Bangalore District Court
Cheruvu Madan Mohan Reddy vs Vijaya Krishnan Raghavan on 5 August, 2025
KABC0B0013282024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
& Vth ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE Court of Small
Causes, Mayo Hall Unit Bangalore (SCCH-20)
Present : Sri. P. Shivaraj,
B.Com. LL.B.
Vth Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& XXIV A.C.J.M.
Dated this the 5th day of August 2025
MVC No.4734/2024
Petitioner: Cheruvu Madan Mohan Reddy, 22 years
S/o C.Hanumanth Reddy
Residing at Kudlu Gate,
Near Corporation Bank,
Bangalore - 560068
(By Sri.MS.Advocate)
VS
Respondents: 1. Vijaya Krishnan Raghavan.,
S/o V.K.Raghavan
# 135/135, 3rd floor, 9th Main,
22nd cross, 7th Sector, HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 160102
(Owner of the lorry No.KA-01-AD-8559)
2. The National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
TP Hub, 2nd floor, Shubharam complex
MG Road, Bangalore - 01
(Policy No.646027312310001112
Valid up to 05.08.2023 to 04.08.2024)
(R1-Expate
R2- By KN Advocate)
(P. SHIVARAJ)
Vth Addl. Judge & XXIVth ACJM
SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore
2 MVC No.4734/2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has filed this petition U/sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, claiming the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- with interest from the respondents.
2. Petitioner case is as Follows:
That on 15.06.2024 at about 03.00 AM, he was driving the motorcycle bearing Reg No.AP-40-S-5652 in ITPL main road, near Pattanduru Agrahara, Bengaluru, wherein the driver of the Container Lorry bearing Reg No.KA-01-AD- 8559 parked the said vehicle negligently in the middle of the road without any signal, without taking any precautionary measures and caused inconvenience to moving vehicles, due to which, the petitioner got colluded with the container lorry and in the said accident, petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Manipal hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient for the accidental injuries and he has spent Rs.16,00,000/- for his treatment.
3. Petitioner stated that he is 22 years of age and working as supervisor in transport department at NTT and ITPB companies and he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month, Further he stated that the accident has occurred due the negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and the jurisdictional police have registered Cr.No.99/2024 against the driver of the offending vehicle. Petitioner alleged that the Respondent no.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and he insured his vehicle with 3 MVC No.4734/2024 respondent no.2 and accident caused due to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and as such both are liable to pay the compensation with interest and he prayer this tribunal to award the compensation amount by allowing the petition.
4. After filing of the petition, notice served to the respondents, respondent No.1 has fialed to contest the petition and he placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel filed vakalath and written statement. They admitted the issuance and validity of the insurance policy to the vehicle belongs to respondent No.1 and contended that the insured has violated the policy conditions and prays this court to dismiss the petition.
5. Petitioner examined himself as PW-1, he examined billing department official, record keeper and doctor as PW.2 to 4, they produced and marked 27 documents which are at Ex.P.1 to 27 and they are fully cross examined. Respondent No.2 evidence is taken as nil as prayed for.
6. I have heard the arguments from the counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the entire records. Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has filed following authorities:
1. Manjunatha Vs P.Shankar and another - ILR 2007 KAR 914 4 MVC No.4734/2024
2. Lalitha and another Vs N.Kedaranath and others- ILR 2015 KAR 3017
3. SB Rajamani and another Vs Managing director BMTC division - ILR 2010 KAR 3517
7. On the basis of pleadings, I have framed the following :
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 15.06.2024 at about 03.00 AM, he was driving the motorcycle bearing Reg No.AP-
40-S-5652 on ITPL main road, near Pattanduru Agrahara, Bengaluru, wherein the driver of the Container Lorry bearing Reg No.KA-01-AD-8559 parked negligently on the middle of the road without parking signal, due to which, the petitioner motor cycle got colluded to container lorry and caused the accident and thereby Petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the said accident?
2.Whether respondent No.2 proves that the, driver of the offending vehicle has not holding valid driving license as on the date of accident as contended at para No.4 of the written statement ?
3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? if so, what is the quantum and from whom?
4.What order or award?
8. After carefully going through the evidence placed on record and taking into consideration of facts and 5 MVC No.4734/2024 attending circumstances of the case, my findings to the above issues are as follows;
Issue no.1: In partly affirmative Issue no.2: In the negative Issue no.3: In partly affirmative Issue no.4: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 to 3 :- I have taken these issues together for common discussion so as to avoid the repetition of facts and reasoning.
PW.1 being the petitioner, he reiterated the petition averments in his examination-in-chief affidavit. Petitioner has tender the police records, that is C/copy of FIR, complaint, mahazar, sketch, IMV report, wound certificate, police intimation, Final report, Disabilty certificate which are at Ex.P.1, 2, 4 to 7 and 10 to 12, 20.
10. On careful perusal of the aforesaid undisputed documents Prashanth Kumar V Hiremath s/o Basaiah was the driver of the offending vehicle. As per the reply notice given by the respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving license and the insurance policy of the vehicle was valid as on the date of the accident. Police intimations, mahazars, IMV report, indemnity bond and final report establishes the involvement of the offending vehicle and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident. In the cross-examination of PW-1, nothing worth has 6 MVC No.4734/2024 been elicited to disprove the allegations. Respondent No.2 has failed to establish his contention that, insured has violated the policy conditions. It is true that as per final report, petitioner is charge sheeted U/s 185 of the IMV Act, and it shows that petitioner was alcoholic as on the date of the accident. The aforesaid fact establishes that the petitioner was negligently driving the vehicle. The aforesaid evident facts are not whispered by the petitioner.
11. The final which is at Ex.P12 is filed after investigation and it is the prima facie proof of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle and rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle and the petitioner. Accordingly the police records cannot be doubted and disbelieved as it has reached the finality.
13. Petitioner has tender the wound certificate, discharge summaries (3 in nos) as per Ex.P.7, 15, the entry therein shows that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, on his forehead, left eye that is soft tissue injury over left eyelid, eyebrows zygomatic orbital maxillary fracture that is fracture to the cheek bone, eye socket and upper jaw, left chin, abrasion over his chest and thumb. Wound debridement and internal fixation is done on 15.06.2024 and he was discharged from the hospital 22.06.2024. Petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient in Manipal Hospital for period of 8 days.
7 MVC No.4734/2024Accordingly petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
12. Pecuniary damages (Medical expenses) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, Medicines, Transportation, Nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure:
13. Petitioner took treatment at Manipal Hospital. Evidently nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to disbelieve the fact that he has sustained the grievous injuries in the alleged accident and he took treatment for the same. Inasmuch, discharge summaries, wound certificate and the medical reports issued form the hospital has to be accepted. Admittedly petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for 8 days, he has tendered receipts for paying the bill amount of Rs.11,52,384/- as per Ex.P.23. Further for attendant charges, transportation, nourishing food, he might have spend some more expenses. Therefore I award Rs.20,000/-, in total petitioner is entitled for Rs.11,72,384/- under this head.
Loss of income during laid up period.
14. The petitioner has tendered appointment letter, pay slips, releaving letter, which are at Ex.P.17 to 19. The aforesaid documents reveals that he was an employee in Basaveshwara Tours and Travels and his salary in the month May 2024 was Rs.23,000/- and his resignation to the post of supervisor is accepted as per Ex.P.19. In the 8 MVC No.4734/2024 examination-in-chief affidavit he admitted that he was working as a supervisor at NTT Data and ITPB. He has not tendered any evidence to substantiated the aforesaid facts. Ex.P.17 to 19 are inconsistent perverse to the affidavit averments and petition allegations. The variance between pleadings and proof is evident on record. He has not examined the employer or the author of Ex.P.17, 18 same cannot be accepted. It is true that accident occurred on 15.06.2024, accordingly notional income of Rs.16,500/- is considered as his monthly income. Considering the accidental injuries and the treatment taken by the petitioner, I am of view that at-least one month he has lost his income. Therefore I award Rs.16,500/- as compensation under this head.
Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
15. The petitioner has examined the doctor Dhananjaya.H.K as PW-4. He deposed that, he has signed the disability certificate which is at Ex.P.20 and petitioner has 30% of permanent disability of his left eye and same cannot be cured through treatment. He deposed that petitioner is competent to do the work of D-Group employee. The oral testimony of PW-4 corroborates with discharge summary and Ex.P20. I have perused the evidence of PW-4 wound certificate, discharge summaries given by the hospitals, permanent disability certificate. Evidently petitioner has not examined the doctor who has 9 MVC No.4734/2024 treated him in the hospital. It is true that petitioner sustained the grievous injuries on his forehead, left eye that is soft tissue injury over left eyelid, eyebrows zygomatic orbital maxillary fracture that is fracture to the cheek bone, eye socket and upper jaw, left chin, abrasion over his chest and thumb. Wound debridement and internal fixation is done on 15.06.2024 and he was discharged from the hospital 22.06.2024, nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of PW-4 to disbelieve his oral testimony and Ex.P.20. The percentage of loss of earning capacity due to accidental injuries is different from the percentage of physical disability due to accidental injuries. Considering the medical reports and oral testimony of doctor, the whole body disability of the petitioner is assessed as 30%.
The notional monthly income of the petitioner is assessed as Rs.16,500/-, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident is 23 years as per the entry in Aadhar card which is at Ex P.13. The multiplier applicable to this case is "18". Therefore loss of income on account of permanent disability is calculated as follows; Rs.16,500/-(Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 18 (Multiplier) X30% (Functional Disability) = Rs.10,69,200/- Hence, the petitioner is entitle for Rs.10,69,200/- as compensation under this head.
10 MVC No.4734/2024Non-Pecuniary damages (General damages) (IV)Damages for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities:
16. It is undisputed fact that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. During the hospitalization and rehabilitation period, he might have undergone lot of pain and sufferings and due to accidental injuries he has forgone certain amenities available for him. There fore I award Rs.25,000/- under this head.
V) Loss of Amenities :-
17. The petitioner has to forego certain amenities available for him. Therefore I award Rs.25,000/- as compensation under this head.
18. Except these heads the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under any other heads. In all the petitioner is entitled for compensation as follows:
Sl Particulars Amount
No.
1 Towards attendant charges, Rs.11,72,384/-
transportation, nourishing food
2 Loss of income during the laid up period Rs. 16,500/-
3 Loss of income on account of Rs.10,69,200/-
permanent disability
4 pain & sufferings Rs. 25,000/-
5 loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
TOTAL Rs.23,08,084/-
19. Rate of Interest: The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Sarala Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport 11 MVC No.4734/2024 corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein it is held that it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly I award the interest at the rate of 6% P.A on the compensation amount form the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
20. Liability: The insurance company has not disputed the validity of the policy of the offending vehicle, on the other hand, they have failed to established its defence that insured has violated the policy conditions. It is true as per the final report that petitioner was alcoholic as on the date, time, place of the accident and he is charge sheeted for contravention of section 185 of IMV Act., The negligent act of the petitioner is apparent on record, it shows his admitted negligent act in the alleged accident. Considering the facts and attending circumstances and evidence placed on record, that is as per sketch which is at Ex.P.5, petitioner has dashed against the Lorry which was parked by the side of the road. If the petitioner drives is vehicle without consuming the alcohol he could have avoided the accident on the other hand if the driver of the Lorry has switched on the parking signal of his vehicle accident could have been avoided. Comparatively the negligent act on the part of the lorry driver is more than the petitioner. Accordingly respondent No.2 is liable to pay 70% of the compensation amount with interest that is Rs.16,15,659/-. Accordingly respondent No.2 is directed to deposit compensation 12 MVC No.4734/2024 amount with interest before this Tribunal within one month from the date of this order. In the authorities relaid on by the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 wherein the concept of contributory negligence and appreciation of sketch prepared by the IO is categorically discussed. Counsel for petitioner has not placed any authorities. With great respect to the aforesaid authorities and by considering the principles therein and with the aforesaid discussion based on the evidence placed on record, Accordingly I am answering Issue No.1 in partly affirmative, issue No.2 in the negative and issue no.3 in partly affirmative.
21. Issue No.4: For the foregoing reason and discussion, on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s.166 of Motor vehicle Act,1988, is partly allowed with cost.
Petitioner is entitled for the compensation amount of Rs.16,15,659/- with interest at the rate of 6% P.A from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest before this tribunal with in 30 days from the date of the judgment.
After depositing the compensation amount with interest, Cash shirestedar is directed to release 80% of the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner through K2, 13 MVC No.4734/2024 after compliance of mandate of circular No.39/2020 dated 17.01.2020.
Further balance 20% of the compensation amount and interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.
Advocate fee of Rs.1000/- is fixed. All the interim applications pending if any stands disposed of.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 5th day of August 2025) (P. SHIVARAJ) Vth Addl. Judge & XXIVth ACJM SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore A N N E X U R E:
List of witnesses examined for Petitioners:
PW.1 : Sri.Cheruvu Madan Mohan Reddy PW.2 : Sri.Pradeep Rajan PW.3 : Sri.Chetan PW.4 : Dr.Dhananjaya.K.H
List of documents marked for Petitioners:
Ex.P1 : F.I.R, Ex.P2 : Complaint Ex.P3 : Police intimation Ex.P4 : Mahazar Ex.P5 : Sketch Ex.P6 : IMV report Ex.P7 : Wound Certificate Ex.P8 : Notice U/s 133 of IMV Act Ex.P9 : Reply Notice U/s 133 of IMV Act Ex.P10-11: Intimations Ex.P12 : Final report Ex.P13 : Notarized copy of adhaar card 14 MVC No.4734/2024 Ex.P14 : Notarized copy of DL Ex.P15 : Discharge summaries Ex.P16 : Account statement Ex.P17 : Appointment letter Ex.P18 : Pay slips 8 in nos Ex.P19 : Releaving letter Ex.P20 : Disability certificates 3 in nos Ex.P21 : 3 photos, Pend drive & receipt Ex.P22 : ID card Ex.P23 : computerized bills Ex.P24 : Authorization letter Ex.P25 : MLC extract Ex.P26 : Police intimation Ex.P27 : inpatient record
List of Witnesses examined for Respondent:
NIL List of Documents marked for Respondent:
NIL (P. SHIVARAJ) Vth Addl. Judge & XXIVth ACJM SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore