Bangalore District Court
Saud Jafer Alias Jafer vs Dr. Chikkegowda Shivappa Rajesh on 19 June, 2025
SCCH-2 1 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/W M.V.C.No.3783/2021
KABC020229942021
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE AND MACT, BENGALURU. (SCCH-2).
M.V.C.No.3782/2021 C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
:: Present ::
Sri. H.P. Mohan Kumar, B.Sc.,LL.B.,
VIth Addl. Judge, Court of Small
Causes and ACJM and MACT,
Bengaluru.
Dated on this the 19th day of June, 2025.
Petitioner in : Saud Jafer @ Jafer
M.V.C.3782/2021 S/o Fakrudeen,
Aged about 36 years,
Gowri complex,
BTM 1st stage, Bangalore.
(Present address)
Saud Jafer @ Jafer
S/o Fakrudeen,
Aged about 36 years,
Thahira Manzil,
Mogral Post, Mogral Kumble,
SCCH-2 2 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
Kasargod,
Kerala-671321.
Petitioner in : Ahmed Ashif P.M. @ Ashif,
M.V.C.3783/2021 S/o Mohammed P.M
Aged about 28 years,
residing at : Gowri complex,
BTM 1st stage, Bangalore.
(Present address)
Ahmed Ashif P.M. @ Ashif,
S/o Mohammed P.M
Aged about 28 years,
residing at Badriya Nagar,
Kumbla P.O. Koipady, Kumbla,
Kasargod,
Kerala-671321.
(Permanent address)
(By Sri. Afzal Ahmed, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Common 1. Dr. Chikkegowda Shivappa Rajesh,
Respondents in S/o Shivappa,
both cases Aged about 41 years,
No.59, 1st Cross, 2nd Main,
Dollars Layout,
J.P. Nagar, 4th Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078.
(Owner of the Toyota Urban Cruiser
Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-NB-5759).
(By Sri. C.M. Subramanya, Advocate)
SCCH-2 3 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
2. Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
No.28, 5th Floor,
Southern Portion,
East Wing,
Centenary Building,
M.G. Road, Bangalore-1.
Represented by its Branch
Manager,
(Insurer of Toyota Car,
Policy No.TRG/00094911
Valid from 05.01.2021 to
04.01.2022)
(By Sri. V. Shrihari Naidu,
Advocate)
*****
:COMMON JUDGMENT:
In M.V.C.No.3782/2021, Petitioner - Saud Jafer @ Jafer
filed petition U/sec 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of
Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident.
In M.V.C.No.3783/2021, Petitioner- Ahammed Ashif P.M.
@ Ashif filed petition U/sec 166 of M.V. Act claiming
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in
the accident.
These petitions were clubbed at the request of parties.
SCCH-2 4 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
2. The averments of both the petitions in brief are as
follows:
On 09.04.2021 at about 11-45 p.m. the Petitioner in
M.V.C.3782/2021 namely Saud Jafer @ Jafer along with his
employee i.e., the Petitioner in M.V.C.3783/2021 namely Ashif
were proceeding as pedestrians on BMT 100 feet ring road.
When they reached near Life Care Hospital, 20 th Main road,
B.T.M., 1st Stage, Bangalore, at that time one TOYOTA Urban
Cruiser Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05/NB-5759 driven by its
driver in a rash or negligent manner, came from Gangothri
circle towards 100 feet BTM Ring road, without observing the
traffic rules and dashed against one Car bearing Reg.No.KA-
01/ME-6823 which was parked on the side of the road. As a
result of which the driver of Toyota Car lost control and
dashed against the another two Scooters which were coming in
opposite direction on the same road and after which came to
extreme right side of the road and again dashed against
another Scooter Yamaha F.Z. bearing Reg.No.KL-13-Y-2859
which was parked on the side of the road and after which
SCCH-2 5 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
came and dashed against the petitioners and others who were
standing on the foot path and caused the accident. Due to the
said impact, both the petitioners were fell down and sustained
grievous injuries.
In M.V.C.3782/2021, the Petitioner namely Saud Jafer
@ Jafer has sustained head injuries of fracture of left temporal
bone, fracture of left sphenoid and fractures of left zygomatic
arch and swelling over left shoulder with comminuted fracture
of left clavicle and fracture of left 2nd rib, further abrasion over
right hip with undisplaced fracture of bilateral superior pubic
ramus and other injuries all over the body.
He was shifted to St.John's Medical college Hospital,
Bengaluru, wherein the petitioner was treated as an inpatient
for three days. Thereafter, the petitioner went to his native
place at Kasargod, Kerala and got admitted in High land
Hospital, Mangalore as inpatient from 13-4-2021 to 19-4-2021
and underwent surgeries for the above injuries. The Petitioner
was discharged with an advise to take complete bed rest,
medicine, physiotherapy and regular follow-up treatment. The
SCCH-2 6 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
petitioner has spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses,
conveyance, food, transportation and other expenses.
Prior to the accident, the petitioner was 36 years, he was
hale and healthy and he was doing Garment business and
earning a sum of Rs.75,000/- per month. Due to injuries and
disability sustained by him, the petitioner is undergoing deep
mental shock, unable to do his work and thus caused loss of
earning. Due to accidental injuries, the petitioner was unable
to stand or sit for long duration, cannot lift or carry weight and
he is suffering from permanent disability.
In M.V.C.3783/2021, the Petitioner namely Ahammed
Ashif P.M., @ Ashif has sustained "L" shape facial lacerations
with comminuted fracture of frontal process of maxilla on the
left side and abrasion over right knee and other injuries all
over the body. The petitioner was shifted to St. John's Medical
College Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an
inpatient for two days. Thereafter, the petitioner went to his
native place at Kasargod, Kerala and got admitted at Justice
K.S.Hegde Charitable hospital, Mangalore as inpatient from
SCCH-2 7 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
12-4-2021 to 13-4-2021 and underwent surgeries for the
above injuries. The Petitioner was discharged with an advise to
take regular follow-up treatment and he has spent
Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses, conveyance,
transportation and other expenses.
Prior to the accident, the petitioner was aged about 28
years, he was hale and healthy and he was Salesman by
Profession under Sri. Saud Jafer i.e., Petitioner in
MVC.3782/2021 and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month. Due to injuries and disability sustained by him, the
petitioner is undergoing deep mental shock, unable to do his
work and thus caused loss of earning. Due to accidental
injuries, the petitioner was unable to stand or sit for long
duration, cannot lift or carry weight and he is suffering from
permanent disability.
The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of Toyota Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-NB-
5759, against whom, MICO Layout Traffic police have
registered the case in crime No.28/2021 for the offence
SCCH-2 8 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
punishable under Sec.279 and 337 of I.P.C. The 1st
respondent being the RC Owner of TOYOTA Urban Cruiser Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-05/NB-5759 and the 2nd respondent being
the Insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation to both the Petitioners. Hence, these
petitions.
3. After service of notice in both the cases, 1st
respondent - R.C. owner of offending vehicle and 2 nd
Respondent-Insurance company appeared through their
respective Counsels and filed written statements.
4. The written statement averments of the 1st
respondent are hereunder:
This respondent denied the entire averments of the
petition. Further, this respondent has denied the rash and
negligent driving of Toyota urban Cruiser Car bearing Reg.No.
KA-05/NB-5759 by its driver, injuries sustained by the
petitioners due to accident. This respondent has admitted
that, the Mico layout Police have registered the case against
the driver of offending vehicle and he is the R.C. owner of the
SCCH-2 9 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
said vehicle and 2nd respondent is the insurer at the time of
accident. The driver of offending vehicle having valid D.L., and
also R.C. and insurance policy of said vehicle was valid at the
time of accident. It is contended that, the driver of Toyota Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-05/NB-5759 was proceeding from
Maruthinagar to BTM Layout with normal speed, when he
reached near Life Care Hospital, BTM ring road, the rider of
two Scooters ridden the vehicles in a rash or negligent manner
from the opposite direction and dashed the Toyota Car. At
that time, in order to avoid the major accident, the driver of
Car turned his Car to the right side and slightly dashed to the
Petitioners who were walking on the right side of the road. The
said accident was occurred due to negligence of riders of
Scooters. Further contended that, the compensation claimed
by the petitioners is exorbitant and fanciful. With these
averments, 1st respondent prays to dismiss both the
petitions.
5. The written statement averments of the 2 nd
respondent are hereunder:
SCCH-2 10 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
This respondent denied the entire averments of the
petition. Further denied the involvement of Toyota Cruiser
bearing Reg.No.KA-05/NB-5759 in the alleged accident. It is
contended that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary
and proper parties as the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-
ME6823 was parked the same in the middle of the road
without taking any precaution by putting signal lights at the
time of accident. The accident was occurred due to negligence
of the petitiners, who themselves darting across the road
without observing the flow of traffic. This respondent has
denied the rash and negligent driving of Toyota Cruiser Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-05-NB-5759 by its driver, injuries
sustained by the petitioners, period of treatment taken and
disability sustained by them. While admitting the insurance
policy with respect to Toyota Cruiser Car bearing Reg.No.KA-
05/NB-5759, the 2nd respondent restricted its liability to the
terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that, the
owner of the offending vehicle has willfully entrusted his
vehicle to the person who was not possessed valid D.L. at the
time of accident by violating the terms and conditions of the
SCCH-2 11 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
policy. Further contended that, the petition is bad for non-
compliance of provisions of Sec.134 and Sec.158(6) of M.V.
Act. Further contended that, the compensation claimed by the
petitioner is exorbitant and fanciful. With these averments,
2nd respondent prays to dismiss both the petitions.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the predecessor
in the office has framed the following issues in both cases.
: ISSUES In M.V.C.3782/2021 :
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
sustained injuries on 09-04-2021 on account
of rash and negligent driving of Toyota Urban
Cruiser bearing Reg.No.KA-05-NB-5759 by
its driver as contended in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that, he is
entitled for the compensation? If so, to what
extent and from whom?
3. What Order or award?
Additional Issue :
4. Whether respondent No.2 proves alleged
contributory negligence on the part of the
petitioner?
: ISSUES In M.V.C.3783/2021 :
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
sustained injuries on 09-04-2021 on account
SCCH-2 12 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
of rash and negligent driving of Toyota Urban
Cruiser bearing Reg.No.KA-05-NB-5759 by
its driver as contended in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that, he is
entitled for the compensation? If so, to what
extent and from whom?
3. What Order or award?
Additional Issue:
4. Whether respondent No.2 proves alleged
contributory negligence on the part of the
petitioner?
7. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.3782/2021 examined himself as P.W.1 and marked
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.3783/2021
examined himself as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.27.
Further, the Petitioner in M.V.C.3782/2021 got examined one
witness as P.W.3 and marked two documents as Ex.P.28 and
Ex.P.29. P.W.1 to P.W.3 were cross-examined from the side of
respondents. The 1st and 2nd respondents have not adduced
evidence.
8. Heard the arguments from both side and Perused
the records placed before the Tribunal.
SCCH-2 13 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
9. The findings of this Tribunal to the above referred
Issues in both case are as under:-
Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 :- In the Partly Affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.4 :- In the Negative,
Issue No.3 :- As per the final order,
for the following:
:REASONS:
10. Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.4 in both
case:- In order to prove these issues, the petitioners in both
the cases have examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 by
way of filing affidavits in support of their oral examination-in-
chief. Hence, this Tribunal need not to recapitulate the same
once again at this juncture. In order to prove issue No.1, P.W.1
has relied on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10 and P.W.2 has
relied on Ex.P.21. Accordingly, Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of
FIR pertaining to Cr.No.28/2021, Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of
Complaint. Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of Spot mahazar.
Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of Spot sketch. Ex.P.5 is the
certified copy of M.V.A. report. Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of
SCCH-2 14 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act. Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of
reply to the Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act. Ex.P.9 is the
certified copy of Charge sheet. Ex.P.10 is the certified copy of
wound certificate pertaining to P.W.1. Ex.P.21 is the certified
copy of wound certificate pertaining to P.W.2.
11. At this juncture it is worth to refer the decision
reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 between Bimla Devi and
others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, "it
is 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 are merely required to establish their case on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have
been applied".
12. According to the petitioners, they have sustained
injuries in the road traffic accident. According to the
respondent Nos.1 and 2, the accident was occurred due to sole
SCCH-2 15 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
negligence on the part of the petitioners. In other words there
was a contributory negligence on the part of Petitioners who
themselves darting across the road without observing the flow
of traffic on the busy road. In order to substantiate the same,
respondents have not placed positive evidence. Likewise,
respondents neither examined the driver of offending vehicle
nor ocular witnesses to the incident to establish their defence.
13. Further, to prove the alleged negligence on the part
of petitioners the Insurance Company has cross-examined the
petitioners in both the cases/P.W.1 and P.W.2 in detail.
Nothing has been elicited from mouth of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to
establish that, the accident was took place only on the
negligence of P.W.1 & 2, who were walking on the road without
observing the flow of traffic on the busy road. At the cost of
repetition, to substantiate its contention, Insurance company
has not placed positive evidence. At this juncture it is worth to
rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Krishnappa and
Another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105, wherein the Hon'ble
SCCH-2 16 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
High Court of Karnataka held that, "the rider of the
offending vehicle was not examined to prove any
contributory negligence on the part of scootrist".
