Bangalore District Court
Ramaiah B vs Mahesh M P on 17 April, 2026
KABC020192962024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND XXI ACJM, BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF APRIL 2026
MVC No.3030/2024
PETITIONER: Sri. B. RAMAIAH,
s/o Late. BAILAPPA,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at Bettahallipalya,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bettahalli,
Bengaluru Rural-562 123.
(By Sri. Chandra Shekhar,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. MAHESH .M .P.
S/o Murgendra,
2291, Ward No.26,
Panasheettigalli,
Jamakhandi,
Bagalkot-587 301.
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.3030/2024
RC Owner Of TATA Punch
Car Bearing
No.KA-48-N-2818.
(By Sri.G.F.Patil, Advocate.)
2. As per court order
Deleted.
3.The Regional Manager,
THE IFFCO TOKIO
GENERAL INSURANCE
CO.LTD.,
No. 141, SRI SHANTHI
TOWER, 5th Floor, 3rd East
of NGEF Layout,
Kasthurinagar,
Bengaluru-560 043.
TATA P AND CAR BEARING
REG.No.KA-48-N-2818.
Policy No. 18152516,
valid from 22-3-2022 to 21-
3-2025.
(By Sri. T.Ramesh,
Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the claimant against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying to award compensation in respect of the injuries sustained SCCH-25 3 MVC No.3030/2024 in the road traffic accident occurred on 17.03.2024.
2. The case of the claimant in nutshell is that:
On 17.03.2024 at about 10.00am the petitioner was riding Activa Two Wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-52-U- 8553 from Doddaballapura towards Nelamangala with slowly and cautiously by observing all the traffic norms and regulations. While so proceeding he reached opposite Lakshmi Venkateshwara Hospital Road near Divider, at that time a TATA Punch Car bearing Reg.No.KA-48-N-2828 came from Nelamangala towards Doddaballapura with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle. Due to impact, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to CARE ASIA Hospital, Nelamangala Town wherein provided first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to Shree Dhannavantari Speciality Hospital, Nelamangala, wherein admitted as an inpatient from 17.03.2024 to 25.03.2024, discharged SCCH-25 4 MVC No.3030/2024 with advice. So far he has spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards treatment, nursing, food, conveyance and other incidental expenses. The petitioner is suffering with permanent disability. She is not able to lead a normal life as prior to the accident.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, doing Agriculture Work and earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month and contributed entire amount to his family maintenance. Due to the accidental injuries, he became permanently disabled and unable to do his profession and not getting his income.
5. The accident has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of TATA Punch Car bearing Reg.No.KA-48-N-2819 and in this regard a case has been registered by Nelamangala Rural Police under Cr.No.072/2024 against the driver of the TATA Punch Car bearing Reg.No.KA-48- N-2819. Hence, the respondents being the RC owner and the insurer of the TATA Punch Car bearing Reg.No.KA-48-N-2819 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, petitioner prays for award for the total compensation SCCH-25 5 MVC No.3030/2024 of Rs.25,00,000/-
6. In pursuance of notice, the respondents have appeared through their respective counsels and filed separate written statements.
7. It is worth note herein that the Court has struck out from the proceedings by allowing the application filed by the respondent No.2. The Court has implead the respondent No.3 by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner carried out the necessary amendment in this regard.
7A. The 1st respondent in the written statement has denied the entire petition averments. He has denied the rash and negligent act of the driver of the TATA Punch bearing Reg.No.KA-48-N- 2818. He has denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. He has admitted that the vehicle has Third party Insurance policy for private Car Policy with the IFFCO TOKIO Gen.Ins.Co.LTD. Valid from 22.03.2022 to 21.03.2025. Further the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid DL as on the date of accident. The accident took place due to unavoidable circumstances but not due rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle of R-1.
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.3030/20247B. The 3rd respondent in its written statement has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in favour of the 1st respondent and in respect of the Car bearing No.KA-48-N-2818. There is a non compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further, denied the involvement of the Car in the accident. Further stated that the driver of the TATA Punch Car bearing Reg.No.KA-48-N-2819 did not possess a valid and effective driving license. The offending Car did not possess the FC, permit as on the date of accident. It has denied the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the Car. The accident caused due to the negligence of the petitioner himself. It has denied the age, occupation, medical expenses etc., Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against it.
8. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident took place on 17-03-2024 at about 10:00 a.m. he reached opposite Lakshmi Venkateshwara Hospital road near SCCH-25 7 MVC No.3030/2024 divider on Doddaballapura-
Nelamangala road, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing Reg. No. KA-48-N-2818 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so. What is the quantum? From whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
9. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents as per Exs.P.1 to 11. Dr.Nagaraj B.N. has got examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.12 &
13. the petitioner has also got examined Mr. Narendra S. MRO at Dhanvanthri Multi Speciality Hospital, Nelamangala, Bengaluru as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.14 to P.17. On the other side, the respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.
10. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. On perusal of oral and documentary SCCH-25 8 MVC No.3030/2024 evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order for the
foregoing
#REASONS#
12. Issue No.1:
In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1. Tdr.Nagaraj B.N. got examined as PW.2. He has also got examined MRO as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.14 to P.17. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
13. The chief examination of the PW.1 is nothing but a repetition of plaint averments. The PW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. He deposed that the bike belongs to his daughter. The complaint was lodged by his son. White color Car has dashed to rear side of his motor bike He admitted that, as per the sketch the accident was occurred at middle of the road. He pleaded ignorance about non-damages to offending vehicle. His bike was damaged to its front side also. He has denied the other suggestions of the counsel for the other side.
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.3030/202414. It is needless to say that, the petitioner has totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the offending vehicle has came from Nelamangala towards Doodaballapura. The petitioner was proceeding towards Nelamangala side. It is undisputed fact that the accident place was one way road. The sketch appended marked at Ex.P4 indicates that the accident was occurred at middle of road towards Nelamangala and diver was next to the accident place. The PW.1 has deposed in the cross examination that the offending vehicle has dashed to rear side of his motorcycle. The complaint and police documents are clearly spell out that, the offending car driver driven the vehicle from Nelamangala side and took U-turn at divider in rash and negligent manner to proceed towards Nelamangala Side. It is very pertinent note that, the petitioner has not placed the motor vehicle inspection report before the Court. The insurer counsel has suggested to PW.1 regarding non-damages to offending vehicle without producing the documentary evidence. The seizure mahazar mahazar marked at Ex.P3 refers the damages to the offending car. As per this documents, the offending vehicle has got scratches at front right SCCH-25 10 MVC No.3030/2024 side mudguard and below of head light. Even though, the petitioner has not produced the Motor Vehicle Inspection report throughout the proceeding the attending circumstances are clearly demonstrating that the accident in question was occurred due to sole negligence of the offending vehicle's driver. Had the driver exercised even a minimum degree of caution, the accident likely could have been avoided or prevented.
15. The contention of the insurance company that the driver of the offending Vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. To prove the same it has neither examined any witness nor produced any documents. And the police have not charge sheeted for the offense punishable under section 3 read with 181 of Motor Vehicle Act.
16. It is well settled position of law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation and the evidence required about negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of probability. In other words, the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard SCCH-25 11 MVC No.3030/2024 I would like to rely on the decision of our Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 28831. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and the insurance company for payment of compensation. The materials on records clearly indicates that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. So, I answered issue No.1 in the affirmative.
17. Issue No.2:
The petitioner has produced the wound certificate and call the medical records from the concerned hospital. The wound certificate (Ex.P5) discloses that, the petitioner has sustained (i) Displaced fracture of left 1st 2nd 8th 9th Ribs, (ii) Undisplaced fracture of right 9th Rib, (iii) CLW over right upper eyelid, (iv) Abrasion wound over right lower eyelid, (v) Abrasion wound over bilateral knee joint and (vi) Abrasion wound over bilateral wrist joint which are grievous in nature. The petitioner has secured the medical records to establish lane of 1 Sajeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George, SCCH-25 12 MVC No.3030/2024 treatment by examining the MRO as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.14 to P.17. PW.3 has been subjected to cross examination. Dueing the cross examination of PW.3, nothing worthwhile is elicited.
18. Apart from that he has got examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW.2. The PW.2 has stated in the chief examination affidavit "on examination, PW.2 diagnosed that the petitioner has sustained fracture of left 1st and 2nd rib with right 8th and 9th rib with mild pleural effusion. On examination, the petitioner has complains of pain in the chest unable to cough, unable to take deep breaths. Petitioner has tenderness in both the side of the chest decreased breath counts. X-ray of the chest shows united fracture. PW.2 has opined that the petitioner has CARDIOPULMONARY TEST and the report shows Chest Expansion 15%, breath counts at 5% and pain at 5%. He has pointed out cardiopulmonary disability 25%. During the cross examination of PW.2 he has deposed that, he has not treated the petitioner. He has not seen the old X-rays and case sheets of the petitioner. He has not taken the opinion from the treated Doctor. There is not operation done to the petitioner. The fractures are united. Further PW.2 admitted that he has not assess the physical SCCH-25 13 MVC No.3030/2024 disability. The problems which are mentioned in the certificate may decrease in the future.
PW.2 further stated that he has examined the petitioner 2 years later of the accident. At the time of examination, the fractures to the petitioner are united. He examined the petitioner in the winter season and the in the winter season, there is a breathing problem may caused to the old age people.
19. The testimony of PW.2 lacks a foundational basis. Although numerical values were assigned to the patient's condition, neither the affidavit nor the supporting clinical notes disclose the specific examinations or objective criteria used to reach these figures. As per the gazate notification, Chest expansion is to be measured using a measuring tape at 2 different levels of the rib cage. The anatomical markers used to define upper chest expansion are the third intercostal space at the level of the clavicular line and the spinous processes of the fifth thoracic vertebrae. To define lower chest expansion, the tip of the xiphoid process and the spinous process of the tenth thoracic vertebrae are used as markers.
20. Likewise, for Counting in a single SCCH-25 14 MVC No.3030/2024 breath: It is a simple non-invasive clinical/bedside screening test sometimes used to assess respiratory muscle strength. It is performed by inhaling maximally and counting as far/high a number as possible in normal voice in a single breath. Two attempts may be recorded following a one-minute rest in between measurements. It may be useful when formal Vital Capacity measurement is difficult or not possible.
21. As per the petition averments, the age of the petitioner is 50 years. The PW.2 has not disputed the age of the petitioner as per the Aadhar Card. The medical records depicts that the age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 50 years. The date of birth recorded in the Aaddhar Card is 01.01.1950. By calculating the date of birth referred in the available document and also date of accident, the age of the petitioner was 74 years at the time of accident. By considering the age of the petitioner and in the absence of the specific examination, it can be hold that due to the old age the counts of the breath of the petitioner is vary and also the PW.2 has examined the petitioner in winter season. As such, the conclusion of the PW.2 regarding the disabilities is not supported with document. Hence, I decline to SCCH-25 15 MVC No.3030/2024 hold that the petitioner has sustained permanent disablility. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads..
PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
22. The claimant has contended that she has taken treatment at CARE ASIA Hospital, Nelamangala Town wherein provided first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to Shree Dhannavantari Speciality Hospital, Nelamangala, wherein admitted as an inpatient from 17.03.2024 to 25.03.2024, discharged with advice. The petitioner has produced the Medical bills of Dhanvathari Multi Speciality Hospital for a sum of Rs.2,63,366/- at per Ex.P.9. There is no contrary to these bills from the respondents. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to the said amount under the head of treatment and medical expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospital as an inpatient. In this regard she has produced Discharge Summary of Dhanvanthari Hospital at Ex.P.7 for a period of nearly 8 days. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.500/-per day for attendant and Rs.1,500/- for food and nourishment charges, which SCCH-25 16 MVC No.3030/2024 would comes Rs.16,000/-. A sum of Rs.16,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
23. The claimant has contended that, he was doing Agriculture work and earning of Rs.25,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has not produced any documents nor examined any witness. He has failed to prove his exact income. So, considering the nature of work notional income of Rs.16,500/-pm. is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.4,400/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
24. As I discussed in above paragraph, the petitioner has not sustained any permanent disability. Hence, granting compensation under this head does not arise at all.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
SCCH-25 17 MVC No.3030/202425. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
26. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses Rs.2,63,366-00 02 Loss of income during Rs.4,400-00 treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.16,000-00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000-00 05 Loss of future earning on NIL account of disability TOTAL Rs.3,83,766-00
27. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As the respondents failed to prove their defense. The petitioner proved that as on the date of accident the policy was in force. Therefore, Respondent No.3 is to indemnify the Respondent No.1 and liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, I answer issue No.2 partly in SCCH-25 18 MVC No.3030/2024 affirmative
28. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings to the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petition filed by claimant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
The Petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.3,83,766=00
(Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Three
Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Six Only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
By virtue of directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 7 OF 2024 (2025 INSC 530), the petitioner is directed to furnish self-attested copies of their Bank Account Pass-Book, Aadhar Card and PAN card, within 15 days to the insurance company/Respondent No.3 under intimation to this Court.
SCCH-25 19 MVC No.3030/2024 On such furnishing of the
documents by the petitioner, the
Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest, within two months, directly to the credit of the bank account of the petitioner under intimation to this Court with all details.
The office is directed to make necessary entries in the concerned register without fail.
The Claimant is entitled to
withdraw entire amount as
compensation amount by considering the age of the petitioner.
Bank shall release apportionment amount with interest along with interest thereon in favour of petitioner on proper verification and identification.
All the interim application if any pending stands disposed off.
The advocate fee of Rs.1,000/-
fixed.
SCCH-25 20 MVC No.3030/2024
Draw the award accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2026) (RAGHAVENDRA.R) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Sri. B. Ramaiah PW.2 Dr.Nagaraj B.N. PW.3 Sri. Narendra S.
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR and complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P3 True copy of Seizure mahazar Ex.P4 True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P5 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P6 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P7 Discharge summary Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioner (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P9 Medical bills 77 in nos Ex.P10 Advance receipts 7 in nos SCCH-25 21 MVC No.3030/2024 Ex.P11 Medical prescriptions 17 in nos Ex.P12 OPD Book Ex.P13 X-ray Ex.P14 Authorization letter Ex.P15 Attested copy of MLC register Ex.P16 Attested copy of Police Intimation Ex.P17 Case sheet List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
-- NIL --
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
-- NIL --
(RAGHAVENDRA.R) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bengaluru.