Bangalore District Court
Lakshmidevamma vs Javali Dhanashekar on 3 December, 2025
KABC020103702024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
MVC Nos.1523/2024 & 1524/2024
PETITIONER/s Smt. Lakshmidevamma
in MVC No.1523/2024: W/o G.Chandrappa,
Aged about 75 years,
R/o No.3-169-26,
Ramrao Colony,
Madanapalle Town,
Chittoor Dist.
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri. T.V.Ramesh,
Advocate/s)
PETITIONER/s Sri.G.Narasimhulu
in MVC No.1524/2024: S/o G.Chandrappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o No.3-169-26,
Ramrao Colony,
Madanapalle Town,
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.1523/2024
& MVC No.1524/2024
Chittoor Dist.
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri. T.V.Ramesh,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS 1. Sri. Javali Dhanashekar
in both the cases: S/o. Javali Uttanna,
Major,
R/o. 3-146-14-6-90-82.
Ammacheruvumitta,
Madanapalle Town,
Annamayya Dist.
(Chittoor Dist.),
Andhra Pradesh.
(Ex-parte.)
2. The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Motor TP Hub,
Mahalakshmi Chambers,
No.9, 2nd Floor,
MG Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(By Smt. Indira Prakash,
Advocate.)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These judgments arises out of claim petitions filed by the claimants against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 SCCH-25 3 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying to award compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them in the road traffic accident occurred on 06.01.2024. Since the respondents in these two cases are the same, these cases are consolidated and common evidence are ordered to be recorded in MVC No.1523/2024.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 06.01.2024 the petitioner in MVC No.1523/2024 was proceeding in a n Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TE-1072 as an inmate along with her son/RC owner cum Driver in MVC No.1524/2024 from Rayachoti side towards Madanapalli on the correct side of the Road, at about 1.30pm near Mirchi Dhaba, Khandriga Village, Gurramkonda Mandal, Annamayya Dist.
Andrapradesh, an Eicher vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP- 39-UN-0126 came from opposite direction with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life and dashed to the petitioners' Auto. Due to heavy impact both caught in the Autorickshaw, sustained grievous injuries.
SCCH-25 4 MVC No.1523/2024& MVC No.1524/2024
3. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.1523/2024 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Madanapalle wherein provided first aid treatment and then she was shifted to Desai Hospital, Madanapalli and admitted as an inpatient, from 08.01.2024 to 15.01.2024, underwent internal fixation with LCP, discharged with advice to take complete bed rest continue medicine and to take followup treatment. So far she has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses. On account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed ridden, she could not attend her work, undergoing deep mental shock since, the injuries caused are permanent in nature.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the date of accident she was hale and healthy, doing Agriculture work and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries she could not attend her work, resulted in loss of earnings, earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.1523/2024& MVC No.1524/2024
5. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.1524/2024 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Madanapalle wherein provided first aid treatment and then she was shifted to Desai Hospital, Madanapalli and admitted as an inpatient, from 08.01.2024 to 13.01.2024, underwent surgery and discharged with advice to take complete bed rest continue medicine and to take followup treatment. So far he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses. On account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed ridden, he could not attend his work, undergoing deep mental shock since, the injuries caused are permanent in nature.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the date of accident he was a RC owner cum Driver of the Autorickshaw and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries he could not attend his work, resulted in loss of earnings, earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.
7. The accident has taken place due to the SCCH-25 6 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the Eicher vehicle bearing No.AP-39-UN-0126. The Gurramkonda PS have registered a case in their Cr.No.2/2024 and filed charge sheet against the said driver p/u/Secs 279, 338 of IPC and u/secs.134(a) &
(b) r/w 187 of MV Act. The respondent No.1 being the RC owner and the Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending Eicher vehicle bearing No.AP-39-UN- 0126 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners in both the cases. Hence, in both the cases, each petitioners prays for award for the total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- respectively.
8. In response to the notice, the respondent No.2 appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of summons, the respondent No.1 did not appear hence, placed ex-parte in both the cases.
8A. That the respondent No.2 in the written statement has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the Eicher vehicle bearing No.AP-39-UN-0126 and in favour of Respondent No.1. It has denied the negligence of the driver of the Eicher vehicle bearing SCCH-25 7 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 No.AP-39-UN-0126. There is a non compliance of Sec.158(6) and 134(c) of MV Act. Further contended that the driver of the Eicher vehicle bearing No.AP- 39-UN-0126 did not possessed the valid and effective DL as on the date of accident. The accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the Autorickshaw bearing No.AP-03-TE-1072. Further it has denied the manner of accident. It has also denied the age, income, avocation, medical expenses of the petitioners. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismiss the petition against it.
9. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
(Issues in MVC No.1523/2024) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 06-01-2024 at 1:30pm due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Eicher vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-
39-UN-0126 and in the said
accident petitioner sustained
injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
SCCH-25 8 MVC No.1523/2024& MVC No.1524/2024 Issue No.3: What order or Award?
(Issues in MVC No.1524/2024) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 06-01-2024 at 1:30pm due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Eicher vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-
39-UN-0126 and in the said
accident petitioner sustained
injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
10. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioners of both cases have examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.21. Dr.S.A.Somashekara - Orthopedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore got examined in both the cases as PWs.3 & 4 and got marked Exs.P.22 to P.25. The respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.
11. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.1523/2024& MVC No.1524/2024
12. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my answers to the above issues (in both cases) are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order for the
foregoing:
#REASONS#
13. Issue No.1 in both the cases: In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioners of both cases have examined themselves as Pws.1 & 2. The petitioners have also got examined Doctor as Pws.3 & 4. Exs.P1 to 21 were marked through Pws.1 & 2. The Pws.3 & 4 have got marked Exs.P22 to 25. The Respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
14. The chief examination of the PWs.1 & 2, they are nothing but a repetition of plaint averments. These witnesses have been subjected to cross SCCH-25 10 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 examination. The relevant portion of the Pws.1 & 2 are herewith reproduced:
The Pws.1 & 2 have deposed that: "the accident caused due to the negligence of Eicher vehicle's driver and the accident caused infront of Mirchi Daba. The offending vehicle dashed to the front portion of the Auto. The complaint was lodged by the brother of the PW.2.". Both have denied the material suggestions in the cross examination.
15. The respondent No.2 has denied the manner of accident. The accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Autorickshaw. To prove the same, the R-2 did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on its behalf.
16. It is well settled position of law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation and the evidence required about negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of probability.
17. The petitioners have totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's rider. It is no doubt the SCCH-25 11 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 police have submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending Eicher vehicle after thorough investigation. The spot Sketch appended to the charge sheet indicates that the accident occurred in front of Mirchi Hotel at Rayachoty towards Madanapalli Road (NH-340), the petitioners Autorickshaw was proceeding from Rayachoty towards Madanapalli and the offending vehicle came from opposite direction and dashed to the petitioners vehicle and caused the accident. The oral evidence of the petitioners have coupled with documentary evidence. The accident road is a National Highway. The sketch clearly clinches that the driver of the offending vehicle has dashed to petitioners' vehicle by crossing their path or entering into the path of the petitioners' vehicle. The materials on record clearly depicts that the petitioners were on the left side of their path, and the offending vehicle was recklessly driving the vehicle and came from opposite direction and caused the accident. So, the arguments does not holds any kind of water. The material on records are clearly indicates that the accident has occurred sole negligence on the offending vehicle's driver. when the driver of the offending Eicher vehicle having sufficient space for smooth proceeding, it being the case, if the SCCH-25 12 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 driver of the offending vehicle had taken minimal care, the accident would have been postponed or not occurred.
