Bangalore District Court
Nagaraju K vs United India Ins Co Ltd on 3 July, 2025
KABC020415592023
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, ACJM AND MEMBER-MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-13)
DATED THE 3rd DAY OF JULY 2025.
PRESENT: Smt.Shyla S.M., B.B.M. LL.B.,
II Addl.Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes
BENGALURU
M.V.C.No.8222 OF 2023
Petitioner: Sri. Nagaraju K
S/o.Kundura Shetty
Aged about 39 years,
R/At Near Om Shakthi Temple,
Sanjivinagar, Hegganahalli Cross,
Bengaluru-560058.
Permanent R/O Mullur Village,
Mamballi Post, Kollegala Taluk,
Chamaraj Nagar District-571442
(By Sri.R.Lakshmana, Adv.,)
Vs.
SCCH-13 2 MVC.8222/2023
Respondents: 1. M/s.United India Ins Co Ltd.,
By its Regional Manager,
Regional Office, T P Hub, 6th Floor,
Krushibhavana, Hudson Circle,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru-560009.
(Insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP-
27TZ-3398.
Policy No.1515003123P100233618
validity 5-4-2023 to 4-4-2024.)
(By Sri.Dattaatraya M Joshi, Adv.)
2. Sri. Mandara Jagadeesh
S/o.Mandara Kistaiah
Resident of Amancharla,
Nellore Rural, SPSR Nellore,
Andhra Pradesh-524345.
(Owner of the lorry bearing No.AP-
27TZ-3398)
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed under Section 166 MV Act, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and for damages caused to the petitioner's vehicle in a road traffic accident.
SCCH-13 3 MVC.8222/20232. It is stated that on 07-09-2023 at about 11.30 p.m., the Petitioner was driving the lorry bearing No.KA-51-AA-9308 on NH-75 road from Hassan towards Mangalore, near Singapura village, Alur taluk, Hassan. At that time, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-27-TZ-3398 (hereinafter called as offending vehicle) drove the vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the petitioner's lorry from the opposite direction. Due to the impact of the accident, the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Govt. Hospital, Hassan, where he underwent inpatient treatment, thereafter, shifted to Sanjaygandhi hospital, Bengaluru, where he underwent treatment and surgery. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, petitioner has been suffering from permanent disability and is unable to lead normal life as he did prior to the accident.
3. The Petitioner claims to have incurred expenses of Rs.5,00,000/- for medical treatment, medicines, conveyance and incidental charges. At the time of accident, Petitioner was 39 years old, working as a driver cum owner and earning a sum of SCCH-13 4 MVC.8222/2023 Rs.50,000/- per month. He submits that due to accidental injuries, he has lost his earning capacity and income, accident occurred solely due to negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle. Therefore, he prays that suitable compensation be awarded against Respondent No.1 and 2 being owner and insurer of offending vehicle .
4. In response to the petition notice, the Respondent No.1 has appeared through counsel and filed the written statement. The Respondent No.2 did not turn up and was placed exparte.
5. Respondent No.1 - has filed its written statement by admitting the issuance of policy however, its liability if any is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent no 1 has contended that the owner of the alleged offending vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.KA-51- AA-9308 by the petitioner himself. As such, the petition is liable to dismissed for non-joinder of proper SCCH-13 5 MVC.8222/2023 and necessary parties. It is also specifically contended that the driver of the said vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at time of the accident, and that the vehicle did not possess a valid fitness certificate and permit.
6. The respondent no 1 further denies the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the petitioner, as well as his avocation, income, future medical expenses, other expenses incurred allegedly incurred, and the disability claimed. It is specifically contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exaggerated. On these grounds, it has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered in:
1. MFA 811 /2015 between Sri.Rajanna @ Raju Vs. Sri.Srinivas and another.
2. Civil Appeal 3203/2011 between Sri.Nagarajappa Vs. The Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.,
3. MFA 6309/2016 between Sri.Devaraju Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and another.SCCH-13 6 MVC.8222/2023
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following Issues were framed :-
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that on 07-09-2023 at about 11.30 p.m., on NH- 75 road near Singapura Village, Alur Taluk, Hassan District, the petitioner sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, while he was proceeding in a Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51-AA-3908, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing reg.No.AP-27- TZ-3398?
2. Whether the Respondent No.1 proves that, the policy conditions are violated by Respondent 2 and the Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if any, how much, from whom?
4. What order or award?
9. In order to prove the claim, the Petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and in support of his case, doctor is examined as PW-2 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.32. Respondents have not chosen to lead any evidence.
SCCH-13 7 MVC.8222/202310. By considering the available materials on record and the arguments addressed by the parties, I have answered the above Issues as under:
Issue No.1: In the partly Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Negative Issue No.3: Partly in affirmative. Issue No.4: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
11. ISSUE NO.1:- The case of the petitioner is that on 07-09-2023 at about 11.30 p.m., he was driving the lorry bearing No.KA-51-AA-9308 on NH-75 road from Hassan towards Mangalore, near Singapura village, Alur taluk, Hassan. At that time, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the petitioner's lorry from the opposite direction. Due to the impact of the accident, the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
12. In order to substantiate his case, petitioner has examined as PW-1. PW-1 has produced copy of FIR at Ex.P.1, FIS at Ex.P.2, crime details form at SCCH-13 8 MVC.8222/2023 Ex.P.3, notice and reply at Ex.P.4 and 5, IMV report at Ex.P.6, wound certificate at Ex.P.7 and charge sheet at Ex.P.8. Further, Dr.Chidanand K.J.C. was examined as PW-2 and he has produced the 3 documents at Ex.P.20 to 22.
13. As per EX P7 wound certificate he has sustained the following injuries:
1.Tenderness over chest
2. Laceration over right arm
3. Abrasion over right foot
4. Abrasion over right chest
5. Tenderness over right knee
6. Fracture dislocation of right femoral head.Doctor opined that the injury No.1, 3, 5 and 6
are grievous in nature and injury No.2 and 4 are simple in nature.
14. The respondent No.1 has contended that the alleged accident solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the petitioner, and not due to any actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. However the Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 SCCH-13 9 MVC.8222/2023 comprising police records, clearly establish that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
15. During the course of cross examination of PW1, the learned counsel for the Respondent no 1 suggested that PW1 was driving at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and that the offending vehicle was loaded with goods and moving slowly. These suggestions were denied by PW1. He admitted that the accident was a head on collision but denied the allegation he drove into the middle of the road and he himself collided with oncoming offending vehicle. He denied also denied the suggestion that he was at fault and that a false complaint was lodged against the offending vehicle by his wife after a delay and in collusion with the police.
16. The respondent no 1, the insurer of the offending vehicle, denied negligence on the part of the driver and instead attributed the cause of the accident to the negligence of the petitioner. However, the investigating officer, after due investigation, filed a SCCH-13 10 MVC.8222/2023 charge sheet categorically attributing negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle.
17. The records reveals that although respondent no 1 raised a specific defence disputing the cause of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle, no rebuttal evidence has been produced by respondent no 1 to substantiate these claims. As is evident from the records, the accident occurred on 7.9.2023, and the complaint was lodged on 8.9.2023. The wife of petitioner filed complaint narrating the manner of the accident and specifically mentioning the involvement of the offending vehicle. The explanation provided by both the petitioner as well as complainant for the delay in lodging the complaint is that the petitioner was undergoing medical treatment. The medical records marked as Ex.P7 support this explanation and show that the petitioner was first taken to the Govt. Hospital, Hassan, where he underwent inpatient treatment, and was subsequently shifted to Sanjaygandhi hospital, Bengaluru, this sequence of events explains the delay in lodging the complaint.
SCCH-13 11 MVC.8222/202318. After due investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. While according to the respondent no 1 claimed that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were not caused by the said vehicle, neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle chose to challenge the charge sheet or resist the final report before the appropriate court.
19. Furthermore, respondent no 1 in an attempt to counter the direct testimony of the petitioner and the corroborating entries in the medical records and investigation report, has offered nothing beyond mere denials during the cross-examination of PW1. No cogent evidence has been produced to disprove the petitioner's version of events. In the absence of any credible and substantive evidence to the contrary, this tribunal finds no merit in the assertion made by respondent no 1 that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and that there is no connection between the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the accident involving the said vehicle.
