Bangalore District Court
Musthaq Ahmed vs Iffco Tokio Gen Ins Co. Ltd on 16 December, 2025
KABC020234322023
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BENGALURU, (SCCH-12)
Present: Smt.Vidyalaxmi Bhat
B.A, LL.B.,(Hon's)LL.M.
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-12, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2025
MVC. No.5197/2023
Petitioner : Musthaq Ahmed
S/o Gulam Rasool
Aged about 54 years
R/at #435, 1st Floor, Chowdappa Layout,
Shanthinagar, Near Nirmala Girl High
School, Bangalore-560027.
(By Sri.R.Balaji Singh, Advocate)
V/s
Respondent/s: 1. The Manager
M/s. IFFICO TOKIO General
Insurance Co.Ltd
1st Floor, SNR Arcade,
Ayyappa Temple Road,
Jalahalli Circle,
Peenya, Bangalore-560057.
Policy No.13346994.
Period from 28.03.2023 to 27.04.2024.
2. Vishwas D.V
S/o Vijaykumar C.S
Doddagangavadi village,
Kootagal Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk,
Ramanagar-562159.
(SCCH-12) 2 MVC. No.5197/2023
(Owner of Maruthi Swift
Car bearing Reg.No.KA-42-B-0394)
(R-1 By Sri K. Prakash)
R-2 Ex-parte)
JUDGMENT
By this judgment this Tribunal shall decide the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in respect of injuries sustained by her in the Road Traffic Accident.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 15.06.2023 at about 10.30 pm petitioner was proceeding on his Scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-01-EE-1182 on N.R. road and when he reached in front of Bombe Auto Mobiles Shop, Bangalore, at that time all of a sudden the drive of one Maruthi Swift car bearing reg.no.KA- 42-B-0394, who drove the said car at high speed in rash and negligent manner dashed to the practitioner's vehicle from behind and caused accident, due to this impact petitioner fell down on road side along with the vehicle and sustained grievous fracture injuries on left knee and other parts of the body. The vehicle also severely damaged.
3. Immediately he was shifted to Hosmat hospital, Bangalore and underwent treatment and discharged with an advice for follow-up treatment. He has spent huge amount for medical and other expenses. On 23.06.2023 petitioner's wife gave police complaint to the jurisdictional Halasur Gate Traffic Police Station, the police have registered case against the driver of the car bearing No.KA-42-B-0394 in Crime No.44/2023 for the offence U/s. 279 and 337 of IPC.
(SCCH-12) 3 MVC. No.5197/2023
4. Petitioner was working as a Co-ordinator in M/s. Zomato and earning Rs.29,000/-p.m. Prior to the accident, petitioner was hale and healthy taking care of his family members. Due to this accident, he lost his income and suffered permanent disability . Petitioner is unable to do any of his day to day activities due to severe injuries for which he has hired one assistant by paying Rs.9,000/- per month till his recovery. The cause of the accident is due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.KA-42-B-0394. Hence the R.C.owner 2nd respondent and R-1 insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. On all these grounds, she prayed to allow the petition and award compensation.
5. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2 owner of car is served. He remained absent before this court. Hence, he is placed ex-parte.
6. 1st respondent insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement denying the maintainability of case. It has admitted the issuance of policy in respect of car bearing no.KA-42-B-0394 valid from 28.03.2023 to 27.04.2024. The liability of it is subject to terms and conditions and compliance of 64VB of Insurance Act. It has denied manner of accident, D.L of the driver of car, injuries, medical expenses and permanent disability alleged by the petitioner. That petitioner suffered self accident due to his own accident. Age, occupation, income and permanent disability alleged by the petitioner are denied. On all these grounds 1st respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
(SCCH-12) 4 MVC. No.5197/2023
7. On the basis of above pleadings, following issues are framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 15.06.2023 at about 10.30 pm petitioner was riding his scooter bearing reg.No.KA-01-EE-
1182 on N.R road and when he reached in front of Bombai Auto Mobile shop, driver of one Maruthi Swift car bearing Reg.No.KA-42-B- 0394 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter of the petitioner due to which petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries as alleged?
2. Whether the petitioner proves his age, occupation, income and permanent disability if any?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so by whom and what is the quantum?
4. What Order or Award?
8. To prove his case, petitioner entered witness box and got examined as P.W.1. Through his Ex.P.1 to P.13 documents are marked. Dr. Krishna Prasad-Orthopaedic Surgeon at Hosmat hospital, Bangalore got examined as P.W.2. Through him Ex.P14 and 15 documents are marked and closed their side evidence. On respondent side not evidence is led.
9. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused records.
10. On taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed before this Tribunal and arguments of both sides, I answer the above issues in all the cases as follows: -
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3: Partly in the Affirmative
(SCCH-12) 5 MVC. No.5197/2023
Issue No.4: As per final order,
for the following;
REASONS
11. ISSUE NO.1 : Petitioner to prove actionable negligence on
part of opponent car driver filed chief examination affidavit and got examined as P.W.1. In his chief examination he reiterated petition averments and relied upon FIR, first information, spot panchanama, IMV report, wound certificate and final report.
12. On perusal of those documents it can be seen that wife of petitioner is 1st informant. She gave first information to City Market police station on the date of accident and later the FIR is transferred to Ulsoor Gate Traffic Police on the basis of spot of accident. The Ulsoor gate police have registered Crime No.44/2023 against the car driver on the first information given by wife of petitioner by name Farhana Banu. After two days of the accident spot panchanama is drawn which shows the spot of accident is 30ft away from the road edge of N.R.road. As per the IMV report both the vehicles got damaged, there is scratch mark on the car front bumper right side and front wheel mud guard of the scooter got damaged. The accident was not due to any mechanical defect as per the IMV report.
13. Hosmat hospital has issued wound certificate in which it is mentioned as left knee soft tissue injury and ACL tear was suspected. The nature of injury is shown as simple. In the charge sheet also it is stated that petitioner has sustained simple injury and negligence is attributed to car driver cum owner who is 2nd respondent herein. He has not questioned the (SCCH-12) 6 MVC. No.5197/2023 final report. He has not appeared before this court to contest the case.
14. 1st respondent insurance company disputed the manner of accident in the cross examination of P.W.1. Material suggestions are denied by P.W.1. He stated that opponent driver was taking over phone and driving the car. This fact is not denied by 1st respondent insurance company. No contrary defence evidence is led by insurance company to show either negligence of petitioner or no negligence on part of car driver. Therefore on the basis of oral and documentary evidence this court comes to the conclusion that driver of opponent car was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. Hence, this issue is answered in the Affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.2 : To prove his age petitioner has produced aadhaar card at Ex.P.9 which shows his date of birth as 07.05.1968. Accident took place on 15.06.2023. He was aged 55 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the age of the petitioner is considered as 55 years at the time of accident.
16. In respect of occupation it is stated that, he was working as a Co-ordinator at Zomato and was earning Rs.29,000/- per month. He has not produced any document to show his income. Therefore notional income has to be considered. Accident having taken place in the year 2023 the monthly income of the petitioner is held as Rs.16,000/-.
17. In respect of permanent disability P.W.1 got examined Dr.Krishna Prasad. He is treated doctor. According to him fracture is united. In his evidence he has mentioned that on examination of petitioner on 13.10.2025 for assessment of (SCCH-12) 7 MVC. No.5197/2023 disability. That petitioner has sustained Avulsion fracture with marrow edema in the postromedial and lateral aspects of left tibial plateau- left knee, fracture of head of fibula with marrow edema, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) mid substance tar, sprain of medial collateral and lateral collateral ligament and took treatment at Hosmat hospital. The P.W.3 doctor has assessed the physical disability of lower left limb @44% and whole body disability @ 15%.
18. 1st respondent disputed the assessment of disability on the ground that in the wound certificate it is shown as simple injury, but the doctor has assessed the disability as if it is grievous injury. He further contended that, no follow-up treatment documents are produced and nor there is prescription for MRI scan. Doctor contended that he had mentioned about MRI in case sheet but no reference letter was given. 1st respondent contended that injuries mentioned by the doctor are not found either in wound certificate or in discharge summary and therefore the same is created only to help the petitioner.
19. It is necessary to notice that in the wound certificate before ACL tear question mark is mentioned which shows that there was suspicion of ACL tear of left knee. 1 st respondent has not come up with any evidence to show that after this accident some other incident has taken place due to which this kind of injury could have been caused. Therefore, merely on assumption it cannot be said that petitioner has not sustained ACL tear when this accident has taken place, when there is mentioned about ACL tear in the wound certificate. Therefore, in the opinion of this court the injury and nature of treatment (SCCH-12) 8 MVC. No.5197/2023 cannot be doubted. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this court the functional disability affecting the income of the petitioner is 05%. Accordingly this issue is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
20. ISSUE No.3: In view of above reasons, injuries sustained by petitioner are due to the accident caused by the driver of Maruthi Swift car bearing Reg.No.KA-42-B-0394. Hence, petitioner is entitled to compensation at the hands of respondents. The quantum of compensation is determined as under:
(i) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced 6 medical bills at Ex.P.10. He has paid amount of Rs.8,152/-towards medical expenses. Hence, petitioner is entitled for Rs.8,152/- under this head.
(ii) Food and nourishment: The petitioner was treated conservatively as per discharge summary produced at Ex.P.8.
Considering the cost of living, food, nourishment charges Rs.1000/- is awarded.
(iii) Attendant charges: Someone must have taken care of the petitioner during his treatment period. Even if his own family member has taken care their per day income is lost hence for attendant charges Rs.1,000/- is awarded.
(iv) Loss of income during laid up period: Minimum 2 months is required to recover from injury due to his advanced age. Hence, his loss of income during laid up period is considered as Rs.32,000/-.
(v) Conveyance charges: It is stated that petitioner took treatment at Hosmat hospital. He has spent money for conveyance for the purpose of treatment. Considering the same, (SCCH-12) 9 MVC. No.5197/2023 this court is of the opinion that amount of Rs.1,000/- shall be awarded as conveyance charges.
(vi) Loss of future income due to Disability : As per the findings given above, there is 05% functional disability affecting the income of the petitioner. Hence, loss of future income due to disability is Rs.16,000/- income X 12 months X 05% disability X 11 multiplier to the age group of 51-55 which comes up to Rs.1,05,600/- compensation is awarded under this head.
(vii) For Future medical expenses: As per the evidence of doctor there is need for ACL reconstruction surgery for which Rs.3,00,000/- is required to prevent further degeneration and control instability. But no estimation is provided to that effect. Hence amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded for future medical treatment.
(viii) For Pain and sufferings: The petitioner has sustained ACL tear and underwent conservative treatment. Therefore, for pain and suffering the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- .
(ix) Physical discomfort and loss of amenities of life : There is evidence of doctor to show that grievous injury has affected the normal life of the petitioner. Therefore, compensation of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under this head.
(x) Loss of future prospect: As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court, even in injury cases, loss of future prospect has to be considered. But in the present case, the on going through the evidence and the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner there is no chance of loss of future prospect. Hence no compensation is awarded under this head. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of (SCCH-12) 10 MVC. No.5197/2023 Rs.2,23,752/- in respect of injuries sustained by him in the Road traffic accident precisely under the following heads;
Sl Particulars of Heads In Rs.
i. Medical expenses 8,152 /-
ii. Food and nourishment 1,000/-
iii Attendant charges 1,000/-
iv. Loss of income during laid up 32,000/-
period
v. Conveyance charges 1,000/-
vi. Loss of income due to disability 1,05,600/-
vii Future medical expenses 25,000/-
viii Pain and sufferings 30,000/-
ix. Physical discomfort and loss of 20,000/-
amenities of life
x. Loss of future prospects Nil
Total Rs. 2,23,752/-
21. Liability: There is valid insurance to the opponent vehicle as on the date of accident Hence, 1 st respondent insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to petitioner. As per the settled law, interest @ 6% from the date of petition till the date of deposit will have to be awarded. Accordingly, I answer this Issue "Partly in Affirmative".
22. ISSUE NO.4 : In view of above reasons I proceed to pass following;
(SCCH-12) 11 MVC. No.5197/2023 ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner u/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
It is held that, petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,23,752/- with interest @ 6% pa on Rs.1,98,752/- from the date of petition till the date of payment. (Future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-
will not carry interest).
Respondent No.1 being insurer of vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and hereby directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount with interest before this tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to have release of entire compensation amount without making FD.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Award be drawn accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced in the Open Court on this 16th day of December, 2025) (Vidyalaxmi Bhat) XI Addl. Small Causes Judge and ACJM, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the petitioner :-
P.W.1 Musthaq Ahmed P.W.2 Dr.Krishna Prasad
Documents marked for the petitioner :-
Ex.P.1 Copy of FIR (SCCH-12) 12 MVC. No.5197/2023 Ex.P.2 Copy of first information Ex.P.3 Spot panchanama Ex.P.4 IMV notice Ex.P.5 Wound certificate Ex.P.6 Final report Ex.P.7 X-ray report Ex.P.8 Discharge summary Ex.P.9 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner Ex.P.10 06 -Medical bills Ex.P.11 4 - Prescriptions Ex.P.12 4 - X-rays Ex.P.13 Letter issued by Hosmat hospital Ex.P.14 OP record of Musthaq Ex.P.15 X-ray with report
Witnesses examined for the respondent :-
NIL Documents marked for the respondent :-
NIL (Vidyalaxmi Bhat), XI Addl. Small Causes Judge and ACJM, Bangalore.