Bangalore District Court
Lalit Kumar vs Union Of India on 11 September, 2025
KABC020103652023
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
(SCCH-23)
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER - 2025
PRESENT: Sri. Shreyansh Doddamani
B.Com. LL.B (Spl),
XXI ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
MVC. No.2331/2023
Petitioner/s : Sri. Lalit Kumar,
S/o Sri Nemichand,
Aged 54 years,
No.E-21, Shreeniketan,
N.M. Lane, Cottonpet,
Bengaluru City,
Bengaluru-560053
(By Sri.Rajendra. S.A, Advocate)
v/s
Respondent/s : 1) The Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt. of India, New Delhi.
(By Sri. Naveen Chandra Shetty,
Advocate)
2) Pioneer Corps Training Centre,
Near Ayappa Temple,
SCCH-23 2 MVC No.2331/2023
M.S.Nagar, Banaswadi,
Bengaluru City.
RC owner of Army vehicle
bearing No.14C098978x
Rep.by its Army General
(By Sri. Naveen Chandra Shetty,
Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioner in the nutshell is that on 23.10.2022 at about 6.00 p.m, the petitioner was riding the Honda Activa scooter bearing Reg.No.KA-01-HE-8790 from Cox Town and proceeding towards Koramangala. At the relevant point of time was at the Traffic signal near East Parade Church so as to enable him to proceeded towards Trinity Circle. At the relevant time, the petitioner was at the traffic signal awaiting clearance and with the green signal flash, he was going in slowly by observing traffic rules, at that time the driver of Army Vehicle bearing Reg.No.14C098978X in question came from behind, driven in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger SCCH-23 3 MVC No.2331/2023 human life and dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle. As a result of which he was thrown away from the two wheeler and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Further the petitioner's vehicle also damaged extensive. After the accident he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital and later he took treatment at Rajeshwari Nursing Home. In the said hospitals, the petitioner took treatment as an out patient and was advised to regular follow-up treatment. He has spent substantial amount towards treatment. In spite of the treatment, he has not come to normal position and as such he has lost his income. It is further urged that, the accident happened because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Army Vehicle. The respondents vehicle is exempt from the insurance. Hence the respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, as such prayed to grant a compensation amount.
3. Notice was duly served to respondent No.1 and 2. The respondents appeared through their counsel and filed common written statement stated that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This respondent SCCH-23 4 MVC No.2331/2023 denied the negligence on the part of the driver of Military Truck. Further it is contended that the petitioner was trying to overtake from the left side of the military vehicle to go towards Central Mall road which he confessed too immediately at the site of accident, a location where there was very little space for maneuver available. More over the rider of motorcycle was carrying heavy and awkward loads on the front of the foot board of the scooter, as a result of which he lost control and hit to the front tail board of the military vehicle and fallen down, hence petitioner / rider of motorcycle was alone responsible for the accident and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of military vehicle. The respondent denied the injuries sustained in the accident, as after the incident the petitioner fell on the road. Both the driver and co-driver of military vehicle assisted the injured to get up and enquired whether he sustained any injury. Mr. Nadaff, a traffic police constable who was on duty at the junction and other public came there to render any assistance. It was observed that the injured was absolutely fine except minor scratch under the elbow of his left hand. However the scooter of the petitioner sustained damages. It is also urged SCCH-23 5 MVC No.2331/2023 that there is inordinate delay of three days that itself vibrantly discloses that the case is foisted so as to wangle the compensation amount from this respondent. Further denied all the allegation made in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition against the respondent.
4. On the basis of above pleadings the following issues were framed :
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 23.10.2022 at about 6.00 p.m, while the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing reg.No.KA-01-HE-8790 from Cox town towards Koramangala side and when he reached near Web Junction, M.G.Road, Bengaluru City, at that time the driver of Army vehicle bearing reg.No.14C098978X came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injury ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate and from whom ?
3. What order or award?
5. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1. Ex's.P1 to 13 were marked on his behalf. In order to prove the defence, the SCCH-23 6 MVC No.2331/2023 officer of respondents has examined as RW.1 and through him got marked Ex.R.1 to 4 documents.
6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and respondents counsel on merits. The learned counsel for petitioner filed written arguments. Perused the entire materials placed on record.
7. This tribunal answers to the above 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 :
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 : The evidence on record reveals that after the receipt of complaint lodged by petitioner himself the jurisdictional police conducted thorough investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of Army Vehicle bearing Reg.No.14C098978X for the offences punishable u/s's 279, 338 of IPC. There is nothing on record to believe that the charge sheet filed by the police is defective or collusive.
9. The respondent denied the negligence on the part of the driver of Army Vehicle bearing Reg.No.14C098978X but SCCH-23 7 MVC No.2331/2023 contended that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the petitioner. In this regard the respondent examined its officer as RW.1. He has produced Ex.R.1 to 4 documents. The RW.1 reiterated the written statement averments. Further in his examination chief he stated that the Pioneer Corps Training Centre acted in accordance with provision on the subject reported the incident properly as per the instructions in vogue to HQ K&K Sub Area and Station Headquarter Cell, Bengaluru. In this regard a Court of Inquiry was also ordered to investigate into the circumstances under which vehicle BA No.14C098978X Truck 2.5 Ton Tata of Pioneer Corps Training Centre met with the accident with the Two wheeler, civil vehicle registered No.KA-01-HE-8790 at Webb Junction, M.G.Road, Bengalru by station Cell, HQ K & K Sub Area vide their letter No.7242/12/02 dated 22.11.2022 on 28.12.2022, the Court approached Mr. Lalit Kumar telephonically for recording his statement about the incident, however, the individual did not turn up for giving his statement before the Court. The Court also approached Sub-Inspector, Halasuru Police station, Bengaluru to provide the CCTV footage SCCH-23 8 MVC No.2331/2023 of the accident. However the effort went in vein. The Board has opined that the accident occurred due to heavy traffic while Mr. Lalit Kumar / petitioner was trying to overtake the military vehicle from left, indicating petitioner's mistake, whereas military driver and co.driver were followed proper traffic rules, the same was perused by General Officer Commanding, Headquarter Karnataka and Keral Sub Area.
10. It is pertinent to note here that the respondent has approached Sub-Inspector, Halasuru Police station, Bengaluru to provide the CCTV footage of the accident. But the said effort went in vain. Further the respondent has not made any effort to summon the Sub-Inspector, Halasuru Police station, Bengaluru to production of CCTV footage. It is also noted that the respondent has also not made any effort to approach the higher authority of Police about non production of CCTV footage by the concerned police station. The respondent has not done the same. Hence it is also one of the major drawback to the respondent to prove the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner as he was trying to overtake from the left side of the military vehicle to go towards Central Mall road which he SCCH-23 9 MVC No.2331/2023 confessed too immediately at the site of accident, a location where there was very little space for maneuver available. They have further contended that the rider of motorcycle was carrying heavy and awkward loads on the front of the foot board of the scooter, as a result of which he lost control and hit to the front tail board of the military vehicle and fallen down and sustained injuries. In this regard they have produced the photo of the vehicle, wherein some stationary and grocery items seen in the two wheeler. But only on that reason it cannot be held that accident took place due to the non control of petitioner. On perusal of the damage it seems that the vehicle of respondents dashed to the left side of the two wheeler.
11. Further it is also not out of the box that both the parties have not produced the spot mahazar and spot sketch before this Tribunal. If the driver of Military vehicle was coming in a normal speed on the junction road by observing the on coming vehicles, then accident could have avoided. Though the respondent has denied the cause of the accident, it has not let in any evidence to this effect. Under such circumstances the evidence of PW.1 which is supported by police documents has SCCH-23 10 MVC No.2331/2023 to be accepted. Consequently, I hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the driver of Military vehicle. In addenda, in a claim for compensation u/s 166 of M.V Act, 1988, the claimant has to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011) 3 SCC 646. With this observation issue No.1 is answered as 'In the Affirmative'.
12. ISSUE NO.2 : So far as the injuries sustained by the petitioner, he has not produced the wound certificate before this Tribunal. Further he has also not produced the discharge summary to show he was taken treatment as an inpatient. Further he has produced prescription, issued by Vishruth Orthopedic Centre, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru dated.22.11.2022. The petitioner also produced another prescription of Vaibhavi Medicals, Hanumantha Nagar, Bengaluru dated.06.08.2024. Ex.P.12-Prescription of Vaibhavi Medicals, Hanumantha Nagar, Bengaluru dated.29.05.2024. He has not produced any documents to show that for what reasons he has taken treatment at Hosmat Hospital. Further the Vishruth SCCH-23 11 MVC No.2331/2023 Orthopedic centre prescription shows that H/o Trauma 1 month back (poly trauma), wherein the doctor on clinical examination he found that :
* Blunt chest injury, * Left brachial plexus injury, * low lower + Further brachial plexus is the group of nerves that sends signals from the spinal cord to the shoulder, arm and hand. A brachial plexus injury happens when these nerves are stretched, squeezed together, or in the most serious cases, ripped apart or torn away from the spinal cord. Minor brachial plexus injuries, called stingers or burners, are common in contact sports, such as football. Babies sometimes get brachial plexus injuries when they're born. Other health issues, such as inflammation or tumors, may affect the brachial plexus. The most serious brachial plexus injuries happen during car or motorcycle accidents. Bad brachial plexus injuries can leave the arm paralyzed, but surgery may help. SCCH-23 12 MVC No.2331/2023 Complications about brachial plexus injuries :
Many mild brachial plexus injuries heal over time with few to no issues. But some injuries can cause short-term or lasting problems, such as:
Stiff joints. If you have hand or arm paralysis, the joints can get stiff. This can make it hard to move, even if you are able to use your hand or arm again. For that reason, your healthcare professional may suggest ongoing physical therapy during your recovery.
Pain. This is caused by nerve damage and may be lifelong. Numbness. If you lose feeling in the arm or hand, you're at risk of burning or injuring yourself without knowing it. Muscle atrophy. Nerves regrow slowly and can take many years to heal after injury. During that time, not using your muscles may cause them to break down. Permanent disability. How well you recover from a serious brachial plexus injury depends on many things, such as your age and the type, location and seriousness of the injury. Even with surgery, some people have muscle weakness or paralysis that lasts for the rest of their lives.
As per the contents of the prescriptions the petitioner has sustained the brachial plexus injuries. Therefore he is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
13. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME DUE TO DISABILITY & LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID-UP PERIOD : The petitioner has deposed that he was running roaring business in gift shop and earning Rs.60,000/- p.m. and due to the said accident he lost his earning capacity and become disabled. However he has SCCH-23 13 MVC No.2331/2023 neither proved his avocation nor his earning capacity. However he has neither examined the doctor nor produced disability certificate to substantiate the fact he has become permanently disabled. Under such circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability. Though PW.1 deposed in his evidence affidavit that due to the injuries sustained in the accident he was unable to continue avocation. So also no iota of evidence is placed on record to show that he has sustained loss of income during treatment period. Non- production of the any documents in this regard results in drawing of an inference that he has not suffered any financial loss during the period of his treatment. Therefore no compensation is awarded to the petitioner under the heads of 'Loss of future income due to disability' and 'loss of income during laid-up period'.
14. ATTENDANT CHARGES, EXTRA NUTRITIOUS FOOD & CONVEYANCE CHARGES: No evidence is brought on record to demonstrate the petitioner has treated as inpatient, except producing wound certificate he has not produced any discharge summary to show that incidental expenses to be incurred SCCH-23 14 MVC No.2331/2023 therefrom. In the absence of proof no amount is awarded under this head.
15. PAIN & SUFFERINGS: On account of the accidental injuries the petitioner would have had undergone pain and mental agony. Thus this Tribunal awards a sum of Rs.50,000/- under this head.
16. MEDICAL EXPENSES: As per the bills marked at Ex.P5, the petitioner has spent Rs.53,723/-, Ex.P.8 to 10 for a sum of Rs.9,420/- and Ex.P.11 for a sum of Rs.900/-. In total he has incurred a sum of Rs.64,073/- towards medical expenses. All these bills have been examined with care and are found to be correct. Hence the petitioner is entitled Rs.64,073/- which is rounded off to Rs.64,000/- towards medical expenses.
17. LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS:
The disability referred above would have necessarily caused physical deformity with which the petitioner has to live the rest of his life. Hence a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under this head.SCCH-23 15 MVC No.2331/2023
18. FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES: No evidence is brought on record to demonstrate the requirement for further treatment and the medical & incidental expenses to be incurred therefrom. In the absence of proof no amount is awarded under this head.
19. The calculation table stands as follows:
1 Loss of future income due to : - Nil -
disability 2 Loss of income during laid-up : - Nil -
period 3 Attendant charges, extra : - Nil -
nutritious food & conveyance charges 4 Pain & sufferings : 50,000-00 5 Medical expenses : 64,000-00 6 Loss of future amenities & : 40,000-00 happiness 7 Future medical expenses : - Nil -
Total 1,54,000-00
20. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded, it would meet the ends of justice. The Respondent being the RC owner & internal insurer of the Army vehicle are jointly and severally liable and directed to pay the SCCH-23 16 MVC No.2331/2023 compensation amount. With this observation issue No.2 is answered as 'Partly in the Affirmative'.
21. ISSUE NO.3 : In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act 1988, is hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms :
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
After deposit, the entire compensation amount together with interest shall be released to the petitioner through E-payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.SCCH-23 17 MVC No.2331/2023
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and printout taken by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of September-2025) (Shreyansh Doddamani) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s: PW.1 : Sri. Lalit Kumar List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.2 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card of petitioner
Ex.P.3 Notarized copy of the DL of petitioner
Ex.P.4 Notarized copy of the RC of vehicle bearing Reg.
No.KA-01-HE-8790
Ex.P.5 25 Medical bills amounting to Rs.53,723/-
Ex.P.6 True copy of FIR
Ex.P.7 Prescription
Ex.P.8 to 3-Medical bills
10
Ex.P.11 Consultation fee receipt
Ex.P.12 Prescription dated 29.05.2024
Ex.P.13 1 X-ray film
List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 : Sri. Bhoopendra Kumar Patle SCCH-23 18 MVC No.2331/2023 List of documents marked for the respondent/s:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 Court Marshal inquiry report
Ex.R.3 4 Photos
Ex.R.4 1 CD
(Shreyansh Doddamani)
XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.