SCCH-13 12 MVC.8222/202320. Furthermore, the petitioner has successfully established negligence through both oral and documentary evidence , which are consistent and corroborative. On the other hand, no contra evidence has been placed on record to demonstrate that the driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent.
21. By looking into the oral and documentary evidence it is clear that accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of offending vehicle. It is well settled principle that Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation, the tribunal need not to go for the strict proof of rash and negligence. Charge sheet prima-facie establishes the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. From all the above documents it is clear that the Petitioner sustained injury in a road traffic accident that occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
22. ISSUE NO.2:- The respondent No.1 has contended that the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms and condition incorporated in the SCCH-13 13 MVC.8222/2023 policy. However, on reading of entire material, there is no evidence placed before the court to substantiate that the respondent no 2 committed any such violation. It is evident that the offending vehicle was covered under a valid insurance policy at time of the accident. Wherefore, the liability to compensate the petitioners rest with the respondent No.1. hence I answer issue no 2 in the negative.
23. ISSUE NO.3 :- As per Ex.P.7 wound certificate, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:
1.Tenderness over chest
2. Laceration over right arm
3. Abrasion over right foot
4. Abrasion over right chest
5. Tenderness over right knee
6. Fracture dislocation of right femoral head.Doctor opined that the injury No.1, 3, 5 and 6
are grievous in nature and injury No.2 and 4 are simple in nature.
SCCH-13 14 MVC.8222/202324. Due to the accident the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to Govt. Hospital, Hassan, where he underwent inpatient treatment, thereafter, shifted to Sanjaygandhi hospital, Bengaluru, where he underwent treatment and surgery. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, petitioner has been suffering from permanent disability and is unable to lead normal life as he did prior to the accident.
25. The Petitioner has examined Dr. Chidanand K.J.C., an Orthopedic Surgeon at Sanjaygandhi hospital, as Pw-2 and he has produced the 3 documents at Ex.P.20 to 22.
26. PW-2, deposed that the Petitioner sustained injuries in a RTA and was initially treated in the Sanjaygandhi hospital, Bengaluru and Petitioner suffered a Right posterior wall of acetabulum fracture, right proximal tibia fracture schatskers type II, multiple ribs fracture and posterior superior dislocation of femur head, he underwent surgical treatment at the said hospital including ORIF SCCH-13 15 MVC.8222/2023 with plate and screws for the acetabulum and proximal tibia fractures.
27. Subsequently, the petitioner developed on infection in the acetabulum region, for which wound debridement and stimulation procedures were performed, he was later re-admitted for removal of the implant from the acetabulum.
28. PW-2 further stated that he clinically and radiologically examined the petitioner on 30.12.2024. upon assessment, he found restricted movements in the petitioner's knee, hip and ankle along with shortening of the lower limb. The petitioner also experienced difficulty in cross leg sitting and squatting, particularly for using Indian-style toilets. Based on these clinical findings, PW2 assessed the permanent physical disability of the affected limb at 64% and whole body physical disability at 21%.
29. The petitioner has stated that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent physical disability and is unable to move without the assistance of a wheel chair. He is unable to stand, cannot bear weight on his lower limb, cannot SCCH-13 16 MVC.8222/2023 squat, and faces difficulty performing routine day to day work due to restricted movements.
30. Dr. Chidanand K.J.C., opined that the petitioner suffers from a significant loss of stability and mobility, along with restricted movement in the affected areas. Based on these observations and the difficulties faced by the petitioner, PW2 assessed the disability of the affected limb at 64% and the whole body disability at 21%.
31. Although the 1st respondent cross-examined the doctor, no substantive material was elicited to discredit his assessment. Furthermore, no documents have been placed to show that the petitioner has surrendered his driving licence to the RTO on account of being unable to drive a vehicle as he could prior to the accident.
