Bangalore District Court
Darshan Raj vs Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd on 8 April, 2026
KABC0B0024012024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
& Vth ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE Court of Small
Causes, Mayo Hall Unit Bangalore (SCCH-20)
Present : Sri. P. Shivaraj,
B.Com. LL.B.
Vth Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& XXIV A.C.J.M.
Dated this the 8th day of April 2026
MVC No.8896/2024
Petitioner: Sri.Darshan Raj, 19 years
S/o Ramakrishna
Avalahalli, Virgonagar Post,
Bengaluru District-560049
(By Sri.TM, advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. M/s Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd
Motor Claims Hub, No.28, 5th Floor,
Centenary Building, East Wing,
Near Citi Bank, Bengaluru-560001.
Policy No.140522423540014956
Valid up to 15.06.2024 to 14.06.2025
2. Sri.Syed Imtiyaz S/o Syed Wazir
No.260, BTB Area, Tilak Nagar
Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560041
(Owner Auto Rickshaw No.KA-05-AC-6567)
(R1-Sri.VSN, advocate
R2-Exparte)
SHIVARAJ Digitally signed by
SHIVARAJ PALLEDA
PALLEDA Date: 2026.04.10
10:36:11 +0530
(P. SHIVARAJ)
Vth Addl. Judge & XXIVth ACJM
SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore
2 MVC No.8896/2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has filed this petition U/sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, claiming the compensation amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest from the respondents.
2. Petitioner case is as Follows:
That on 28.09.2024 at about 1.15 pm, he was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg No.KA-01-EZ-9967, in Bengaluru-Kolar high way, Service road, near Yale Mallappa Shetty Lake, wherein the driver of the autoriksha beg. Reg. No.KA-05-AC-6567, drove it with in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler and caused the accident, in the accident petitioner sustained grievous injuries , he was shifted to Sathya Sai Hospital for first aid, later he was shifted to Sannjay Gandhi Hospital, Victoria Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient for the accidental injuries and spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards his medical expenses.
Petitioner stated that due to the accidental injuries, she is unable to perform his work as earlier. Prior to the accident the he was hale and healthy and he is aged about 19 years and he was studying in 2 nd PUC and was a milk vendor and he was earning Rs.17,000/- per month. Further petitioner stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle which belongs to respondent no.2 who insured his vehicle with respondent no.1 and the 3 MVC No.8896/2024 jurisdictional police have registered the Cr.No.308/2024 against the driver of the offending vehicle and as such both are liable to pay the compensation with interest and he prayer this tribunal to award the compensation amount by allowing the petition.
3. After filing of the petition, notice served to the respondents, respondent No.2 has not chosen to contest the petition and he placed exparte. Respondent No.1 appeared through their counsel, filed power and written statement by denying the entire version of the petitioner in toto.
Respondent No.1 admitted the issuance of insurance policy to the vehicle of respondent No.2 and contended that insured has violated the policy conditions and accident occurred due to the negligence act of the petitioner and petitioner falsely implanted vehicle belongs to respondent No.2 and they prays this tribunal to dismiss the petition.
4. Petitioner examined himself as PW-1, and examined MRO's and orthopedic surgeon as PW-2, 4 & 3, produced and marked 19 documents which are at Ex.P.1 to 19 and they are fully cross examined.
5. Respondent no.1 has examined its official as RW-1 produced and marked 2 documents which are at Ex.R1 & 2 and she is fully cross examined.
4 MVC No.8896/20246. I have heard the arguments for the counsels appearing for both the sides. I have perused the entire records:
Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has relied on the following authorities:
1. Rajesab S/o Rasaulab Koppad Vs Rajakumar S/o Devaji Naik - MFA No.100628/2020 (MV- D) High court of Karnataka order dated 23.01.2026
2. Gurappaa Vs Gundappa Gowda and another -
2009 ACJ 293
3. The ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd Vs Shanthi and another - MFA No.2418/2012 C/w MFA No.8959/2012 (MV) High court of Karnataka order dated 30.04.2014
4. Sheshappa Gowda Vs Lathish and another -
MFA No.2034/2010(MV) High court of Karnataka order dated 27.01.2011.
5. Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd, VS BC Kumar and another - ILR 2009 KAR 2921.
7. On the basis of pleadings, I have framed the following:
ISSUES
1.Whether the petitioner proves that on 28.09.2024 at about 1.15 pm, he was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg No.KA-
01-EZ-9967, in Bengaluru-Kolar high way, Service road, near Yale Mallappa Shetty 5 MVC No.8896/2024 Lake, wherein the driver of the autoriksha beg. Reg. No.KA-05-AC-6567, drove it with in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler and caused the accident, in the accident petitioner sustained grievous injuries as alleged in the petition.?
2 Whether respondent no.1 proves that accident occurred due to the negligent act of the petitioner and insured has violated the policy conditions and he has falsely implanted the vehicle belongs to respondent no.2 as contended in the written statement.?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
4. What order or award?
8. After carefully going through the evidence placed on record and taking into consideration of facts and attending circumstances of the case, my findings to the above issues are as follows;
Issue no.1: In the affirmative, Issue no.2: In the Negative, Issue no.3: In partly affirmative, Issue No.4: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 to 3 :- I have taken these issues together for common discussion so as to avoid the repetition of facts and reasoning.
6 MVC No.8896/2024PW1 being the petitioner, he reiterated the petition averments in his examination-in-chief affidavit. Petitioner has tender the police records, that is C/copy of FIR, complaint, police intimaiton, mahazar, sketch, IMV report, wound certificate, final report, MLC, police intimation which are at Ex.P.1 to 8, 18 & 19.
10. On careful perusal of the aforesaid undisputed documents it is evident that one Sudhakara S/o Lingappa was the driver of the offending vehicle and the accident took place due to his rash and negligent act. The final report, sketch, Mahazar, IMV establishes the involvement of the offending vehicle and the actionable negligent act on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the cross examination of PW-1, he denied the suggestion that the bladder problem is solved and FIS is intentionally given after 22 days. He further denied the suggestion that it is self fall accident. He admitted the recitals that is reason for accident written in the discharge summary, which is at Ex.P9 issued from the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. He clearly deposed that he was taking treatment for the accidental injuries, his mother and brother were taking care of him for that reason, they could not lodged the FIS at the earliest point of time. The said fact corroborate with the delay reasons mentioned in the Sl No.3(C) of First information as per Ex.P.1. Respondent has not made out any acceptable reason to disbelieve the reasons assigned for delay in lodging the 7 MVC No.8896/2024 first information. Apparently, considering the facts and attending circumstances, there is no suspicious circumstance for delay in lodging the FIS by the informant.
11. According to the petitioner he has taken first aid in Sathya Sai hospital later he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi hospital. Further more, Ex.P.3, 7, 18 & 19 are the wound certificate and the police intimation issued from the Sathya sai hospital, wherein history of accident is stated as accident between two wheeler and auto rickshaw. The said intimation is given to KR Puram police station. PW-4 is the RMO of Sathya Sai hospital, in the cross examination of PW-1 nothing worth is elicited to disbelieve the entries made in Ex.P.18 & 19, The aforesaid information's are given at the earliest point of time and at undisputed point of time and the said information cannot be doubted. Further more, Ex.P9 is the discharge summary given by the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital wherein the history is written as skid and fall while riding the two wheeler. On the other hand Ex.P.6 is the IMV report, wherein the damages to the vehicle are stated in the said fact is undisputed. If the petitioner had sustained injuries due to his self fall then the onus is on the respondents to show that how the damages to the offending vehicle had caused as noted in the IMV report. The aforesaid evident fact falsifies and crumbles the fact that it is case of self fall.
8 MVC No.8896/202412. The information as noted in the Ex.P.9 that is discharge summary is given subsequent to the earliest information given about the incident as noted/ mentioned in the MLC and wound certificate. Respondent has not taken pains to examine the IO of the case, nor first informant or the author of discharge summary as per Ex.P.9 to probabilise the fact that it is a case of the self fall. In the cross examination of PW-1 nothing worth has been elicited to hold that it is case of self fall. Inasmuch the principles laid down in the authorities as relied on by the respondent cannot be made applicable to the present case as it is not a case of self fall. Respondent has failed to establish the fact that it is case of self fall. Patiently respondent No.1 has failed to probabilise their contention as contended in the written statement. The final report is filed after thorough investigation and it is not disputed by the respondent and it has attained the finality.
13. Petitioner has tender the wound certificate, discharge summaries, inpatient record which are at Ex.P.7, 9, 13 & 14. The aforesaid documents shows that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the road accident that is right proximal tibia fracture and D12 compression fracture with paraplegia and CRIF with CC screws is done to the petitioner right proximal tibia and stabilization of D12 vertebra is done to him on 03.10.2024 and on 21.10.2024. Petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for 10 days and he has spent 9 MVC No.8896/2024 Rs.32,234/- for medical expenses as per Ex.P10. Accordingly petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
Pecuniary damages (Medical expenses) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, Medicines, Transportation, Nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure:
14. Petitioner took treatment as an inpatient for 10 days. Accordingly the wound certificate, discharge summaries, inpatient record, has to be accepted.
Admittedly he has taken treatment for 10 days, for attendant charges, transportation, nourishing food, he might have spend some more expenses. Therefore, I award Rs.10,000/- in addition to the actual medical expenses of Rs.32,234/- in total petitioner is entitled for Rs.42,234/-.
Loss of income during laid up period.
15. The petitioner has not substantiated the established his nature of his work and income as alleged in the petition. Accident took place in the year 2024, however as per notional income chart, the notional income for the year 2024 is Rs.16,500/-, and same is assessed and considered as his monthly income. Considering the accidental injuries and the treatment taken by the petitioner, I am of view that at-least one month, he has lost his income. Therefore I award Rs.16,500/- as compensation under this head.
10 MVC No.8896/2024Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
16. The petitioner has examined the orthopedic surgeon as PW-3. He deposed that, he has not treated the petitioner and he has verified the entire medical records, investigation reports and he personally examined the petitioner. He further deposed that the petitioner is suffering from paraplegia. He denied the suggestion that there is no problem to spinal card, D11, L1 vertebra. He deposed that petitioner can walk in the support of a walker and there is a loss of muscle power. He admitted that tibia fracture is united and petitioner is having 48% of whole body physical disability.
17. The oral testimony of PW-3 corroborates with the wound certificate, discharge summary and medical procedures and medical investigation reports of the petitioner and Ex.P15 & 16. Petitioner has not established the fact that the physical disability is hurdle for his earning capacity. In the cross examination of PW.3 nothing worth is elicited to disbelieve his assessment or his assessment is wrong or it is on the higher side. Further more, the fact of percentage of physical disability is entirely different from the loss of earning capacity. Nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of PW-3 to disbelieve the disability assessment calculated by him. Considering the medical reports and oral testimony of 11 MVC No.8896/2024 doctor, the whole body physical disability of the petitioner is assessed as 48%.
The notional monthly income of the petitioner is assessed as Rs.16,500/-, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident is 19 years as per the entry in Aadhar card which is at Ex P.11. The multiplier applicable to this case is "18". Therefore loss of income on account of permanent disability is calculated as follows; Rs.16,500/-(Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 18 (Multiplier) X48% (Functional Disability) = Rs.17,10,720/- Hence, the petitioner is entitle for Rs.17,10,720/- as compensation under this head.
Non-Pecuniary damages (General damages) (IV)Damages for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities:
18. It is undisputed fact that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. During the hospitalization and rehabilitation period, he might have undergone lot of pain and sufferings. Therefore I award Rs.50,000/- under this conventional head.
V) Loss of Amenities :-
19. The petitioner has to forego certain amenities available for him due to accidental injuries. Therefore I award Rs.50,000/- as compensation under this head. As per the oral testimony of PW-3 another surgery is required for the removal of implants. Tentatively 12 MVC No.8896/2024 petitioner is entitled for Rs.25,000/- for the additional surgery.
20. Except these heads the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under any other heads. In all the petitioner is entitled for compensation as follows:
Sl Particulars Amount No. 1 Towards Medical expenses, attendant Rs. 42,234/-
charges, transportation, nourishing food 2 Loss of income during the laid up period Rs. 16,500/- 3 Loss of income on account of Rs.17,10,720/-
permanent disability 4 pain & sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
5 loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-
6 Cost of additional surgery Rs. 25,000/-
TOTAL Rs.18,94,454/-
21. Rate of Interest: The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Sarala Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein it is held that it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly I award the interest at the rate of 6% P.A on the compensation amount form the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
22. Liability: The insurance company has not disputed the validity of the policy of the offending vehicle and they have failed to establish their contention. Accordingly Respondent No.1 is the liable to pay the compensation amount and respondent No.1 is directed to deposit compensation amount with interest before this 13 MVC No.8896/2024 Tribunal within one month from the date of this order. Hence with the aforesaid discussion based on the evidence placed on record, Accordingly I am answering Issue No.1 in the affirmative, Issue No.2 in the negative, Issue No.3 in partly affirmative.
23. Issue No.4: For the foregoing reason and discussion, on the aforesaid issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is partly allowed with cost.
Petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.18,94,454/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition, till realization.
Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest before this Tribunal within one month from the date of the judgment.
After depositing the compensation amount with interest, petitioner is permitted to withdraw 80% of the compensation amount with interest there on by complying the mandate of circular No.39/2020 dt. 17.01.2020.
Cash shirestedar is directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount with interest in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.
Any interim applications pending if any stands disposed of.
14 MVC No.8896/2024Advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- is fixed.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 8th day of April 2026) SHIVARAJ Digitally signed by SHIVARAJ PALLEDA PALLEDA Date: 2026.04.10 10:36:28 +0530 (P. SHIVARAJ) Vth Addl. Judge & XXIVth ACJM SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore :A N N E X U R E:
List of witnesses examined for Petitioners:
PW.1 : Sri.Darshan Raj PW.2 : Sri.R.Agilasithan PW.3 : Dr.Nagaraj.B.N PW.4 : Sri.Syed Mubarak
List of documents marked for Petitioners:
Ex.P1 : Copy of F.I.R, Ex.P2 : Copy of Complaint Ex.P3 : Police intimation Ex.P4 : Copy of Mahazar Ex.P5 : Sketch Ex.P6 : IMV report Ex.P7 : wound certificate Ex.P8 : Final report Ex.P9 : Discharge summary Ex.P10 : Medical bills 22 in nos Ex.P11 : Notarized copy of Adhaar card Ex.P12 : Authorization letter Ex.P13-14: Inpatient file 2 in nos Ex.P15 : Examination report Ex.P16 : X-ray Ex.P17 : Authorization letter Ex.P18 : Police intimation Ex.P19 : MLC extract
List of Witnesses examined for Respondent:
RW.1 : Smt.Prerana 15 MVC No.8896/2024 List of Documents marked for Respondent :
Ex.R1 : Authorization letter
Ex.R2 : Insurance policy
SHIVARAJ Digitally signed by
SHIVARAJ PALLEDA
PALLEDA Date: 2026.04.10 10:36:35
+0530
(P. SHIVARAJ)
Vth Addl. Judge & XXIVth ACJM
SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore