Bangalore District Court
Amjed Khan vs Srinivasa Reddy .N on 22 September, 2025
KABC020094372023
BEFORE THE COURT OF I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM &
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER - 2025
PRESENT: SRI.NARENDRA.B.R., B.Sc, L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM
& MEMBER - MACT
MVC No.2104/2023
PETITIONER:
Mr.Amjed Kham S/o.Late Abdul Kudus,
Age: 31 years, Occ: GYM Instructor,
R/at: #655, 14th Division,
Near Gubanna Raji Mill,
Ganigara Beedi, Sarjapura,
Bengaluru - 562125.
(By Sri.Ketan.S.Latur, Adv.)
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS:
1. The Proprietor/Manager,
Sri.Srinivasa Reddy.N.,
M/s.R.C.Concrete Blocks,
No.253-1, Plat Form-2,
Neralur Village and Post,
Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru - 562107.
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.2104/2023
(Owner of Goods Carrier bearing
Regn.No.KA-51-AB-2817).
2. The Manager,
M/s.ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Limited,
9th Floor, The Estate, 121,
Dickenson Road, M.G.Road,
Sivanchetti Gardens,
Bengaluru - 560042.
(Insurer of Goods Carrier bearing
Regn.No.KA-51-AB-2817)
Policy No.3003/240595464/00/B00
Valid upto: 23.02.2023.
(R1 - Exparte)
(R2 - By Sri.Gururaj Salur, Adv.)
J U D G M E N T
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner claiming compensation of ₹.30,00,000/- with interest from the date of petition till its realization for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 01.02.2023 at about 08.00 a.m., the petitioner was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-53-J- 4992 while going from Bellandur to Sarjapura and SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.2104/2023 when he reached near Chambenahalli Gate, Sarjapura, Bengaluru, a Goods Carrier bearing Regn.No.KA-51-AB- 2817, driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the petitioner. Due to the accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, he was shifted to Town Hospital and later to Victoria Hospital and then to Kshema Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient and spent a sum of ₹.3,00,000/- towards medicines, attendant, conveyance and other incidental charges.
Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was GYM Instructor at The Proprietor, Sri.Ashok, IBF GYM, Bellandur and earning a sum of ₹.25,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner has suffered permanent disability. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of Goods Carrier by SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.2104/2023 its driver. The respondents, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
3. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the tribunal and hence he has been placed ex-parte. The respondent No.2 appeared before the tribunal through the counsel and filed the written statement.
4. In the Written Statement, the respondent No.2 has denied the contents of claim petition specifically and categorically. The respondent No.2 has also denied age, occupation and income of petitioner as well as place, time and manner of accident. Further respondent No.2 has contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. Further contended that on SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.2104/2023 the date of accident, the driver of goods vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. Further as on the date of accident, the goods vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness certificate to ply in public place. Further as per FIR there is three days delay and it is mentioned that the accident occurred due to hit by unknown vehicle. Hence, it is clear that the goods vehicle was not at all involved in the alleged accident. Further contended that at the time of alleged accident the petitioner was riding motor cycle without wearing safety headgear. The amount claimed by petitioner is highly exorbitant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned predecessor in office has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioner proves that, SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.2104/2023 he sustained grievous injuries in the accident that occurred on 01.02.2023 at about 08.00 a.m., near Chambenahalli Gate, Sarjapura, Bengaluru Road, while he was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-53-J-4992, due to the rash and negligent driving of Goods Carrier bearing Regn.No.KA-51-AB-2817 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the claim petition? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the contentions of the petition, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1, got examined Dr.S.Ramachandra., Senior Consultant and DNB P.G. at General Hospital, Jayanagar as PW.2, Dr.Jawahar.B.K., working as Urologist, Jayanagar General Hospital as PW.3, one eye witness as PW.4, Marketing Executive and Officer in Administration Department of Kashema Hospital as PW.5 and Dr.Imran, Residency Doctor at Victoria SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.2104/2023 Hospital Campus, Bengaluru examined as PW.6 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 26 and closed their side of evidence. On the other hand, the retired PSI of Kadugodi, Bengaluru got examined as RW.1 and respondent insurance company examined its Legal Manager a RW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed their side of evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. Findings of this tribunal on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative; Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
9. Issue No.1:- The petitioner has contended SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.2104/2023 that on 01.02.2023 at about 08.00 a.m., accident occurred near Chambenahalli Gate, Sarjapura, Bengaluru Road, while he was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-53-J-4992, due to the rash and negligent driving of Goods Carrier bearing Regn.No.KA-51-AB-2817 by its driver in which he sustained grievous injuries.
10. In order to prove rash and negligent driving of Goods Carrier bearing Regn.No.KA-51-AB-2817 by its driver, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1. In the chief examination, PW.1 deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of goods carrier vehicle by its driver the accident occurred. On perusal of cross-examination of PW.1 nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to disprove the case of petitioner.
11. Further, in order to prove accident, the SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.2104/2023 petitioner has produced Ex.P.2, first information statement. On perusal of Ex.P.2 first information, the brother of petitioner by name Sri.Maqsood Ahmed S/o Late Abdul Khuddus has lodged a complaint with police on 04.02.2023 pertaining to the accident occurred on 01.02.2023. The police registered the FIR as per Ex.P.1 for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 337 of IPC and U/s.187 of M.V.Act. In the first information statement as well as FIR, the accident is stated to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle. The accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. The petitioner also furnished spot mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P.4. The said document discloses that the police visited the place of incident after registration of FIR and the place of incident is described in the said document. In the SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.2104/2023 mahazar also, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. Ex.P5 is the Vehicle seizure mahazar. As per said document, the offending vehicle has been seized by the police on the ground that the vehicle has been involved in the accident. The driver or owner of the offending vehicle does not appear to have questioned or challenged the seizure procedure before the concerned authority. The said document discloses the aspect of involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. Ex.P.6 is the Wound certificate which discloses the aspect of injuries sustained by petitioner in the road traffic accident. The I.O., after completion of investigation, filed the final report against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable U/s.279 & 338 of IPC, which is marked as Ex.P.7. Ex.P9 is the notice issued under Sec.133 of SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.2104/2023 IMV Act and reply given to said notice is marked as Ex.P.10. In the notice given by the IO, there is mention about involvement of offending vehicle and also about negligence of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. The owner of the offending vehicle has given reply to the notice, as per Ex.P.10. In the reply, the owner of the offending vehicle does not appear to have disputed the aspect of involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and also does not appear to have denied the aspect of negligence of the driver in the cause of accident. The said document discloses the aspect of involvement of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. In the final report also, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. The police filed the final report after detailed investigation. The driver or owner of offending vehicle does not SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.2104/2023 appear to have questioned the correctness of the investigation. No satisfactory materials are placed by the respondents to show that the investigation is not conducted in a proper manner. The driver or owner of offending vehicle does not appear to have challenged or questioned the FIR or final report filed by the police. In the FIR as well as final report, the accident is stated to have been caused due to negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle which aspect does not appear to have been challenged in any manner. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.8 Order sheet of C.C.No.17992/2023, wherein the police have filed charge sheet against the accused by name Raju for the offence punishable U/s.279, 338 of IPC, R/w.Sec.187 of M.V.Act and the accused appeared before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal pleaded guilty of the offences for which he has been charge sheeted.
SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.2104/2023
12. Further, on perusal of the materials, there appears to be delay of three days in lodging first information statement. The accident occurred on 01.02.2023. As per Ex.P.2, first information statement, the brother of petitioner has lodged a complaint with police on 04.02.2023. As per the materials placed on record, there was three days delay in lodging complaint. The petitioner in his complaint explained that he was in hospital with his brother and thereafter lodged the complaint through his brother to the police. Further, on perusal of hospital documents placed by the petitioner, immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to the hospital. In general parlance, the injured as well as his family members think about providing best treatment to the patient rather than to lodge complaint before the police. Only on the ground of delay in lodging complaint the claim SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.2104/2023 cannot be doubted and the case cannot be dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan in (2011) 4 SCC 693, held that delay in lodging a FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimants case. In view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this tribunal cannot dismiss the petition only on the ground of delay in lodging the complaint. No materials are placed to create doubt about contention of petitioner related to accident and negligence of respondent in the cause of accident. Merely because there is delay in lodging the first information statement, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered to be doubtful.
13. The respondents not furnished any satisfactory materials in order to rebut or controvert the documents furnished by petitioner related to negligence of driver of offending vehicle. PW.1 is cross examined on behalf of SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.2104/2023 respondents and in the cross examination also, nothing to disprove or disbelieve the contention of petitioners could be elicited. No satisfactory materials are being placed before the Tribunal to disprove the contention of petitioners pertaining to the aspect of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident.
14. On the other hand, the retired PSI of Kadugodi, Bengaluru examined as RW.1 and respondent insurance company examined its Legal Manager a RW.2 and got marked one document at Ex.R1. The evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 does not substantiate the contention of respondents. The evidence of RW.1 and RW.2 is not of much assistance to the respondents in order to substantiate their contention related to cause of accident and negligence of driver of offending vehicle.
SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.2104/2023
15. The respondents not placed satisfactory materials before the tribunal to disprove case of petitioner. In the absence of sufficient and satisfactory materials to the contrary, the documents furnished by the petitioner are to be considered for ascertaining the aspect of negligence. The respondents not furnished any materials to show that there is no negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in the cause of accident. On perusal of entire record, it discloses that the accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents produced as per Exs.P.1 to P.10, this tribunal is of the opinion that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Goods Carrier bearing Regn.No.KA-51-AB-2817 by its driver and same has SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.2104/2023 resulted in grievous injuries to the Petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.1 answered in the Affirmative.
16. Issue No.2: In view of answering issue No.1 in the Affirmative, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. In order to assess the compensation, the Tribunal has to look into several factors like injury, pain and suffering sustained by the petitioner and amount spent by the petitioner towards medical expenses, food and extra nourishment and medical attendants, conveyance, loss of income during treatment, disability, loss of amenities etc.
i) Towards injury, pain and suffering:- The petitioner contended that due to accident he sustained injuries and underwent surgery and later discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment. In order to prove the injuries sustained, the petitioner has produced Wound certificate marked SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.2104/2023 at Ex.P.6, wherein it discloses the aspect of injuries sustained by petitioner and that the injuries are grievous in nature. Further, the petitioner has produced Ex.P14 - Discharge Summaries issued by Institute of Nephro Urology, Victoria Hospital and Kshema Hospital and got examined Dr.S.Ramachandra as PW.2, Dr.Jawahar.B.K., as PW.3 and Dr.Imran as PW.6 and got marked documents at Ex.P13 & 14. PW.2/doctor has deposed that he examined the petitioner for assessment of permanent physical disability and assessed permanent residual physical disability of whole body at 25%. PW.3/doctor has deposed that he examined the petitioner for assessment of permanent physical disability to urinary bladder, repair for bladder injury and has no reflex or voluntary control of bladder and stated that it is class-4 impairment of whole body to an extent of 60%. By considering the injuries and facts SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.2104/2023 and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the view that the compensation of ₹.50,000/- appears just and reasonable towards pain and suffering.
(ii) Towards Medical Expenses: The petitioner has claimed compensation towards medical expenses. The petitioner contended that he took treatment at the Hospital. The petitioner has produced 87 medical bills for a sum of ₹.1,73,003/- marked at Ex.P.17 and 45 medical prescriptions marked at Ex.P.18. The respondents not furnished any satisfactory materials in order to rebut or disprove the said documents. PW.1 is cross examined on behalf of respondent and in the cross examination also, nothing to rebut or doubt the medical bills, is elicited. The respondents not rebutted the medical bills by placing cogent and substantive evidence. So, this tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.1,73,003/- appears just and reasonable towards SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.2104/2023 medical expenses.
(iii) Towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant charges: On perusal of records, the accident occurred on 01.02.2023 and the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient at the hospital. On perusal of materials, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient at Hospital for the injuries sustained by him. So, during the time of treatment, the petitioner might have required good food and extra nourishment. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.14 - Discharge Summaries, wherein it discloses that the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient from 02.02.2023 to 13.02.2023, 17.02.2023 to 22.02.2023 and again from 21.03.2023 & 22.03.2023 i.e., for a period of 20 days. Considering the said facts, the Tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.500/- per day for 20 days to a sum of ₹.10,000/- appears just and SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.2104/2023 reasonable towards food, extra nourishment and medical attendant.
(iv) Towards Conveyance:
The petitioner is the resident of Gubanna Ragi Mill, Ganigara Beedi, Sarjapura, Bengaluru and he has been admitted to hospital for treatment. In order to prove the said aspect, the petitioner has produced Discharge Summaries marked at Ex.P.14. The petitioner might have incurred expenses towards conveyance during the period of treatment. Considering the injuries and facts of the case, the tribunal is of view that the compensation of ₹.10,000/- appears just and proper towards conveyance charges.
(v) Towards loss of income during treatment:
The petitioner has contended that he was a GYM Instructor at The Proprietor, Sri.Ashok, IBF GYM, Bellandur and earning a sum of ₹.25,000/- per month. SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.2104/2023 In order to prove his income, the petitioner has not produced any documents. The petitioner not furnished any satisfactory materials to show that he was earning ₹.25,000/- per month. No satisfactory materials are placed by the petitioner in order to substantiate his contention related to occupation and income. In the absence of satisfactory materials, notional income of petitioner is to be taken into consideration. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the notional income of the petitioner considered as ₹.16,000/-. On perusal of records, it appears that petitioner might not have attended his work for some time due to accidental injuries. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for ₹.30,000/- towards loss of income during treatment.
(vi) Towards Loss of future earning capacity:
The petitioner has contended that due to SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.2104/2023 accident, he was admitted as an inpatient at hospital and sustained permanent disablement. The petitioner also examined Dr.S.Ramachandra, working as Senior Consultant and DNB PG teacher at General Hospital, Jayanagar and examined as PW.2. PW.2/Doctor examined the patient clinically and radiologically to assess disabilities. The doctor deposed that petitioner has sustained injuries like poly trauma with pelvic fracture with intraperitoneal bladder injury (fractures bilatral superior pubic rami, left interior pubic rami, right sacro iliac joint disruption with urethral rupture and bladder injury) and underwent operation of exploratory laparotomy proceeds, primary repair of bladder and bowel serosa on 02.02.2023. The witness further deposed that the fractures of pelvis are treated conservatively and discharged. Further in second admission at Kshema hospital, wherein the SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.2104/2023 doctor diagnosed that petitioner sustained degloving injury, polytrauma with pelvic fracture and intra periotoneal bladder injury and underwent procedure of removal of serous fluid from left lumbar region and left thigh done. Further in third admission, he diagnosed for removal of catheter and discharged. The doctor examined the petitioner for assessment of disability and assessed the permanent residual physical disability to the whole body at 25%. In order to prove the disability, doctor has produced Ex.P.19 & 20 i.e., OPD Record and X-ray. PW.2 deposed that petitioner complained of limps while walking and walks with support of walker frame, a surgical scar of about 10 cms and long is preset in mdiline between umbilius and symphysis pubis. Further as per radiological X-rays reveals that fractures of superior pubic rami right malunion, left union, inferior pubic rami malunion, mild SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.2104/2023 disruption of symphysis pubis and disruption of sacro iliac joint with alteration of shape of pelvic inlet. PW.2 not stated that the petitioner could not be able to do his routine activities in a normal way. Further Dr.Jawahar.B.K, who was working as Urologist, Jayanagar General Hospital, Bengaluru, is examined as PW.3. PW.3/doctor deposed that petitioner sustained degloving injury, polytrauma with pelvic injury, intraperitoneal urinary bladder injury and underwent surgeries of exploratory laprotomy and repair of the bladder and bowel and pelvis fracture repair. Further petitioner complains of no control over urination and difficulty in getting erection. Further petitioner has to undergo urinary bladder repair for bladder injury and has no reflex or voluntary control of the bladder it is class 4 - impairment of whole body at 60%. In order to prove the disability, doctor has produced Ex.P.21 SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.2104/2023 i.e., OPD Record. Further petitioner also examined Marketing Executive and Officer in Administration Department of Kashema Hospital as PW.5 and got marked documents at Ex.P22 to 24 i.e., notarized copy of Aadhaar Card, authorization letter and case sheet.
By considering the oral and documentary evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner can do his work with some difficulty. As per ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar V/s. Ajay Kumar and another and considering facts and circumstances of the case, the functional disability is assessed at 30%.
In order to prove age, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.15 - Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1992. The accident occurred on 01.02.2023. As SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.2104/2023 per the document furnished by petitioner, his age appears to be 31 years at the time of accident. The respondents not furnished any satisfactory materials in order to controvert or rebut the documents furnished by petitioner related to the age. In the absence of materials to the contrary, the documents furnished by petitioner are to be considered for ascertaining the age. As per the materials on record, the age of petitioner is 31 years at the time of accident and same is taken into consideration for applying multiplier. As per Smt.Sarla Verma case multiplier applicable is '16'.
As per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar V/s. Ajay Kumar and another, this tribunal not deducted personal expenses of petitioner out of his gross income. Hence, future earning capacity of the petitioner due to permanent disability works out as under :
SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.2104/2023
Annual Income before accident : (₹.16,000/- x 12) = ₹.1,92,000/-
Loss of future earning p.a. (30% of prior annual income) = ₹.57,600/-.
Multiplier applicable with reference to age - 16 Loss of future earnings - (₹.57,600/- x 16) = ₹.9,21,600/-.
The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon following citations:
1. 2022 AAC 608 (J&K) AIR Online 2021 J&K 907 in between National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Mohd.
Anwar Bhat and others.
2. 2024 ACJ 2142 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in between Aabid Khan Vs. Dinesh and others.
3. 2020 ACJ 2517 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in between Lalan.D and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.
4. 2023 ACJ 490 of Hon'ble High Court of SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.2104/2023 Karnataka, Dharward Bench in between Manjunath Vs. Sunil and another.
This Tribunal has carefully considered the said decisions and said decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for ₹.9,21,600/- under the head of loss of future earning capacity.
(vii) Deprivation of Future Amenities:- The doctor has opined that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he is unable to do his day- today activities as earlier. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is of the view that compensation of ₹.20,000/- appears just and reasonable under the head deprivation of future amenities.
17. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as follows:
SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.2104/2023
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
a. Towards injury pain and ₹.50,000/-
suffering
b. Towards Medical Expenses ₹.1,73,003/-
c. Towards food and extra ₹.10,000/-
nourishment and medical
attendant
d. Towards conveyance ₹.10,000/-
e. Towards loss of income ₹.30,000/-
during treatment
f. Towards loss of future ₹.9,21,600/-
earning
g. Deprivation of future ₹.20,000/-
amenities
Total compensation ₹.12,14,603/-
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of ₹.12,14,603/-.
18. In view of ratio and dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA.No.100090 of 2014 C/w. MFA.No.25107 of 2013 between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another, the petitioner is entitled for interest @ SCCH-11 31 MVC.No.2104/2023 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
19. The petitioner has filed petition against the respondents No.1 and 2. It is already held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Goods Carrier bearing Regn.No.KA-51-AB- 2817 by its driver. The petitioner filed the present petition against respondents seeking compensation. The materials on record disclose that respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Further the materials on record disclose that the offending vehicle was having valid and effective policy of insurance and the driver of the vehicle was having valid licence at the time of accident. The respondent No.2 specifically contended that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit at the time of accident and same is in SCCH-11 32 MVC.No.2104/2023 violation of condition of the policy. As such, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. In order to substantiate the said contention, the respondent No.2 got examined the I.O as RW.1. RW.1 stated the aspect of conducting the investigation and giving notice to the owner of the offending vehicle as per Sec.133 of M.V.Act and receiving the reply along with documents of the vehicle. It is pertinent to note that the RW.1 stated that he has not received permit of the vehicle during the course of his investigation and he received the document related to permit of the vehicle only after receipt of summons from the tribunal. The witness stated that as per the document collected by him, the offending vehicle was not having valid permit as on the date of accident. On perusal of the evidence of RW.1, he does not appear to have conducted investigation related to SCCH-11 33 MVC.No.2104/2023 the aspect of validity of permit as on the date of accident. The contents of the final report do not disclose the aspect of incorporating relevant provision for not having valid permit. Further, the attested copy of history of vehicle related to permit is furnished before the tribunal which is marked as Ex.R.3. The said document pertains to the offending vehicle and information is given related to the existence and validity of permit. As per the entries in Ex.R.3, the offending vehicle was having permit from 17.03.2018 to 16.03.2023. The said document also discloses that permit to the offending vehicle has been issued on 17.03.2018. Ex.R.3 is the history of permit related to the offending vehicle and said document discloses the aspect of existence of permit pertaining to the offending vehicle which is valid from 17.03.2018 to 16.03.2023. The accident occurred on 01.02.2023 and as per the Ex.R.3, the SCCH-11 34 MVC.No.2104/2023 offending vehicle was having valid permit as on the date of accident. As the investigating officer does not appear to have conducted any investigation related to existence of permit, the said document does not appear to have been collected by the I.O. Ex.R.3 discloses existence of valid permit as on the date of the accident. No satisfactory materials are placed before the tribunal in order to rebut Ex.R.3 and its contents. Though RW.1 stated in the evidence regarding non-existence of permit at the time of accident to the offending vehicle, the said aspect is negated by Ex.R.3. The document clearly discloses existence of valid permit at the time of accident to the offending vehicle and the evidence of RW.1 related to the aspect of permit is contracted by said document. On consideration of materials placed before the tribunal, it clearly discloses the aspect of existence of valid permit as on the date of SCCH-11 35 MVC.No.2104/2023 accident and as such, the contention of the respondent No.2 does not sustain for consideration. The respondent No.2 not substantiated their contention related to non-existence of valid permit to the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The document placed before the tribunal indicates that the offending vehicle was having valid permit at the time of accident. As such, the contention of insurance company is not substantiated by cogent and substantive materials. Hence, the insurance company cannot be absolved from the liability to pay the compensation.
20. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon following citations:
1. ILR 2021 KAR 146 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in between The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Belagavi Vs. Smt.Reshama and Others.SCCH-11 36 MVC.No.2104/2023
2. ILR 2009 KAR 2921 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. B.C.Kumar and another.
3. ILR 2014 KAR 3336 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in between Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Smt.Kempamma and Others.
21. This Tribunal carefully perused the above decisions relied by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the decisions relied by respondent No.2 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, the respondent No.1 & 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
22. Issue No.3: In view of the findings given SCCH-11 37 MVC.No.2104/2023 on the above said issues, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following:
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of ₹.12,14,603/-
(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred and Three only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioner. Respondent No.2 being the
insurer is primarily liable to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of award.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount, 40% shall be deposited SCCH-11 38 MVC.No.2104/2023 in the name of petitioner for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank and the remaining 60% shall be released in favour of petitioner on proper identification.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court in MFA.No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioner hereby directed to produce particulars of his Bank Account, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contained compulsorily photographs of petitioner, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioner shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest thereon by respondent, the petitioner is entitled to receive amount as SCCH-11 39 MVC.No.2104/2023 mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
Bank shall not advance loan on such FD, and shall not cause premature release of FD without permission from the Tribunal.
Bank shall release amount along with interest thereon in favour of petitioner on proper verification and identification or credit said amount to his account after expiry of three years period of deposit, without waiting for further order of court. The Advocate fee is fixed at ₹.1,000/-. Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer over computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 22nd day of September, 2025.) (NARENDRA.B.R) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-11 40 MVC.No.2104/2023 A N N E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
PW.1 Sri.Amjed Khan PW.2 Dr.S.Ramachandra PW.3 Dr.Jawahar.B.K PW.4 Sri.Devendra PW.5 Sri.Mani.M PW.6 Dr.Imran
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Complaint Ex.P3 Statement of injured Ex.P4 Spot Panchanama Ex.P5 Vehicle Seizure Mahazar Ex.P6 Wound Certificate Ex.P7 Charge Sheet Ex.P8 Order sheet in CC.No.17992/2023 Ex.P9 133 Notice Ex.P9(a) Signature SCCH-11 41 MVC.No.2104/2023 Ex.P10 Reply to notice Ex.P9(a) Signature Ex.P11 Indemnity bond Ex.P12 ER Record Ex.P13 Outpatient Recording Ex.P14 Discharge Summaries Ex.P15 Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P16 Laboratory Investigation Record Ex.P17 Medical bills Ex.P18 Medical prescriptions Ex.P19 OPD Record Ex.P20 X-ray Ex.P21 OPD Record Ex.P22 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card Ex.P23 Authorization letter Ex.P24 Case sheet Ex.P25 Authorization letter Ex.P26 Case sheet SCCH-11 42 MVC.No.2104/2023 LIST OF WITNESSES ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS : RW.1 Sri.K.Shivalingaiah RW.2 Smt.Anagha.G.R LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS : Ex.R1 Notarized copy of DL Ex.R2 Authorization letter Ex.R3 Registered vehicle details (NARENDRA.B.R.) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACJM & MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU