Bangalore District Court
Ramu R vs Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd on 22 November, 2025
KABC020045742024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
MVC No.750/2024
PETITIONER: Sri R. Ramu
S/o late Raja,
aged about 41 years,
residing at No.350,
'C' Block, near Samudaya
Bhavan, Bommanakatte,
Shimoga-577 204.
(By Sri. P. Puttaraju
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Reliance General
Insurance Ltd.,
No.28, 5th Floor,
Centenary Building,
East Wing, M.G. Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
(Policy No.996092323740008566
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.750/2024
Valid from 01-06-2023 to 31-05-
2024
Liability covers 01-06-2023 to 31-
05-2026)
(By Sri. H.C.Betsur,
Advocate.,)
2. Mr. Shantha Kumar S.
S/o Siddappa,
aged about 41 years,
No.12, old No. 261,
Ground Floor-1,
26th Cross, 19th Main Road,
2nd Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560 010.
(Ex-parte)
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the claimant against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying to award compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident occurred on 25.10.2023.
2. The case of the claimant in nutshell is that:
On 25.10.2023 at about 10.00pm, the petitioner was proceeding as a Pillion Rider in a Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-14- SCCH-25 3 MVC No.750/2024 EC-7566 along with his friend one Gopi M. who was riding the motorcycle from Railway Station, Shivamogga towards Usha Nursing Home and when they reached near railway Employees Rest Room on 100ft. Road and about to cross the road near the divider in a slow and cautious manner, observing traffic rules and regulations, a Hyundai Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MT-9769 came with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle from the wrong side. Due to impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Sarji Super Specialty Hospital, Shimogga, wherein he was admitted and treated as an inpatient from 26.10.2023 to 13.11.2023, underwent operation and discharged with advice. Again petitioner was re-admitted to the said hospital on 02.12.2023 and discharged on 16.12.2023, during the course of treatment, underwent operation and discharged with advice. On the same day he was re-admitted to the same hospital on 16.12.2023 to 25.12.2023, treated conservatively and discharged with advice to come for follow up treatment. The SCCH-25 4 MVC No.750/2024 petitioner still under treatment. The injuries have caused him permanent disablement. So far he has spent huge amount towards hospitalization, conveyance, medical treatment, attendant and other incidental expenses. Due to the said accidental injuries, petitioner is suffering with permanent disability. He is not able to lead a normal life as prior to the accident.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, he was running the Optical Shop under the name and style of M/s Malnad Opticals, Shimogga and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, he became permanently disabled and unable to do his profession and not getting his income.
5. The accident has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Hyundai Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MT-9769 and in this regard a case has been registered by Shivamogga East Traffic Police under Cr.No.124/2023 against the driver of the Hyundai Car P/U/Sec.279 & 337 of IPC. Hence, the respondents being the Insurer and the RC owner of the Hyundai Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MT-
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.750/20249769 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, petitioner prays for award for the total compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
6. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of summons, the respondent No.2 did not appear hence, placed ex-parte.
6A. The 1st respondent in its written statement has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the hundai Car bearing Reg.No.KA-02-MT-9769 in favour of the 2nd respondent. There is non compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. It has denied the involvement of the vehicle in the alleged accident and was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It has also denied the manner of accident. There is non joinder of necessary parties to the petition. The driver of the said offending vehicle did not possess a valid DL as on the date of accident and the vehicle also did not have a valid RC, FC, Permit. Further, it has denied the age, occupation, medical expenses etc., of the petitioner. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is SCCH-25 6 MVC No.750/2024 highly excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against it.
7. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 25-10-2023 at 10:00pm due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Hyundai Car bearing Reg.No.KA-
02-MT-9769 and in the said
accident petitioner sustained
injuries?
Issue No.2:Whether the petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
Issue No.3:What Order or Award?
8. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 15 documents as per Exs.P.1 to 15. Sri. Sri.Anandayya Sutturmath - Medical Record Technician got examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.16 & P.17. Sri. Manjappa - Public Relation Officer got examined as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.18 to P.20. Dr.S.A.Somashekara - Orthopedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru got examined as PW.4 and got marked Exs.P.21 & SCCH-25 7 MVC No.750/2024 P.22. On the other side, the respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.
9. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
9A. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the following decision:
1. 2014 (3) AKR 826 : Shivamurteppa Vs. The Managing Director, NEKRTC Central Office, Gulbarga.
2. (2015) 9 SC Cases 150: Shashikala and Ors Vs. Gangalakshmamma and Anr.
3. 2012 ACJ 1459 (SC): Manoj Rathaur Vs. Anil Raheja and Ors.
4. 2023 ACJ 593 (SC) : A. Prakash Vs. Claims Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and Ors.
