Bangalore District Court
Shivu.N vs Arunachala Logistics Pvt Ltd on 10 June, 2025
KABC020336032022
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.6249/2022
Dated this 10th day of June, 2025
Petitioner: Shivu N. S/o K. Siva Kumar,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at Maragondanaguni,
Yalerampura,
Tumkur - 572 129.
(Sri B. H. Chikkanna, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. M/s. Arunachala Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,
Corporate Office, #8-2-1/1/3,
Avatar Nivas, Srinagar Colony,
Main Road, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 082.
(RC owner of the lorry bearing
Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206)
(Ex-parte)
2 MVC No.6249/2022
2. The Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Mahalakshmi Chambers,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Policy No.
6103008122000000092302/06/22,
valid from 07-06-2022 to
06-06-2023)
(Sri K. Nagaraja, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 11-10-2022 at about 3:30 a.m., the petitioner was driving his car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-AA-9313, at B.B. road, infront of Bisleri Factory, Kannamangala Gate, Bengaluru District. At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 had negligently and wrongly parked the 3 MVC No.6249/2022 said vehicle in the middle of the road, without putting any indicator. On account of which, the petitioner's car got dashed against the said lorry from behind. Due to said impact, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Wen Lock Hospital, Chamaraj Pet, wherein he took first aid treatment and then he was shifted to Sapthagiri Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an in-patient. Earlier to the accident, he was working as driver-cum-owner of the car and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, he has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity. The Devanahalli Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the said car for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 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 4 MVC No.6249/2022 petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondent No.2 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.
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. It has contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance of provision under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the driver of the offending lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Further it is contended that, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence on 5 MVC No.6249/2022 the part of the petitioner, who was driving his car without fastening the seat belt and without holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said car. He was driving the car in busy traffic highway road, without having proper look out and observing the vehicular movements and by driving with high speed, rash and negligently in a zig zag manner and without maintaining any safe distance between the vehicles, went and dashed against the stationed lorry which was parked taking all precautions and with safety and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. But, the police authorities colluding with the petitioner have filed the charge-sheet against the driver of said car, to claim compensation from the respondent No.2 and to have wrongful gain. The petitioner is the sole architect and responsible for the alleged accident and he is the tort feasor. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in favour of respondent No.1, in respect of lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y- 6206 and its validity as on the date of accident. It has denied 6 MVC No.6249/2022 the age, income and avocation of the petitioner, injuries sustained, medical expenses and treatment taken by him. Further, it has sought permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it has contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries due to the road traffic accident, alleged to have occurred on 11-10-2022, at about 3.30 a.m., at B.B. road, infront of Bisleri Factory, Kannamangala Gate, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry, bearing Reg. No. AP-39-Y-6206 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for 7 MVC No.6249/2022 compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 24 documents as Ex.P.1 to 24. Further, he has got examined two more witnesses namely Srinivasaiah and Dr. Ramesh as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and closed his side. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on its behalf.
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: Partly Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS 8 MVC No.6249/2022
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on 11-10-2022 at about 3:30 a.m., when the petitioner was driving his car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-AA-9313, at B.B. road, infront of Bisleri Factory, Kannamangala Gate, Bengaluru District, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y- 6206 had negligently and wrongly parked the said vehicle in the middle of the road, without putting any indicator. On account of which, the petitioner's car got dashed against the said lorry from behind. Due to said impact, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident, he was working as driver-cum-owner of the car and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, he has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity.
10. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein he has reiterated entire averments made 9 MVC No.6249/2022 in the petition. Further, in support of his oral evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 24 documents as Ex.P.1 to
24. 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 police intimation, Ex.P.4 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is true copy of sketch, Ex.P.6 is true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident Report, Ex.P.7 is true copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.8 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.9 is notarized copy of Aadhar card, Ex.P.10 are medical bills (total 52), Ex.P.11 are prescriptions (total 5), Ex.P.12 is CT brain plain report, Ex.P.13 is interim report, Ex.P.14 is Bio Chemistry report, Ex.P.15 is Pelvis report, Ex.P.16 is Ultrasonography report, Ex.P.17 are photos (total 5), Ex.P.18 is C.D., Ex.P.19 are x-rays (total 5), Ex.P.20 are CT and MRI scan films (total 5), Ex.P.21 is authorization letter, Ex.P.22 is case-sheet, Ex.P.23 is OPD book and Ex.P.24 is x-ray.
11. On meticulously going through the above police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 8, prima-facia it reveals 10 MVC No.6249/2022 that, the accident in question has taken place due to negligently and wrongly parking of the lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 in the middle of the way meant to take deviation on the said road, without any indicators and due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/driver of car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-AA-9313 and dashing the same to the stationed lorry. Due to said impact, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries on his head, hands and legs and other parts of the body. The investigation officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.8, has clearly stated that, the said accident is caused due to negligently parking of the offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 by its driver, without any indicators and taking precautionary measures and due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/driver of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-AA-9313 and dashing the same to said lorry.
12. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, 11 MVC No.6249/2022 involvement of lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 in the said accident, issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of said vehicle 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 to appear and contest the case of the petitioner. 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 occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner, as he was driving his car in busy traffic highway road, without having proper lookout at the vehicular movements, in high speed, in rash and negligent manner and without maintaining safe distance between the vehicles and he himself went and dashed against the stationed lorry, which was parked taking all precautions and safety. But, the 12 MVC No.6249/2022 respondent No.2 has failed to establish the said contentions. The respondent No.2 has neither adduced any evidence to establish the above contentions, nor it has produced any rebuttal evidence to disprove the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Even, the respondent No.2 has not stepped into witness box to depose the contentions taken in its written statement on oath. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner himself clearly establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to negligent parking of the lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 by its driver and due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/driver of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-AA-9313. The police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 8, clearly speaks that, the accident in question has occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 and also due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/driver of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-04- 13 MVC No.6249/2022 AA-9313. It is settled proposition of law that, when the petitioner has got marked the charge-sheet and other police documents, in support of his oral evidence, he cannot pick and choose the part of the charge-sheet which he want to rely and deny the rest of the part. The reliance on the charge-sheet, especially when used as evidence by the petitioner, creates binding commitment to the whole information it contains. But, it is pertinent to note that, the Ex.P.4 spot mahazer and Ex.P.5 sketch clearly reveals that, at the time of accident the driver of lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 had negligently parked his vehicle in the middle of the way meant to take deviation on the said road, without switching on the indicator and taking precautionery measures. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, the driver of offending lorry had parked the said vehicle by switching on the indicators or had taken precautionery measures. If he had taken necessary care and precautions while parking his vehicle on the road, 14 MVC No.6249/2022 particularly at the place of accident, the accident could not have occurred. On the other hand, if the petitioner had driven his vehicle at moderate speed, having proper lookout at the vehicles on the said road, he could have avoided the said accident. The driver of a vehicle using public road is having higher duty to exercise reasonable care and observe traffic rules & regulations. Therefore, in such circumstances, taking into consideration the place of accident, the vehicles involved in the accident and the manner in which the accident has taken place, this Court is of the opinion that, the negligence on the part of the driver of offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 is at higher side. Accordingly, apportioning the negligence on the part of the petitioner at 20% and on the part of the driver of lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 at 80% would be justified.
13. Further, the Ex.P.4 spot mahazar and Ex.P.5 sketch also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place 15 MVC No.6249/2022 on 40 feet wide B.B. road, infront of Bisleri Factory, Kannamangala, Bengaluru District, due to negligently and wrongly parking of the lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 in the middle of the way meant to take deviation on the said road, without any indicators and taking precautionary measures and due to dashing of car bearing Reg. No.KA-04- AA-9313 to the said lorry. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.7, the accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects in the offending vehicles, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to negligence of the drivers of said vehicles. The investigation officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.8, has clearly stated that, the said accident is caused due to negligently parking of the offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 by its driver and due to rash and negligent 16 MVC No.6249/2022 driving of the petitioner/driver of the car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-AA-9313 and dashing the same to said lorry. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the owners or the drivers of both the offending vehicles. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report of the investigation officer and other police records, regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 and injuries caused to the petitioner in the said accident. Therefore, in light of above noted admissions given by the petitioner and taking into consideration the other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that, there is contributory negligence to the extent of 20% on the part of the petitioner and 80% on the part of the driver of offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206, in the cause of accident.
17 MVC No.6249/2022
14. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.7 wound certificate and Ex.P.22 case-sheet, it clearly reveals that, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. The petitioner has suffered left hip posterior dislocation and left posterior wall acetabular fracture. The same is deposed by P.W.3, who is the doctor who has clinically examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent No.2, to show that, the above medical records are false documents. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner with respect to injuries caused to him. Therefore, in such circumstances and in the light of above observations, it can be safely held that, the respondent No.2 has failed to rebut the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner regarding the rash and negligent driving of the 18 MVC No.6249/2022 driver of offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 and injuries sustained to the petitioner in the said accident.
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) 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 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 19 MVC No.6249/2022 standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
17. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, he has sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 11-10-2022 at about 3.30 a.m., at B.B. Road, infront of Bisleri Factory, Kannamangala Gate, Bengaluru, due to negligence of the driver of Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206. But, he has failed to prove that, the said accident has occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of said lorry. The oral and documentary evidence available on record, clearly goes to show that, there was contributory negligence to the extent of 20% on the part of the petitioner and 80% on the part of the driver of offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206, in the cause of accident. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Partly Affirmative.
20 MVC No.6249/2022
18. Issue No.2: While answering above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, he has sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 11-10-2022 at about 3.30 a.m., at B.B. Road, infront of Bisleri Factory, Kannamangala Gate, Bengaluru, due to negligence of the driver of Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206. But, he has failed to prove that, the said accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of said lorry. Further, it is held that, there was contributory negligence to the extent of 20% on the part of the petitioner and 80% on the part of the driver of offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206, in the cause of accident. Therefore, this Court is of the further opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under various heads, to the extent of negligence on the part of the driver of offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206. The damages are to be assessed under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages, such as medical treatment, attendants, transport, 21 MVC No.6249/2022 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 to be determined. To prove his age, the petitioner has produced the notarised copy of his driving licence, which is marked as Ex.P.9. As per Ex.P.9, the date of birth of the petitioner is 05-02-2002. The accident has taken place on 11-10-2022 at about 3:30 a.m. Therefore, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident was 21 years. Further, the P.W.3, 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 has 22 MVC No.6249/2022 suffered left hip posterior dislocation and left posterior wall acetabular fracture. Further he has deposed that, on clinical and radiological examination of injuries suffered by the petitioner he found that, there is 36% physical disability of left lower limb and 18% physical disability to the whole body of the petitioner. Further, the Ex.P.7 wound certificate and Ex.P.22 case-sheet clearly speaks that, the petitioner has suffered the above stated injuries and he has undergone surgery for the said injuries. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.3 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, there is no disability to the petitioner and he has exaggerated the percentage of disability to the petitioner. But, it is pertinent to note that, the P.W.3 has deposed in his evidence that, the accident has occurred on 11-10-2022 and he has assessed the disability to the petitioner on 31-12-2024, which is after 23 MVC No.6249/2022 lapse of two years and two months from the date of injuries caused to the petitioner. Further he has stated that, the petitioner requires one more surgery for removal of implants. This clearly goes to show that, the disability has been assessed before the completion of full treatment to the petitioner. As per the gazette notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice of Government of India, the disability should be assessed after completion of treatment.
If the disability had been assessed after future surgery, perhaps there would have been reduction in the percentage of the disability. Further, it is pertinent to note that, P.W.3 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that, the fracture is united with implants in situ and dislocation is reduce. Therefore, considering the age of the petitioner, injuries sustained, avocation of the petitioner, duration of treatment and oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that, considering the disability of 10% to the whole body of the petitioner would 24 MVC No.6249/2022 be justified. Hence, in the instant case the disability of 10% to the whole body of the petitioner is considered.
a) The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that, before accident he was working as owner-cum-driver and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month Further, he has deposed that, due to grievous injuries suffered in the said accident he is unable to do his work. The respondent No.2 has specifically denied the same. In such circumstances, the burden was on the petitioner to prove his avocation and income. To substantiate the same, he has produced his driving licence, which is marked as Ex.P.9. But, the petitioner has failed to establish the same through cogent and corroborative evidence. He has not produced any document to show that, before the accident he was working as owner-cum-driver and was earning Rs.40,000/- 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 Karnataka 25 MVC No.6249/2022 State Legal Services Authority. The accident took place in 2022. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.15,500/- per month and the annual income of the petitioner as Rs.1,86,000/-.
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 21 years is 18. Therefore, loss of future income is Total annual income X disability/100 X multiplier = Rs.1,86,000 X 10/100 X 18 = Rs.3,34,800/-.
ii) Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed that, he has incurred expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charge etc. In order to prove the same, he has produced 52 medical bills, as per Ex.P.10. All the bills have been examined carefully and found that the bill at serial No.11 and 12 are one and the same. Therefore, the bill at serial 26 MVC No.6249/2022 No.12 is not taken into consideration. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner has spent total amount of Rs.28,309/- towards medical expenses and he is entitled for the said amount under the head of medical expenses.
iii) Pain and sufferings: In the present case, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries i.e. left hip posterior dislocation and left posterior wall acetabular fracture. As per Ex.P.22 case-sheet, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 11 days from 15-10-2022 to 25- 10-2022, in Sapthagiri Hospital, Bengaluru. Further, as per P.W.3, 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 disability to the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that, an compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be awarded to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings. 27 MVC No.6249/2022
iv) Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.22 case sheet, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 11 days in Sapthagiri Hospital, Bengaluru. He might have spent considerable amount towards attendant charges during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.1000 x 11 = Rs.11,000/- is awarded towards the attendant charges.
v) Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.22 case sheet, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 11 days in Sapthagiri Hospital, Bengaluru. He might have spent considerable amount towards food and nourishment during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 11 = Rs.8,800/- is awarded towards food and nourishment charges.
vi) Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the resident of Maragondanaguni, Yelerampura, Tumkur, the accident has taken place at B.B. Road, in front of Bisleri Factory, Kannamangala Gate, Bengaluru and the petitioner has taken treatment at Sapthagiri Hospital, Bengaluru. 28 MVC No.6249/2022 Taking into consideration the distance in between the above places, compensation of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards conveyance.
vii) Loss of income during treatment period: The petitioner has taken treatment for 11 days as in-patient at Sapthagiri Hospital, Bengaluru, for the grievous injuries sustained by him. He might have taken rest for about 2 months and lost his income for the said period. Therefore, Rs.15,500 x 2 = Rs.31,000/- 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 21 years and unfortunately he has suffered left hip posterior dislocation and left posterior wall acetabular fracture. Further, he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10% to the whole body. Therefore, awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities would be just and reasonable. 29 MVC No.6249/2022
ix) Future medical expenses: The P.W.3 has clearly deposed in his evidence that, the petitioner needs to undergo one more surgery for removal of implants. But, admittedly the P.W.3 has not issued estimation of cost for the said surgery. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses would be just and reasonable.
19. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads as follows:
1. Loss of future income Rs. 3,34,800-00
2. Medical expenses 28,309-00
3. Pain and sufferings 50,000-00
4. Attendant charges 11,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 8,800-00
6. Conveyance expenses 5,000-00
7. Loss of income during 31,000-00 treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 30,000-00
9. Future medical expenses 20,000-00 Total Rs. 5,18,909-00 80% of Total Rs. 4,15,127-00 30 MVC No.6249/2022 In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,15,127/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (excluding interest on future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-) from the date of petition till its realization.
20. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-
6206. The insurance policy bearing No.6103008122000000092302/06/22 was valid from 07-06- 2022 to 06-06-2023. The said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 11-10-2022. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that, there is any breach of terms and conditions of the said policy. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, has taken place due to negligently and wrongly parking of the lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206 in the middle of the way meant to take deviation on the said road, without any indicators and also due to rash and negligent driving of the 31 MVC No.6249/2022 petitioner/driver of car bearing Reg. No.KA-04-AA-9313 and dashing the same to the said lorry. For the reasons stated supra this Court has already held that, there was contributory negligence to the extent of 20% on the part of the petitioner and 80% on the part of the driver of offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39-Y-6206, in the cause of accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of offending lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-39- Y-6206 is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,15,127/- from the respondent No.2, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative. 32 MVC No.6249/2022
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 to compensation of Rs.4,15,127/- (Rupees four lakh fifteen thousand one hundred and twenty seven only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., (excluding interest on future medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-) from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioner. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.2
- Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount 33 MVC No.6249/2022 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 10 th day of June, 2025) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: Shivu N. S/o K. Nataraju P.W.2: Srinivasaiah S/o Late Dasappa P.W.3: Dr. 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 Police Intimation
Ex.P.4: True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5: True copy of Sketch
34 MVC No.6249/2022
Ex.P.6: True copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.7: True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.8: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.9: Notarized copy of Driving Licence
Ex.P.10: Medical Bills (total 52) of Rs.31,108/- Ex.P.11: Prescriptions (total 5) Ex.P.12: CT Brain Plain Report Ex.P.13: Interim Report Ex.P.14: Bio Chemistry Report Ex.P.15: Pelvis Report Ex.P.16: Ultrasonography Report Ex.P.17: Photos (total 5) Ex.P.18: C.D. Ex.P.19: X-rays (total 5) Ex.P.20: C.T. and MRI Scan Films (total 5) Ex.P.21: Authorization Letter Ex.P.22: Case-sheet Ex.P.23: OPD Book Ex.P.24: X-ray Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.