Bangalore District Court
M. Kesava vs Siva.M on 8 September, 2025
KABC020350312021
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, ACJM AND MEMBER-MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-13)
DATED: THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025.
PRESENT: Smt.Shyla S.M., B.B.M. LL.B.,
II Addl.Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes
BENGALURU
M.V.C.No.112 OF 2022
Petitioner: Sri.M. Kesava
S/o.M.Chiranjeevi
Aged about 32 years
Since Neurologically Deficit Rep by
his Father as Natural Guardian -
M. Chiranjeevi
S/o.Late M.Narayanaswamy
Aged about 70 yeas,
R/At No.3-331/3,
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Oldpet,
Palamaner Town, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri.T.V.Ramesh. Adv.,)
Vs.
SCCH-13 2 MVC.112/2022
Respondents: 1. Sri. Siva.M.
S/o.Munirathinam
Major,
R/At Srirampalyam Village,
Agravaram Post, Gudiyatham Taluk,
Vellore District,
Tamil Nadu-632001.
(Exparte)
2. The Cholamandalam MS Gen Ins.
Co Ltd.,
Unit No.4, 9th Floor,
Golden Heights Complex,
59th C Cross, Industrial Suburb
Rajajinagar 4th M Block,
Bengaluru-10.
(By Sri. Sunil Kumar K.N., Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
This petition under Section 166 MV act is filed by the Petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, on 26/11/ 2021, at about 10:30 p.m., he was proceeding as a cleaner in a goods vehicle bearing registration No.TN-01-BB-6436. The vehicle was transporting a SCCH-13 3 MVC.112/2022 load of livestock (ducks) from Choutuppal towards Pebberu. When the vehicle reached near Koheda Gutta on ORR Pedda Abdullapurmet Mandal, Rachakonda District, Telangana state, the driver of the said goods vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) drove it at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the right-side back wheel of the vehicle burst, causing the vehicle to turtle. The petitioner, who was seated in the cabin, was caught inside. Due to the impact of the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Maxi cure Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent inpatient treatment and surgery. Thereafter, he was shifted to CMC, Vellore, where he underwent further treatment in the ICU.
3. The petitioner submits that, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability and is unable to lead a normal life as he did prior to the accident. He claims to have incurred expenses of about Rs. 20,00,000/- towards medical treatment, medicines, conveyance, and incidental charges.
SCCH-13 4 MVC.112/20224. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was 32 years old, working as a cleaner under Respondent No. 1, and earning a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/-. He submits that, due to the accidental injuries, he has lost his earning capacity and income.
5. The accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner prays that suitable compensation be awarded against Respondent No. 1 (owner) and Respondent No. 2 (insurer) of the offending vehicle.
6. In response to the petition notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared through counsel and filed the written statement. The Respondent No.1 did not turn up and was placed exparte.
7. The Respondent No.2 has filed its written statement by admitting the issuance of policy however, its liability if any is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent no 2 has contended that the owner of the alleged offending vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. It has SCCH-13 5 MVC.112/2022 denied that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of driver of offending vehicle and other averments of the petition. Respondent no. 2 further has disputed that the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, avocation and income of the Petitioner, and the future expenses claimed by him, expenses incurred by him and disability suffered by him and has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following Issues were framed :-
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained injuries when he was traveling in a Goods vehicle bearing No. TN-01-BB-
6435 on 26-11-2021 about 10.30 p.m. near Koheda Gutta on ORR Pedda Abdulapurmet Mandal, Rachakonda District, Telangana State, only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said goods vehicle?
2. What compensation Petitioner is entitled?
3. What order ?
9. In order to prove the claim, the doctor is examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 and 2. Further, the father of the petitioner is SCCH-13 6 MVC.112/2022 examined as PW-2 as the petitioner is neurologically deficit and got marked the documents as per Ex.P.3 to P.18.
10. Respondent No.2 has examined the IO is examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents a Ex.R.1 to 6. The driver of offending vehicle is examined as RW-2. The official of respondent No.2 is examined as RW-3 and copy of policy is marked as Ex.R.7.
11. By considering the available materials on record and the arguments addressed by the parties, I have answered the above Issues as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative. Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative. Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
12. ISSUE NO.1:- The petitioner has specifically pleaded that on 26.11.2021 at about 10:30 p.m., while travelling as a cleaner in the goods vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-01-BB-6436, the vehicle was being driven SCCH-13 7 MVC.112/2022 at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. The right-side rear wheel burst, due to which the vehicle turtled and the petitioner, who was seated in the cabin, sustained grievous injuries. He was treated at Max i care Hospital, Hyderabad, and later shifted to CMC, Vellore, where he underwent surgery and ICU treatment.
13. To substantiate his case, the petitioner's father was examined as PW2. PW2 filed an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC and reiterated the averments of the petition. He produced Exhibits P3 to P10. The police documents including the FIR, charge sheet, and allied records, which clearly show that the police, after due investigation, filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.
14. PW2 was cross-examined by the insurer, and it was suggested that the petitioner himself was driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence, and a false complaint was lodged after nine days of the accident. PW2 denied this suggestion and voluntarily stated that the petitioner did not know how to drive a motor vehicle.
SCCH-13 8 MVC.112/202215. The Investigating Officer (IO) was examined as a witness on behalf of the insurer/ respondent no 2 as RW1. He admitted that the complaint was lodged after nine days but explained that the delay was because the petitioner was unconscious. He further deposed that, since the doctors did not know the cause of the injuries at the time, the MLC was not forwarded by the hospital. He produced the charge sheet, job card, RC Book, driving licence of the driver, MLC report, and the charge sheet (Ex.R1 to EX R6). He categorically confirmed that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, and denied the suggestion that a false complaint was filed in collusion with the owner.
16. The driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW2. In his chief-examination, he supported the petitioner's case by admitting that the accident occurred due to a tyre burst and the vehicle turtled, causing grievous injuries to the petitioner. He stated that he himself sustained simple injuries. Although the insurer/ respondent no 2 treated him as hostile, he denied the suggestion that no accident took place. In cross-examination by the petitioner, RW2 SCCH-13 9 MVC.112/2022 admitted that he was driving the vehicle at high speed, that the accident occurred due to his negligence, and further admitted that he pleaded guilty in the criminal case and paid the fine.
17. The insurer examined its official as RW3, the owner had not paid additional premium to cover the risk of a cleaner, and therefore the claim was not maintainable. He also raised the plea of 11 days' delay in lodging the complaint. However, RW3 did not produce any documentary evidence to show collusion. False complaint lodged by the first informant.
18. It is pertinent to note that Respondent No.2, though he filed a written statement, merely denied the averments of the petition in a general manner. He did not take any specific defence in relation to the accident. However, during cross-examination of PW2, RW1 and RW2 learned counsel for Respondent No.2 suggested that the petitioner himself was driving the goods vehicle at the material time, despite not having a valid and effective driving licence, and that in order to cover up this fact, a false complaint was lodged after a delay of nine days. They denied the suggestion.
SCCH-13 10 MVC.112/2022Further PW-2 voluntarily clarified that his son (the petitioner) did not know how to drive any vehicle.
19. The IO also stated that the complaint was lodged by the owner of the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion that, on the date of accident, one K. Vinayak was not driving the offending vehicle and that the petitioner himself was the driver. He also denied the further suggestion that, in collusion with the owner, he had filed a false charge sheet.
20. It is pertinent to note that RW - 3 did not assert that the false complaint was lodged in collusion with the petitioner. His evidence was confined to the stand that the owner had not paid any additional premium to cover the risk of a cleaner under the insurance policy. Therefore, according to RW - 3, the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was not maintainable. He further contended that the petitioner was travelling as a gratuitous passenger , and hence, the insurer was not liable. RW - 3 also pointed out that there was a delay of 11 days in lodging the complaint, and that the delay SCCH-13 11 MVC.112/2022 had not been explained with supporting documents, and therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed.
21. On careful consideration of the cross- examination of PW1, RW1, RW2, RW3 and other material on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the police documents support the petitioner's version of the accident. Though the insurance company raised a specific defence that the owner of the offending vehicle colluded with the police and lodged a false complaint to help the petitioner, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate such collusion. It is also pertinent to note that the insurer did not raise such a defence in its written statement, and whatever contentions are now urged appear to be an afterthought. Evidence led without pleadings cannot be considered.
22. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, intended to provide relief to victims of road traffic accidents. In such proceedings, the petitioner is only required to prove his case on the preponderance of probabilities, and not on the strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt applicable in criminal trials.
SCCH-13 12 MVC.112/202223. In view of the overall material and evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, and as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
24. ISSUE NO.2 :- As per Ex.P.11 Discharge summary, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:
1. Traumatic brain injury sequelae.
2. S/P Left FTP SDH with Mass effect
3. S/P left FTP Decompressive craniotomy + Duroplasty
4. Right hemiplegia
5. Fracture left proximal humerus
6. S/P tracheostomy The doctor opined that the above injuries are grievous in nature.SCCH-13 13 MVC.112/2022
25. Due to the accident the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was taken to Maxi Cure hospital, Hyderabad. Wherein, he was treated as an inpatient and underwent surgery. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, petitioner has been suffering from permanent disability and is unable to lead normal life as he did prior to the accident.
26. The Petitioner has examined Dr.Veeresha U Mathad. Senior Consultant neuro surgeon at Manipal hospital, Bengaluru as PW-1 and he has produced Clinical notes and CT scan film with report at Ex.P.1 and 2.
27. PW-1, Dr. Veeresh U. Mathad, deposed that the petitioner met with a road traffic accident on 26- 11-2021. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained severe head injury, lost consciousness, and had ENT bleeding. He was immediately shifted to Maxi Cure Hospital, Hyderabad for further management. At the time of admission, the petitioner was unconscious, and his GCS score was E1V1M3. He was admitted as an inpatient, evaluated, and treated for severe traumatic brain injury. CT scans revealed acute SCCH-13 14 MVC.112/2022 subdural hematoma (SDH) in the left fronto-parieto- temporal region with mass effect and midline shift, along with multiple facial bone fractures.
28. On 27-11-2021, the petitioner underwent emergency left FTP decompressive craniotomy with evacuation of hematoma and duroplasty, and the bone flap was placed in the abdominal wall under general anesthesia. After the surgery, he was kept in the ICU on ventilator support.
29. Since the petitioner required long-term ventilator support, a tracheostomy was performed on 04-12-2021. He continued to remain in ICU under close monitoring.
30. Subsequently, the petitioner was readmitted to the Neurosurgery Unit at Christian Medical College, Vellore, on 22-05-2022 for further treatment. On 01- 06-2022, he underwent left FTP cranioplasty with PMMA. Thus, PW-2 has confirmed that the petitioner sustained a severe traumatic brain injury, underwent multiple neurosurgical procedures, and required prolonged hospitalization, ICU care, ventilator support, tracheostomy, and later cranioplasty.
SCCH-13 15 MVC.112/202231. PW-2 further deposed that post-operatively, the neurological condition of the petitioner did not improve. He was discharged on 05-06-2022 with advice for continued medical care and rehabilitation.
32. At the time of discharge, the petitioner remained completely dependent. He had a tracheostomy tube in situ, a Foley's catheter for urinary management, and a Ryle's tube for feeding. His mobility was restricted to a wheelchair, and he was dependent on attendants for all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). His bladder was managed with an indwelling catheter, and bowel control was maintained only with diapers. Following discharge, the petitioner was given regular physiotherapy and neuro- rehabilitation, both on an OPD basis and at home. He was subsequently seen at the Outpatient Department of Unity Lifeline Hospital, Bengaluru, for neurological disability assessment, with the last consultation being on 24-11-2023.
33. PW-2 emphasized that prior to the accident, the petitioner was apparently doing well in his work. However, since the accident, he has been bedridden SCCH-13 16 MVC.112/2022 and has shown no significant improvement in his neurological condition.
34. According to PW-2, the petitioner is presently unable to get up or roll over in bed on his own, suffering from weakness of both upper and lower limbs, unable to speak due to tracheostomy,in need of constant supervision and assistance from family members for basic activities such as feeding, bathing, urination, defecation, and repositioning in bed, Unable to recognize people or respond to commands, completely incontinent, having no voluntary control over urination and defecation. PW-2 concluded that the petitioner is in a state of severe permanent disability, requiring continuous medical support, nursing care and family assistance for survival.
35. On clinical examination, PW-2 found that the petitioner is bedridden. He opens his eyes spontaneously but has no eye contact, and although awake, he remains unconscious. His Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score was 4 (E4VtM3), indicating a very poor neurological status. He does not recognize SCCH-13 17 MVC.112/2022 persons, is unable to obey or follow commands, and does not understand anything.
36. The petitioner is maintained on a tracheostomy tube for breathing, a Foley's catheter for urination, and a Ryle's tube for feeding. He is unable to speak. He presents with quadriplegia, along with contractures in both upper and lower limbs, and significant spasticity in all four limbs. He is in a persistent vegetative state, with severely impaired higher mental functions and no communication. A surgical scar from the left FTP craniotomy is visible, and a right abdominal wall bone flap site is noted.
37. On motor system assessment, PW-2 noted severe weakness (quadriparesis/tetraparesis) as per Medical Research Council (MRC) muscle strength grading:
i)Right Upper Limb: Shoulder 1/5, Elbow 1/5, Wrist 1/5, Hand grip 0/5
ii)Left Upper Limb: Shoulder 2/5, Elbow 2/5, Wrist 2/5, Hand grip 0/5
iii) Right Lower Limb: Hip 1/5, Knee 1/5, Ankle 1/5
iv) Left Lower Limb: Hip 1/5, Knee 1/5, Ankle 1/5 SCCH-13 18 MVC.112/2022
38. Other findings included bilateral foot drop, increased tone in all limbs, and spasticity of both upper and lower limbs. He has no voluntary control over bowel or bladder, requiring indwelling catheterization and diapers. The petitioner is fully dependent on attendants for all daily activities, including feeding, toileting, turning in bed, and personal hygiene, and requires constant nursing care.
39. A CT scan of the brain (24-11-2023) revealed diffuse cerebral atrophy, white matter volume loss, edema, and gliotic changes. Neuropsychological evaluation could not be performed because the petitioner does not understand, communicate, or respond to commands.
40. PW-2 opined that the petitioner suffers from a severe, permanent disability exceeding 80% due to traumatic brain injury, rendering him bedridden and completely dependent on others for survival and daily activities. He further clarified that this constitutes a functional disability of 100% irrespective of avocation, as the petitioner is incapable of performing any work or independent function.
SCCH-13 19 MVC.112/202241. During cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that he had not treated the petitioner earlier but had verified the wound certificates, discharge summaries, conducted clinical examination, and reviewed CT scan findings. He stated that brain injuries, unlike other injuries, take prolonged time to heal (minimum 6 months to 1 year) and may leave permanent scarring. He denied the suggestion that his assessment of disability was premature, although he conceded that some minimal scope for recovery exists. He reiterated that, despite hospital transfers and treatments, the petitioner continues to remain in a persistent vegetative state, fully dependent on tracheostomy for breathing and continuous family and nursing care.
42. In the present case, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that he was employed as a cleaner in the lorry. The age of the petitioner, is about 32 years. It is significant to note that the petitioner himself has not appeared before this Court to tender evidence, and on his behalf, his father deposed.
43. Upon careful consideration of the medical records, wound certificate, discharge summaries, and SCCH-13 20 MVC.112/2022 particularly the evidence of PW-2 Dr. Veeresh U. Mathur, it is clearly established that the petitioner sustained a very severe head injury in the road traffic accident. The medical evidence demonstrates that the petitioner has remained in a persistent vegetative state, is unable to move or communicate, does not recognize persons, has no control over bowel and bladder, and is completely bedridden. He is dependent on tracheostomy for breathing, catheterization for urination, Ryle's tube for feeding, and requires constant nursing care and assistance even for basic daily needs.
44. From the deposition of PW-2, it is also evident that the petitioner has developed quadriplegia with spasticity and contractures of both upper and lower limbs, and his Glasgow Coma Scale remains poor at 4. The doctor has opined that the overall permanent disability exceeds 80%, and functionally, the petitioner is totally dependent on others for survival.
45. After a thorough assessment of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Tribunal finds that the petitioner's condition is indeed critical and SCCH-13 21 MVC.112/2022 permanent in nature. Considering that prior to the accident the petitioner was engaged in manual work as a cleaner and was capable of earning his livelihood, and now is unable to perform any kind of work or occupation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the functional disability of the petitioner shall be taken at 80%. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner has suffered 80% functional disability which has resulted in complete loss of earning capacity and livelihood.
46. Thus this tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner who sustained the injuries is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
47. Loss of future income on account of permanent disability: the petitioner's condition is indeed critical and permanent in nature. Considering that prior to the accident the petitioner was engaged in manual work as a cleaner and was capable of earning his livelihood, and now is unable to perform any kind of work or occupation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner has suffered 80% functional disability due to accidental injuries.
SCCH-13 22 MVC.112/202248. The Petitioner has stated that he was aged about 32 years, in support of his age he has produced his Aadhar card at Ex.P.17, which shows his date of birth as 10-06-1989 . Therefore, as on date of accident his age is considered as 32 years. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 16.
49. The Petitioner has claimed that he was a cleaner and was earning more than ₹.20,000/- p.m. To prove his income he has not produced any supportive documents. In the absence of sufficient materials to prove the income of the Petitioner, it would be reasonable to take the notional income of the Petitioner. The alleged accident has taken place in the year 2021, the notional income of the injured could be assessed at Rs 15,000/- Per Month.
50. The petitioner has also relied upon various decisions reported in 2025 ACJ 227, 2024 ACJ 2712, 2025 ACJ 395 and MFA No 103807/2016 C/w MFA 103835/2016 New India Assurance Company Ltd V Abdul and another in support of his claim towards future loss of earnings and loss of future prospects. It is contended that given his present SCCH-13 23 MVC.112/2022 medical condition of being in a vegetative state, he has been rendered permanently incapable of pursuing any gainful employment or avocation.
51. The principle of law laid down in the decisions relied upon by the petitioner is that once permanent disability affecting earning capacity is established, the victim is entitled to be compensated not only for the present loss of income but also for the future loss of earnings and prospects, taking into account his age, avocation, and the multiplier applicable.
52. In case of Pappu Deo Yadav v Naresh Kumar and others 2020 SCC online SC 752 the Apex court held that in the case of permanent partial disability amount towards future prospects can be awarded . The said preposition of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble High court reported in 2020 SCC online KAR 1446 between Alameli Bai V/s Managing Director KSRTC, wherein the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka has held that in case of functional disability cases, future prospects can be SCCH-13 24 MVC.112/2022 awarded. Thus the petitioner is entitled for the amount towards future prospects.
53. Keeping in view above said dictum this tribunal concludes that the petitioner was 32 years as on the date of the alleged accident. As such, 40% of the future prospects is to be added to the annual income. Thus effective notional income comes to Rs.15,000 + 40% ( Rs. 6,000) = 21,000. Thus effective income comes to Rs. 21,000/- per month.
54. Further the petitioner was aged about 32 years as on date of alleged accident and the multiplier applicable to the petitioner as per decision laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Sarla Verma's case is at 16. The loss of future earnings comes to Rs 21,000 x 12 x 16 x 80/100= ₹.32,25,600/-.
55. Pain and sufferings: The learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of written arguments, has contended that the petitioner sustained grievous head injury resulting in severe neurological deficit and has ultimately been reduced to a persistent vegetative state. It is submitted that the term "pain and suffering" encompasses not only physical discomfort SCCH-13 25 MVC.112/2022 and distress but also the mental and emotional trauma suffered as a consequence of the injuries. The learned counsel has further argued that pain and suffering is a recognized head of compensation under motor accident claims, and while it cannot be measured in terms of money through any precise mathematical calculation, courts are empowered to award just compensation under this head by way of conventional sums.
56. In support of these submissions, reliance has been placed on Sidram v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2023) 3 SCC 439, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, Master Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 738, and Kajal v. Jagadish Chandra (2020) 4 SCC 431, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized that a person who has suffered grave injuries and has been rendered into a vegetative condition undergoes not only physical pain but also tremendous loss of amenities, dignity, and emotional distress.
57. In the present case, the medical evidence clearly establishes that the petitioner is completely SCCH-13 26 MVC.112/2022 bedridden, unable to move or even turn from one side to another, does not recognize persons, has no control over bowel and bladder, and remains wholly dependent upon a tracheostomy tube for breathing, a catheter for urination, and a Ryle's tube for feeding. He requires constant nursing care and assistance even for the most basic activities of daily life. His life has thus been reduced to a state of total dependency without mobility, speech, or recognition.