18. The contention of the insurance company that the driver of the offending Vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused or rider of the offending vehicle which is belongs to respondent No.1. The police have referred section 279, 338 of IPC against the accused i.e., driver of the offending Eicher vehicle. The insurance company had stated that as on the date of accident the driver did not possess a valid driving license. The police have not submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for non-holding of the driving license at the time of alleged accident.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a decision 12018 (5) SCC 656 held "24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, 1 Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCCH-25 13 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein it was contended by the vehicle owner that the criminal case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal and for which reason the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act ought to be rejected. This Court negatived the said argument by observing that the nature of proof required to establish culpable rashness, punishable under IPC, is more stringent than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The observation made in para 3 of the judgment would throw some light as to what should be the approach of the Tribunal in motor accident cases. The same reads thus :
"3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, SCCH-25 14 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighbor. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practiced by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly SCCH-25 15 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 indifferent in this regard."
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied"
The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be SCCH-25 16 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the part of driver of the insured. The materials on records are clearly indicates that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent No.1. So, I hold issue No.1 in both the cases held in the affirmative
20. Issue No.2 in MVC 1523/2024:
The petitioner of MVC No.1523/2024 has produced the wound certificate and discharge summaries from the concerned hospital. The wound certificate (Ex.P4) discloses that, the petitioner has sustained (i) Laceration on back of right hand, (ii) Laceration on back of right elbow, (iii) Laceration of the above right side of lip, (iv) Laceration near right eye and (v) Swelling near right clavicular region. Out of these injuries, injury No.4 is grievous in nature. DESAI Hospital discharge summary shows Right clavicle fracture which are grievous in nature. The medical officer has expressed his opinion on the basis of the OPD Book and X-ray that the injury were simple and grievous in nature.
21. In this regard, the petitioner has got examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara as PW.3. The PW.3 SCCH-25 17 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 has stated in the chief examination affidavit paragraph Nos.2 & 3 that "upon clinical examination it is found that the petitioner has sustained Fracture clavicle right" and she underwent Open reduction and internal fixation with LCP placting under GA on 13.01.2024. He has gone through the wound certificate and discharge summary of the petitioner before assessing the disabilities. PW.3 further stated that, on presentation she Complains of the pain and difficulty in using right upper limb for activities for daily living. Inability to hold objects and lift weight and carryout overhead activities. Inability to work as an Agriculturist. On examination wasting of right shoulder girdle is seen, surgical scars are seen over right clavicle. X-ray shows united fracture right clavicle AC joint disruption is seen". The PW.3 has opined that the petitioner has disability of right upper limb at 30% and that of her whole body at 15%.
The PW.3 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination, PW.3 has stated that he has not treated the petitioner. The petitioner came to the disability assessment after completion of one and half year from the date of accident. He has gone through the wound certificate, Discharge summary and further treatment document SCCH-25 18 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 of Desai hospital and Madanapalli hsopital. During the examination it is found that the age of the petitioner is 79 years. He has denied the further suggestions of the counsel for the other side.
22. Before discussing on this point, it is necessary to advert to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay 2 Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be 2 2011 ACJ 1 SCCH-25 19 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
23. Our Hon'ble High Court has held in a case MFA.811 OF 2015 (MV-I) decided on 18 July, 2019 in between Rajanna @ Raju and another V/s Srinivas and another that "It is necessary to understand the meaning of the expression "permanent disability", which has been elucidated in Rajkumar. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and SCCH-25 20 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is
SCCH-25 21 MVC No.1523/2024
& MVC No.1524/2024
permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent,
whether it is permanent total disablement or
permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person."
24. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained simple and grievous injuries. And it certainly affected on functioning/movements over the right shoulder and right hand. The petition discloses that the petitioner was doing Agriculture work. The evidence of the medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, the medical officer has pointed out the difficulties of the injured person to do routine work and also squat on floor, climb upstairs. It means, the petitioner is not in position to do the earlier work effectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a judgment/decision of 3 ALIVELI MALLAREDDY Vs SURTHANI LINGANNA @ CHINNA 3 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19636 of 2024) dated 07.04.2025 SCCH-25 22 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 LINGANNA & Others. in paragraph No.10 "This evidence has been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and having regard to the fact that the Almanco Manual would suggest that the disability when not assessed to the whole body, the disability to the lower limb will be 1/5 and upper limb be ¼ of the disability assessed."
By considering the age, nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered functional disability 7.5% (30% / 1/4 of right upper limb) to the whole body. As such, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 7.5% whole body. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
25. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Govt. Hospital, Madanapalle wherein provided first aid treatment and then she was shifted to Desai Hospital, Madanapalli and admitted as an inpatient, from 10.01.2024 to 15.01.2024 (five days), underwent internal fixation SCCH-25 23 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 with LCP, discharged with advice to take complete bed rest continue medicine and to take followup treatment. The documents placed by the petitioner indicates that he has taken treatment before the said hospitals. The Petitioner has produced the discharge summaries at Ex.P.6. On perusal of this, it shows that she has taken treatment at Desai Hospital from 10.01.2024 to 15.01.2024 (five days) and again she took treatment at Meenakshi Emergency Hospital from 02.02.2024 to 09.02.2024(eight days). The petitioner has produced medical bills at Ex.P.10 for a sum of Rs.1,25,692/-. On careful perusal of the medical bills, it is appears to Court that there is no repetitive bills. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.1,25,692/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of treatment and medical expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospitals as inpatient for a period of nearly 13 days. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.500/-per day for attendant and Rs.500/- for food and nourishment charges, which would comes Rs.13,000/-. A sum of Rs.13,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
SCCH-25 24 MVC No.1523/2024& MVC No.1524/2024
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
26. The claimant has contended that, he was working as an Agriculturist and was earning of Rs.20,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has not placed any kind of document. She has failed to prove her exact income. So, considering the nature of work and age of the petitioner, notional income of Rs.10.000/-pm is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.4,334/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
27. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as PW-3. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability of 7.5% for functional loss of malocclusion. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 75 years. But, the Aadhar Card and DL marked at Ex.P12 clearly discloses that, the age of the petitioner was 78 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 78 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 5. As I have already stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.10,000/-pm, The loss of future earning is SCCH-25 25 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 calculated as Rs.10,000/- (Monthly income X 12 (Months) X 5 X 7.5 (disability) ÷100 = Rs.45,000/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
28. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
29. As per the version of PW.3, the Petitioner needs another surgery for the removal of implant and the estimate of this surgery is around Rs.40,000/-. In this regard neither the petitioner nor PW.3 has produced any estimation bill about further surgery. As per the evidence of Pws.1 & 3 and looking at the earlier treatment cost and the evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Future Medical Expenses.
SCCH-25 26 MVC No.1523/2024& MVC No.1524/2024
30. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses Rs.1,25,692=00 02 Loss of income during Rs.4,334=00 treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.13,000=00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,50,000=00 05 Loss of future earning on Rs.45,000 =00 account of disability 06 Future Medical Expenses Rs.20,000=00 TOTAL Rs.3,58,026=00
31. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,58,026/- with interest at 6% per annum (except on future medical expenses) from the date of petition till realization.
32. Issue No.2 in MVC 1524/2024:
The petitioner of MVC No.1524/2024 has produced the wound certificate and discharge summaries from the concerned hospital. The wound certificate (Ex.P16) discloses that, the petitioner has SCCH-25 27 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 sustained (i) Small laceration on top of forehead, (ii) Laceration on middle of forehead with fresh bleeding,
(iii) Laceration between eyebrows of right hand, (iv) Abrasions on back restricted movement and (v) Swelling on right upper arm with and on examination
- Tenderness. Out of these injuries, injury No.5 is grievous in nature and rest all are simple in nature.
DESAI Hospital discharge summary shows proximal humerus fracture. The medical officer has expressed his opinion on the basis of the OPD Book and X-ray that the injury were simple and grievous in nature.
