Bangalore District Court
Reetesh Rathour vs Mail Motor Service on 24 April, 2026
SCCH-14 1 MVC.5282/2025
KABC020282752025
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
Dated : This the 24th day of April, 2026
Present : Smt. N.Anupama,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.5282/2025
Petitioners: 1.Mr.Reetesh Rathour,
S/o Ramvilash,
Aged 24 years,
R/at 288, 5th Cross,
Sumangali Seva
Ashrama Road,
Cholanayakanahalli,
RT Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 580032.
Permanent Address:
Ltora, Sujarama,
Morena,
SCCH-14 2 MVC.5282/2025
Madhya Pradesh -476224.
(By Sri.Ashok Kumar Adv)
Vs.
Respondents : M/s The Manager,
MAIL Motor Service,
Department of Indian post,
No.4, Basaveshwara road,
Vasanthanagar,
Bangalore - 560052.
(By Sri.Naveen Chandra Shetty, Adv)
:JUDGMENT:
This is a Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic Accident.
2. Brief facts of the Petition are as under:
That on 16.06.2025 at about 8.30 p.m., near Mekhri Circle Service Road, while the petitioner was riding his Motor-cycle bearing no.KA-40-ED-6916 from Ballary Main Road towards Jayamahal Road, Bangalore, a Goods Carrier bearing no.KA-04-AB-7196 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his SCCH-14 3 MVC.5282/2025 Motor-cycle. As a result, the petitioner fell-down and sustained grievous-injuries. That immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore, and was then shifted to Bangalore Baptist Hospital, where he was treated as an inpatient.
That the petitioner has spent more than Rs.2,50,000/- towards Medical treatment, Nourishment, Conveyance Expenses and Attendant charges.
3. That prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was working as Zomato Delivery Boy and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the accident, the petitioner has sustained grievous-injuries leading to permanent disability.
4. That the Respondent being the Owner of the offending- vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to Petitioner. Hence this Petition.
5. In pursuance of notice, Respondent-Mail Motor Service of Postal Department appeared through its counsel and filed its objections to the main petition.
SCCH-14 4 MVC.5282/2025
6. In the Objection Statement, the Respondent has denied the age, avocation, income of the Petitioner and also that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Goods Carrier. It is contended that the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary-parties since 'Union of India' is not arrayed as a party to the petition. That the accident was due to the sole negligence of the petitioner. The Respondent has thus prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
7. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred on 17.06.2025 at about 8.30 p.m. on Ballary main road, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of goods vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-04-AB-7196 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award ?SCCH-14 5 MVC.5282/2025
8. In support of his case, the petitioner has got himself examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to 15 have been marked; two witnesses have been examined as PWs.2, 3 and Exs.P.20 to 21 have been marked. On the other hand, the Respondent has examined its Official as RW.1 and Exs.R.1 to 5 have been marked.
9. Perused the materials on record. Heard both-sides.
10. My answer to the Issues are as under :
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per the Final Order,
for the following :
REASONS
11. Issue No.1: It is the case of petitioner that he has sustained grievous-injuries in the accident caused by the driver of the Goods Carrier bearing no.KA-04-AB-7196. Per contra, the respondent has denied that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Goods Carrier.
12. In support of his case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1, two witnesses as PWs.2, 3, and has got marked SCCH-14 6 MVC.5282/2025 Exs.P.1 to 15. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 are the true-copy of FIR, Complaint, Spot Panchanama, Spot sketch, IMV report, Wound certificate, Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act & its Reply, Charge sheet. Ex.P.10 is the Discharge Summary. Ex.P.11 is the Notarized copy of Aadhar card of Petitioner, Ex.P.12 is the Medical Bills-21 in number, Ex.P.13 is the X-rays, Ex.P.14 is Medical bills and Ex.P.15 is the 6 Photographs.
13. A perusal of FIR & Complaint at Exs.P.1 & 2 shows that, Sadashivanagar Traffic Police have registered the FIR against the driver of the offending Goods Carrier bearing no.KA-04-AB-7196 for the offences punishable under Sections 125(b), 281 of BNS on the complaint lodged by petitioner's Aunt - Ram Bai Singh Rathore. The accident has taken-place on 17.06.2025 while the complaint has been filed on 19.06.2025. Thus there is delay of 2 days in filing the complaint. As per Exs.P.1 & 2, the Goods Carrier has dashed against the petitioner's Motor-cycle from behind causing the petitioner and his Aunt to fall from the Motor-cycle; and it has then run-over the petitioner's Left Foot.
SCCH-14 7 MVC.5282/2025
14. That as per the Spot Mahazar and Spot Sketch at Ex.P.3 & 4 respectively, the accident has taken-place at the Junction when the Goods Carrier has taken to his Right, causing the petitioner to dash against the right-side body of the Goods Carrier. This fact is corroborated by the IMV Report at Ex.P.5 which shows the damages to the Goods Carrier as : 'Scratch marks found on the Right-side portion of front-part of Container Body'. Thus, the driver of the Goods Carrier without observing the vehicles to his Right has taken his vehicle to the Right-side, which has led the petitioner to dash against it and fall-down. Thus the petitioner has been 'rash & negligent'.
15. Ex.P.7 is the Wound Certificate which shows that the petitioner has sustained the grievous-injuries in the accident. The Notice under Section 133 of M.V.Act and its Reply at Exs.P.7 & 8 and the Police Intimation, MLC Register Extract at Exs.P.17 to 19 produced by the Medical Record Officer of Baptist Hospital, who is examined as PW.2, prove the involvement of vehicle.
16. After thorough investigation, the I.O has filed the Charge sheet at Ex.P.9 against Narasimha - the driver of the offending SCCH-14 8 MVC.5282/2025 vehicle, for the offences punishable under Section 125(b), 281 of BNS. On the contrary, Respondent has although denied the negligence of the driver of the offending Goods Carrier, it has not examined its driver to prove it. Instead the Respondent-Mail Motor Service has examined the Inspector of Posts as RW.1 and has got marked Exs.R.1 to 5 viz., Authorization Letter, Statement of Driver given to his Employer - Postal Department, Copy of the Complaint dated 20.06.2025 given by the Driver of the Goods Carrier to Sadashivnagar Traffic Police, Show-cause Notice and Explanation by Mail Guard. But the Complaint at Ex.R.3 has been given on 20.06.2025 whereas the petitioner's aunt has given the Complaint at Ex.P.2 regarding the accident on 19.06.2025. Thus the Complaint at Ex.R.3 given by the driver of Goods Carrier is after the filing of complaint by petitioner's aunt; and thus Ex.R.3 could be termed as an 'afterthought'. Further, the Respondent has pleaded that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party since Union of India which is a necessary party to the petition, has not been arrayed in the petition. But the contention cannot be accepted since the Respondent - Manager, Mail Motor Service, in his Reply to the Notice SCCH-14 9 MVC.5282/2025 under Section 133 at Ex.P.7 has himself admitted that he is the Owner of the Goods Carrier bearing no. KA-04-AB-7196; and unlike a suit, this is merely a petition for compensation under M.V.Act, to plead that 'Union of India' was a necessary-party.
Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Goods Carrier. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the "Affirmative".
17. Issue No.2:- Having proved that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Goods Carrier, the petitioner is entitled for compensation.
18. The petitioner who is examined as PW.1 has deposed that due to the accident, he sustained Left Ankle Open Type 3A Medial Malleolus Fracture with Bone Loss and Left Closed Distal Fibula Fracture; that he has been treated at M.S.Ramaiah Hospital and then as an inpatient at Baptist Hospital, Bengaluru from 18.06.2025 to 21.06.2025. This evidence of PW.1 is also supported by the Discharge Summary as per Exs.P.10 and also from the evidence of SCCH-14 10 MVC.5282/2025 the doctor who has been examined as PW.3. PW.1 has produced the photographs of injury as per Ex.P.15.
19. Further, the petitioner has got the Doctor examined as PW.3 who has also deposed that the petitioner has sustained Crush injury of Left Foot exposing under-lying bones and tendons, Left Ankle Open Type 3A Medial Malleolus Fracture with Bone Loss and Left Closed Distal Fibula Fracture; that the petitioner has undergone 'wound debridement plus medial malleolus open reduction and internal fixation with threaded K wires plus primary stay skin suture'. PW.3 has produced the OPD book and X-Ray as per Exs.P.20 &
21. He has assessed the disability of left lower limb at 42% and whole body at 21%. But as per the Discharge Summary at Ex.P.10, the petitioner has undergone Wound Debidement with Threaded K-wire Fixation only, and the Implant used is 2 Threaded K-wife Fixation only, the whole body disability can be taken as 8% and not 21%.
20. Next, in the petition, as per Aadhar card at Ex.P.11, the date of birth of petitioner is shown as 01.01.2001. The accident has SCCH-14 11 MVC.5282/2025 taken-place on 17.06.2025. Hence, the age of the petitioner is taken as 24 years.
21. Next, as per the petition, the petitioner was a zomato delivery Boy and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. When PW.1 was cross-examined in this regard, he has deposed as under :
2. ನನಗೆ ಸಂಬಳವನ್ನು ನಗದು ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. Zomato ದವರು ಸಂಬಳವನ್ನು ಕೊಡುವ ಕಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ನನ್ನಿಂದ ರಸೀದಿಗೆ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳು ತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ.
Zomato ಒಂದು MNC ಕಂಪನಿ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. MNC ಕಂಪನಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ನಗದು ಹಣದ ವ್ಯವಹಾರವನ್ನು ಮಾಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ತಾವು ತಮ ್ಮ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿ ಡೆಲಿವರಿ ಬಾಯ್ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರೆಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾ ರೆ - ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಅರ್ಜಿಯಲ್ಲಾ ಗಲೀ, ನನ್ನ ಮುಖ್ಯ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಯ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಾ ಗಲೀ ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತದೋ, ಇಲ್ಲವೋ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತ್ಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿ Zomato ದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ ನು ಎಂದು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. This evidence falsifies the contention of petitioner that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month as a Delivery Boy at Zomato. Moreover, the petitioner has not produced any document to prove his avocation and income. In the absence of any documentary evidence in support of petitioner's income, it is proper to take his notional- income as Rs.17,000/- as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, since the said accident has SCCH-14 12 MVC.5282/2025 been occurred in the year 2025.
22. As per Sarla Verma's Case (2009 ACJ 1298 SC), the multiplier applicable to the petitioner who is aged about 24 years is '18'. With the multiplier '18', income of Rs.17,000/- per month and the whole-body disability of Petitioner at 8%, the future loss of income works out at: Rs.17,000X12X18 X 8/100 = Rs.2,93,760/- and the petitioner is entitled for the same as compensation under the Head 'Future loss of income'.
23. The petitioner has averred in the petition as well as in his evidence that he has been treated as an inpatient at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru thrice - from 18.06.2025 to 21.06.2025, Therefore, the total period which the petitioner was admitted as inpatient is 5 days. Owing to the nature of injuries sustained, the petitioner has undergone Pain, Shock & Suffering. He is thus entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards 'Pain, Shock and Suffering'. Further, the petitioner might have laid-up for atleast 1 month. Thus considering the laid-up period as 1 month, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.17,000/- under the SCCH-14 13 MVC.5282/2025 head 'Loss of income during the Laid-up period'.
24. Admittedly, during the laid-up period of 1 month, the Petitioner might have engaged an attendant and might have spent some amount towards extra diet, nourishment and for his conveyance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding compensation of Rs.6,000/- towards Attendant's charges, Rs.6,000/- towards extra Diet and Nourishment and Rs.6,000/- towards Conveyance would be just and reasonable. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,000/- towards the Head.
25. The Petitioner has deposed that he has spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards Medical-expenses. He has produced 21 Medical bills at Ex.P.12 to a sum of Rs.93,636/- and 16 Medical Bills at Ex.P.14 to a sum of Rs.20,385/-. But since the Medical Bills at Ex.P.14 are neither supported by any Discharge Summary nor Prescriptions, the same cannot be considered. Thus the Bills at Ex.P.12 are the only acceptable Medical Bills which sum- SCCH-14 14 MVC.5282/2025 up to Rs.93,636/- Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.93,636/- as compensation under the Head 'Medical Expenses'.
26. Further, PW.3 has deposed that the petitioner requires one more surgery for achieving union at both sites which would cost around Rs.50,000/- in private set-up. But it is without any basis. The learned counsel for respondent has thus cross-examined PW.3 in this regard. The relevant-portion of the same is as under :
"It is false to suggest that if the fracture is not united, it is not possible to walk. The witness volunteers that the petitioner can walk with difficulty".
In the absence of any document in this regard, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the Head 'Future Medical expenses'.
27. Considering the above aspects, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation as under :
1. Future Loss of Income Rs. 2,93,760/-SCCH-14 15 MVC.5282/2025
2. Pain & Suffering Rs. 40,000/-
3. Loss of income during laid-up Rs. 17,000/-
period
4. Food, Nourishment, Rs. 18,000/-
Conveyance and Attendant
Charges
5. Medical Expenses Rs. 93,636/-
Total Rs. 4,62,396/-
[
Thus, the petitioner is awarded the total compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
28. Regarding Liability : As already discussed above, the petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the Goods Carrier bearing no.KA- 04-AB-7196. And there is no dispute regarding the validity of the Insurance Policy of the offending-vehicle. Therefore, the Respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 'Partly in the SCCH-14 16 MVC.5282/2025 Affirmative'.
29. Issue No.3 : In view of my findings on Issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act is allowed in part with costs.
A sum of Rs.4,62,000/- is awarded as total compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment.
The Respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
The Respondent is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
Out of the award amount, 50% is ordered to be released to Petitioner by way of E-Payment after proper identification, and the remaining 50% shall be SCCH-14 17 MVC.5282/2025 kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner no.1 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of his choice for a period of 3 years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-.
Office to draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 24th day of April, 2026) (N.ANUPAMA) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Reetesh Rathour P.W.2 : Stella.M P.W.3 : Dr.S.A.Somashekar Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P1 & True copy of FIR and complaint Ex.P2 Ex.P3 True copy of spot mahazar SCCH-14 18 MVC.5282/2025 Ex.P4 True copy of spot sketch Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report Ex.P6 True copy of wound certificate Ex.P7 & True copy of Notice under Sec.133 of MV Act and Ex.P8 its Reply Ex.P9 True copy of charge sheet Ex.P10 Discharge summary Ex.P11 Notarized copy of aadhar card Ex.P12 21 Medical bills to a sum of Rs.93,636/- Ex.P13 X-rays (4 in numbers) Ex.P14 16 medical bills to a sum of Rs.20,385/- Ex.P15 6 Photographs with CD Ex.P16 Authorization letter Ex.P17 True copy of police intimation Ex.P18 True copy of MLC register extract Ex.P19 Inpatient case sheet Ex.P20 OPD book Ex.P21 X-ray
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 : Punith Kumar.R SCCH-14 19 MVC.5282/2025 Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 True copy of Statement of driver
Ex.R3 True Copy of the Complaint
Ex.R4 Showcause notice dated:28.07.2025
Ex.R5 Explanation from Mailguard
(N.ANUPAMA)
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
Digitally
signed by
ANUPAMA
ANUPAMA N
N Date:
2026.05.19
13:04:38
+0530