5. 2023 ACJ 806 (SC): Chandramma Vs. Manager, Regional Office, NCC Ltd., and Anr.
6. 2024 ACJ 2721 (SC) : Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.
7. 2023 ACJ 894 (SC) : Muhammed Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Ors.
8. 2011 ACJ 1434 (SC): Nagarajappa Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd.,
9. Civil Appeal No.(S) 1337-1338/2019 : Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vibhor Fialok and Anr.SCCH-25 8 MVC No.750/2024
10. 2013 ACJ 2161 (SC) : Rekha Jain Vs. National Ins. Co. ltd.,
10. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order for the
foregoing
#REASONS#
11. Issue No.1: In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1. The petitioner has got examined Sri. Anandayya Sutturmath - MRT in United Health Care Hospital, Shivamogga as PW.2. he has also got examined Public Relation Officer of Sarji Super Speciality Hospital, Shivamogga as PW.3. Dr.S.A.Somashekara got examined as PW.3. Exs.P1 to 15 were marked through PW.1. The Pws.2 & 3 have got marked Exs.P16 to 20 and Exs.21 & 22 were marked through PW.4. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
12. The chief examination of the PW.1 is nothing but a repetition of plaint averments. The SCCH-25 9 MVC No.750/2024 PW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination of PW.1, he has deposed that, the bike which was ridden by him belongs to Gopi. He had a DL and Policy. Accident occurred at 10.00pm and he was going from Railway station towards his house. Gopi had lodged complaint. Because of injuries there is one day delay in lodging the complaint. The accident spot was junction. As per Ex.P.6 there was damages to the right portion of the Car. The Road was 100 feet Road. The accident occurred on the left side of the Road. He has also denied the suggestions made by the counsel for the Respondent No.1.
13. it is needless to say that the the petitioner has totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's driver. It is no doubt the police have submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending Car after thorough investigation. It is the specific defense of the insurer that the rider of the bike has contributed to accident. The spot mahazar appended to sketch indicates that the accident occurred infront of Railway Driver's residential houses, 100 feet vide Road in the middle of the Road. It is worth to note herein that the rider of the bike SCCH-25 10 MVC No.750/2024 was proceeding towards Vinoba Nagar from Railway station road. The accident spot indicates that, the place is junction. The accident occurred at night hours. The rider of the bike was almost at the edge of the divider. It means, the rider has rode the bike by observing the traffic and the driver of the offending car has started to cross the road. So, it is indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle was in hurried manner and dashed to petitioner's motorcycle who was proceeding towards junction Road and also the driver of the offending vehicle had driving license at the time of accident. And apart from that the police have not charge sheeted for the offense punishable under section 3 read with 181 of Motor Vehicle Act. So, the arguments does not holds any kind of water. The material on records are clearly indicates that the accident has occurred sole negligence on the offending vehicle's driver.
14. It is undisputed fact that there was delay in lodging the complaint. In the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in RAVI 1 V/s. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHER, it is manifestly clear delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice to the 1 (2011) 4 SCC 693 SCCH-25 11 MVC No.750/2024 victim. However, the claim has to be examined with a closer scrutiny, particularly the contents of the FIR. So, informant can't lodged the complaint as he was taking treatment at the hospital. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. In such cases, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof. It is well settled position of law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation and the evidence required about negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of probability.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a decision 22018 (5) SCC 656 held "24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein it was contended by the vehicle owner that the criminal case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal and for which reason the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act ought to be rejected. This Court negatived the said argument by observing that the nature of proof required to establish culpable rashness, punishable under IPC, is more stringent than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The 2 Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCCH-25 12 MVC No.750/2024 observation made in para 3 of the judgment would throw some light as to what should be the approach of the Tribunal in motor accident cases. The same reads thus :
"3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighbor. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no- fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practiced by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in SCCH-25 13 MVC No.750/2024 compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard."
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied"
16. The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the SCCH-25 14 MVC No.750/2024 part of driver of the insured. The materials on records are clearly indicates that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No.1. So, I hold issue No.1 in the affirmative.
17. Issue No.2: The petitioner has produced the wound certificate and secured medical records from the concerned hospital to substantiate the line of treatment. It is worth note herein that nothing has been elicited from the MRT of the concerned hospital. The wound certificate (Ex.P7) discloses that, the petitioner has sustained Laceration over right leg, abnormal /mobility, fracture of both bones right leg, vascular absent peripheral present which are grievous in nature. Apart from this, the petitioner has also got examined Dr.S.A.Somashekara as PW.4 and got marked Exs.P.21 & P.22. PW.4 has reiterated the petition averments in his chief examination. The PW.4 has stated in the chief examination affidavit that "on examination, PW.4 diagnosed to have Polytrauma with closed upper tibia fracture right leg with acute limb ischemia. Ruptured pseudo aneurysm of posterior tibial artery with PIN track infection infected non-union fracture right tibia. Petitioner underwent surgeries of 1. Fasciotomy and SCCH-25 15 MVC No.750/2024 exploration of Acute Compartment Syndrome.
2. Fracture Reduction and external fixator application. 3. Interposition vein grafting for posterior tibial artery on 26-10-2023. 4. Emergency exploration of Pseudoaneurysm on 06-12-2023.
5. Debridement and skin grafting + Ex-fix alignment on 7-11-23. 6. Wound debridement + Sinus extension + Bone curettage + Ex fix with LCP + Antibiotic bone cementing on 20-02-2024. 7. Ex fix and bone cement removal + Debridement + IMIL nailing + Bone grafting on 24-4-2024. PW.4 further stated that on examination, petitioner complains of Pain and difficulty in walking and claiming stairs, C/o inability to dorsiflex foot. H/o inability to squat and sit cross legged. H/o discharging sinus in the proximal leg. On examination PW.4 found the petitioner Walks with pain and limping with foot drop gait. Wasting and shortening of the limb is seen. Surgical Scars over right iliac crest and donar site scar over left thigh is seen. Discharging sinus is seen over right proximal thigh. Depressed SSG scars are seen over right leg. X-ray shows United fracture proximal tibia with signs of infection with multiple implants in situ. Non-union fracture proximal fibula. The PW.4 has opined that the petitioner has disability of right lower limb at 66% and to the whole SCCH-25 16 MVC No.750/2024 body at 33%. PW.4 has been cross examined by the counsel for insurer. During the cross examination of PW.4, he has stated that, he has not treated the petitioner. There was a fracture to the right leg tibia. The fibula fractures are not united. Further denied the suggestions of the other side counsel.
18. Before discussing on this point, it is necessary to advert to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages 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. The Court or Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that SCCH-25 17 MVC No.750/2024 he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
19. Our Hon'ble High Court has held in a case MFA.811 OF 2015 (MV-I) decided on 18 July, 2019 in between Rajanna @ Raju and another V/s Srinivas and another that "It is necessary to understand the meaning of the expression "permanent disability", which has been elucidated in Rajkumar. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a SCCH-25 18 MVC No.750/2024 much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement
is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is
permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person."
20. By considering the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to SCCH-25 19 MVC No.750/2024 Court that, the petitioner has sustained simple and grievous injuries. And it certainly affected on functioning over the right leg. The petition discloses that the petitioner was doing Business as M/s Malnad Opticals (Self Employed). The evidence of the medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, the medical officer has pointed out the difficulties of the injured person to do routine work and also squat on floor, climb upstairs. It means, the petitioner is not in position to do the earlier work effectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a judgment/decision of ALIVELI 3 MALLAREDDY Vs SURTHANI LINGANNA @ CHINNA LINGANNA & Others. in paragraph No.10 "This evidence has been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and having regard to the fact that the Almanco Manual would suggest that the disability when not assessed to the whole body, the disability to the lower limb will be 1/5 and upper limb be ¼ of the disability assessed."
By considering the age, nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered functional disability 13.2% (66% / 1/5 of right lower limb) to the whole body. As such, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability 3 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19636 of 2024) dated 07.04.2025 SCCH-25 20 MVC No.750/2024 of 13.2% whole body. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
21. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Sarji Super Multi Specialty Hospital, Shimogga wherein treated as an inpatient for 19 days and undergone operation and discharged with advice for followup treatment. Again he was admitted in the same hospital and treated as an inpatient for 15 days and underwent surgery and discharged with advice. On the same day, he was re- admitted to the same hospital ad treated for 10 days, treated conservatively and discharged with advice for follow up treatment. Once again he was re-admitted to Metrounited Healthcare and treated for 5 days, underwent surgeries and discharged with advice for follow up treatment. Again he was re-admitted to the said hospital and treated as an inpatient 7 days, underwent surgeries and discharged with advice for follow up treatment. Further the Discharge Summaries of petitioner produced at Ex.P.8 indicates SCCH-25 21 MVC No.750/2024 that, the petitioner was admitted on 26.10.2023 and discharged on 13.11.2023, from 02.12.2023 to 16.12.2023, 16.12.2023 to 25.12.2023, 19.02.2024 to 23.02.2024 and 23.04.2024 to 29.04.2024. The petitioner has produced the Medical bills of Sarji Super Specialty Hospital, Shivamogga for a sum of Rs.10,34,104/- as per Ex.P.13. There is no contrary evidence to these bills from the respondents. By deducting the repeated bills, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,29,488=00 under the head of Medical Expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the above said Hospitals as an inpatient for a period of 56 days. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.500/-per day for attendant and Rs.500/- for food and nourishment charges, which would comes Rs.56,000/-. A sum of Rs.56,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
22. The claimant has contended that, he was a Proprietor of Optical Shop under the name and style of M/s Malnad Opticals, Shivamogga and earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has produced Trade Licence and GST Registration Certificate at Exs.P.9 & 10.
SCCH-25 22 MVC No.750/2024Except this he has not produced any other documents like vouchers, Bank Statement, IT returns etc., He has failed to prove his exact income. So, considering the nature of work notional income of Rs.16,000/-pm. is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.29,419/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
23. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as PW-4. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability. The medical officer has given physical disability of 66% Points for functional loss of malocclusion. By considering the nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 13.2%. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 41 years. The Aadhar Card and PAN Card of the petitioner marked at Exs.P11 & 12 clearly discloses that, the age of the petitioner was 40 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 40 years to assess the loss of future SCCH-25 23 MVC No.750/2024 earning and the multiplier is 15. During the cross examination of PW.1, he has admitted that the Ex.P.9 has been closed but he has not produced the relevant document to the same. Further admitted that Ex.P.10 is in his name but it is not yet closed till date it is in his name only. Further says GST registration Certificate is in his name but he is not running the business and also not produced any relevant document to show that the shop is closed. Under these circumstances, this court deems it that the petitioner is still continuing his business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a decision of 42025 INSC 1076 held in paragraph No.7 that " The disability to be assessed for the purpose of awarding compensation arising from a motor accident is the functional disability which reduces the earning capacity of the claimant and not strictly the medical disability".
24. The materials are clearly depicts that though the petitioner has continuing the profession, but the earning capacity of the petitioner has gradually reduced. As I have already stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.16,000/-pm, The loss of future earning is calculated as Anoop Maheshwari Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 4 Civil Appeal Nos.12098-12099 of 2024 dated 04.09.2025 SCCH-25 24 MVC No.750/2024 Rs.16,000/- (Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 15 (multiplier) X 13.2 (disability)/100 =Rs.3,80,160/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
25. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
26. As per the version of PW.4, the Petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implants and infection and tendon transfer for foot drop which would cost around Rs.70,000/-. In this regard neither the petitioner nor PW.4 has produced any estimation bill about further surgery. As per the evidence of Pws.1 & 4 and looking at the earlier treatment cost and the evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Future Medical Expenses.
SCCH-25 25 MVC No.750/202427. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE COMPENSATION
No.
HEADS
01 Medical Expenses Rs.10,29,488=00
02 Loss of income during Rs. 29,419 =00
treatment
03 Attendant, Food & Rs.56,000=00
Nourishment charges
04 Pain and Suffering Rs.2,00,000=00
05 Loss of future earning on Rs.3,80,160 =00
account of disability
06 Future Medical Expenses Rs.40,000=00
TOTAL Rs.17,35,067=00
28. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As the respondents failed to prove their defense. The petitioner proved that as on the date of accident the policy was in force. Therefore, Respondent No.1 has to indemnify the respondent No.2 and liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, I answer issue No.2 partly in affirmative.
SCCH-25 26 MVC No.750/202429. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings to the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petition filed by claimant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
The Petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.17,35,067=00-
(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand and Sixty Seven Only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation, the claimant is entitled withdraw 70% and remaining 30% shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/-
fixed.SCCH-25 27 MVC No.750/2024
Draw the award accordingly.
(Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 22nd day of November, 2025) (RAGHAVENDRA.R) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Sri. R. Ramu. PW.2 Sri. Anandayya Sutturmath PW.3 Sri. Manjappa M. PW.4 Dr.S.A.Somashekara
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P4 True copy of Spot Sketch Ex.P5 True copy of Seizure Mahazar Ex.P6 True copy of IMV report Ex.P7 True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P8 Discharge summaries (5 in Nos.) Ex.P9 Trade licence Ex.P10 GST Registration Certificate Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of petitioner(compared with originals and same are returned) SCCH-25 28 MVC No.750/2024 Ex.P12 Notarized copy of PAN card of petitioner(compared with originals and same are returned) Ex.P13 Medical Bills 297 in Nos.
Ex.P14 Photos 10 in Nos. with CD Ex.P15 Prescriptions 98 in Nos.
Ex.P16 Authorization letter Ex.P17 Case sheet 2 in Nos.
Ex.P18 Authorization letter Ex.P19 Police intimation Ex.P20 Case sheet Ex.P21 OPD Card Ex.P22 X-ray List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
-- NIL --
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
-- NIL --
(RAGHAVENDRA.R) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.Digitally signed by RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2025.11.24 13:58:52 +0530