32. Upon careful consideration of the testimony of PW1, supported by the medical records, and the assessment of PW2, this tribunal finds that the disability assessed does not appear to be exaggerated. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a professional driver and is now SCCH-13 17 MVC.8222/2023 unable to drive, 100% functional disability should be taken into account. And support his version he relied upon the the following decisions:
1. MFA 811 /2015 between Sri.Rajanna @ Raju Vs. Sri.Srinivas and another.
2. Civil Appeal 3203/2011 between Sri.Nagarajappa Vs. The Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for awarding future prospects
3. MFA 6309/2016 between Sri.Devaraju Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and another.
33. It is well settled that the nature and impact of disability vary from person to person and difficulties faced also differ depending upon individual circumstances. Therefore, the facts and circumstance relating to the disability in the present are not comparable to those discussed in the above said decisions. With due respect to the above said cases citation are not applicable to this case.
34. There is no doubt that the physical impairment sustained by the petitioner has impacted his ability to earn, particularly in his profession as a SCCH-13 18 MVC.8222/2023 driver, which requires full use and support of the lower limb. The disability affects his ability to drive effectively and carry out his previous employment. While the medical disability may not be classified as 100% permanent, its functional impact on his occupation is substantial. Taking into consideration all these material aspects, including the nature of his profession, injuries, this tribunal is of the opinion that the permanent functional disability of the petitioner should be assessed at 40% to the whole body for the purpose of quantifying compensation.
35. In the petition the age of the petitioner is mentioned as 39 years. Ex.P.15 - DL shows that he was born on 01-01-1983, the same is considered, then age of the petitioner as on the date of accident as 40 years and the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 15.
36. Due to the accident he has sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in Sanjyagandhi hospital, Bengaluru. He has stated that at the time of accident, he was working as a lorry driver and was earning Rs.50,000/-P.M. Due to the accidental SCCH-13 19 MVC.8222/2023 injuries, he is unable to do his work and is unable to do his work as earlier and suffering huge loss of income. However the petitioner has not produced any documents. In the absence of material with regard to source of income, the tribunal has to be considered the notional income chart of the Lok Adalath.
37. The alleged accident has taken place in the year 2023, the notional income of the injured could be assessed at Rs 16,000/- Per Month.
38. Thus this tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner who sustained the injuries is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
39. Loss of future income on account of permanent disability: Considering the petitioner's grievous injury which has resulted in performing daily vocational activities, this court is of the opinion that the functional disability of 40% is reasonable and just.
40. In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav v Naresh Kumar and others 2020 SCC online SC 752 the Apex court held that in the case of permanent partial disability amount towards future prospects can be SCCH-13 20 MVC.8222/2023 awarded. Keeping in view of loss of earning capacity and impact on the petitioner's future livelihood.
41. A similar principle was laid down in the 2020 SCC online KAR 1446 between Alameli Bai V/s Managing Director KSRTC, wherein the Hon'ble high court observed that the injured is entitled to compensation for future loss of income and diminished earning capacity, particularly when the disability affects the nature of work previously carried out by the petitioner.
42. Keeping in view above said observations, this tribunal is inclined to add 40% of the annual income towards future prospects in the present case.
43. The petitioner was 40 years old as on date of alleged accident and the multiplier applicable to the petitioner as per decision laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Sarla Verma's case is at 15. The notional income taken as Rs.16,000 + 40% = Rs.22,400 x 12 x 15 x 40/100= Rs.16,12,800/- towards loss of future income.
SCCH-13 21 MVC.8222/202344. Pain and sufferings: So far as the compensation under non-pecuniary damages are concerned, considering the nature of the grievous injury, which has resulted in performing daily vocational activities, as well as the duration of inpatient treatment and physical and mental suffering endured by the petitioner, this tribunal is of the opinion that an amount of ₹.3,00,000/- would be just and fair compensation under head of Pain and sufferings
45. Loss of amenities of life: undoubtedly the petitioner is suffering from difficulties in performing day to day activities and is facing continuous hardship due to the disability. Therefore this tribunal finds to appropriate to award a sum ₹.1,00,000/- under head of loss of amenities of life.
46. Medical expenses: Under the pecuniary damages, expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines, the Petitioner has produced medical bills at Ex.P.10 & 24 amounting to Rs.1,39,846/- and Rs.36,462/-. On perusal of medical bills, it appears that the petitioner has spent SCCH-13 22 MVC.8222/2023 Rs.1,76,308/- towards medical expenses. They appear to be genuine. Hence, Petitioner is awarded compensation of ₹.1,76,308/- towards Medical Expenses.
47. Future medical expenses: PW-2 has stated that the petitioner requires one more surgery for removal of implant at knee joint which would cost approximately Rs.30,000/- and THR for which approximately cost Rs.1.5 lakhs. Considering the potential future surgery, this tribunal is of the opinion that it would be just and reasonable to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards under head of future medical expenses.
48. Conveyance, food & nourishment charges:
Ex.P.9 and 23 -Discharge summaries show that Petitioner underwent inpatient treatment at Sanjaygandhi hospital, Bengaluru from 10-09-2023 to 04-10-2023. Thereafter, he underwent further treatment from 22-11-2023 to 08-12-2023, subsequently, he was admitted again from 10-01- 2025 to 12-02-2025. In total, the petitioner underwent SCCH-13 23 MVC.8222/2023 medical treatment for a period of 75 days. Considering the prolonged duration of hospitalization and the attendant charges. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to award compensation of ₹.1,00,000/- under the head of conveyance, food and nourishment mcharges.
49. Loss of earning during laid up period: With regard to the loss of earnings during treatment period, Considering the nature of the grievous injury, which has resulted in significant difficulty in carrying out daily vocational activities, as well as the duration of impatient treatment and recovery, this tribunal considers the 7 months for rest is considered . As the monthly income of the Petitioner is already considered as ₹.16,000/- per month, loss of earning during laid up period would be ₹.16,000 x 7 = Rs.1,12,000/-. loss of earning during laid up period.
50. Vehicle repairs and loss arising from the sale and seizure of the vehicle: The petitioner has stated that at the time of the accident, he was employed as a lorry driver, earning a monthly income of Rs.50,000/- P. M. due to the injuries sustained in SCCH-13 24 MVC.8222/2023 the accident, he is no longer able to perform his job as he did prior to the incident, thereby suffering a substantial loss of income. He further stated that he is entitled to compensation for the losses incurred and has spent an amount of ₹.5,09,400/- towards repair charges, conveyance and other incidental charges.
51. Further the petitioner has stated that due to the accident, he was unable to repay the vehicle loan obtained for purchase the lorry. Consequently, the finance company repossessed and sold the vehicle. Despite this, the finance company continues to issue notices demanding payment of the outstanding balance of Rs.3,45,576/-. As a result, the petitioner not only incurred substantial repair expenses but also lost his means of livelihood, as he can no longer work as a driver due to his disability.
52. It is further stated by the petitioner that repeated notices are being issued by the finance company demanding payment of the balance amount. However, the learned counsel for respondent no 1 has contended that the said loan was availed after the SCCH-13 25 MVC.8222/2023 accident and not prior to it, and therefore, the claim related to the loan liability is not maintainable.
53. The petitioner has produced several documents in support of his claim regarding the ownership of the lorry, the expenses incurred for its repair and the subsequent sale of the vehicle .Ex.P.12 is the inventory copy, Ex.P.16 is the vehicle repair bills amounting to Rs.5,09,400/-, evidencing the expenditure incurred towards repairs due to damages caused in the accident. Ex.P.17 is the notice issued by the finance, which supports the lorry was purchased on loan finance and repeated notices are being issued by the finance company demanding payment of the balance amount.
54. Ex.P.27 is the Sale receipt, evidencing that the petitioner sold the said lorry after the accident. Ex.P.28 and 29 consist of the insurance policy and the B registration extract, respectively , establishing the ownership and insurance status of the vehicle. Ex.P.30 is a document stating that the details vehicle. Ex.P.31 is the legal notice issued in connection with the distraint proceeding by the finance.
SCCH-13 26 MVC.8222/202355. Upon reading of above mentioned documents it becomes clear that due to the accident, the petitioner was unable to repay the vehicle loan that had been obtained for purchase of the lorry. Consequently, the finance company repossessed and sold the vehicle. Furthermore, the finance company continues to issue notices demanding payment of the outstanding balance of Rs 3,45,576/-. As a result of the accident, the petitioner not only incurred substantial repair expenses but also lost his primary means of livelihood. The seizure and sale of the vehicle by the finance company, combined with the petitioner's inability to resume his work as a driver due to the disability sustained in the accident, clearly reflect the financial and professional hardship faced by him. The respondent no 1 has not produced any rebuttal or contrary evidence to disprove the claim of the petitioner. Hence the contention raised by the respondent no 1 cannot accepted.
56. Considering the nature of damage, repair bills loss arising form the sale and seizure of the vehicle and absence of contrary evidence from the respondent no1 this tribunal finds it is just and appropriate to SCCH-13 27 MVC.8222/2023 award Rs.8,00,000/- towards vehicle repairs and loss arising from the sale and seizure of the vehicle.
57. Attendant charges: The material available on record shows that the Petitioner has lost his job and is currently bedridden. Given his present medical condition, continues assistance from an attendant or caretaker is essential. It is further brought on record that the Petitioner's wife, who was employed as a tailor in SGL garments. It is evident from material, had to leave her job in order to take care of her husband.
58. Taking into account the need for constant care and supervision, and the fact that the petitioner's wife has lost her source of income while attending to him, this tribunal finds it just and reasonable to award attendant charges at the rate of ₹10,000/-P.M from the date of accident till the date of this order. The total attendant charges will be ₹10,000 x 22 = ₹2,20,000/-
59. Thus the compensation awarded under the various heads are as under:
SCCH-13 28 MVC.8222/2023Sl. Nature of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Loss of future earnings ₹ 16,12,800/-
2. Pain and Sufferings ₹ 3,00,000/-
3. Loss of amenities ₹ 1,00,000/-
4. Medical expenses ₹ 1,76,308/-
5. Future medical expenses ₹ 1,00,000/-
6. Conveyance, Food and ₹ 1,00,000/-
Nourishment charges
7. Loss of income during laid ₹ 1,12,000/-
up period
8. Vehicle repairs and loss arising ₹ 8,00,000/-
from the sale and seizure of the
vehicle
9. Attendant charges ₹ 2,20,000/-
Total ₹ 35,21,108/-
60. Liability: Respondent No.1 being the insurer and the Respondent No.2 being the insured of the offending lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation. However, Respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner with interest at 6% p.a. With these observation I answer Issue No.3 partly in the affirmative.
SCCH-13 29 MVC.8222/202361. ISSUE NO.4 : In view of the above discussion, reasons stated and findings given to above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act is allowed in part with cost.
Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.35,21,108/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. (except future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal.
Respondent No.1 shall pay the aforesaid amount within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount 25% of the amount shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of his choice for a period of 2 years and balance 75% shall be disbursed to the SCCH-13 30 MVC.8222/2023 petitioner through E-payment on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at ₹.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court dated this the 3rd day of July 2025.) (SHYLA S.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACJM Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner :
PW.1 : Nagaraju K. PW.2 : Dr.Chidanand K.J.C.
List of documents marked for Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 : True copy of crime details form
Ex.P.4 : True copy of notice
Ex.P.5 : True copy of reply
SCCH-13 31 MVC.8222/2023
Ex.P.6 : True copy of IMV report
Ex.P.7 : True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P.8 : True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P.9 : Discharge summaries
Ex.P.10 : Medical bills
Ex.P.11 : Prescriptions
Ex.P.12 : Inventory copy
Ex.P.13 : X-rays
Ex.P.14&15 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card and
DL
Ex.P.16 : Vehicle repair bills
Ex.P.17 : Notice
Ex.P.18 : ID card
Ex.P.19 : Notarized copy of ration card
Ex.P.20 : Clinical notes
Ex.P.21 : Case sheets
Ex.P.22 : X-rays
Ex.P.23 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.24 : Medical bills
Ex.P.25 : Prescriptions
Ex.P.26 : 16 photos
Ex.P.27 : Vehicle Sale receipt
Ex.P.28 & : Insurance policy and B Registration 29 extract Ex.P.30 : Vehicle seizure inventory Ex.P.31 : Legal notice SCCH-13 32 MVC.8222/2023 Ex.P.32 : X-rays List of witnesses examined for Respondents :
- None-
List of documents marked for Respondents :
- NIL -
(SHYLA S.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACJM Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.