Bangalore District Court
Shanthamma.N. Alias Shantha.N vs Chakrapani.G on 20 August, 2025
KABC020191232022
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU
(SCCH-18)
Dated: this the 20th day of August 2025
Present: DHANESH MUGALI
B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)
III ADDL. JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C. No.3437/2022
Petitioner : Smt.Shanthamma N.
@ Shantha N.,
Wife of G.Lokesh,
Aged about 48 years,
Represented by her husband
G.Lokesh as next friend,
Both are residing at
Kasuvanahalli,
Veerapura,
Bengaluru Rural District,
Karnataka-561 203.
(By Pleader by Smt.K.B.Roopa)
V/s
Respondents : 1. Shri Chakrapani G.,
Son of Gopalappa,
SCCH-18 2 MVC 3437/2022
No.71, Kasavanahalli Village,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural
District -561 203.
(Exparte)
2. The Manager,
TATA AIG General Insurance Co.
Ltd., Unit NO.B-101 B, B wing,
1st floor, Brigade Magnum,
Amruthahalli, NH-7,
International Airport road,
Bengaluru-560 092.
(By Pleader Shri Muralidhar
Negavar)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed this petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under:
2. That on 12.2.2022 at about 8.10 p.m. the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-43-Q-6047 ridden by its rider, when they reached near SCCH-18 3 MVC 3437/2022 Government Hospital, Singasandra, Hosur Service road, at that point of time, the rider of the motor cycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost the control over his vehicle and hit the road hump, resulted in the accident. As a result the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous head injuries.
3. It is further stated that, immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Kauvery Hospital, wherein she took the first aid treatment again shifted to P.D.Hinduja Sindhi Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein she took the treatment as an inpatient for more than 3 months on 3 occasions.
The petitioner has spent huge amount towards her medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment.
4. It is stated that, prior to the accident the petitioner was doing tailoring and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. On account of the accidental injuries, she could not able to do her work as earlier and lost her income and suffering from permanent disability.
SCCH-18 4 MVC 3437/20225. It is further stated that, the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 43-Q-6047. In this regard, case was registered against the rider by the jurisdictional Electronic Police in Crime No.19/2022. As such, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition, seeking compensation.
6. In response to the notices, the respondent No.1 has not appeared before the court, remained absent, placed expart. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement
7. In the written statement of the respondent No.2 contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. Further it has denied the manner in which the accident took place, injuries sustained by the petitioner, age, avocation, and income of the petitioner. Further, this respondent has admitted about issuance of insurance policy in respect of motor cycle bearing SCCH-18 5 MVC 3437/2022 registration No.KA-43-Q-6047 and the liability of this respondent is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It is also the contention that, false complaint has been lodged against the insured vehicle after lapse of two days. Further contended that the rider of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Further, it is also the contention of the respondent that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Upon these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties, this court has framed the following issues;
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioner proves that, she had sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 12.2.2022 at about 8.10 p.m. near Government Hospital, Singasandra, Hosur Service Road, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-43-Q-6047 in an actionable negligence?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate? from whom?
SCCH-18 6 MVC 3437/20223) What order or award?
9. In order to substantiate the case, the petitioner got examined A.S.Venkatesh Prasad, P.D. Hinduja Hospital Maintenance Supervisor as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. Apart from this, MRO of Kauvery Hospital, Bengaluru as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P3 to Ex.P6. In addition to their evidence placed the evidence of Dr.Veeresha U Mathad as PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P7 to Ex.P10. Further, guardian of the petitioner by name Shri G.Lokesh examined as PW4 and got marked the documents as Ex.P11 to Ex.P40.
10. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 examined Claims Associate of the insurance company as RW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R2 & Ex.R3. Ex.R1 marked by confrontation by PW4.
11. Heard the arguments of both the counsel and perused the materials available on record.
SCCH-18 7 MVC 3437/202212. At the time of argument the counsel for the petitioner has relied the decision reported in;
1) 2022 ACJ 948 between Benson George Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another Wherein the Honb'e High Court of Karnataka held that, "loss of amenities and happiness suffered by the claimant and his family members also depends upon various factors including the position of the claimants post accident and whether he is in a position to enjoy life and/or happiness which he was enjoying prior to the accident. To what extent the claimant has lost the amenities in life and the happiness will depend on the facts of the each case."
13. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has relied the following decisions reported in
1) MFA No.4407/2020 between the Branch Manager Vs. Kavitha & Others Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "to make wrongful gain in such cases from the insurance company, ambulance chasers operate the syndicate of the doctors, police officers, motor vehicle inspectors etc., under such circumstances, the courts have the responsibility to analyse the evidence on record cautiously and holistically."
SCCH-18 8 MVC 3437/202214. My answer to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following:
R E A S O N S
ISSUE No.1:-
15. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 43-Q-6047, the alleged accident had taken place, consequently she had sustained grievous injuries.
16. On the other hand, the respondent No.2, though not disputed the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, seriously disputed the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-43-Q-6047. The respondent No.1 remained absent, placed exparte.
17. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, at the time of the trial, since the petitioner due to her grievous injuries, mentally, physically, SCCH-18 9 MVC 3437/2022 and verbally disabled, her husband was examined as PW4. PW4 in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit has reiterated the averments made in the petition. The PW4 in support of his oral evidence has relied upon Ex.P11 to Ex.P17. Ex.P11-true copy of the FIR in Crime No.19/2022 of Electronic City Police Station, Ex.P12-true copy of the first information statement, Ex.P13-true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P14-true copy of charge sheet, Ex.P15- true copy of IMV report, Ex.P16-true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P11-true copy of wound certificate.
18. On perusal of the police documents, it could be seen that, based upon the first information statement given by PW4, the S.H.O. of Electronic city Police have registered the case against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC. Upon investigation, the I.O. has filed charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle alleging that he has committed the offences punishable under section 279 and 338 of IPC.
SCCH-18 10 MVC 3437/202219. In order to substantiate the defence of the respondent No.2 has examined Claims Associate of insurance company as RW1. He has deposed in his evidence that the complaint lodged to the police after lapse of two days of the incident to suit her claim. Further deposed that, the MLC of Cauvery Hospital clearly states that the alleged history of road traffic accident "self fall from bike at Hosa road signal E.City, Bengaluru at around 8.10 p.m." Further stated that the petitioner was riding the motor cycle without wearing helmet and sustained head injury due to self fall. In the cross-examination admitted that after investigation police have filed the charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-43-Q-6047. Further admitted that as per the police documents the petitioner was not riding the motor cycle. As per Ex.P5 MLC as per the information of the police the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider near Hosa road, Electronic city city, due to the road hump petitioner fell down and sustained injuries.
20. On going through the complaint marked at Ex.P12, there is a clear mention about the reasons SCCH-18 11 MVC 3437/2022 for delay in lodging the complaint. The delay in lodging the FIR is not a ground to doubt the claim petition.
21. On perusal of Ex.P5 MLC extract of Kauvery Hospital shows that the "alleged history of road traffic accident self fall from bike at Hosa road signal, Electronic city, Bengaluru at around 8.10. p.m. on 12.2.2022". To prove the said contention, the respondent No.2 has not made an effort to examine the author of the document. Moreover, the respondent No.2 has not placed the documents to show that petitioner was riding the motor cycle at the time of accident. Except making bald allegations the respondent No.2 has not placed any supportive documents to prove its contention.
22. During the course of arguments the counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that petitioner was riding the motor cycle without wearing helmet and sustained head injury due to self fall. In this connection relied the following decisions;
1) CMA No.10/2017 between Grace Geetha Vs. Vivek Transporters & Another SCCH-18 12 MVC 3437/2022
2) MACA No.2482/2009 between Poonjan & Others Vs. Vanchankal & Others Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and Kerala respectively held that "if a rider is not wearing the helmet at the time of accident the Tribunal can deduct 25% compensation amount for not wearing of helmet at the time of accident."
23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in
1)2023 ACJ 1234 between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Amrutha & Others.
Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "even though the rider of the motor cycle has violated Section 129 of M.V. Act by non-wearing helmet, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation."
24. In the instant case, there is no proof to show that the petitioner was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. Even though, if she was not wearing helmet at the time of accident, insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation as per the above said citation. Hence, SCCH-18 13 MVC 3437/2022 the decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is aptly applicable to the facts of this case on hand.
25. Apart from this, even at the time of cross- examination of PW4, no material answers culled out to believe the defenses of the respondent No.2 about the denial of allegation made against the rider of the offending vehicle.
26. In the light of the evidence placed on record, it is crystal clear that, the alleged accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-43-Q-6047. As such, the petitioner has placed the satisfactory and convincing evidence on record to prove the above issue. Hence, without making much discussion on the point of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am answering the issue No.1, in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.2 :
27. This issue is with respect to the entitlement of reliefs claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner SCCH-18 14 MVC 3437/2022 through her guaridan filed this petition, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident under different heads.
28. Before appreciation of the evidence placed by the petitioner about the injuries sustained by him, in the accident and its consequences, it is apt to note herein, the preposition laid down in the following land mark judgment, while appreciating the injury cases in Motor Vehicle Act.
Civil Appeal No.8981/2010 D.D. 18.10.2010 Rajkumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Another of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
"In the aforesaid case, it was held that, the court has to make judicious attempt to award compensation to the loss suffered by the claimant. The compensation should not be assessed conservatively. On the other hand, compensation should also not be endeavouring to secure some uniformity and consistency. The object of awarding compensation is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done, as far as money can do so, in a fair reasonable and equitable manner." "while determining quantum of compensation, in such cases, the court has to SCCH-18 15 MVC 3437/2022 strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. That sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, comes in the way of making a correct assessment. But if a case is made out, and the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation. "
Pain and Sufferings;
29. PW4 has stated in his evidence that, petitioner has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident. In connection with the injuries of the petitioner, he has produced wound certificate marked as Ex.P17. The said document discloses that, petitioner had sustained the following injuries:-
1) Abrasions 2 cms X 1cm present over left side of head
2) Abrasion 2 cms X 2 cms present over left elbow
3) CT scan shows large acute hemorrhagic contusions in the right temporal lobe with multiple small hemorrhagic contusions in the left frontal lobe
4) Thin right fronto-temporo-parietal convexity acute subdural hematoma SCCH-18 16 MVC 3437/2022
5) Associated subarachnoid hemorrhage in the right frontal, high parietal, left parieto-occipital and left anterior frontal sulcal spaces
6) Acute hemotoma in the supracerebellar cistern appears to extend from left cerebellar tentorium and obliterating the ambient cisterns
7) Multiple fractures of left anterior hemimaxilla, floor of sella, spenoid sinus and lateral wall of left orbit
8) Minimal midline shift to the left side by 2 mm
30. In connection with the above said injuries, the doctor is of the opinion that the injury No.1 & 2 are simple in nature and the injury No.3 to 8 are grievous in nature. Further, PW4 has produced discharge summaries per Ex.P18 to Ex.P22, disability certificate at Ex.P23, photographs and CD at Ex.P35 to Ex.P40. On perusal of discharge summaries marked at Ex.P18 to Ex.P22 reveal that the petitioner was admitted from 13.2.2022 to 24.2.2022, 25.2.2022 to 7.3.2022, 7.3.2022 to 31.3.2022, 3.5.2022 to 3.8.2022 Apart from his evidence placed the evidence of MRO P.D.Hinduja SCCH-18 17 MVC 3437/2022 Hospital as PW1. He has placed authorisation letter and inpatient records at Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. Further examined MR of Kauvery hospital, Bengaluru as PW2. He has placed authorisation letter, police intimation, MLC extract and inpatient record at Ex.P3 to Ex.P6. In addition to his evidence, placed the evidence of Dr.Veeresha U Mathad as PW3. PW3 has stated that, the petitioner has sustained traumatic SAH in basal cistern, right temporal contusion with pericontusion oedema with mass effect, multiple small contusion in bilateral frontal and left temporal lobe and diffuse axonal injury. She was managed conservatively, in view of long term ventilator support, she underwent tracheostomy. She was managed in ICU on ventilator with analgesics, antibiotics etc., At the time of discharge her condition-unconscious, no eye opening on tracheostomy, Ryle's tube feeding. By taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries and the treatment taken by the petitioner, she could have undergone pain and sufferings while taking treatment, as an in patient as well as an outpatient. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of SCCH-18 18 MVC 3437/2022 Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of Pain and Sufferings.
Loss of income during treatment period:
31. PW4 has stated that, petitioner is aged about 48 years, tailor and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In the case on hand, on going through the facts and circumstances of the case primafacie reveal that, after the accident, due to the severe injuries sustained by the petitioner, has not continued her profession. And loss of income in toto occurred to her, after the accident. As such, while considering the loss of future income each and every aspect to be discussed. In this regard, compensation under the head of loss of income during the laid up period and rest period has not been considered. Because there is a total loss to her after the accident, till today she is under the medication and without the assistance of the attendant, she cannot do any work in future.
And also no improvements from her side to do normal life in future, and to continue her profession, as he was earlier.
SCCH-18 19 MVC 3437/2022Medical Expeneses;
32. The petitioner in connection with her treatment expenses, at the time of her evidence, placed medical bills of Rs.7,76,394/- as per Ex.P31, prescriptions at Ex.P32 and physiotherapy bills at Ex.P33 to the extent of Rs.13,91,480/-. Nursing care bill at Ex.34 for Rs.8,70,000/-. At the time of cross-examination PW4 admitted that his son Arun kumar had medi claim policy. From the said policy Rs.2,50,000/- through Kauvery hospital, Rs.1,00,000/- through Apollo hospital and Rs.180,000/- Sanjivini hospital in total Rs.5,50,000/- were reimbursed. Further admitted that in Ex.P31, Sl.No.7,27,32,36,39,79, 83 and 92 were hand written bills. For the said bills there is no doctors advice or prescription to purchase of the medicines. Further admitted that in Ex.P31 bill No.134 handwritten bill and there is no mention on which doctor's advise or from which hospital. In Ex.P33 bill No.2 to 29 handwritten bills. The said bills pertaining to physiotherapy bills are not mentioned the mode of payment. On going through the medical bills in Ex.P31, Rs.7,76,394/- and in Ex.P32 Sl.No.1 amounting to Rs.5,79,480/- shall be SCCH-18 20 MVC 3437/2022 considered and the Sl.No.2 to 30 shall not be considered as there is no proof of doctors advice and there is no receipts for having paid the said amount. Further Ex.P34 medical bills of Rs.8,70,000/- shall not be considered. On calculation of the medical bills it comes to Rs.13,55,784/-. Hence, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.13,55,784/- towards medical expenses.
Attendant charges, food and nourishment and conveyance charges;
a) Atendant Charges;
33. In the case on hand, it is true that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that one attendant or nurse was engaged to look after the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner requires treatment till her recovery. It is also to be noted that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient almost 138 days. Thereafter, she was discharged with the advise of follow-up treatment. As could be seen from the medical bills placed by the petitioner, the petitioner has taken treatment in various hospitals. On perusal of the evidence of PW3 the petitioner has motor weakness of right upper and SCCH-18 21 MVC 3437/2022 lower limbs-hemiplegic. She has to depend for all her daily needs. As per neuropsychological assessment, the petitioner not able to speak, or communicate and dependent on others for her everything including personal needs. In the cross- examination of PW4 reveals that still the petitioner not able to walk and possibilities are less to improve her condition in future.
34. Having seen the medical documents of the petitioner, it could be said that one attendant was absolutely required for the petitioner atleast for some period. As stated in the psychological assessment report petitioner is bedridden most of the time, not able to express any other needs like, food, water, hot or cold etc, she makes some groaning noises, when she is made to sit or stand, she is comfortable when she is lying down, she is not able to speak a word. She needs to be lifted and put on a chair and back to the bed if there is a need. She passes urine and stools in the diaper. With clinical observation, it is found to be very high, since she is completely dependent on family for everything including her personal needs. Therefore, it is held that one attendant is required for the petitioner through out SCCH-18 22 MVC 3437/2022 her life. If the minimum wages is considered Rs.4,000/- per month, for her age multiplier applicable is '13'. Having considering all these facts it is held that necessary to award sum of Rs.6,24,000/- (Rs.4,000x12x13) towards attendant charges.
b) Food & nourishment and conveyance;
35. It is true, no material has been placed by the petitioner with regard to amount spent towards nourishment food. Even it is also difficult to produce and prove the same by way of document. Having regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it could be said that throughout the life of the petitioner she has to be provided with adequate nutritious food to maintain present status of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner could not able to move alone. Either husband of the petitioner or any attendant who takes care of the petitioner has to engage taxi or ambulance whenever they want to take the petitioner for follow-up treatment. Hence, it is reasonable to award Rs.1,50,000/- towards nourishment, food and conveyance.
SCCH-18 23 MVC 3437/2022Loss of future income;
36. The PW4 herein, asserting that, petitioner had sustained permanent disability, consequent upon the injuries sustained by her. In order to prove the same, the PW4 has relied on his evidence along with the wound certificate and other medical documents. In the evidence of the PW4, reiterated the same thing forthcoming in the main petition. As already discussed above, wound certificate placed by him as per Ex.P17 goes to show that, petitioner had sustained grievous head injury, for which she took the treatment as an inpatient. To substantiate this, the petitioner had placed discharge summaries for consideration. Apart from this, another material witness by name Dr.Veeresha U. Mathad examined as PW3. PW3 has stated in his evidence that the petitioner has sustained traumatic SAH basal cistern, right temporal contusion with pericontusion oedema with mass effect, multiple small contusion in bilateral frontal and left temporal lobe and diffuse axonal injury. She was admitted at Kauvery hospital, Bengaluru she was treated in ICU on ventilator support. She was diagnosed diffuse axonal injury, and treated conservatively. She SCCH-18 24 MVC 3437/2022 underwent tracheostomy and then discharged on 24.2.2022. at the time of discharge her condition- unconscious, no eye opening on tracheostomy Ryle's tube feeding. Again admitted three times at P.D. Hinduja Sindhi hospital and then discharged on 30.4.2022. Later she was admitted to Shri Sanjeevini multispeciality hospital, Bengaluru on 30.1.2023, she underwent emergency burrhold surgery and evacuation of chronic SDH, she was given regular physiotherapy and nuerorehabilitation and discharged on 4.2.2023. Again she was admitted to Suvitas, Bengaluru on 3.5.2022 for neurohabilitation, she had given regular physiotherapy, respiratory therapy etc., Further admitted to Apollo hospital, Bannerghatta road, Benglauru on 14.12.2024 with left axillary abscess. She underwent drainage of abscess and discharged on 17.12.2022.
37. Further stated that, on examination of the petitioner on 15.3.2024, revealed that, she is bedridden since the time of accident, no further improvement in her condition, not able to get up, not able to roll ont he bed, weakness of right side of the SCCH-18 25 MVC 3437/2022 body, hand and leg. She needs constant supervision and help of others for daily activities. She needs support for feeding the food, not able to recognize the people, doesnot understand, no response to command, does not have control over the urination and passing stools.
38. Further stated that petitioner is right hemiplegic contractures in right UL & LL present. Spasticity right upper and lower limbs present. No control over bowel and bladder. He has assessed the permanent physical impairment due to neurological conditions is more than 80% due to head injury, and petitioner is bedridden and dependent on others for her daily routine activities and hence, she has 100% functional disability irrespective of tyoe of avocation. He has placed clinical note, neurop[sychological assessment report, CT scan and fim at Ex.P7 to Ex.P10.
39. At the time of cross-examination of PW3, he has admitted that as per recent CT scan injuries sustained by the petitioner are healed. At present also physiotherapy treatment continued to the petitioner. Further denied the suggestion that he SCCH-18 26 MVC 3437/2022 has assessed the disability of more than 80% to the petitioner on higher side.
40. Over all appreciation of evidence of PW3 along with the entire medical documents the whole body disability expressed by PW3 by following the guidelines issued by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Government of India and accordingly petitioner has 100% disability.
41. Hence, by taking into consideration of point of disability expressed by PW3, it is just and proper to consider 80% disability. The same will meets the ends of justice.
42. In connection with the age of the petitioner is concerned, on going through the cause title of the petition reveals that, as on the date of the petition, her age is 48 years. The petitioner in order to prove her age PW4 has relied upon Ex.P24 Aadhar card which shows the year of birth of petitioner was 1974. The accident took place on 12.2.2022. From this document, it can be said the petitioner was aged about 48 years at the time of accident. To the said SCCH-18 27 MVC 3437/2022 age as per Sarla Verma case, multiplier '13' is to be taken into consideration.
43. Next factual aspect of the income of the petitioner is concerned, PW1 in his evidence the petitioner has stated that, prior to the accident, petitioner was working as a tailor and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. There is no iota of documents to show the income of the petitioner. In such a situation, as per law notional income has to be taken into consideration. But the said notional income is to be taken judiciously, by taking into consideration of the year of the accident. It is pertinent to note that, in the case on hand, the alleged accident had taken place in the year 2022. As per the notional income chart, I am of the view that, it is apt to take the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.15,500/- for the year 2022. After considering the future prospects at 25% of Rs.3,875/- it comes to Rs.19,375/- per month.
44. In the light of my detailed discussions held above, no doubt injuries sustained by the petitioner, definitely come in the way of her future, to do her daily routine work, as well as to do her work for SCCH-18 28 MVC 3437/2022 livelihood on going through her age criteria. Hence, the petitioner herein, is entitled for compensation under loss of future income as follows:
Rs.19,375 X 12 X 13 X 80/100= Rs.24,18,000/-.
Loss of amenities;
45. PW4 has stated in his evidence that, due to the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate and also as per the evidence of the doctor PW3 and the 80% disability of the petitioner, primafacie reveals that, the petitioner is in pitiable condition. At the time of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, due to the disability of the petitioner she is suffering a lot and with this disability she has to lead her future life, by feeling of hurt, helplessness, despair and often destitution ensures every day. The support that needed by severely injured person comes at an enormous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim, but even more so on her family, relatives, friends and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity. In the case on hand, on going through the evidence of the doctor he SCCH-18 29 MVC 3437/2022 is in pitiable condition. By taking into consideration of all these aspects, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Future Medication;
46. From the evidence of the PW3 and PW4 it is no doubt that to maintain the present status of the injured petitioner guardian of the petitioner has to provide regular physiotherapy throughout the life of the petitioner. As per the evidence of PW3, the petitioner is still bed ridden and spasticity of both upper and lower limbs present-tone increased. No control over bowel and bladder. Under such circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that it is just and proper to award reasonable and just compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner under the head future medical expenses
47. In view of my discussions held above, on various aspects the petitioner is entitled for compensation in toto, under the following heads:
SCCH-18 30 MVC 3437/2022Compensation heads Compensation amount
1.Pain and Suffering Rs. 3,00,000-00
2.Loss of income during NIL laid-up period and rest period
3. Medical expenses Rs.13,55,784-00
4. Attendant, Nourishment Rs. 7,74,000-00 and Conveyance Charges
a) Attendant charges of Rs.6,24,000/-
b) Food and nourishment charges of Rs.1,50,000/-
5. Loss of future income Rs.24,18,000-00 due to disability
6. Loss of Amenities Rs. 2,00,000-00
7. Future medication Rs. 1,50,000-00 Total Rs.51,97,784-00
48. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.51,97,784/- (Rupees fifty one lakhs ninety seven thousand seven hundred and eighty four only), along with interest @ 6% per annum, as per the proposition laid down by the Honourable High court of Karnataka in, MFA No.103557/2016, between Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated. 20.03.2018. And MFA SCCH-18 31 MVC 3437/2022 No.30131/2019 dated.12.5.2020, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
LIABILITY:
49. As regards the liability is concerned, it is the assertion of the petitioner that, due to actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-43-Q-6047 alleged accident had taken place. The evidence given by the petitioner in connection with the issue No.1, remained unshaken.
50. As per records the insurance policy is valid from 10.12.2021 to 9.12.2022. The accident occurred on 12.2.2022. As such, I am of the view that, the respondent No.2 being the insurance company and the respondent No.1 being owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its realization. Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
SCCH-18 32 MVC 3437/2022ISSUE No.3:
51. In view of above discussions on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.51,97,784/- (Rupees fifty one lakhs ninety seven thousand seven hundred and eighty four only), along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of the petition till the realization of the award amount.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
After deposit of the compensation amount with interest, 50% of the amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized/Scheduled bank in F.D for a SCCH-18 33 MVC 3437/2022 period of 3 years in the name of the petitioner and remaining 50% of the amount shall be released to the guardian of the petitioner through due process of law.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of January 2025).
Digitally signed by DHANESHDHANESH MUGALI MUGALI Date:
2025.09.01 16:20:32 +0530 (DHANESH MUGALI) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Dr.A.S.Venkatesh Prasad PW2 Shri Manikanta N. PW3 Dr.Veeresha U Mathad PW4 Shri G.Lokesh
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 Authorisation letter Ex.P2 Inpatient records Ex.P3 Authorisation letter SCCH-18 34 MVC 3437/2022 Ex.P4 Police intimation Ex.P5 MLC extract Ex.P6 Entire inpatient record Ex.P7 Clinical note Ex.P8 Neuro-psychological assessment report Ex.P9 & CT scan report and film Ex.P10 Ex.P11 FIR Ex.P12 FIS Ex.P13 Spot Mahazar Ex.P14 Charge sheet Ex.P15 IMV report Ex.P16 Spot sketch Ex.P17 Wound certificate Ex.P18 to Discharge summaries Ex.P22 Ex.P23 Disability certificate Ex.P24 Aadhar card Ex.P25 PAN card Ex.P26 Election ID card Ex.P27 Aadhar card Ex.P28 PAN card Ex.P29 Medi Assit Bill Ex.P30 Follow-up treatment Ex.P31 Medical bills Ex.P32 Prescriptions Ex.P33 Physiotherapy bills Ex.P34 Nursing care Service bill Ex.P35 to Photographs Ex.P39 Ex.P40 CD SCCH-18 35 MVC 3437/2022
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW1 Smt.Sahana List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 Portion of Ex.P6 confronted by PW4 Ex.R2 Authorisation letter Ex.R3 Policy copy Digitally signed DHANESH by DHANESH MUGALI MUGALI Date: 2025.09.01 16:20:39 +0530 III ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE MEMBER MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU.