Bangalore District Court
Anji G vs Suresh S on 12 January, 2026
KABC020288462024
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-17
Present: Sri. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L, LL.M.,
Member, MACT
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & ACJM,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 12th day of January - 2026
MVC No. 3859/2024
PETITIONER/S: Sri Anji G.,
S/o Late Gangappa,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at: Thattannagaripalli,
Bagepalli Taluk, Thimmampalli,
Chikkaballapur - 561207.
(By Sri Suresh M. Latur, Adv.)
V/s.
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri Suresh S.,
S/o Shankarappa,
R/at Gulur Village & Post,
Bagepalli Taluk,
Chikkaballapura-561207.
(By Smt. Smita T.K., Adv.)
SCCH-17 2 MVC No.3859/2024
2. The Manager,
M/s Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Limited,
Unit No.4, 9th Floor (Level-6),
Golden Heights Complex,
59th 'C' cross, Industrial Suburb,
4th 'M' Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560010.
(By Sri V.R. Muralidhara, Adv. )
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 24.03.2024.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 24.03.2024 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding in the motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-HM-
8299 from Bagepalli on Guluru- Thimmampalli road, when he reached near Yagavamaddhalakana village, at that time the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 driven the same with high speed, in a rash and negligent SCCH-17 3 MVC No.3859/2024 manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle to the petitioner and caused the accident.
Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body.
Immediately after the accident, petitioner was shifted to Bagepalli Government hospital and later he was shifted to Victoria hospital, wherein the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient. Petitioner has spent Rs.80,000/- towards his medical and conveyance expenses.
Prior to the accident, petitioner was aged about 21 years, doing mason and Bar bending work and earning Rs.36,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries petitioner became permanently disabled and lost his earning capacity.
The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.SCCH-17 4 MVC No.3859/2024
Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-
with interest.
3. After service of summons, the respondents have appeared before the court through their respective counsels and filed separate written statements.
The respondent No.1-owner has filed written statement by denying all the averments of the petition. Further this respondent has stated that he is the owner of the offending Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 and the same is insured with 2nd respondent at the time of accident. So also the driver of the Tractor had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. This respondent has denied the cause, manner and mode of the accident. By alleging the negligence of the petitioner prays to dismiss the petition against him.
The respondent No.2- insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement by admitting the issuance of commercial vehicle package SCCH-17 5 MVC No.3859/2024 policy (Miscellaneous and Special Type of vehicle) in respect of the New Tractor having Engine and Chassis No.S3255N14055 and Chassis No.MEAACD5BP248115 vide policy No. 3380/02433466/000/00 in favour of first respondent valid from 25.07.2023 to 24.07.2024 and the liability of this respondent, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It has contended non-compliance of Sec.134(c) of MV Act. Further contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-04- HM-8299 which involved in the alleged accident are not made as parties to the proceedings. Further it has denied the involvement of the offending Tractor bearing No.KA- 40-B-4014 in the alleged accident and contended that, there is a 7 days of delay in filing the FIR which in turn make the petitioner to falsely implicate the Tractor which is insured with them, even though the said tractor was not involved in the accident. Further it has denied the cause and manner of accident. Further the insurer denied SCCH-17 6 MVC No.3859/2024 the petitioner's age, occupation, income and injuries suffered by him. Accordingly prays to dismiss the claim petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival contention, the following issues are framed by this court:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to the actionable negligent driving of Tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-40-B-
4041 by its driver in RTA took place on 24.03.2024 at about 6.30 p.m. near Yagavamaddhalakana village, Bagepalli Taluk, Chickballapura ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount & from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 20. Further examined the Dr.S.Ramachandra, Orthopaedic surgeon at General hospital, Jayanagar, MRT of Victoria Hospital and one eyewitness were examined as PW.2 to 4 and got marked SCCH-17 7 MVC No.3859/2024 the documents at Ex.P21 to Ex.P26. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 examined Administrative Medical Officer, Bagepalli as RW1 and its official as RW2 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to R.4.
6. Heard the arguments and perused evidence that are available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed memo along with the following citations.
1. 2025 ACJ 11 (SC) -Sajeena Ikbhal and others V/s Mini Babu George and others.
2. 2023 ACJ 2032 (SC) - Virsa Singh and others V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
3. Civil Appeal No...... of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.8074/2025) - Suresh V/s Senthil B. & another.
4. 2024 ACJ 2142 (SC) - Aabid Khan V/s Dinesh and others.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative;
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final orders
for the following:-
SCCH-17 8 MVC No.3859/2024
: R E A S O N S:
ISSUE NO.1 :
8. That by reiterating all the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu of- examination in-chief, which is considered as P.W.1. In support of his case, he has produced true copies of FIR, complaint, mahazar, sketch, IMV report, wound certificate, witness statement, photographs and charge sheet which are marked under Ex.P.1 to 9.
9. On perusal of Ex.P1- FIR is registered on the basis of Ex.P2 first information given by one Smt.Aluvelamma who is the mother of the petitioner by alleging the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tractor belongs to Petrol Bunk Venkateshappa of Ivarapalli village. In continuation the IO drawn spot mahazar along with spot sketch as per Ex.P3 and P4. On perusal of Ex.P3 and P4, the accident spot is in the left side portion of the road and it is alleged the driver of the offending tractor dashed against the motorcycle of the SCCH-17 9 MVC No.3859/2024 petitioner from opposite side. This shows that the driver of the offending Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 was driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and by coming to the extreme right side caused the accident without controlling the said vehicle. As such the negligence of the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B- 4014 is established as per the mahazar and rough sketch. The IMV report which is marked at Ex.P5 also establishes that the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 has got damages in its front right side and the motorcycle of the petitioner has got damages in its front side. Thus as per the said Ex.P.3 to 5 documents the accident was caused as the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 came to his wrong side and caused the accident. Thereby as per Ex.P9 the charge sheet was also came to be filed against the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 by the IO by opining that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40- B-4014.
SCCH-17 10 MVC No.3859/2024
10. By filing the written statement the respondent No.2 insurance company has taken major defence by denying the involvement of Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B- 4014 in the accident and also the complaint is given after 7 days by falsely implicating Tractor bearing No.KA- 40-B-4014 in the accident. The respondent No.2 insurance company has take two major defence by denying the involvement of the Tractor bearing No.KA- 40-B-4014.
Firstly the complaint was lodged after the lapse of 7 days by creating the story of accident.
Secondly, in the complaint/Ex.P2 the number of the tractor is not available, but it was alleged that accident was caused by the tractor of Petrol Bunk Venkateshappa of Ivarapalli village. But later the charge sheet is filed against the tractor of respondent No.1 Suresh.
On these two grounds the respondent No.2 disputing the alleged fact of accident and also the alleged SCCH-17 11 MVC No.3859/2024 involvement of the tractor of the respondent No.1 Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014.
11. Coming to the defence of delay in registering the complaint we have to verify whether the delay in intentional or the delay in backed with genuine practical reasons. To probablize that the delay is not intentional and to establish the fact of the accident the petitioner summoned and produced the Ex.P24 MLC register extract of the Victoria Hospital. If we perused the said Ex.P24 MLC register extract of the Victoria Hospital establishes that the petitioner admitted on 25.03.2024 at about 1.30 am. by alleging that the petitioner sustained injuries in an RTA hit by tractor. In this regard the content of Ex.P24 is hereby quoted for better appreciation of this point:
"RTA on 24.03.2024 at 6.30 p.m. near Guluru hit by Tractor. Ref - Chikkaballapura Govt."SCCH-17 12 MVC No.3859/2024
12. Further the respondent No.2 has summoned and got produced MLC and police intimation at Ex.R1 and R.2. If we perused the Ex.R1 & 2 MLC and police intimation of Government Hospital, Bagepalli. In the Ex.R.1 and R.2 the reason for the injuries sustained by the petitioner is noted as alleged h/o RTA on 24.03.2024 at 6.30 p.m. near Yaguramaddilakere. Further the Ex.R.2 intimation was prepared and given to the police on 24.03.2024. Ex.R.1 accident register extract was also prepared on 24.03.2024 at about 8.30 p.m.
13. By considering the available records the alleged accident is of dated 24.03.2024, but the FIR as per Ex.P.1 was registered on 30.03.2024. Thereby there is 7 days of delay in registering the complaint as such whether is there is any false implication of the alleged offending vehicle in this case as argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has to be looked into.
14. In this regard as per Ex.P.14 discharge summaries it states that the petitioner admitted to their SCCH-17 13 MVC No.3859/2024 hospital on 24.03.2024, the wound certificate marked at Ex.P.6 shows that the petitioner admitted to their hospital on 24.03.2024 itself. The Ex.R2 police intimation was also prepared on 24.03.2024. The contents of Ex.P.14 discharge summaries, Ex.P.6 wound certificate, Ex.R.2 police intimation discloses that the petitioner admitted to Victoria Hospital by sustaining injury in an RTA and hit by tractor. Thereby the fact of the accident and involvement of a tractor in the accident is established. The police intimation as per Ex.R2 and MLC register extract as per Ex.R.1 was prepared on 24.03.2024 at about 8.30 p.m. i.e., within 2 hours of the alleged accident. Even after the receipt of police intimation as per Ex.R.2 the police failed to register the FIR or act upon the intimation received by them as per Ex.R.2. Thereby merely because the FIR was not registered the contents of Ex.R.1 and R2 and Ex.P24 which establishes that the petitioner sustained injuries in an RTA where hit by tractor cannot be neglected. The SCCH-17 14 MVC No.3859/2024 Ex.R1, R2 and Ex.P24 being a medical documents prepared within few hours after the accident establishes that the petitioner sustained injuries in an RTA caused by Tractor.
15. Thereby as per the reasons discussed above the delay is properly explained and it is backed with genuine reason as the petitioner was under the treatment they were unable to come to the jurisdictional police station and register the FIR.
16. Coming to the point of involvement of the offending Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014, admittedly in the Ex.P.2 complaint it is written as follows:
"ಎದುರುಗಡೆಯಿಂದ ಐವಾರಪಲ್ಲಿ ಗ್ರಾ ಮದ ಪೆಟ್ರೋಲ್ ಬಂಕ್ ವೆಂಕಟೇಶಪ್ಪ ರವರ ಟ್ರಾ ಕ್ಟರ್ ಅನ್ನು ಚಾಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಅತಿ ವೇಗ ಮತ್ತು ಅಜಾಗರೂಕತೆಯಿಂದ ಚಾಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ನಾನು ಚಾಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದ ದ್ವಿ ಚಕ್ರ ವಾಹನದ ಬಲಭಾಗಕ್ಕೆ ಡಿಕ್ಕಿ ಪಡಿಸಿ ಅಪಘಾತವನ್ನುಂಟು ಮಾಡಿ ಟ್ರಾ ಕ್ಟರ್ ಅನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸದೇ ಹೊರಟು ಹೋದ ಪರಿಣಾಮ"
" ದ್ವಿಚಕ್ರ ವಾಹನಕ್ಕೆ ಅಪಘಾತವನ್ನುಂಟು ಟ್ರಾ ಕ್ಟರ್ ಅನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸದೇ ಹೊರಟು ಹೋಗಿರುವ ಐವರ್ಲಪಲ್ಲಿ ಗ್ರಾ ಮದ ಪೆಟ್ರೋಲ್ ಬಂಕ್ ವೆಂಕಟೇಶಪ್ಪ ರವರ ಬಾಬತ್ತು ಟ್ರಾ ಕ್ಟರ್ ಚಾಲಕನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕಾನೂನು ರೀತಿಯ ಕ್ರಮಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳ್ಣಲು ಕೋರುತ್ತೇನೆ"SCCH-17 15 MVC No.3859/2024
17. At the time of registering the FIR even after 7 days of the alleged accident, the first informant or the petitioner not furnished the offending vehicle registration number. But they have alleged that the accident was caused by the driver of the tractor belongs to Petrol Bunk Venkateshappa of Ivarapalli. But as per Ex.P9 charge sheet and Ex.P13 the Tractor bearing No.KA-04-B-4014 belongs to respondent No.1 Suresha S/o Shankarappa. Thereby even though in the Ex.P2 complaint it was alleged that the accident was caused by the tractor of Ivarapalli Venkateshappa, the charge sheet was filed against the tractor of Suresha. On this ground the respondent No.2 disputing the involvement of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 as the said tractor not belongs to Ivarapalli Venkateshappa.
18. To prove the involvement of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 in the said accident initially the petitioner examined himself and produced the criminal case documents wherein the IO after the detailed SCCH-17 16 MVC No.3859/2024 investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 and thereby the IO came to the conclusion that the Tractor bearing No.KA- 40-B-4014 was involved in the accident. Further the Ex.P5 IMV inspection report also discloses that the involvement of Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 as the front right side wheel rim was dented due to the impact of the accident. Thereby the Ex.P5 IMV report and the Ex.P9 charge sheet initially helped the petitioner to prove the involvement of Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 in the said accident.
19. In respect of identification of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 when the PW1 was cross- examined he answered as follows:
"I was alone going in the motorcycle.
The driver of tractor escaped from the spot along with tractor after the accident. At that time I was unable to see the tractor number or the details of the said tractor.
As we were not knowing the tractor number we were unable to give the SCCH-17 17 MVC No.3859/2024 complaint immediately after the accident or the next day of accident. Witness further voluntarily stated that when I fell down from the motorcycle I saw the number of the tractor and thereafter I recollected my memory and gave the number of the tractor to my parents as such the complaint was given belatedly.
I have given the number of the tractor to my mother. The complaint was given by my mother and my mother gave complaint on the basis of the information and details given by me. It is true to suggest that in the complaint given by my mother she has not mentioned the tractor number. Further witness voluntarily stated that my mother has forgot to give the tractor number while giving complaint.
It is true to suggest that in the complaint my mother mentioned that the tractor belongs to Ivarapalli Petrol bunk Venkateshappa caused the accident. The said information was given by general public who informed me that the tractor belongs to and works for Ivarapalli Petrol bunk Venkateshappa caused the accident. In the said area the tractor belongs to Ivarapalli Petrol bunk Venkateshappa usually works. After the half n hour of the accident the said Ivarapalli Petrol bunk Venkateshappa came to the accident spot.
It is true to suggest that the accident was caused by the tractor belongs to Ivarapalli Petrol bunk Venkateshappa. It is true to suggest SCCH-17 18 MVC No.3859/2024 that the tractor on which we have filed case does not belongs to Ivarapalli Petrol bunk Venkateshappa. Witness further voluntarily stated that the present tractor belongs to Suresh and he was working for Ivarapalli Petrol bunk Venkateshappa at that time.
In this case I have not given the vehicle details at the time of admission in the hospitals. Even after getting consciousness and recollecting the number of the tractor I have not informed the hospital authorities about the number of the tractor".
Thereby the above answers establishes that the PW1/petitioner sustained injuries in an RTA hit by tractor. The answers given by the pW1 at the time of cross-examination shows that the petitioner initially says that he was unable to see the number of the tractor but later he was able to see after he fell down. The answers also reveals that after the accident the driver of the tractor escaped from the spot along with tractor. The alleged injuries sustained by the petitioner as per Ex.P6 wound certificate is very grievous in nature. The petitioner sustained severe multiple fractures to his right SCCH-17 19 MVC No.3859/2024 leg. Such being the case expecting the petitioner to see the tractor number even after sustaining the severe injuries cannot be practically possible. As per the answers given by the PW1 soon after half an hour of the accident the Ivarapalli Venkateshappa also came to the spot and the general public informed him that the tractor which works or belongs to Ivarapalli Venkateshappa caused the accident. The petitioner also given explanation in his cross-examination by saying that the present Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 not belongs to one Suresha but the said Suresha works for Ivarapalli Venkateshappa.
20. The medical documents produced by the petitioner shows that immediately within 2 hours of the accident the petitioner was taken to Government Hospital Bagepalli and thereafter he was taken to Victoria Hospital for higher treatment. These documents specifically reveals the involvement of a Tractor in the accident. As answered by the PW1 merely because the tractor stands SCCH-17 20 MVC No.3859/2024 in the name of Suresha we cannot ruled out the chances of said tractor working for Ivarapalli Venkateshappa. As per the written statement filed by the respondent No.2 and also as per Ex.R4 copy of policy, the insurance policy was issued as a Commercial vehicle package policy which means the said tractor was not used for agricultural purpose but it was insured under commercial vehicle package policy. Such being the case the said vehicle ought to have been working for Ivarapalli Venkateshappa at the time of accident. Thereby there is a chances of people recognizing the said tractor belongs to Ivarapalli Venkateshappa.
21. As per Ex.P10 certified copy of order sheet in CC No.961/2024 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Bagepalli, the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 appeared before the jurisdictional criminal court and pleaded guilty and paid fine by admitting his negligence. Thereby, the driver of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B- 4014 admitted the involvement of the said Tractor in the SCCH-17 21 MVC No.3859/2024 alleged accident. No other independent evidence is found to disbelieve the involvement of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 in the accident merely because in the complaint it was mentioned as tractor belongs to Ivarapalli Venkateshappa. After the detailed investigation the IO found the involvement of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 in the said accident. The respondent No.1 except relying on the Ex.P2 complaint not adduced any other independent evidence to establish the non- involvement of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 in the said accident. The respondent No.2 insurer not issued any notice to its insured i.e., respondent No.1 by calling the explanation or by disputing involvement of tractor. Thereby no grounds are made out to disbelive the contents of Ex.P9 charge sheet wherein the IO after detailed investigation found the involvement of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 and thereby charge sheeted the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 for the offence punishable under Sec.279 and 338 of IPC. SCCH-17 22 MVC No.3859/2024
22. As discussed supra, the petitioner successfully established the actionable negligence by the driver of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014. Thus, by considering all these points this court is of the opinion that the said accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014.
23. The respondent No.2 insurance company filed written statement, has failed to establish the negligence on the part of petitioner for the occurrence of the accident. The charge sheet was came to be filed on the driver of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 for the offences punishable under Sec. 279 & 338 of IPC. At this juncture, I would like to quote the following judgment wherein it states that;
24. 2009 ACJ 287 ( National Ins. Co. V/s.
Pushparama and others), wherein it is held that, Certified copy of the criminal court records such as FIR, recovery and mechanical inspection of the vehicle or documents are of sufficient proof to reach the conclusion SCCH-17 23 MVC No.3859/2024 that the rider was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a Civil Court. Hence, strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
25. By relying on the said precedent and in the absence of rebuttal evidence and denial in respect of police documents, this court is of the opinion that the accident has happened due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B- 4014.
26. In a claim for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319 Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others.
SCCH-17 24 MVC No.3859/2024
27. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530, wherein it is held that, it was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.
28. In support of these documentary evidence, if we perused the oral evidence of the petitioner on this point, even though the respondent no.1 made a suggestions to the petitioner by stating that the accident was occurred by his negligence, nothing being elicited or produced to probabalise the said defence.
29. As per well settled principle of law, the standard of proof in the claim petition like the present is SCCH-17 25 MVC No.3859/2024 preponderance of the probability. There are no grounds to disbelieve the case of petitioner in the absence of rebuttal evidence. All the materials available on record leading to show that, petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident took place on 24.03.2024 which was caused by the driver of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 which is belongs to respondent No.1. There is no reason to discard the evidence of petitioner. In the claim petition like present one strict proof is not necessary, but preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Accordingly, issue No.1 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
30. As already held herein above, the petitioner has proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which is caused by the driver of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40- B-4014. Hence, the petitioner is entitle for compensation. Now the quantum of compensation is to be ascertained on different heads.
SCCH-17 26 MVC No.3859/2024
a) PAIN AND AGONY:- At the time of alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 21 years. As per the Ex.P.17 Aadhaar card the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 10.06.2003. The accident was took place on 24.03.2024. Hence as on the date of accident the petitioner was aged about 21 years. The petitioner has produced discharge summaries marked at Ex.P14. As per Ex.P14 the petitioner was admitted to Victoria Hospital from 24.03.2024 to 29.04.2024, from 15.05.2024 to 29.05.2024 and from 18.07.2024 to 19.08.2024 and has sustained right comminuted femur shaft fracture, right proximal tibia fracture, right comminuted tibia shaft fracture, crush injury right foot and underwent ORIF (open reduction internal fixation) with ILN (Inter locking nail) femur, CRIF (Closed reduction inernal fixation) wound debridement and antibiotic beads placement. By considering the nature of injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident SCCH-17 27 MVC No.3859/2024 Rs.60,000/- may be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
b) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced medical bill as per Ex.P18. In the Ex.P18 Sl. No.1 to 27 bills are medicine bills amounting to Rs.40,298/- which are supported by medical prescriptions marked at Ex.P19. The said medicine bills need to be reimbursed. Further from Sl. No.28 to 37 are the blood bank bills amounting to Rs.12,000/- also need to be reimbursed. The medical bills and blood bank bills are not seriously disputed by the respondents and no grounds are made out to disbelieve these bill. These medical bills are supported with inpatient case details, discharge summaries and medical prescriptions. The other bills from Sl.No.38 to 52 are the transportation bills. The transportation bills will be discussed and considered under the head of conveyance. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in combined with the alleged injuries the petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement of SCCH-17 28 MVC No.3859/2024 the medical bills and blood bank bills by rounding off the same i.e., Rs.52,500/-.
c) Loss of income during laid up period: The petitioner has stated that he was doing mason and bar bending work and earning Rs.36,000/- p.m. To prove the said fact the petitioner has produced has not produced any documents. In the absence of any document the notional income of the petitioner is considered in the year 2024 at Rs.16,500/- p.m. As per the discharge summaries marked at Ex.P8 - the petitioner was admitted to admitted to Victoria Hospital from 24.03.2024 to 29.04.2024, from 15.05.2024 to 29.05.2024 and from 18.07.2024 to 19.08.2024 totally for the period of nearly 3 months (85 days). The petitioner sustained multiple fractures with crush injury. Even at the time of his chief examination and cross-examination on 12.03.2025 i.e., nearly after 1 year the petitioner appeared before this tribunal on stretcher. After the discharge usually the healing period SCCH-17 29 MVC No.3859/2024 has to be considered for which in the absence of evidence, this court is of the opinion that in total 8 months period including 85 days inpatient period may be considered under this head as a loss of income. So, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.16,500 X 8 months = Rs.1,32,000/- during the laid up period.
d) Disability;- To prove the nature of injuries sustained by him the petitioner has examined Dr.S.Ramachandra Orthopaedic Surgeon as PW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P21 & 22. According to the evidence of this witness the petitioner has sustained right comminuted femur shaft fracture, right proximal tibia fracture, right comminuted tibia shaft fracture, crush injury right foot and underwent ORIF (open reduction internal fixation) with ILN (Inter locking nail) femur, CRIF (Closed reduction inernal fixation) wound debridement and antibiotic beads placement. He examined the petitioner for assessment of disability. As per the evidence of PW2 the Petitioner sustained the SCCH-17 30 MVC No.3859/2024 75.76% to right lower limb disability and 37.88% to whole body. This aspect is not impeached during the course of cross-examination. No other expert evidence is lead by the respondents to impeach the credibility of the evidence of PW.2 doctor.
In this case as per the evidence of PW.2 doctor who assessed the disability of the petitioner assessed permanent physical whole disability of 37.88%.
As per the say of the petitioner he was doing mason work. The disability caused to the petitioner may affect on his occupation to greater extent. The injury to right lower limb affects the day today life of the petitioner as the lower limb carries more weight of the body. The functional disability also effected in a greater extent even the lower limb got injuries. When the PW2 examined the petitioner on 19.12.2024 for the purpose of disability assessment the petitioner was on Trolley/Stretcher and was accompanied by two attendants. This shows that even after the 6 months of the accident still the petitioner SCCH-17 31 MVC No.3859/2024 was dependent on others. For a mason worker the disability to the right lower limb certainly effects to his day today function. Hence, the functional disability of the petitioner is considered as 30%.
As per Sarala Verma's case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age of petitioner is '18'. Hence, I inclined to award future loss of income at Rs.16,500/- X 12 X 18 X 30% = Rs.10,69,200/- which is the total loss of future income.
d) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE; As per Ex.P14 discharge summaries, the petitioner took treatment as inpatient for a period of 85 days. As per wound certificate marked at Ex.P6 the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. The Sl.No.38 to 48 in Ex.P18 bills are belongs to transportation bills given by airport taxi service. Amongst these bills the bills at Sl. No.44 to 48 does not bears the customer name or to whom they have provided the transportation services. In the bills at Sl.No.38 to 42 the name of the petitioner SCCH-17 32 MVC No.3859/2024 available and also the details of the trip/transportation is also available. The Sl. No.38 to 42 bills shows that the said transportation service was availed to go for Victoria Hospital and to return to the native of the petitioner. The said details are blank and not available in the bills produced at Sl. No.44 to 48. By rejecting the bills produced at Sl. No.44 to 48 the bills marked at Sl. No.38 to 43 amounting to Rs.62,000/- need to be reimbursed to the petitioner.
Along with conveyance charges by considering the need of food and nourishment Rs.20,000/- is awarded and thereby in total Rs.82,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head by considering the nature of the injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident.
e) ATTENDANT CHARGES: The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The petitioner has spent 85 days in the hospital and there is no evidence or SCCH-17 33 MVC No.3859/2024 pleading in this regard to show that the petitioner is in need of attendant. But the evidence of PW2 doctor shows that even after the 6 months of the accident when the petitioner had been to the hospital for disability assessment, the petitioner was accompanied with 2 attendants. The nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner discloses that during the 85 days of inpatient period the petitioner was accompanied with an attendant and he has spent some amount towards the said attendant for his food or for his stay in Bengaluru. By considering the nature of the fracture as discussed above, it may be considered to award attendant charges at Rs.1,000/- per day i.e., Rs.85,000/- in total as the petitioner has spent 85 days in the hospital.
f) Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life:
The petitioner admitted to the hospital for the injuries sustained by him, which might certainly have deprived him of the basic comforts and enjoyment. The petitioner got injuries in the alleged accident and still under the SCCH-17 34 MVC No.3859/2024 stretcher. Therefore, it is just and proper to award him a reasonable sum of Rs.60,000/- under this head.
a) Towards pain and agony Rs. 60,000/-
b) Towards Medical expenses Rs. 52,500/-
c) Loss of income during laid up Rs. 1,32,000/-
period
d) Towards loss of disability Rs. 10,69,200/-
e) Towards food nourishment and Rs. 82,000/-
conveyance
f) Towards attendant charges Rs. 85,000/-
g) Towards loss of amenities Rs. 60,000/-
Total Rs. 15,40,700/-
31. Liability:- According to the petitioner the respondent No.1 & 2 are the insurer and owner of the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014. The respondent No.2 in its objection statement has admitted the issuance of policy to the Tractor bearing No.KA-40-B-4014 and it was in force as on the date of accident. No evidence is placed by the respondent No.1 insurance company to eschew their liability. No other grounds are made out by showing the contributory negligence of the petitioner or SCCH-17 35 MVC No.3859/2024 violation of policy conditions by the respondent No.1 owner. Hence the Respondent No.2 insurance company is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.2-
owner. The petitioner is entitled for the interest @ 6% p.a. Accordingly, this issue answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
32. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total
compensation amount of Rs.15,40,700/-
(Rupees Fifteen lakhs forty thousand
seven hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The respondent No.2- insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation SCCH-17 36 MVC No.3859/2024 amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
Out of awarded amount awarded, 50% shall be released to petitioner on his proper identification and remaining 50% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in his name in any Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years. Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pro nounced in the open court on this the 12th day of January 2026) (Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) XIX ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Sri Anji G. PW.2 Dr. S. Ramachandra PW.3 Sri Nagaraja G.V PW.4 Sri B. Mallikarjuna
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of FIR
SCCH-17 37 MVC No.3859/2024
Ex.P2 Certified copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 Certified copy of mahazar
Ex.P4 Certified copy of sketch
Ex.P5 Certified copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 Certified copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P7 Certified copy of Witness statement
Ex.P8 Certified copies of photographs
Ex.P9 Certified copy of charge sheet
Ex.P10 Certified copy of order sheet
Ex.P11 Certified copy of Plea
Ex.P12 Certified copy of Notice and reply u/sec.133 of MV Act &13 Ex.P14 Discharge summaries 4 in nos collectively marked Ex.P15 OPD book Ex.P16 Photographs along with CD Ex.P17 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card Ex.P18 Medical bills Ex.P19 Medical prescriptions Ex.P20 X-rays Ex.P21 OPD record Ex.P22 X-ray Ex.P23 Authorization letter Ex.P24 True copy of MLC Ex.P25 Inpatient case details Ex.P26 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW1 Dr. Vinay
RW2 Sri Santhosh
SCCH-17 38 MVC No.3859/2024
List of documents marked on behalf of the
Respondents:
Ex.R1 True copy of MLC and police intimation &2 Ex.R3 Authorization letter Ex.R4 True Copy of Insurance policy (Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) XIX ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
KANCHI
KANCHI MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
GOUTAM Date:
2026.02.03
12:17:59
+0530