33. In this regard, the petitioner has got examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara as PW.4. The PW.4 has stated in the chief examination affidavit paragraph Nos.2 & 3 that "upon clinical examination it is found that the petitioner has sustained proximal humerus right sided" and he underwent Open reduction and internal fixation with proximal humerus fracture PHILOS on 09.01.2024. He has gone through the wound certificate and discharge summary of the petitioner before assessing the disabilities. PW.4 further stated that, on presentation he Complains of the pain and difficulty in using right upper limb for activities for daily living. Inability to SCCH-25 28 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 hold objects and lift weight and carryout overhead activities. Inability to work as an Auto Driver. On examination gross wasting of right shoulder girdle is seen, loss of shoulder contour (Wasting and deltoid) with sagging of right shoulder with infra acromial sulcus is seen. X-ray shows nonunion of fracture proximal humerus with implants in situ, osteopenia is seen". The PW.4 has opined that the petitioner has disability of right upper limb at 52% and that of his whole body at 26%.
The PW.4 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination, PW.4 has stated that he has not treated the petitioner. The petitioner came to the disability assessment after completion of 1½ from the date of accident. He has gone through the wound certificate, Discharge summary and further treatment document of Desai hospital and Madanapalli hsopital. He has not assessed any work disability to the petitioner. The fractures are not united and the fracture occurred to the nerve. He has denied the further suggestions of the counsel for the other side.
34. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also SCCH-25 29 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained simple and grievous injuries. And it certainly affected on functioning/movements over the right shoulder and right hand. The petition discloses that the petitioner was RC owner and doing Driving work. The evidence of the medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, the medical officer has pointed out the difficulties of the injured person to do routine work and also squat on floor, climb upstairs. It means, the petitioner is not in position to do the earlier work effectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a judgment/decision of 4 ALIVELI MALLAREDDY Vs SURTHANI LINGANNA @ CHINNA LINGANNA & Others. in paragraph No.10 "This evidence has been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and having regard to the fact that the Almanco Manual would suggest that the disability when not assessed to the whole body, the disability to the lower limb will be 1/5 and upper limb be ¼ of the disability assessed."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a decision of 52025 INSC 1076 held in paragraph No.7 4 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19636 of 2024) dated 07.04.2025 5 Anoop Maheshwari Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.12098-12099 of 2024 dated 04.09.2025 SCCH-25 30 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 that " The disability to be assessed for the purpose of awarding compensation arising from a motor accident is the functional disability which reduces the earning capacity of the claimant and not strictly the medical disability"
By considering the age, nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered functional disability 13% (52% ÷ 1/4 of right upper limb) to the whole body. As such, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 16% whole body. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
35. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Govt. Hospital, Madanapalle wherein provided first aid treatment and then she was shifted to Desai Hospital, Madanapalli and admitted as an inpatient, from 08.01.2024 to 13.01.2024, underwent surgery and discharged with advice to take complete bed rest continue medicine and to take followup treatment. The documents SCCH-25 31 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 placed by the petitioner indicates that he has taken treatment before the said hospitals. The Petitioner has produced the discharge summaries at Ex.P.17. On perusal of this, it shows that he has taken treatment at Desai Hospital from 08.01.2024 to 13.01.2024 (five days) The petitioner has produced medical bills at Ex.P.19 for a sum of Rs.2,617/-. On careful perusal of the medical bills, it is appears to Court that there is no repetitive bills. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.2,617/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of treatment and medical expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospital as inpatient for a period of nearly 5 days. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.500/-per day for attendant and Rs.500/- for food and nourishment charges, which would comes Rs.5,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
36. The claimant has contended that, he was a RC owner cum Driver and was earning of Rs.30,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has not placed any kind of document. He has failed to prove his exact income. So, considering the nature SCCH-25 32 MVC No.1523/2024 & MVC No.1524/2024 of work notional income of Rs.16,500/-pm is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.3,300/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
37. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as PW-4. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability of 13% for functional loss of malocclusion. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 50 years. But, the Aadhar Card and DL marked at Ex.P20 clearly discloses that, the age of the petitioner was 49 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 49 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 13. As I have already stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.16,500/-pm, The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.16,500/- (Monthly income X 12 (Months) X 13 X 16 ÷ 100 = Rs.4,11,840/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant.
SCCH-25 33 MVC No.1523/2024& MVC No.1524/2024 NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
38. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
39. As per the version of PW.4, the Petitioner needs another surgery for achieving union which would cost around Rs.1,00,000/- in private set up. In this regard neither the petitioner nor PW.4 has produced any estimation bill about further surgery. As per the evidence of Pws.2 & 4 and looking at the earlier treatment cost and the evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Future Medical Expenses.
40. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
SCCH-25 34 MVC No.1523/2024& MVC No.1524/2024 Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses Rs. 2,617=00 02 Loss of income during Rs. 3,300=00 treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.5,000=00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,50,000=00 05 Loss of future earning on Rs.4,11,840=00 account of disability 06 Future Medical Expenses Rs.40,000=00 TOTAL Rs.6,12,757=00
41. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,12,757/- with interest at 6% per annum (except on future medical expenses) from the date of petition till realization.
42. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. The respondents have failed to prove their defence. The Policy was in existence as on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondent No.2 has to indemnify the respondent No.1 in paying the compensation to the petitioners in both the cases.
SCCH-25 35 MVC No.1523/2024& MVC No.1524/2024
43. Issue No.3 in both cases:- In view of my findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petitions filed by claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are allowed in part against respondent No.2.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.1523/2024 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.3,58,026/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Eight
Thousand and Twenty Six Only) with interest at 6% per annum (except on future medical expenses) from the date of petition till realization.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.1524/2024 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.6,12,757/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs Twelve Thousands Seven Hundred and Fifty Seven Only) with interest at 6% per annum (except on future medical expenses) from the date of petition till realization.
The Respondent No.2 is liable to
SCCH-25 36 MVC No.1523/2024
& MVC No.1524/2024
pay the compensation to the
claimants and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation, the petitioner in MVC No.1523/2024 is entitled to withdraw entire amount through e-payment on proper identification and the petitioner in MVC No.1524/2024 is entitled to withdraw 70% and remaining 30% shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed.
Keep the copies of this judgment in MVC No.1524/2024.
Draw the award accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 3rd day of December, 2025) (RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-25 37 MVC No.1523/2024
& MVC No.1524/2024 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner:
PW.1 : Smt. Lakshmidevamma PW.2 : Sri. G.Narasimhulu PW.3 : Dr. S.A.Somashekara PW.4 : Dr. S.A.Somashekara
List of documents marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 FIR and complaint
Ex.P2 Complaint and translated copy of
Complaint
Ex.P3 Spot Sketch and translated copy
Ex.P4 Wound Certificate
Ex.P5 Charge sheet
Exs.P6 Discharge summaries 2 in Nos.
&7
Ex.P8 OP Records 11 in Nos.
Ex.P9 X-rays 2 in Nos.
Ex.P10 Medical bills 39 in Nos.
Ex.P11 Prescriptions 3 in Nos.
Ex.P12 Attested copy of Aadhar Card of the
petitioner
Ex.P13 Copy of RC
Ex.P14 Permit
Ex.P15 FC
Ex.P16 Wound Certificate
SCCH-25 38 MVC No.1523/2024
& MVC No.1524/2024
Ex.P17 Discharge Summary
Ex.P18 X-rays 4 in Nos.
Ex.P19 Medical bills 3 in Nos.
Ex.P20 Attested copy of DL
Ex.P21 Prescriptions 4 in Nos.
Ex.P22 OPD Book of Lakshmidevamma
Ex.P23 X-ray 1 in No.
Ex.P24 OPD Book of Narasimhalu
Ex.P25 X-ray 1 in No.
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents.
--- Nil --
List of documents marked for the Respondents:
--- Nil --
(RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.Digitally signed by RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2025.12.08 15:21:58 +0530