Bangalore District Court
Amaranath V vs Gangadhar on 6 April, 2026
KABC020424572023
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
AT: BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.8344/2023
Dated this 6th day of April, 2026
Petitioner: Amaranath V. S/o Venkatesh,
Aged 44 years,
R/at # 685, 28th Cross,
J.P. Nagara, Palanajogihalli,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural - 561 203.
(Sri Shankar M. R., Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Gangadhar S/o Adimurthy,
R/at Sadumatta Village,
Melekote Post,
Doddaballapur Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District - 561 205.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing
2 MVC No.8344/2023
No.KA-50-T-1136)
(Sri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate)
2. Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.4, 9th Floor, (Level-6) Golden
Heights Complex, 49th C Cross,
Industrial Suburb, Rajajinagar 4th
'M' Block, Bengaluru - 10.
represented by its Branch Manager
(Policy No.3380/02400205/000/00,
07-06-2023 to 06-06-2024)
(Sri Kiran Pujar, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents, for the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 09-12-2024 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner was riding his Honda motorcycle bearing No.KA-43-W-8933, from his farm which is nearby Chikkarayappanahalli Village 3 MVC No.8344/2023 towards his house at Doddaballapur. When he came near Beedigere Gate, at that time the driver of tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner has fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Doddaballapur, wherein he took first aid treatment and then he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an in-patient. Earlier to the accident, he was working as agriculturist/sericulturist and also doing co-related dairy, poultry and real estate business and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, he has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity. The Doddaballapur Rural Police have registered the case against the driver of the said tractor for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC. 4 MVC No.8344/2023 The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written statements.
4. The respondent No.1 in his written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. He has contended that, the respondent No.2 has issued a policy in favour of the respondent No.1, in respect of tractor bearing No.KA-50-T-1136 pertaining to Mahindra-475 company, vide policy bearing No.3380/02400205/000/00 and it was valid from 07-06-2023 to 06-06-2024. Further, the driver of said tractor was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of alleged accident. He has denied the age, income 5 MVC No.8344/2023 and avocation of the petitioner, injuries sustained, medical expenses incurred and treatment taken by him. Further it is contended that, the accident has occurred on account of the negligence of rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-43-W-8933, as he was riding the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. On the other hand, the driver of the tractor bearing No.KA-50-T-1136 was driving the same slowly, carefully and cautiously. Therefore, any compensation awarded to the petitioner by this Court, the respondent No.2 is to be held liable to satisfy the same. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Whereas the respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of tractor bearing No.KA-50-T-1136 and its liability to indemnify the respondent No.2, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, valid and effective driving licence held by the driver, valid registration 6 MVC No.8344/2023 certificate, fitness certificate and also subject to the confirmation of section 64VB of the Insurance Act. It seeks protection under Section 147 and 150(2) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non- compliance of provision under Section 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further, it has sought for permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the tractor bearing No.KA-50-T-1136 was not at all involved in the accident, the jurisdictional police have registered false case against the insured vehicle, without conducting the proper investigation and colluding with the petitioners. Under these circumstances the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Further it is contended that, the driver of the tractor was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. Thereby the owner of said vehicle has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any 7 MVC No.8344/2023 compensation to the petitioners. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner, injuries sustained, medical expenses incurred and treatment taken by him. Further it is contended that, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-43-W-8933. The compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident, alleged to have occurred on 31-08-2023 at about 7.30 p.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor bearing registration No.KA- 8 MVC No.8344/2023
50-T-1136 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
7. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to 15. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has examined Investigation Officer/Head Constable as R.W.1 and its representative/Deputy Manager as R.W.2 and got marked 2 documents as Ex.R.1 and 2. Whereas, the respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material available on record.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under: 9 MVC No.8344/2023
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on 09-12-2024 at about 6.30 p.m., when the petitioner was riding his Honda motorcycle bearing No.KA-43-W-8933 near Beedigere Gate, at that time the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner has fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident he was working as agriculturist/sericulturist and also doing co- related dairy, poultry and real estate business and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental 10 MVC No.8344/2023 injuries, he has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity.
11. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of his oral evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to 15. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is certified copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.4 is certified copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.5 is certified copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.6 is certified copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.7 is certified copy of seizure mahazar, Ex.P.8 and 9 are discharge summaries, Ex.P.10 is CT scan report, Ex.P.11 is lab reports, Ex.P.12 are medical bills, Ex.P.13 is x-ray, Ex.P.14 is Milk Dairy Society Membership Certificate and Ex.P.15 are RTC extracts. 11 MVC No.8344/2023
12. On meticulously going through the above police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 7, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136 and dashing the same to oncoming motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-43-W-8933 of the petitioner. Due to said impact the petitioner has fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. The investigation officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.5, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136.
13. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. But, the respondents No.1 and 2 have specifically denied the above 12 MVC No.8344/2023 averred facts and circumstances of the accident and taken specific defence that, the alleged accident has taken place solely due to rash and negligent riding of the petitioner/rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-43-W-8933 and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136. Further it has contended that, the offending tractor is not at all involved in the alleged accident. But, the respondents No.1 and 2 have failed to establish the said contentions. Except the self serving statements of R.W.2, who is the representative/Deputy Manager of respondent No.2 insurance company, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the respondents to show that, the said accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the petitioner and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136. Further it is pertinent to note that, the witness summoned and 13 MVC No.8344/2023 examined by the respondent No.2 as R.W.1, who is none other than the investigation officer who has conducted the investigation in the case, has clearly deposed in his evidence that, he has conducted thorough investigation about the alleged road traffic accident and it has revealed in his investigation that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136 and dashing the same to the motorcycle of the petitioner and hence, he has filed charge- sheet against the said driver. Further, though the respondent No.2 has cross-examined R.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been brought out from his mouth, which goes to show that, the offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136 was not at all involved in the alleged accident in collusion with the petitioner and the same has been falsely implicated by him in the said accident, in collusion with the petitioner. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the 14 MVC No.8344/2023 petitioner clearly establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136 and dashing the same to oncoming motorcycle bearing No.KA- 43-W-8933 of the petitioner from opposite direction. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross- examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the petitioner/rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-43-W- 8933 or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
14. Further, the Ex.P.6 spot mahazar also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on the left side of 20 feet wide on Doddaballapura-Chikkaballapura road, near Beedigere Gate, Thubagere Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, in between offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136 15 MVC No.8344/2023 and oncoming motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-43-W-8933 of the petitioner. As per the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.4, the accident is not caused has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA-43- W-8933, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136. Further, the investigation officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.5 has clearly stated that, the said accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the owner or the driver of offending vehicle. In such circumstances, 16 MVC No.8344/2023 there is no impediment to believe the final report of the investigation officer and other police records, regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to the petitioner in the said accident.
15. No doubt, there is a delay of 26 days in lodging the complaint by the petitioner. But, the petitioner/complainant has stated the reason for delay in lodging the complaint in his Ex.P.2 first information statement. He has clearly stated that, the owner of the offending tractor had assured him that he will pay his medical expenses he did not lodge the complaint. But, later he did not turn back to pay his medical expenses. Due to said reason and as he was undergoing treatment he could not lodge the complaint at the earliest and there is delay caused in lodging the complaint. It is settled proposition of law that, the delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt claimant's case in genuine 17 MVC No.8344/2023 cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ravi V/s Badrinarayan and others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693, has clearly held that, "the delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt claimant's case in genuine cases. In Indian conditions, it is not expected that a person would to rush to police station after accident. The treatment of victim is given priority over lodging FIR. The kith and kin of victim are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging FIR. Hence, delay in lodging FIR not a ground to dismiss claim petition."
16. There is no contrary or rebuttal evidence on record to disbelieve the reason for delay in lodging the complaint, stated in Ex.P.2 first information statement. In such circumstances and in the light of ratio laid down in the above cited decision, this Court is of the opinion that, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the delay for lodging the complaint is properly explained by the petitioner with cogent and satisfactory reasons. 18 MVC No.8344/2023
17. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.3 wound certificate, Ex.P.8 and 9 discharge summaries (total
2), Ex.P.10 CT scan report, Ex.P.11 lab reports and Ex.P.13 x- ray, it clearly reveals that, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioner has sustained grade IV splenic injury, mild hemoperitoneum, B/L rib fracture, facial bone fracture and displaced fracture of left scaphoid. On the other hand, there is no contrary or rebuttal evidence on record to disbelieve the said medical records of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Therefore, in such circumstances and in the light of above observations, it can safely be held that, the respondents have failed to rebut the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner regarding rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136 and injuries sustained by the petitioner in the said accident. 19 MVC No.8344/2023
18. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident claim cases the strict principle of proof in a criminal case are not required."
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held that, "in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are merely required to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
20 MVC No.8344/2023
20. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, he has sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 31-08-2023 at about 7.30 p.m., on Doddaballapura-Chikkaballapura road, near Beedigere Gate, Thubagere Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
21. Issue No.2: While answering the above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the accident in question has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136 and the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. The medical records placed on record clearly speaks that, the petitioner has sustained grade IV splenic injury, mild hemoperitoneum, B/L rib fracture, facial bone 21 MVC No.8344/2023 fracture and displaced fracture of left scaphoid. Therefore, this Court is of the further opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under various heads. The damages are to be assessed under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages, such as medical treatment, attendants, transport, actual loss of earning, future loss of earning etc., and non- pecuniary damages, such as mental and physical shock, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, loss of prospects of marriage etc. The petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
22. Towards loss of future income: The petitioner has deposed that, earlier to the accident, he was working as agriculturist/sericulturist and also doing co-related dairy, poultry and real estate business and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, he has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity. But, the petitioner has neither produced any document nor he has examined the doctor to establish 22 MVC No.8344/2023 that, due to injuries sustained in the accident he has suffered any physical disability or deformity. The petitioner has failed to prove that, due to accidental injuries he has suffered any physical disability and he is not in a position to continue his avocation or perform his regular work and thereby, he has lost his earning capacity. In such circumstances, the question of awarding compensation under head loss of future income due to permanent physical disability does not arise at all. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under the head of loss of future income due to disability.
23. Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed that, he has incurred expenses of Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charge etc. In order to prove the same, he has produced 6 medical bills, as per Ex.P.12. All the bills have been examined carefully and found that the petitioner has spent total amount of Rs.2,68,403/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the 23 MVC No.8344/2023 petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,68,403/- towards his medical expenses.
24. Pain and sufferings: In the present case, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries i.e. grade IV splenic injury, mild hemoperitoneum, B/L rib fracture, facial bone fracture and displaced fracture of left scaphoid. As per Ex.P.8 and 9 discharge summaries the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 8 days from 01-09-2023 to 02-09- 2023, in Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. In such circumstances, certainly the petitioner would have suffered pain and sufferings. Therefore, taking into consideration the injuries sustained and disability suffered by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that, awarding compensation amount of Rs.80,000/- to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings would be justified and it will meet the ends of justice.
24 MVC No.8344/2023
25. Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.8 and 9 discharge summaries the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 8 days in Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. He might have spent considerable amount towards attendant charges during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.1000 x 8 = Rs.8,000/- is awarded towards the attendant charges.
26. Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.8 and 9 discharge summaries the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 8 days in Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. He might have spent considerable amount towards food and nourishment during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 8 = Rs.6,400/- is awarded towards food and nourishment charges.
27. Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the resident of J.P. Nagara, Palanajogihalli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru Rural, the accident has taken place on Doddaballapura-Chikkaballapura road, near Beedigere 25 MVC No.8344/2023 Gate, Thubagere Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk and the petitioner has taken treatment at Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. Taking into consideration the distance in between the above places, compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards conveyance.
28. Loss of income during treatment period: The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that, before accident he was working as agriculturist/sericulturist and also doing co-related dairy, poultry and real estate business and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month. Further, he has deposed that, due to grievous injuries suffered in the said accident he is unable to do work and continue his avocation. To substantiate the same, he has produced milk dairy society membership certificate and RTC extracts, which are marked as Ex.P.14 and 15. But, he has not produced any document to show that, before accident he was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month from the said avocation. The petitioner has not produced single piece of document with respect to his 26 MVC No.8344/2023 income. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no other option before this Court, except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident has taken place in the year 2023. As per the said guidelines, the notional income of a person is to be considered at Rs.16,000/- per month. The petitioner has taken treatment for 8 days as in-patient at Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, for the grievous injuries sustained by him. He might have taken rest for about 2 months and lost his income for the said period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.16,000 x 2 = Rs.32,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period.
29. Loss of amenities: It is evident from the documents placed on record that, as on the date of accident the age of the petitioner was 44 years and unfortunately he has suffered grievous injuries in the said accident and undergone treatment for 8 days as in-patient in Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. Further, he might have taken rest for 27 MVC No.8344/2023 about two months. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities during the said period would be just and reasonable.
30. Future medical expenses: The petitioner has neither adduced any evidence nor he has produced any document to show that, he requires any further treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, in such circumstances, the question of awarding compensation for future medical expenses does not arise at all. Hence, no compensation is awarded under this particular head.
31. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads as follows:
1. Loss of future income Nil
2. Medical expenses Rs. 2,68,403-00
3. Pain and sufferings 80,000-00
4. Attendant charges 8,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 6,400-00
6. Conveyance expenses 10,000-00 28 MVC No.8344/2023
7. Loss of income during 32,000-00 treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 30,000-00
9. Future medical expenses Nil Total Rs. 4,34,803-00 In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,34,803/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
32. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T- 1136. Further, as per Ex.R.2 insurance policy bearing No.3380/02400205/000/00, issued by the respondent No.2, in respect of offending tractor bearing No.KA-50-T-1136, was valid from 07-06-2023 to 06-06-2024. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 31-08-2023. There is no evidence on record to show that, there is any breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured/respondent No.1. Further, the evidence placed 29 MVC No.8344/2023 on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-50-T-1136 the accident in question has taken place. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,34,803/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization, from the respondent No.2, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
30 MVC No.8344/2023
33. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.4,34,803/- (Rupees four lakh thirty four thousand eight hundred and three only), with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioner. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.2
- Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.31 MVC No.8344/2023
The entire compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be shall be released in favour of the petitioner, through e-payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 6 th day of April, 2026).
(Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: Amaranath V. S/o Venkatesh Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: Certified copy of First Information
Statement
Ex.P.3: Certified copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.4: Certified copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.5: Certified copy of Charge-sheet
32 MVC No.8344/2023
Ex.P.6: Certified copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.7: Certified copy of Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.8 & Discharge Summaries (total 2)
9:
Ex.P.10: CT Scan Report
Ex.P.11: Lab Reports
Ex.P.12: Medical Bills (total 6)
Ex.P.13: X-ray
Ex.P.14: Milk Dairy Society Membership Certificate Ex.P.15: RTC Extracts (total 2) Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1: S.N. Nagaraju S/o S.K. Narasimha Murthy R.W.2: Santhosh S/o Ramachandraiah Documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Ex.R.1: Authorization Letter
Ex.R.2: True copy of Insurance Policy
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.