14. In the instant case, the Petitioners have produced
police documents. As per Ex.P.2, complaint was lodged before
MICO Layout Traffic Police Station. Thereafter, as per Ex.P.1,
FIR was lodged against the driver of Toyota Urban Cruiser Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-05/NB-5759. On careful perusal of Ex.P.1,
Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.9, it appears to this Tribunal that, on the
basis of complaint, the police have registered the case against
the driver of the offending vehicle and Investigating officer has
submitted Charge sheet as per Ex.P.9 after completing
investigation. A careful perusal of Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.21, which
clearly go to show that, the injuries sustained by the
petitioners in both the cases in a road traffic accident.
Further, on perusal of Ex.P.9 i.e., final report, it reveals that,
the driver of offending vehicle i.e., Toyota Urban Cruiser Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-05/NB-5759 has been arrayed as an
accused.
SCCH-2 17 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
15. At the cost of repetition, the contents of complaint
and charge sheet clearly reveals that, when the Pw.1 & Pw.2
were standing on the footpath, the driver of Toyota Urban
Cruiser Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05/NB-5759 came in a rash or
negligent manner and dashed against the Petitioners in both
cases. The evidence placed on record is clearly reveals that, the
driver of the offending vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-05/NB-5759
has caused the accident. Accordingly, Issue No.1 in both the
cases are answered in the Affirmative & Additional Issue
No.4 in the Negative.
16. ISSUE No.2 in both case:-
This issue is with respect to entitlement of relief. Already
this Tribunal has observed that, accident was occurred due to
rash or negligent driving of the Toyota Urban Cruiser Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-05-NB-5759. The 1st respondent is the
R.C. owner and the 2nd respondent is the Insurer of the
offending vehicle. Therefore, the petitioners in both the cases
are entitled for compensation. Before going to discuss other
aspects, it is appropriate to discuss the age and income of the
petitioners.
SCCH-2 18 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
17. In M.V.C.No.3782/2021.
Age:- According to the Petitioner, he was aged 36 years
at the time of accident. In order to substantiate the same,
P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.15 the notarized copy of his Aadhaar
Card. On perusal of this document it appears to this Tribunal
that, the date of birth of petitioner is mentioned as
10.02.1985. The accident was occurred on 09.04.2021. Hence,
the age of the Petitioner as on the date of accident was 36
years. Accordingly the age of the petitioner is considered as 36
years at the time of accident.
18. Income:- According to the P.W.1, he was doing
garment business under the name and style of Venture
Apparel and Accessories at No.45/1, 1st Main, 4th Cross,
Chocolate Factory Road, Thavarekere, B.T.M. Layout, 1st Stage,
Bengaluru and paying rent of Rs.20,000/-. P.W.1 has deposed
that, he was earning Rs.75,000/- per month. Per-contra, the
2nd respondent has denied the income of Petitioner. In order to
prove his income, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.14 i.e., the
six 6 rent receipts. Ex.P.20 i.e., the rental agreement and it
SCCH-2 19 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
discloses that, the Petitioner has took the shop premises on
rent from Smt.Dr.Latha .G. on a monthly rent of Rs.23,000/-
for commercial use and he has paid advance amount of
Rs.3,00,000/-. Further, the petitioner has produced 6 Shop
rent receipts, but, to substantiate the income of petitioner, he
has not placed any documentary evidence. At this juncture, it
is worth to rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka decided in M.F.A. No.101144 of 2020 (MV-I) on
05.07.2023, between Ananda Vs. Arun and Another, wherein
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Para 9 (b) as
hereunder:
"In the absence of any cogent
material on record, it is for the Courts
and Tribunals to assess the income
notionally. The notional income fixed
by the Karnataka State Legal Service
Authority for the accident of the year
2017 is Rs.10,250/-. In the absence of
any material produced by the claimant
to prove his income, it is appropriate to
assess the notional income of the
injured claimant at Rs.10,250/- per
month, and the same is assessed as the
monthly income of the injured
claimant".
SCCH-2 20 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
19. In the absence of authentic document and
supportive evidence, the notional income of the Petitioner is to
be considered by relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka referred to above. As per the notional
income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority
for the accident in the year 2019 is Rs.14,000/- per month. It
is pertinent to note that, the accident took place on 09-04-
2021. By adopting the chart given by the Karnataka State
Legal Service Authority, the notional income of the petitioner
is considered as Rs.15,000/- p.m.
20. Loss of Future Income due to disability:-
In the instant case, the petitioner has averred that, he
has sustained head injuries, temporal sub dural hemorrhage,
left temporal extra dural hemorrhage, fracture left temporal
bone, left sphenoid and left zygomatic arch, swelling over left
shoulder with comminuted fracture shaft of left clavicle, left 2 nd
rib fracture and fracture between superior pubic Remus, right
interior pubic Remus and other grievous injuries all over the
body. He has produced Wound certificate, which is marked
SCCH-2 21 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
as Ex.P.10. On perusal of Ex.P.10 - Wound certificate it
reveals that, the Petitioner has sustained above mentioned
injuries. It is relevant to mention that, respondent Nos.1 and
2 have disputed the injuries caused to P.W.1.
21. In order to prove the injuries, the petitioner has
examined one witness namely Dr.B.N. Nagaraj, Orthopedic
Surgeon at Sai Ortho & Dental Senter as P.W.3. This witness
has filed the affidavit in lieu of evidence and stated that the
petitioner has sustained Head injury, Comminuted fracture of
left Clavicle, Left 2nd rib fracture, fracture of right superior and
inferior pubic ramus, Left Superior pubic ramus fracture, right
sacral ala fracture. Further deposed that, he examined the
petitioner on 05.05.2023 for the assessment of disability and
found that, the petitioner has waddling gait, restricted left hip
movements, wasting of left thigh and gluteal muscles. Further
stated that, recent X-ray of the pelvic shows united fractures.
Finally he has assessed the total disability of the left lower
limb at 41% and 14% to the whole body. P.W.3 has produced
2 documents, which have been marked as Ex.P.28 to Ex.P.29.
SCCH-2 22 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
22. Further, P.W.3 was cross-examined from the side of
respondent Nos.1 and 2. During the course of cross-
examination, he has admitted that, he was not the treated
doctor. Further he has admitted that, he has not taken opinion
from the treated doctor. He has admitted that, after 3 years
from the date of accident, he has examined the injured. He
also admitted that, there is no operation with regard to
fracture. Clavicle bone and rib fractures are united. Further
deposed that, fracture bones are united.
23. On perusal of the discharge summary of the
petitioner and evidence of medical witness clearly reveals that,
petitioner has sustained grievous injury and suffered physical
disability. It is relevant to note that, the doctor has assessed
only physical disability and not functional disability.
However, considering the avocation of the petitioner, the
physical disability assessed by the P.W.3 is on higher side.
Hence, this Tribunal considered the physical deformity of the
injured as 7% to the whole body.
SCCH-2 23 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
24. As discussed supra, age of the injured is
considered as 36 years and his income is considered as
Rs.15,000/- per month. Annual income comes to
Rs.1,80,000/-(15,000 x 12). Hence, the proper multiplier
applicable to the age of injured as per Sarala Verma case is
15. If we multiplied yearly income with proper multiplier
(1,80,000X 15), then it comes to Rs.27,00,000/-. Already this
Tribunal has considered the disability of petitioner as 7% to
the whole body. 7% of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rs.27,00,000 X 7/100)
comes to Rs.1,89,000/-. The same amount of Rs.1,89,000/- is
awarded to the Injured/Petitioner under the head of loss of
Future Income due to disabiltiy.
25. Medical Expenses:- In the instant case, the
petitioner has stated that, he has incurred Rs.5,00,000/-
towards medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment
chages etc. In order to substantiate the incurring of medical
expenses, the petitioner has produced 39 medical Bills for
Rs.1,58,620/- as per Ex.P.12 and medical prescriptions as per
Ex.P.13. This Tribunal has carefully perused Ex.P.12 the
SCCH-2 24 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
medical bills. The respondents have not disputed the said
medical bills. Moreover, there are no contra evidence from the
side of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to disbelive the medical bills.
After careful perusal of the medical bills, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that, petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,58,620/- towards
medical expenses.
26. Pain and suffering:- According to the Petitioner,
immediately after the accident he was shifted to St. John's
Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took
treatment as an inpatient for three days. Then he went to his
native place, again he was shifted to Highland Hospital,
Mangalore, wherein he was treated as an inpatient from
13.04.2021 to 19.04.2021. The doctors have advised him for
regular follow-up treatment. Already this Tribunal has
observed that, the Petitioner has taken certain treatment. On
perusal of Ex.P10 - Wound certificate, the Petitioner has
sustained fracture injuries. On perusal Ex.P16 - discharge
summary, it discloses that, the petitioner has taken treatment
as an inpatient from 10-04-2021 to 12-04-2021 at St.John's
SCCH-2 25 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
Hospital and as per Ex.P.12- discharge summary it discloses
that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient from
13-04-2021 to 19-04-2021 at Highland Hospital.
27. Further as per the evidence of doctor, it appears to
this tribunal that, the Petitioner has sustained physical
deformity. Further, the petitioner has sustained five fractures,
due to which the Petitioner suffered a lot of pain,
inconvenience and trauma. There is no serious dispute with
regard to inpatient for 10 days. Considering all these aspects,
the Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the
head of Pain and Sufferings.
28. Loss of income during the laidup period:- The
petitioner has stated that, due to accidental injuries suffered
by him, he has taken regular followup treatment as an
outpatient and he has not done his business for four months,
as such he has suffered financial loss of Rs.3,00,000/-.
Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.16, the discharge summaries produced by
the petitioner shows that, the petitioner has taken treatment
as an inpatient for the period of 10 days as an inpatient.
SCCH-2 26 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
However, the petitioner has not produced documents to show
that, how many days he has taken bed rest. Naturally it
shows that, he might have taken atleast two months rest
because of the injuries. He has averred that, he was doing
Garment business and earning Rs.75,000/- per month. But
he has not produced documents to substantiate the same.
Hence, this Tribunal has already assessed the income of
Petitioner as Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, two months is to
be considered as loss of income during laidup period. Hence,
the Petitioner is entitled for Rs.30,000/- as compensation
under the head of loss of income during laid up period.
29. Food, Nourishment and Atttendant charges:- In
so for as food, conveyance, transportation, nourishment,
attendant and other incidental charges are concerned, the
petitioner has taken treatment as inpatinet for about 10 days
i.e., from 10-04-2021 to 12-04-2021 and also from 13-04-
2021 to 19-04-2021. The petitoner has produced Ex.P.18, the
three receipts for Rs.15,600/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.16,200/-
and Ex.P.18, the two Trip Sheets for Rs.3,500/- each. But the
SCCH-2 27 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
said documents does not disclose that, for what purpose the
petitoner has paid said amount to whom. Further, the
petitioner has not examined the author of the said documents.
Hence, said receipts are not taken into consideration.
Therefore, looking to the injuries sustained and the period of
treatment taken by the Petitioner as inpatient, he is entitled
for compensation of Rs.12,000/- under the head of Food,
Nourishment, conveyance and Atttendant charges.
30. Loss of future amenities and happiness:- The
Petitioner was aged about 36 years at the time of accident.
The disability and physical deformity with which the petitioner
has to live the rest of his life. Therefore, he might have suffered
pain, discomforts in life and loss of amenities. By considering
the age, nature of injuries, percentage of disabiltiy,
Rs.20,000/- is awarded under this head.
31. Future medical expenses:- The petitioner has not
stated anything about the future medical expenses. P.W.3 the
doctor has not deposed about future medical expenses. Hence,
SCCH-2 28 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards
future medical expenses.
32. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Heads Amount
1. Towards loss of Future income. Rs. 1,89,000/-
2. Towards Medical Expenses. Rs. 1,58,620/-
3. Towards Pain & Suffering.
Rs. 60,000/-
4. Loss of income during the laidup
period Rs. 30,000/-
5. Food, Nourishment and Rs. 12,000/-
Atttendant charges:
6. Loss of future amenities and Rs. 20,000/-
happiness.
7. Future medical expenses - Nil -
Total. Rs.4,69,620/-
Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable
amount of Rs.4,69,620/-.
33. In M.V.C.No.3783/2021:- Already this Tribunal
has observed that, the accident was caused due to the rash or
negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-
05-NB-5759. It is needless to mention that, 1st respondent is
SCCH-2 29 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
the owner of the offending vehicle. The 2nd respondent is the
Insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled for compensation.
34. Loss of Future Income due to disability:-
According to the petitioner, he has sustained injuries
such as "L" shape facial lacerations with comminuted fracture
of frontal process of maxilla on the left side and abrasion over
right knee and other injuries all over the body. In the instant
case, the petitioner has produced wound certificate, which is
marked as Ex.P.21. On perusal of wound certificate it reveals
that, the petitioner has sustained above mentioned injuries in
the accident. It is needless to mention that, respondents have
disputed the injuries caused to P.W.2.
35. In order to prove the injuries, the Petitioner has not
produced disability certificate issued by the authorized Medical
Officer nor he examined any Medical witness. Under such
circumstances, it cannot be accepted that, he has suffered
permanent disability. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled
for the compensation under the head loss of future income
due to physical disability.
SCCH-2 30 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
36. Medical Expenses:- In the instant case, the
petitioner has stated that, he has incurred Rs.2,00,000/-
towards medical expenses, conveyance, transportation and
nourishment chages etc. In order to substantiate the
incurring of medical expenses, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.24 i.e., 14 medical bills for Rs.1,10,870/-. Moreover,
there are no contra evidence from the side of respondent No.2
to disbelive the medical bills. After careful perusal of the
medical bills, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, petitioner is
entitled for Rs.1,10,870/- towards medical expenses.
37. Pain and suffering:- According to the petitioner,
immediately after the accident he was shifted to St. John's
Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he was treated
as an inpatient for two days and thereafter he got admitted in
K.S. Hegde Charitable Hospital, Mangalore as an inpatient
from 12.04.2021 to 13.04.2021. On perusal Ex.P.22 -
discharge summary, it discloses that, the petitioner has taken
treatment as an inpatient from 10-04-2021 to 11-04-2021 at
St.John's Hospital and as per Ex.P.23- discharge summary it
SCCH-2 31 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
discloses that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an
inpatient from 12-04-2021 to 13-04-2021 at Justice K.S.
Hegde Charitable Hospital. Further, it appears to this tribunal
that, the petitioner has sustained injuries and taken treatment
as an inpatient. There is no serious dispute with regard to
inpatient for 4 days. As such, the petitioner suffered a lot of
pain and inconvenience. Considering all these aspects, the
Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head
of Pain and Sufferings.
38. Loss of income during the laidup period:- The
petitioner has produced two discharge summaries which have
been marked as Ex.P.22 & Ex.P.23 and these documents
shows that, the petitioenr as taken treatment as an inpatient
at St.John's Hospital from 10-04-2021 to 11-04-2021 and also
at Justice K.S. Hegde Charitable Hospital from 12-04-2021 to
13-04-2021 respectively i.e., for 4 days. However, the
Petitioner has not produced document to show that, how many
days he has taken bed rest. Naturally it shows that, he might
have taken atleast 15 days rest because of the injuries. He
SCCH-2 32 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
has averred that, he was working as employee under petitioner
in MVC.3782/2021 and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. But
he has not examined his employer to substantiate the same.
Hence, this Tribunal has assessed the income of Petitioner as
Rs.15,000/- per month by applying the chart given by the
Karnataka State Legal Srvice Authorities. Hence, 15 days is to
be considered as loss of income during laidup period. Hence,
the Petitioner is entitled for Rs.7,500/- as compensation
under the head of loss of income during laid up period.
39. Food, Nourishment and Atttendant charges:- In
so for as food, conveyance, transportation, nourishment and
other incidental charges are concerned, the Petitioner has
taken treatment as inpatinet for about 4 days i.e., from 10-04-
2021 to 11-04-2021 and also from 12-04-2021 to 13-04-2021.
Hence, looking to the injuries sustained and the period of
treatment taken by the Petitioner as inpatient, he is entitled
for compensation of Rs.6,000/- under the head of Food,
Nourishment and Atttendant charges.
SCCH-2 33 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
40. Loss of future amenities and happiness:- The
Petitioner was aged about 28 years at the time of accident.
The disability and physical deformity with which the Petitioner
has to live the rest of his life. Therefore, he might have suffered
pain, discomforts in life and loss of amenities. By considering
the age, nature of injuries, Rs.10,000/- is awarded under this
head.
41. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Heads Amount
1. Towards Medical Expenses. Rs.1,10,870/-
2. Towards Pain & Suffering.
Rs. 20,000/-
3. Loss of income during the laidup
Rs. 7,500/-
period
4. Food, Nourishment, Conve - Rs. 6,000/-
yance, Transportation and
Atttendant charges:
5. Loss of future amenities and Rs. 10,000/-
happiness.
Total. Rs.1,54,370/-
SCCH-2 34 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable
amount of Rs.1,54,370/-.
42. Regarding liability and interest.
Driving License:- According to respondsent No.2, the
driver of offending vehicle has no valid driving licence to drive
the vehicle. However, respondent No.2 has not adduced any
evidence. Charge sheet submitted by IO does not reveals that
driver of offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without valid
and effective DL as on the date of accident. Therefore, it
appears to this Tribunal that, the Driver of the offending
vehicle was holding valid D.L. to drive the offending vehicle at
the time of accident.
Insurance Policy and liability:- In the instant case,
though the respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of
insurance policy with respect to Toyota Urban Cruiser Car
bearing Reg.No.KA-05/NB-5759. Hence, the respondent No.2
shall pay compensation amount to the Petitioners.
SCCH-2 35 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
Interest:-
In view of the decision reported in MFA NO: 30131-2019
dtd, 12.5.2020 and M.F.A.No.100090/2014 C/w
M.F.A.No.25107/2013 between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and
Others Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and Another, rate of
interest on the compensation amount is awarded at 6% p.a.
from the date of petition. It is clarified that, future medical
expenses does not carry any interest. Accordingly, Issue No.2
in both the cases is answered in the Partly Affirmative.
43. ISSUE No.3:- In view of discussions made above,
I proceed to pass the following.
:ORDER:
Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners in M.V.C.3782/2021 and M.V.C.3783/2021 U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act are partly allowed with costs of the petitions.
Petitioner in M.V.C.3782/2021 is awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs.4,69,620/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from SCCH-2 36 M.V.C.No.3782/2021 C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021 the date of petition to till the date of depositing of the compensation amount in the Tribunal.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation in the Tribunal within 2 months from the date of this judgment.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award Accordingly.
:APPORTIONMENT:
On deposit of compensation amount, office to pay 85% of amount with interest through E-payment to the petitioner, after due identification as per rules and after verifying the stay order from the Hon'ble Appellate Court and remaining 15% with interest shall be invested in F.D. in his name in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years. Petitioner in M.V.C.3873/2021 is awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs.1,54,370/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition to till the date of depositing of the compensation amount in the Tribunal.SCCH-2 37 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021 Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation in the Tribunal within 2 months from the date of this judgment.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award Accordingly.
:APPORTIONMENT:
Scheme of investment is dispensed with as amount awarded is too meager. Keep the copy of the judgment in M.V.C.3783/2021.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19 th June 2025).
(H.P. Mohan Kumar) VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru.
: ANNEXURE :
List of witnesses examined for petitioner:
P.W.1 : Sri.Saud Jafer @ Jafer
P.W.2 : Sri. Ahammed Ashif P.M. @ Ashif
P.W.3 : Dr. B.N. Nagaraj
SCCH-2 38 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
List of exhibited documents marked for petitioner:
Ex.P-1 : Certified copy of FIR pertaining to Cr.No.28/2021. Ex.P-2 : Certified copy of Complaint. Ex.P-3 : Certified copy of Spot mahazar. Ex.P-4 : Certified copy of Spot sketch. Ex.P-5 : Certified copy of I.M.V. report. Ex.P-6 : Certified copy of Notice U/sec.133 of IMV ACT Ex.P-7 Reply to Notice U/sec.133 of IMV ACT Ex.P-8 : Certified copy of statement of witnesses. Ex.P-9 : Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.P-10 : Certified copy of wound certificate pertaining to P.W.1.
Ex.P-11 : Discharge summary pertaining to P.W.1.
Ex.P-12 : 39 Medical Bills pertaining to P.W.1
Ex.P-13 : Prescriptions,
Ex.P-14 : 6 Rent receipts.
Ex.P-15 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card pertaining to
P.W.1.
Ex.P-16 : Discharge summary pertaining to P.W.1.
Ex.P-17 : Three receipts
Ex.P-18 : Two Trip sheets
Ex.P-19 : OPD record of P.W.1.
Ex.P-20 : Rental agreement.
Ex.P-21 : Certified copy of wound certificate pertaining to
P.W.2.
Ex.P-22 : Discharge summary pertaining to P.W.2.
Ex.P-23 : Discharge summary pertaining to P.W.2.
Ex.P-24 : 14 Medical Bills pertaining to P.W.2
Ex.P-25 : 4 Medical prescriptions pertaining to P.W.2.
SCCH-2 39 M.V.C.No.3782/2021
C/w M.V.C.No.3783/2021
Ex.P-26 Salary certificate pertaining to P.W.2.
Ex.P-27 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card pertaining to P.W.2
Ex.P-28 : X-ray films pertaining to P.W.1.
Ex.P-29 : Clinical notes pertaining to P.W.1.
List of witnesses examined for the Respondents:
- None -
List of exhibited documents marked for the Respondents:
- Nil -Digitally signed by H P
HP MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR Date:
2025.06.20
17:37:24 +0530
(H.P. Mohan Kumar)
VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, and ACJM, MACT, Bengaluru