-03-31
- Court Decision / Holding
- Appeal partly allowed. Enhanced compensation: Permanent Disability Rs.17,01,000; Loss of Earnings Rs.45,000; Attender Expenses Rs.8,40,000; Medical Consumables Rs.2,52,000; Additional Medical Treatment Rs.1,00,000; interest on enhanced amounts at 7.5% with 103-day delay excluded. Tribunal’s other heads kept intact. Insurance to deposit enhanced amount within two months; partial modification of interest rate and costs as directed.
- Final Disposition
- Partly allowed (appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation against several heads; interest adjusted; deposit directed)
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Prasad Joseph
Respondents
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Smt. M.R. Jayalatha
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. M. Jacob Murickan
Case Synopsis & Summary
The present MACA arises from an award under OP(MV)675/2016 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba, for injuries sustained on 28-11-2013 when the appellant-prasant Prasad Joseph’s motorcycle collided with another vehicle. The appellant, who was left in a vegetative state requiring continuous care, sought Rs.15,00,000 in compensation, but the Tribunal granted Rs.18,92,100. The appellant’s counsel argued the Tribunal underestimated his notional income, since he was employed as a Coolie earning about Rs.15,000 per month, and should be guided by the principles in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. to determine income and future prospects (25%). It was argued that the appellant’s disability and daily needs justify substantial additional compensation: attendant costs (as per Kajal and Abhimanyu Partap Singh line of authorities), and costs for medical consumables and potential future treatment. The insurer contended the Tribunal’s calculation was fair, noting a 90% disability certified by a Medical Board. The Kerala High Court, after reviewing evidence and precedents, enhanced several heads: raised permanent disability to Rs.17,01,000, increased loss of earnings to Rs.45,000, allotted Rs.8,40,000 for Attender Expenses, Rs.2,52,000 for Medical Consumables, and Rs.1,00,000 for Additional Medical Treatment, while retaining other heads. Interest on enhanced amounts was fixed at 7.5%, with a two-month deadline for deposit and exclusion of 103 days for delay. The appeal was partly allowed, adjusting the quantum while maintaining the overall framework of compensation.
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 – notional income and 25% future prospects for disabled workers.
- Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Others (2020) 4 SCC 413 – entitlement to attendant charges.
- Namitha Selchon and Another v. Abhimanyu Partap Singh (2022) 8 SCC 489 – minimum Rs. 2,000 for medical consumables.
- Jithendran v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another (2021 KHC 6653) – restatement of Kajal.
- Sarla Verma & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (2010 (2) KLT 802) – multiplier guidelines.
- Sreekumar v. National Insurance Company Limited (2022 (3) KHC 467) – cited authority.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellant argued that the award was inadequate. He contended that the Tribunal should adopt a higher notional income for a Coolie, basing income on Rs.15,000 per month rather than the Tribunal’s Rs.9,000, following Ramachandrappa (2011) 13 SCC 236, and add 25% future prospects due to his 90% disability. She urged inclusion of substantial attendant costs (as per Kajal and Abhimanyu Partap Singh), and allowance for medical consumables (Rs.2,000 per month, as supported by Abhimanyu Partap Singh and Namitha Selchon) and anticipated future medical treatment (Rs.1,00,000). Additional treatment and recurring costs were asked to be recognized; her submissions emphasized that the appellant is bedridden and requires full-time assistance, with the evidence indicating significant injuries and ongoing care requirements. Finally, she submitted that the Tribunal’s rate of interest on enhanced amounts should reflect the escalation contemplated by precedent and that all other heads be preserved while enhancing key components of the award.
Contentions of Respondents
The Insurance Company argued that the Tribunal’s computation was fair and generous, supported by a 90% disability certificate from a Medical Board. They contended that the notional income of Rs.9,000 per month, with 25% future prospects, and the Tribunal’s calculated amounts under Loss of Earnings and Permanent Disability were appropriate. They objected to excessive enhancements and urged that the Tribunal’s orders on expenses (medical consumables, attendants) be limited. They also contested interest on the additional bills from the date of filing the claim, suggesting a more measured approach. Overall, the insurer sought dismissal of the appeal or substantial reduction of enhancements and preservation of the Tribunal’s order on other heads.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sreekumar v. National Insurance Company Limited | 2022 (3) KHC 467 | Mentioned Only | Cited as authority; not central to the decision's core reasoning. |
| Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. | (2011) 13 SCC 236 | Positive | Grounds the notional income and 25% future prospects adopted in the enhancement. |
| Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Others | 2020 (4) SCC 413 | Positive | Used to support attendant charges and care costs. |
| Namitha Selchon and Another v. Abhimanyu Partap Singh | (2022) 8 SCC 489 | Positive | Supports the award of consumable costs. |
| Jithendran v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another | 2021 KHC 6653 | Positive | Restates Kajal; supports attendant/care cost reasoning. |
| Sarla Verma & Others v.Delhi Transport Corporation & Another | 2010 (2) KLT 802 | Positive | Provides multiplier guidance used in calculation. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Prasad Joseph v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`
## `PRESENT`
```
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945
```
## `MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017`
```
[AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.01.2017 IN OP(MV)NO.675/2016 ON THE
FILES OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALIPARAMBA]
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
```
```
PRASAD JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS,
MUNJANATT HOUSE, ALAKODE AMSOM, ALAKODE POST,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 571.
```
```
BY ADV SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA
```
## `RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:`
```
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
MARINA SHOPPING CENTER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY,
TALIPARAMBA POST, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 141,
(POLICY NO. 441604/31/2014/11302).
```
```
BY ADV SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN
```
```
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
```
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-2-
```
## `JUDGMENT`
```
The appellant was horrifically injured in a
road accident on 28.11.2013, when the motorcycle
he was riding was collided with the offending
vehicle, driven in a rash and negligent manner –
leaving him in a vegetative state and
unfortunately,requiringassistedliving
```
```
thereafter. He suffered greatly and had to
undergo long periods of treatment, including
follow-ups which still continues; and thereupon,
he filed OP(MV)No.675/2016 before the Motor
AccidentsClaimsTribunal,Taliparamba
(‘Tribunal’, for short), seeking compensation of
an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, which has been
allowed to a sum of Rs.18,92,100/-.
```
```
2.The appellant nevertheless assails the
compensation as being still inadequate and
relies upon the judgment of this Court in
Sreekumar v. National Insurance Company Limited
```
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-3-
```
```
[2022 (3) KHC 467].
```
```
3.Smt.M.R.Jayalatha – learned counsel for
the appellant, argued that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal ought to have been much
higher, because the appellant was working as a
‘Coolie’ at the time of accident, earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. She asserted that this
```
```
figure ought to have been adopted by the
Tribunal as his income; and compensation to have
been awarded appositely, including under the
heads “Loss of Earnings” and “Permanent
```
```
Disability”.
```
```
4.Smt.M.R.Jayalatha added that, since the
```
```
medical evidence on record establishes, without
```
```
doubt, that appellant is fully bedridden, with
```
```
the requirement of a full-time assistant even
for his daily needs,Kajal v.Jagdish Chand &
Others[(2020) 4 SCC 413] would authorize a
```
```
further figure of Rs.10,000/- for two
```
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-4-
```
```
attendants; whileAbhimanyu Partap Singh v.
```
```
Namitha Selchon and Another [(2022) 8 SCC 489]
```
```
would mandate that a minimum of Rs.2,000/- be
awarded towards cost of medical consumables like
```
```
diapers, gloves, catheters etc.
```
```
5. Smt.M.R.Jayalatha then pointed out that
her client had already suffered “Additional
```
```
Treatment Charges” of Rs.76,518/-, which is
```
```
established through the medical bills produced
along with I.A.No.1/2023. She thus prayed that a
minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- be awarded because,
```
```
further treatment may also become necessary. She
thus prayed that this Appeal be allowed.
```
```
6.Sri.Jacob Murickan – learned Standing
```
```
Counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other
```
```
hand, submitted that the learned Tribunal has
```
```
computed the compensation fairly; and added
```
```
that, since a competent Medical Board has
```
```
assessed the disability of the appellant to be
```
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-5-
```
```
90%, the learned Tribunal has been generous to
him in awarding compensation under the heads
“Permanent Disability” and “Loss of Earnings”.
He thus prayed that this Appeal be dismissed.
```
```
7.As regards the additional bills produced
onrecordbytheappellantthrough
I.A.No.1/2023, the learned Standing Counsel
```
```
admitted the same and agreed that this can be
awarded; however, saying that interest on the
same may not be granted from the date of filing
of the claim.
```
```
8.I have considered the afore rival
```
```
submissions, on the touchstone of the evidence
on record, which I have analyzed very carefully.
```
```
9.I must say that I find great favour with
thevariouscontentionsimpelledby
Smt.M.R.Jayalatha because, the learned Tribunal
ought to have computed the notional income of
the appellant based on the declarations in
```
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-6-
```
```
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC
236]. I say so because, even though the stated
avocation or income of the appellant has not
```
```
been able to be proved cogently or reliably, the
learned Tribunal could have fixed his notional
```
```
income thereafter, only as per the declarations
```
```
in the above precedent, which mandates that even
```
```
in the case of a ‘Coolie’ in the year 2013 –
```
```
when the accident occurred – the minimum figure
```
```
to be reckoned is Rs.9,000/-. Since the
```
```
disability suffered by the appellant is
```
```
certified at 90% and which, for all purposes,
```
```
deserves to be reckoned as 100% functionally, he
```
```
is also entitled to have 25% of his income added
towards future prospects.
```
```
10.As rightly argued by Smt.M.R.Jayalatha,
the medical evidence on record – which is also
```
```
uncontested – establishes the horrific aftermath
```
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
**==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
```
of the injuries on the appellant. Ext.A2 – Wound
Certificate records that he suffered the
```
```
following injuries:
```
```
“sustained black eye on left side with
lacerated injury over left eyebrow
(sutured); undisplaced fracture of roof
left frontal sinus, depressed fracture
left maxillary sinus anterior; comminuted
fracture post lateral wall of left
maxillary sinus; undisplaced fracture
involving lateral wall of left orbit.”
```
```
11.Even though the appellant endured long
treatment, he has been completely bedridden,
which is evident from Ext.X1 – Disability
Certificate, but the learned Tribunal did not
considergranting compensationforthe
assistance of a person as perKajal (supra),
which has been restated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court inJithendran v. New India Assurance
Company Limited and Another[2021 KHC 6653]. As
```
```
per these precedents, a minimum amount of
Rs.5,000/- has to be awarded to a person who is
suffering from such disability for one attender;
```
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-8-
```
```
though, inKajal(supra), Rs.10,000/- was
awarded for two such persons. I, therefore,
propose to award Rs.5,000/- per month, along
with an additional amount of Rs.1,500/- towards
cost of medical consumables that the appellant
will undoubtedly need to use for his comfort, as
far as possible, in future, such as diapers,
gloves, catheters etc.
```
```
12.Finally, as regards additional treatment
expenses, since the Insurance Companydoes not
dispute the medical bills now produced before
this Court, I deem it appropriate to grant an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, because it is certainly
possible that appellant would have to incur some
```
```
amount of treatment expenses in future also.
```
```
13.That said, I notice that the learned
Tribunal has awarded compensation justly under
all other heads; and do not, therefore, propose
to disturb them in any manner whatsoever.
```
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-9-
```
```
In the afore circumstances, this Appeal is
```
```
partly allowed in the following manner:
```
```
(a)The compensationunder the head
```
```
“PermanentDisability”isenhancedto
```
```
Rs.17,01,000/- (Rupeesseventeen lakhs one
thousand only), from Rs.7,56,000/-, reckoning
```
```
the notional income of the appellant to be
```
```
Rs.9,000/- per month, with 25% future prospects
added to it and his percentile of disability to
be maintained at ‘90’, as correctly found by the
```
```
learned Tribunal, based on Ext.X1 – Disability
Certificate.
```
```
(b)Consequently, the compensation under the
head “Loss of Earnings” is revised to
```
```
Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only),
from Rs.25,000/-, reckoning the notional income
of the appellant to be Rs.9,000/- as per
```
```
Ramachandrappa (supra).
```
```
(c)An additional amount of Rs.8,40,000/-
```
## `MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017`
```
-10-
```
```
(Rupees eight lakhs forty thousand only) is
awarded under the head “Attender Expenses” as
perKajal (supra) andJithendran (supra),
reckoning Rs.5,000/- per month as expenses for
```
```
such purpose and adopting the multiplier of
```
```
‘14’, as per Sarla Verma & Others v.Delhi
Transport Corporation & Another[2010 (2) KLT
```
```
802].