58. The petitioner has claimed a sum of ₹15,00,000 under the head of pain and suffering. This Tribunal finds that though the claim of ₹15 lakhs is on the higher side, the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the nature of injuries, the vegetative state of the petitioner, his age of 32 years, and the 80% functional disability assessed in this case, justify the award of a higher amount than what is usually granted in routine injury cases.
59. Therefore, taking into account the petitioner's complete loss of independence, lifelong suffering, and permanent vegetative state, this Tribunal considers that a sum of ₹10,00,000/- would be just, fair, and SCCH-13 27 MVC.112/2022 reasonable compensation under the head of pain and suffering.
60. Loss of amenities of life: undoubtedly the petitioner is suffering from difficulties in performing day to day activities and is facing continuous hardship due to the disability. Therefore this tribunal finds to appropriate to award a sum ₹.1,00,000/- under head of loss of amenities of life.
61. Medical expenses: Under the pecuniary damages, expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines, the Petitioner has relied Ex.P.13 amounting to ₹9,34,429/-. Though counsel for Respondent has cross-examined the PW-2, nothing has been elicited to disprove the medical bills. The medical bills appears to be genuine. Hence, Petitioner is awarded ₹.9,34,429/- towards Medical Expenses.
62. Conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges: Ex.P.11-Discharge summary shows that Petitioner was treated as an inpatient at Maxi Cure hospital, Hyderabad from 26-11-2021 to 11-12-2021, then from 11-12-2021 to 24-01-2022 at SCCH-13 28 MVC.112/2022 CMC, Vellore and later from 22-05-2022 to 05-06- 2022 i.e, totally for a period of 53 days. After discharge he has visited the hospital several times and he is required a permanent attender to look after him. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to award compensation of ₹.75,000/- under the head of conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges.
63. Future medical expenses: Petitioner has stated that he would be required to undergo implant removal surgery in the future and has therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/. towards future medical expenses. However, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence such as estimation. Nevertheless, considering the nature of injuries sustained, the severity of the neurological condition, and the likelihood of requiring periodic medical care and procedures, this tribunal is of the opinion that it would be just and reasonable to award Rs.50,000/- towards under head of future medical expenses.
SCCH-13 29 MVC.112/202264. Loss of earning during laid up period: With regard to loss of earnings during treatment, Petitioner met with an accident on 26-11-2021 and claim petition is filed on 31-12-2021. The petitioner was initially admitted to Maxi Cure Hospital Hyderabad on 26-11-2021 and remained there for treatment until 11-12-2021, when he was admitted to Christian Medical College Vellore on the very same day i.e., 11- 12-2021, for further management and rehabilitation, he continued as an in patient until 22-1-2022. further he admitted 22/05/2022 for further management and rehabilitation he continued as an in patient until 5/6/2022. he was under treatment for these 6 months and hence loss of earnings during treatment is calculated for 6 months. As the monthly income of the Petitioner is already considered as ₹.15,000/- per month, loss of earning during laid up period would be ₹.90,000/-.
65. Attendant charges: The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written arguments and contended that the petitioner is in a vegetative state and requires assistance and supervision throughout his lifetime. It is further submitted that although the SCCH-13 30 MVC.112/2022 family members are presently attending to the petitioner, such care comes at the cost of diverting their time and attention from employment or other productive activities that could have generated income. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2020 ACJ 2517 (SC), wherein an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was awarded towards attendant charges in similar circumstances.
66. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has lost his capacity to earn, is completely bedridden, and remains dependent on others for all his daily activities. Continuous assistance of an attendant or caretaker is thus not only necessary but inevitable. Taking into account the need for constant care and supervision, this Tribunal finds it just and reasonable to award attendant charges at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of the accident till the date of this order. The total attendant charges will be ₹10,000 x 45 = ₹4,50,000/-.
SCCH-13 31 MVC.112/202267. Thus the compensation awarded under the various heads are as under:
Sl. Nature of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Loss of future earnings ₹. 32,25,600/-
2. Pain and Sufferings ₹. 10,00,000/-
3. Loss of amenities ₹. 1,00,000/-
4. Medical expenses ₹. 9,34,429/-
5. Future medical expenses ₹. 50,000/-
6. Conveyance, Food, ₹. 75,000/-
Nourishment & Attendant
charges
7. Loss of income during ₹. 90,000/-
Laid up period and rest period
8. Attendant charges ₹. 4,50,000/-
Total ₹. 59,25,029/-
68. Liability: In the present case, the petitioner has consistently contended that he was travelling in the offending vehicle in the capacity of a cleaner and sustained grievous injuries in the accident. It is not disputed that the offending vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No. 2. EX R7 shows the insurance policy produced on record shows that an additional SCCH-13 32 MVC.112/2022 premium of Rs. 50/- was paid under the IMT endorsement towards coverage of employees.
69. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2, however, has vehemently argued that the coverage extended under the endorsement was confined only to the driver and not to the cleaner. It is their case that since no specific additional premium was paid towards coverage of a cleaner, the risk of the petitioner is excluded and has produced the IMT-40 endorsement and the policy schedule, which clearly indicates that Rs. 50/- was paid towards the coverage of employees.
70. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has explained that, as per the Indian Motor Tariff rules, premium is calculated at the rate of Rs. 25/- per person -- covering driver, conductor, and cleaner. Therefore, the payment of Rs. 50/- by the owner of the vehicle necessarily covered both the driver and the cleaner.
71. The Tribunal finds merit in this submission. The IMT-40 endorsement specifically contemplates coverage of the insured's legal liability in respect of employees such as drivers, conductors, and cleaners SCCH-13 33 MVC.112/2022 engaged in connection with the insured vehicle. This provision has to be read harmoniously with Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which makes it obligatory for every policy of insurance to cover liability towards such employees arising out of and in the course of employment.
72. Once the existence of a valid policy is admitted, the insurer cannot evade its liability by adopting a hyper-technical or restrictive interpretation of the endorsement. The petitioner squarely falls within the class of employee expressly contemplated both under the tariff provisions (IMT-40) and the statute (Section 147, MV Act).
73. Therefore, the Tribunal holds that the premium of Rs. 50/- paid by the owner of the vehicle covered both the driver and the cleaner. The contention of the insurer that the premium was paid only for the driver is unsustainable. The petitioner was not travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger but as an employee discharging his duties as a cleaner. Hence, the risk is duly covered under the policy. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 (owner) and SCCH-13 34 MVC.112/2022 Respondent No. 2 (insurer) are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, the primary liability to satisfy the award rests with Respondent No. 2 - insurer, who shall pay the compensation amount to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. With these observation I answer Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative.
74. ISSUE NO.3 : In view of the above discussion, reasons stated and findings given to Issue Nos. 1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act is allowed in part with cost. Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.59,25,029/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. (except future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal.
Respondent No.2 shall pay the aforesaid amount within two months from the date of this order. After deposit of the compensation amount, 25% of the amount shall be SCCH-13 35 MVC.112/2022 kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 2 years. Remaining 75% amount shall be disbursed to the father/guardian of the petitioner through E-payment on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at ₹.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court dated this the 8th day of September 2025.) (SHYLA S.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACJM Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner :
PW.1 : Dr.Veeresha U Mathad PW.2 : M.Chiranjeevi
List of documents marked for Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : Clinical notes
Ex.P.2 : CT scan film with report
Ex.P.3 : True copy of FIR
SCCH-13 36 MVC.112/2022
Ex.P.4 & : True copy of complaint and its
4(a) translation
Ex.P.5 : True copy of requisition by IO
Ex.P.6 : True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P.7 : C/c of Crime details form
Ex.P.8 : True copy of notice
Ex.P.9 : Personal bond of the accused
Ex.P.10 : C/c of MLC register extract
Ex.P.11 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.12 : Preliminary report
Ex.P.13 : Medical bills
Ex.P.14 : Lab reports
Ex.P.15 : X-rays
Ex.P.16 : Prescriptions
Ex.P.17 & : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of 18 petitioner and PW-2 List of witnesses examined for Respondents :
RW.1 : P.Madhavara Rao RW.2 : Vinayaka RW.3: Santhosh
List of documents marked for Respondents :
Ex.R.1 : Charge sheet
Ex.R.2 : Policy
SCCH-13 37 MVC.112/2022
Ex.R.3 : Job card invoice
Ex.R.4 & 5 : RC and DL
Ex.R.6 : MLC
Ex.R.7 : True copy of policy
(SHYLA S.M.)
II Addl. Judge & ACJM
Member, MACT,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.