Bangalore District Court
Girijamma V vs Banashankara Gowda on 8 December, 2025
KABC020094162017
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.5019/2017
Dated this 8th day of December, 2025
Petitioner: Girijamma V. W/o Muninarendra Babu,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at # 354, 7th Main,
4th Phase, 7th Block,
Syndicate Bank Colony,
Banashankari 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
(Sri M. Shivarama, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Banashankara Gowda S/o Gattina
Gowda,
Age: Major,
R/at # 54, Basaveshwara Nilaya,
3rd Cross, 1st 'A' Block, J.P. Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 076.
2 MVC No.5019/2017
(RC owner of Toyota Cab bearing
Reg. No.KA-01-AD-9238)
(Ex-parte)
2. Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd.,
# 1, 1st Floor, 32nd Cross, 9th Main,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru - 560 011.
(Insurer of Toyota Cab bearing
Reg. No.KA-01-AD-9238
Policy No.OG-17-1719-1803-
00000962, valid from 20-01-2017 to
19-01-2018)
(Sri Gururaj Salur, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. As per the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in MFA No.851/2021 (MV-I), judgment dated 01-08-2025, the matter is taken up again for fresh consideration.
3 MVC No.5019/2017
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 06-05-2017 at about 11.10 a.m., the petitioner was riding the Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg. No.KA-05-ET- 5586, slowly, carefully and cautiously, by observing all traffic rules and regulations, proceeding from Kadirenahalli towards Banashankari. When she was in Bendre Junction, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, at that time a Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD-9238, driven by its driver with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without following any traffic rules and regulations, so as to endanger to human life and property, all of a sudden came from Kadirenahalli Park side towards Kumaraswamy Layout and dashed against motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to said impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Yogananda Multispeciality Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein she took treatment as an in-patient. Earlier to the accident she was taking tuition at home and 4 MVC No.5019/2017 earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. But, due to accidental injuries, she has become permanently disabled and thereby lost her earning capacity. The Banashankari Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the said Toyota Cab for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of I.P.C. 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.20,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondent No.2 has appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.1 did not choose to appear and remained absent. Hence, the respondent No.1 is placed as ex-parte.
5 MVC No.5019/2017
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of commercial vehicle package policy bearing No.OG-17-1719-1803-00000962, in respect of motor cab bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD-9238, in favour of respondent No.1 and its validity from 20-01-2017 to 19-01-2018. It has sought for permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has contended that, the FIR so recorded on the same day on 06-05-2017, almost five hours after the accident i.e. 06-05-2017, at around 5:10 p.m., through the petitioner herself, while being under treatment at Yogananda Multispeciality Hospital and the damages caused to the insured vehicle motor cab, as per M.V.A. report being only as "1) rear dicky door damaged and front left side bumper noticed scratch mark", clearly confirms that the insured motor cab has not dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. However, the petitioner on noticing the motor cab 6 MVC No.5019/2017 coming from the left side of petitioner's Honda Activa towards Banashankari, applied sudden brakes, lost control over her vehicle, fell down and dashed against the hind portion of ongoing motor cab bearing No.KA-01-AD-9238 and sustained injuries. The petitioner/rider of motorcycle having failed to ride the same on the left side of the road, by not following traffic rules and regulations and not able to control the said motorcycle, has sustained injuries, itself proves the gross negligence of the petitioner. The accident has occurred solely due to rash and negligent riding of the petitioner. Further it is contended that, the accident has occurred on account of actionable negligence of two drivers, namely the petitioner being the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-05-ET-5586 and the driver of Motor Cab bearing No.KA-01-AD-9238, which were plying on the same road. The accident has occurred on account of usage of two vehicles. As such both the vehicles involved in the accident are to be held guilty of composite negligence. Further, it has sought 7 MVC No.5019/2017 protection under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. It has contended that, the petition is bad for non-compliance of provisions under Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident and the respondent No.1 being the owner of the Motor Cab has permitted to use the insured vehicle in a public place without having valid permit and fitness certificate, which amounts to breach of policy terms and conditions. As such the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner or indemnify the respondent No.1. Further, it has denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner, injuries, medical expenses and treatment taken by the petitioner. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 8 MVC No.5019/2017
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, she has sustained grievous injuries due to the road traffic accident alleged to have occurred on 06-05-2017 at about 11.10 a.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Cab bearing Reg.
No.KA-01-AD-9238 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 16 documents as Ex.P.1 to 16. Further, she has got examined one more 9 MVC No.5019/2017 witness namely Dr. B. Ramesh as P.W.2. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has examined its representative/Legal Officer as R.W.1 and got marked total 4 documents as Ex.R.1 to 4.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on 06-05-2017 at about 11.10 a.m., when the petitioner was riding the Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg. No.KA-05-ET- 5586, slowly, by observing the traffic rules and regulations, proceeding, from Kadirenahalli towards Banashankari, in 10 MVC No.5019/2017 Bendre Junction, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, at that time the driver of offending Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD- 9238, drove the same from Kadirenahalli Park side towards Kumaraswamy Layout, with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without following any traffic rules and regulations and dashed against motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to said impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident she was taking tuition at home and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. But, due to accidental injuries, she has become permanently disabled and thereby lost her earning capacity.
10. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of her oral evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 16 documents 11 MVC No.5019/2017 as Ex.P.1 to 16. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is true copy of sketch, Ex.P.5 is true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.6 is true copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.7 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.8 is discharge summary, Ex.P.9 are medical bills (total 11), Ex.P.10 are prescriptions (total 6), Ex.P.11 is notarized copy of driving licence, Ex.P.12 is x-ray, Ex.P.13 is OPD record, Ex.P.14 is x- ray, Ex.P.15 is certified copy of order-sheet in C.C.No.7993/2017 and Ex.P.16 is certified copy of plea in C.C.No.7993/2017.
11. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 7, 15 and 16, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD-9238 and dashing the same to the motorcycle of the petitioner, which was proceeding 12 MVC No.5019/2017 from West to East direction, from Kadirenahalli towards Banashankari, through Bendre Junction, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru. Further it reveals that, in the said accident the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries on her right leg and other parts of the body. The investigation officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.7, has clearly stated that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD-9238.
12. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, the issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of offending Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD- 9238 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner has remained undisputed by the owner of offending vehicle/Respondent No.1, as he did not choose appear and contest the case of the petitioner. 13 MVC No.5019/2017 Whereas, the respondent No.2 insurance company has specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and taken specific defence that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the petitioner herself, as the petitioner on noticing the Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD-9238 coming from the left side, applied sudden brakes, lost control over her vehicle and dashed against the hind portion of said car, fell down on the road and sustained injuries. But, the respondent No.2 has failed to establish the said contentions. Except the self serving statements of the R.W.1, who is authorised person/Legal Officer of respondent No.2 insurance company, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the respondent No.2 to show that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent riding on the part of the petitioner herself and there was no fault on the part of the drive of offending car. On the other hand, 14 MVC No.5019/2017 the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, the accident in question has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD-9238 and dashing the same to the motorcycle of the petitioner, which was proceeding from West to East direction, from Kadirenahalli towards Banashankari, through Bendre Junction, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru. Though the counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been brought out from her mouth, which creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has taken place due to her own rash and negligent riding or there was any contributory negligence on her part, in the cause of accident. No doubt, the P.W.1 has admitted in her cross- examination that, the accident has occurred on the flyover and in the middle of the junction. But, for mere reason that, the accident has occurred on the flyover and in the middle 15 MVC No.5019/2017 of the junction, it cannot be held that the petitioner has also contributed in the cause of accident, unless it is show that, at the relevant point of time of accident she was riding her motorcycle in rash and negligent and the same has led to the accident. Further it is pertinent to note that, as per Ex.P.5 Motor Vehicle Accident Report, there is damage caused to the rear dicky door and scratch mark on the front left side bumper. It is not the case of the respondents that, the said damages were already present before the present accident or the same have been caused in some other incident. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that, respondent No.2 has failed to rebut the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner.
13. Further, the Ex.P.3 spot mahazer and Ex.P.4 sketch clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place in the middle of Bendre Junction, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, in between offending Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD- 9238 and Honda Activa Scooter bearing Reg. No.KA-05-ET- 16 MVC No.5019/2017 5586 of the petitioner, which was proceeding from West to East direction, from Kadirenahalli towards Banashankari, through Bendre Junction, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.5, the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle involved in the accident. When the accident is not caused due to the any mechanical defects in the offending vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner/rider of scooter bearing Reg. No.KA-05-ET-5586, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.7 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No. KA-01-AD-9238 and the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the said 17 MVC No.5019/2017 accident. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged either by the driver or the owner of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD-9238. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, negligence of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to the petitioner in the said accident.
14. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.6 wound certificate, Ex.P.8 discharge summary, Ex.P.12 x-ray, Ex.P.13 OPD record and Ex.P.14 x-ray, it clearly reveals that, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. She has suffered undisplaced fracture right medial malleolus. The P.W.2, who is the doctor who has examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability, has clearly deposed in his evidence that, the petitioner has sustained above stated injury. Though, the 18 MVC No.5019/2017 learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.2 in length, nothing worth has been brought out from his mouth, which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondent No.2 to show that, the medical records produced by the petitioner are false documents.
15. 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."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation 19 MVC No.5019/2017 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."
17. Therefore, in the light of ratio laid down 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, she has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident, taken place on 06-05- 2017 at about 11.10 a.m., in the middle of Bendre Junction, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No. KA- 01-AD-9238. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
18. Issue No.2: While answering above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioner has successfully 20 MVC No.5019/2017 proved that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No. KA-01-AD-9238 and she has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. As per the medical records placed on record by the petitioner, she has sustained undisplaced fracture right medial malleolus. 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:
i) Towards loss of future income: In order to determine the compensation towards loss of future income, the age, monthly income and disability of the petitioner are 21 MVC No.5019/2017 to be determined. To prove her age, the petitioner has produced the notarised copy of her driving licence, which is marked as Ex.P.11. As per Ex.P.11, the date of birth of the petitioner is 18-02-1975. The accident has taken place on 06-05-2017 at about 11:10 a.m. This clearly goes show that, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident was 42 years. Further, the P.W.2, who is the doctor who has examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability, has clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief affidavit that, on clinical examination he found that, the petitioner had suffered undisplaced fracture right medial malleolus. Further he has deposed that, on clinical and radiological examination of injuries caused to the petitioner he found that, there is 12% permanent physical disability of the right lower limb and 6% permanent physical disability to the whole body of the petitioner. Further, the medical records produced by the petitioner clearly speaks that, the petitioner had sustained the above stated injury and for the 22 MVC No.5019/2017 said injury she has taken conservative treatment. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-
examined P.W.2 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence. Further, he has clearly denied the suggestions made to him that, the petitioner has not suffered any disability and he has exaggerated the percentage of disability. But, it is pertinent to note that, the P.W.2 has deposed in his evidence that, the accident has occurred on 06-05-2017 and he has assessed the disability to the petitioner on 16-08-2018, which is after lapse of one year and three months from the date of injuries caused to the petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to note that, P.W.2 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that, the fracture is united and he has not commented about the functional disability of the petitioner. Therefore, in such circumstances and taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, injuries sustained, avocation of the petitioner, duration of 23 MVC No.5019/2017 treatment and oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that, considering the disability of 5% to the whole body of the petitioner would be justified.
a) The petitioner has deposed in her evidence that, before accident she was taking tuition at home and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Further, she has deposed that, due to grievous injuries suffered in the said accident she is unable to do her work. The respondent No.2 has specifically denied the same. In such circumstances, the burden was on the petitioner to prove her avocation and income. But, the petitioner has failed to establish the same through cogent and corroborative evidence. She has not produced any document to show that, before the accident she was taking tuition at home and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no other option before this Court, except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines of the 24 MVC No.5019/2017 Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident took place in 2017. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.11,000/- per month and the annual income of the petitioner as Rs.1,32,000/-.
b) As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier for a person whose is aged about 42 years is 14. Therefore, loss of future income is Total annual income X disability/100 X multiplier = Rs.1,32,000 X 5/100 X 14 = Rs.92,400/-.
ii) Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed that, she has incurred expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charge etc. In order to prove the same, she has produced 11 medical bills, as per Ex.P.9. All the bills have been examined carefully and found that the petitioner has spend total amount of Rs.11,181/- towards medical expenses. 25 MVC No.5019/2017 Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.11,181/- under the head of medical expenses.
iii) Pain and sufferings: In the present case, the petitioner has sustained grievous injury i.e. undisplaced fracture right medial malleolus and for the said injury she has taken conservative treatment. Further, as per P.W.2 the said injuries have caused physical disability to the petitioner. In such circumstances, certainly the petitioner would have suffered pain and sufferings. Therefore, taking into considering the injuries sustained and the disability suffered by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that, compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
iv) Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.8 discharge summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 2 days from 06-05-2017 to 07-05-2017 in Yogananda Multispeciality Hospital, Bengaluru. She might have spent some amount towards attendant charges during that 26 MVC No.5019/2017 period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.1000 x 2 = Rs.2,000/- is awarded towards the attendant charges.
v) Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.8 discharge summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 2 days in Yogananda Multispeciality Hospital, Bengaluru. He might have spent some amount towards food and nourishment during the said period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 2 = Rs.1,600/- is awarded towards food and nourishment charges.
vi) Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the resident of Syndicate Bank Colony, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru, the accident has taken place on Bendre Junction, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru and the petitioner has taken treatment at Yogananda Multispeciality Hospital, Bengaluru. Taking into consideration the distance in between the above places, compensation of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards conveyance.
27 MVC No.5019/2017
vii) Loss of income during treatment period: The petitioner has taken treatment for 2 days as in-patient at Yogananda Multispeciality Hospital, Bengaluru, for the grievous injuries sustained by her. She might have taken rest for at least one month and lost her income for the said period. Therefore, Rs.11,000 x 1 = Rs.11,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period.
viii) 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 42 years and unfortunately she has suffered undisplaced fracture right medial malleolus. Further, he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 5% to the whole body. Therefore, awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities would be just and reasonable.
ix) Future medical expenses: There is no evidence on record to show that, the petitioner requires any further treatment for the injury sustained in the said accident. 28 MVC No.5019/2017 Even, the P.W.2 has not stated anything with respect to same. In such circumstances, the question of awarding future medical expenses does not arise at all. Therefore, no compensation is awarded in this particular head.
19. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads as follows:
1. Loss of future income Rs. 92,400-00
2. Medical expenses 11,181-00
3. Pain and sufferings 40,000-00
4. Attendant charges 2,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 1,600-00
6. Conveyance expenses 5,000-00
7. Loss of income during 11,000-00 treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 30,000-00
9. Future medical expenses Nil Total Rs. 1,93,181-00 In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,93,181/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization. 29 MVC No.5019/2017
20. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of offending Toyota Cab bearing No.KA-01-AD-9238. As per Ex.R.1 insurance policy, the policy bearing No.OG-17- 1719-1803-00000962 issued by the respondent No.2 in respect offending Toyota Cab bearing Reg. No.KA-01-AD- 9238 was valid from 20-01-2017 to 19-01-2018. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 06-05- 2017. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01-AD-9238 the said accident has occurred and the petitioner sustained in the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused to the petitioner by the said vehicle. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of said vehicle is liable to indemnify the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent 30 MVC No.5019/2017 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.1,93,181/- from the respondent No.2, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
21. 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 for compensation of Rs.1,93,181/- (Rupees one lakh ninety three thousand one hundred and eighty one only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.31 MVC No.5019/2017
The respondents No.1 and 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 said amount within two months from the date of this order.
The entire compensation amount with proportionate interest 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 this the 8 th day of December, 2025) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.32 MVC No.5019/2017
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: Girijamma V. W/o Muninarendra Babu P.W.2: Dr. B. Ramesh S/o V. Bangaru Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement
Ex.P.3: True copy of Spot Mahazer
Ex.P.4: True copy of Sketch
Ex.P.5: True copy of M.V.A. report
Ex.P.6: True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.7: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.8: Discharge Summary
Ex.P.9: Medical Bills (total 11)
Ex.P.10: Prescriptions (total 6)
Ex.P.11: Notarized copy of Driving Licence
Ex.P.12: One X-ray
Ex.P.13: OPD Record
Ex.P.14: One X-ray
Ex.P.15: Certified copy of Order Sheet in CC
No.7993/2017
Ex.P.16: Certified copy of Plea in CC No.7993/2017
33 MVC No.5019/2017
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1: Prerana V.N. D/o V. Nagaraja Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1: True copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.R.2: True copy of Notice dated 20-09-2017
Ex.R.3: Postal Receipt
Ex.R.4: Postal Acknowledgment
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.