```
```
(d)An additional amount of Rs.2,52,000/-
```
```
(Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) is
```
```
awarded under the head “Cost of Medical
```
```
Articles/Consumables” like gloves, diapers etc.
```
```
in terms ofAbhimanyu(supra), adopting the
```
```
multiplier of 14, again as perSarla Verma
```
```
(supra).
```
```
(e)An additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
```
```
(Rupees one lakh only) is awarded towards
```
```
“Additional Medical Treatment” as per the
```
```
undisputed additional documents, produced along
```
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-11-
```
```
with I.A.No.1/2023, as also possible future
```
```
additional expenses.
```
- `(f) In all other heads, the compensation`
```
granted by the Tribunal will remain intact.
```
```
Consequently, the appellant will be at full
```
```
liberty to recover the compensation, as enhanced
```
```
by this Court, from the Insurance Company, along
```
```
with interest at the rate of 7.5% (modifying the
```
```
rate of interest of 9% granted by the Tribunal,
```
```
in view of the escalation granted by this
```
```
Court), except on “Additional Treatment
```
```
Charges”, from the date of claim until it is
recovered.He will also be entitled to
```
```
proportionate costs on the enhanced amount as
```
```
ordered by the Tribunal.
```
```
As regards “additional treatment charges”,
```
```
said amount will carry interest at the rate of
```
```
7.5% from the date of this judgment until it is
```
```
realized.
```
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
**==> picture [30 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
```
Needless to say, while calculating interest
on the amount enhanced by this Court, a period
of 103 days - being the delay in filing this
```
```
Appeal – shall stand excluded.
```
```
In view of the afore, the amount as fixed
```
```
above shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company before the Tribunal, within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy
this judgment.
```
```
Sd/-
```
```
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
```
```
JUDGE
```
```
akv
```
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-13-
```
## `APPENDIX OF MACA 2796/2017`
## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES`
```
ANNEXURE A1THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 29.11.2013
ISSUED BY K.M.C HOSPITAL MANIPAL
```
- `ANNEXURE A2 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 16.3.2018 ISSUED BY DR.SATHIANDRAN NAMBIAR`
- `ANNEXURE A3 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 17.3.2018 ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`
- `ANNEXURE A4 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 17.3.2018 ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`
- `ANNEXURE A5 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 13.4.2018 ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`
- `ANNEXURE A6 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 14.4.2018 ISSUED BY SPECIALITY HOSPITAL`
- `ANNEXURE A7 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 14.4.2018 ISSUED BY SHIFA MEDISHOP`
- `ANNEXURE A8 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 5.5.2018 ISSUED BY KOYILI HOSPITAL`
- `ANNEXURE A9 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 9.5.2018 ISSUED BY SPECIALITY HOSPITAL`
- `ANNEXURE A10 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 9-5-2018 ISSUED BY JAYASREE MEDICALS`
- `ANNEXURE A11 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 9.5.2018 ISSUED BY SPECIALITY HOSPITAL`
- `ANNEXURE A12 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 24.5.2018 ISSUED BY P.R.R.R.M CO-OP HOSPITAL`
- `ANNEXURE A13 THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 29.5.2018`
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-14-
```
||`ISSUED BY KOYILI HOSPITAL`|
|---|---|
|`ANNEXURE A14`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 29.5.2018`|
||`ISSUED BY KOYILI HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A15`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 9.6.2018 ISSUED`|
||`BY P.R.R.R.M CO-OP HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A16`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 9.6.2018 ISSUED`|
||`BY SPECIALITY HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A17`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 21.6.2018`|
||`ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A18`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 23.6.2018`|
||`ISSUED BY P.R.R.R.M CO-OP HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A19`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 23.6.2018`|
||`ISSUED BY P.R.R.R.M CO-OP HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A20`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 3.7.2018 ISSUED`|
||`BY JANAUSHADHI`|
|`ANNEXURE A21`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 10.7.2018`|
||`ISSUED BY P.R.R.R.M CO-OP HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A22`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 10.7.2018`|
||`ISSUED BY P.R.R.R.M CO-OP HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A23`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 12.7.2018`|
||`ISSUED BY JAN AUSHADHI`|
|`ANNEXURE A24`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 8.8.2018 ISSUED`|
||`BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A25`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 1.9.2018 ISSUED`|
||`BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A26`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 1.9.2018 ISSUED`|
||`BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A27`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 1.9.2018 ISSUED`|
## `MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017`
```
-15-
```
||`BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|---|---|
|`ANNEXURE A28`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 10.9.2018`|
||`ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A29`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 29.9.2018`|
||`ISSUED BY KOYILI HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A30`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 5.12.2018`|
||`ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A31`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 17.1.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY SPECIALITY HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A32`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 17.1.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY ST ANTONY'S CLINICAL LAB`|
|`ANNEXURE A33`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 17.1.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY SPECIALITY HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A34`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 18.3.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A35`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 2.4.2019 ISSUED`|
||`BY NATIONAL MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A36`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 1.5.2019 ISSUED`|
||`BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A37`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 25.5.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A38`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 27.6.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY JAYSREE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A39`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 28.6.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY ST ANTONY'S CLINICAL LAB`|
|`ANNEXURE A40`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 6.7.2019 ISSUED`|
||`BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A41`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 6.8.2019 ISSUED`|
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-16-
```
||`BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|---|---|
|`ANNEXURE A42`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 10.8.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY P.R.R.R.M.CO-OP SOCIETY`|
|`ANNEXURE A43`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 10.8.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY P.R.R.R.M CO-OP HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A44`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 19.8.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY P.R.R.R.M CO-OP HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A45`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 22.8.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY SPECIALITY HOSPITAL`|
|`ANNEXURE A46`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 22.8.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY JAYASREE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A47`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 5.9.2019 ISSUED`|
||`BY ST ANTONY'S CLINICAL LAB`|
|`ANNEXURE A48`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 29.10.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY ASTER MIMS`|
|`ANNEXURE A49`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 29.10.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY ASTER MIMS`|
|`ANNEXURE A50`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 26.11.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A51`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 27.11.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY ASTER MIMS`|
|`ANNEXURE A52`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 27.11.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY MADHAVI MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A53`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 11.1.2020`|
||`ISSUED BY MADHAVI MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A54`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 11.1.2020`|
||`ISSUED BY ASTER MIMS`|
|`ANNEXURE A55`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 17.3.2020`|
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-17-
```
||`ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|---|---|
|`ANNEXURE A56`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 20.3.2020`|
||`ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A57`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 20.3.2020`|
||`ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A58`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 6.4.2020 ISSUED`|
||`BY JANAUSHADHI MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A59`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 17.6.2020`|
||`ISSUED BY DAYA MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A60`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 17.6.2020`|
||`ISSUED BY ASTER MIMS`|
|`ANNEXURE A61`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 17.6.2020`|
||`ISSUED BY DAYA MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A62`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 22.7.2020`|
||`ISSUED BY ASTER MIMS`|
|`ANNEXURE A63`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 22.7.2020`|
||`ISSUED BY ASTER MIMS`|
|`ANNEXURE A64`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 22.7.2020`|
||`ISSUED BY ASHRAYA MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A65`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 8.2.2021 ISSUED`|
||`BY ASHRAYA MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A66`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 8.2.2021 ISSUED`|
||`BY ASTER MIMS`|
|`ANNEXURE A67`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 15.3.2021`|
||`ISSUED BY JAYSREE MEDICALS`|
|`ANNEXURE A68`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 15.3.2021`|
||`ISSUED BY ASTER MIMS`|
|`ANNEXURE A69`|`THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 15.3.2021`|
```
MACA NO. 2796 OF 2017
```
```
-18-
```
```
ISSUED BY ASTER MIMS
```
```
ANNEXURE A70THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 15.4.2021
ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS
ANNEXURE A71THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 6.5.2021 ISSUED
BY ALAKODE MEDICALS
ANNEXURE A72THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 10.6.2021
ISSUED BY ALAKODE MEDICALS
```
```
ANNEXURE A73THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 16.6.2021
ISSUED BY DR JOSE'S CLINIC
ANNEXURE A74THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 18.6.2021
ISSUED BY DR JOSE'S CLINIC
ANNEXURE A75THE MEDICAL BILL DATED 2.7.2021 ISSUED
BY DR JOSE'S CLINIC
```