Bangalore District Court
Harish K N vs Gsr Constructions on 1 August, 2025
KABC020264892023
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated:- This the 1st day of August 2025
M.V.C. NO. 5790 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
Sri Harish K N
S/o Narayanaswamy
Aged about 45 years,
R/at Kolathur village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Hosakote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural Dist. 562 114.
(By Sri.A G Nagaraja, Advocate)
- Vs -
RESPONDENT/S
1. M/s GSR Construction
Represented by its Proprietor
Sri Chella Venkata Kishore Reddy
Office Situated at: No.25/2/174,
4th Street, Lake view colony,
Podalakur road,
(other Nellore Rural,
SCCH-24 2 MVC 5790/2023
SPS Nellur (AP) - 524 004.
(owner of the offending vehicle bearing
Reg.No. AP-39-UG-6244)
2. M/s The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office Situated at No.2-B,
Unity Building Annexe,
P Kalinga Rao Road (Mission road)
Bangalore -560027.
(Insurer of the offending vehicle bearing
Reg.No. AP-39-UG-6244)
vide policy No.12220031220350056601
valid from 29-08-2022 to 28-08-2023 (mid night)
(R1-Exparte
R2-By Smt. S Praveena, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
That on 15-03-2023 at about 9-00 am., the petitioner was riding his Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-53-EG-2477 on NH-75, Bengaluru - Kolar road. When he reached near Syed palace, on NH-75, SCCH-24 3 MVC 5790/2023 Hosakote, at that time Tipper lorry bearing No.AP-39- UG-6244 which came from behind the vehicle of the petitioner, by overtaking the motorcycle hit to the right side of the motorcycle, result of which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to MVJ Medical college wherein first aid treatment was given and then he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore wherein admitted as an inpatient. The doctor has advised him to follow up treatment once in 4 days and he regularly attended the hospital for his follow up treatment in a hired Car and one attendant for his help. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- per trip to the hired car and Rs.10,000/- per month to the attendant. So far, the petitioner has spent sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for medical expenses and other incidental charges.
3. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy. He was aged about 45 years. The petitioner was doing agriculture and earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. He has suffered pain and sufferings, permanent disability, loss of future income and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
SCCH-24 4 MVC 5790/20234. Inspite of service of notice, the respondent No.1 - the R.C. owner of Tipper lorry bearing No.AP-39- UG-6244 has remained absent. Hence he was placed exparte.
5. The Respondent no.2 /insurer of Tipper lorry bearing No.AP-39-UG-6244 has filed written statement and contended that the alleged accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper lorry and that, the driver of the offending lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1.Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained injuries on account of road traffic accident on 15-03-2023 at about 9-00 am., near Syed Palace, Hoskote, NH-75, Bengalore- Kolar road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-39-UG-6244?SCCH-24 5 MVC 5790/2023
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What Order or Award?
7. The petitioner got examined himself as Pw1 and one witness is examined as P.W.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and closed evidence from his side. The respondent no.2 has examined its Deputy Manager as RW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.
8. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and respondent no.2 and perused the entire materials placed on record.
9. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:- In order to explain the actionable negligence of the driver of offending vehicle, the P.W.1 SCCH-24 6 MVC 5790/2023 has filed his affidavit explaining the vivid picture of the accident that took place on 15-03-2023 at about 9-00 am., when he was riding his Bullet motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-53-EG-2477 from Kalathur on NH-75, Bengaluru - Kolar road and when he reached near Syed palace, on NH-75, Hosakote, at that time Tipper lorry bearing No.AP-39-UG-6244 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) came from behind his vehicle by overtaking the motorcycle and hit to the right side of the motorcycle, result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. P.W.1 further deposed about the nature of injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent for treatment etc.
11. In support of the claim and to prove the rash and negligent driving, the PW.1 has relied upon Ex.P1 to 9 which are the police records such as F.I.R with complaint, Spot mahazar, Seizer mahazar, Wound certificate, Charge sheet, IMV report, Notice u/Sec. 133 of IMV Act, reply given there on, Indemnity bond, and Registration certificate.
SCCH-24 7 MVC 5790/202312. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Ashok K.N, case has been registered against the driver of offending vehicle in Crime No.0058/2023 of Hosakote Traffic Police Station for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 of IPC and u/Sec. 187 of MV Act. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 279, 338 of IPC and u/Sec. 187 of MV Act.
13. So far as the rash and negligent act contributed by the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, it is the specific case of the petitioner that on the stated date when he was proceeding in Bangalore - Kolar road towards Kolathur at that time, the offending vehicle which came from behind his vehicle hit on the rear side of the motor cycle. The respondent no.2 who is the contesting party has denied the said fact and at first has disputed the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and secondly, they have contended that the petitioner without maintaining minimum distance the between two vehicle has hit to the offending vehicle on its rear side, hence only the SCCH-24 8 MVC 5790/2023 front portion of the motor cycle is damaged. Admittedly, petitioner and driver of the offending vehicle are the eye witnesses to the accident. The petitioner has given evidence supporting to his case and co-related to the police documents, whereas the respondents have not taken steps to examine the driver of the offending vehicle to prove that the accident in question has occurred in a manner other than the one stated by the petitioner and to prove that it is the petitioner's vehicle which hit to the rear side of the offending vehicle. Merely on the basis of the IMV report wherein it is reported that, the front portion of the motor cycle is damaged, the court cannot come to the conclusion that it is the motor cycle which hit to the offending vehicle on its rear side. When offending vehicle is heavy vehicle, mere slight touch of the said vehicle on the two wheeler would suffice to fall the said vehicle on the road and to sustain damage on the front portion and other portion of the vehicle.
14. The petitioner has not produced spot sketch for the reason best known to him. If the spot mahazar is perused, the width of the road at the spot of accident is nearly 32 feet. The accident in question has occurred SCCH-24 9 MVC 5790/2023 on the left side of the road. The offending vehicle is a heavy vehicle, whereas the vehicle of the petitioner is a two wheeler. The offending vehicle being a heavy vehicle it has to be drive on the extreme left side of the road and they have to leave minimum space on the left side so as to use the left side of the road by the pedestrians and motor cyclists. Had the driver of the offending vehicle driven his vehicle by leaving minimum space on the left side of the road and had he not overtaken the motor cycle this accident definitely would not have occurred. As there is no rebuttal evidence on this point from the side of respondents, by relying upon the oral evidence of the petitioner coupled with the police documents it can be said that, the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is the sole cause for the accident. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
15. Issue No.2:- The petitioner has given evidence to the effect of his sustained grievous injuries. As observed earlier, petitioner has produced medical documents i.e., Wound certificate and Discharge summary which are marked at Ex.P4 and P11. On going through the medical documents it reveal that SCCH-24 10 MVC 5790/2023 petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient at Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore from 15-03-2023 to 18-03-2023 for a period of 4 days. As per the wound certificate, the petitioner has sustained 2 injuries which are grievous in nature.
16. Dr.Krishna Prasad - Orthopedic and consultant Orthopedic surgeon at Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore is examined as Pw2 and through him Out patient records, Inpatient record, X-ray films and Neurosurgeon report are got marked as Ex.P16 to 18 and Ex.P20. The P.W.2 has deposed that he examined the petitioner on 21-12-2024 clinically for assessment of disability. The PW.2 further deposed that petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of lower limb at 37% and on the whole body at 13%. The PW.2 has further deposed that petitioner needs surgery for removal of implants the estimate of surgery is around Rs.70,000/-.
17. If the evidence of Pw.2 is carefully perused, at first he is not a treated doctor. As per the own evidence of Pw.2, at the time of discharge of petitioner his condition was stable and the fracture injury was SCCH-24 11 MVC 5790/2023 united. When it was suggested to the Pw.2 that, if petitioner has physical problems as stated in para no.4 of the affidavit of Pw.2, the petitioner would have to take follow up treatment to cure the said physical problems. The Pw.2 has not denied the said suggestion and deposed that, petitioner has only mild problems, hence there is no necessity of his taking follow up treatment and that he has assessed only physical disability but not the functional disability. By considering the evidence of Pw.2 it can be gathered that Pw.2 has assessed the disability on higher side. Hence, this court inclines to consider the disability of petitioner at 8% instead of 13% on whole body.
18. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment taken, this court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads.
19. Towards pain and sufferings, petitioner shown to have sustained two grievous injuries. Hence taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and time taken for treatment and sufferings during the treatment it is SCCH-24 12 MVC 5790/2023 reasonable to hold that petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.70,000/- towards pain and suffering.
20. So far as the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner is concerned, he has produced 31 medical bills for Rs.2,74,183/- as per Ex.P12. If Ex.P12 is carefully perused medical bills are included in provisional inpatient bill. The Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has produced only provisional bills instead of final bill and that the petitioner by filing final bill before the competent authority has reimbursed the medical expenses hence only he has produced the provisional bill.
21. It is true that petitioner has produced only provisional bill but the respondent no.2 has not produced any cogent materials to prove that the medical bills of the petitioner is reimbursed. Hence, based on the document, petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head medical expenses only to the tune of Rs.2,42,572/-.
SCCH-24 13 MVC 5790/202322. It is stated that petitioner was doing agriculture work and was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. But Petitioner has not produced any document to prove his income and avocation. Hence this court considering the age of the petitioner, the year of accident and place of residence considers the income of the petitioner as Rs.16,000/- p.m.
23. The petitioner has sustained two grievous injuries and has taken 4 days treatment as an inpatient in Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore. Hence the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner which is grievous in nature, it is reasonable to hold that period of 3 months as complete laid down period. Hence taking into consideration the avocation of the petitioner and loss of income caused from the said avocation, this court takes the loss of income during the laid down period as Rs.16,000/- p.m for 3 months. Hence petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.48,000/- towards loss of income during the laid down period.
24. From the evidence of Pw.1 and as borne out by medical records, petitioner has taken treatment at SCCH-24 14 MVC 5790/2023 Hosmat Hospital. For 4 days of hospitalization requires an attendant, was traveled to hospital for treatment. He has taken nourishment and need further nourishment at this age and incurred other incidental expenses. Therefore all together incidental expenses is assessed at Rs.20,000/- taking into consideration the cost of living and value of the money during the year 2023.
25. It is stated by the petitioner that at the time of accident, he was aged about 45 years. In this regard, he has produced his Aadhaar card/Ex.P.14, which shows his date of birth as 28-11-1978. As the accident in question took place in the year 2023, it can be said that the petitioner was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident.
26. So taking into consideration the monthly income of the petitioner having considered by this tribunal as Rs.16,000/- p.m and if 8% if loss of earning capacity is considered and when the age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 45 years, as per Sarla Varma's case the multiplier applicable to the age group of 41 to 45 is '14'. So by applying the multiplier '14' the future loss of income due to SCCH-24 15 MVC 5790/2023 disability comes to Rs.2,15,040/- (i.e., 16,000 x 8% x 14 x 12). Hence this Tribunal holds that petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,15,040/- towards future loss of income due to disability.
27. So far as the future medical expense is concerned, though the Pw.2 has deposed that petitioner needs surgery in the form of implant removal and it would cost around Rs.70,000/-, but he has not given any estimation. Hence, this court awards compensation under the head future medical expenses to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.
28. The petitioner at his age of 45 years has suffered grievous injuries which definitely would cause some amount of discomfort and loss of amenities in life. Hence petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of comfort and amenities. Thereby petitioner is entitled to the compensation as under:
Sl. Under the heads Amount in Rupees
No.
1 Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 70,000-00
2 Towards Conveyance, Rs. 20,000-00
Attendant charges and
nourishing food
SCCH-24 16 MVC 5790/2023
3 Towards loss of income during Rs. 48,000-00
laid up period
4 Future Loss of Income Rs. 2,15,040-00
5 Medical expenses Rs. 2,42,572-00
6 Future medical expenses Rs. 30,000-00
7 Loss of amenities and Rs. 30,000-00
discomfort
Total Rs 6,55,612-00
.
Therefore this court holds that petitioner is entitled for Rs.6,55,612/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred Twelve only).
29. As regarding liability is concerned, there is no dispute that, offending vehicle was insured with 2 nd respondent and policy was in force as on the date of accident.
30. So far as the driver of offending vehicle holding valid license is concerned, the respondent no.2 has seriously disputed the said material fact and submitted that, as on the date of the accident, the driver was not holding driving license to drive transport vehicle hence, there is violation of policy condition and SCCH-24 17 MVC 5790/2023 as such respondent no.2 is not liable to pay the compensation.
31. The petitioner has seriously refuted the said contention taken by the respondent no.2 and submitted that, as on the date of accident the driver was holding valid driving license to drive both transport and non transport vehicles. During the cross examination of RW.1, the learned counsel for petitioner has confronted the xerox copy of the driving license of driver of the offending vehicle. The RW.1 has deposed that, the driver has modified the date in the said document and it is a created document by the driver of the offending vehicle, hence same cannot be relied upon. The respondent no.2 has relied upon Ex.R4 i.e., online copy of the D.L. extract. Ex.R4 is not accompanied by certificate under section 65(B) of the Evidence Act. Hence, the Ex.R4 relied by the respondent no.2 and xerox copy of the Driving license relied by the petitioner has equal value in the eye of law.
32. In the light of the rival contentions taken by the respective parties regarding validity of the driving SCCH-24 18 MVC 5790/2023 license held by the driver as on the date of the accident is concerned, if the reply notice given U/sec.133 of M.V. Act is perused, wherein the owner of the offending vehicle had given driving license number which tallies with the driving license number mentioned in the Ex.R4. The Investigating officer after investigation has filed Charge sheet against the accused only for the offence punishable U/sec.279 and 338 of IPC and no charge sheet has been filed against the owner of the offending vehicle alleging his permitted the driver who had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. If Ex.R4 and the xerox copy of the driving license. of the driver of the offending vehicle is compared with, in the Ex.R4 the driving license number is mentioned as JH24 20210020595 and the date of issuance of driving license is on 20-12-2021 and last endorsed date is 20-04-2023, so far as transport vehicle and the said driving license was valid from 20-04-2023 to 19-04-2028. As per the driving license produced by the petitioner, the driving license number of the driver of the offending vehicle was JH24 20210020595 and the date of issuance of driving license so far as transport vehicle is concerned on 20- 12-2021 and it is in force till 30-01-2027 and the said SCCH-24 19 MVC 5790/2023 D.L. is issued from R.T.O Jarkhand. Admittedly, respondent no.2 has not summoned the R.T.O Jarkhand to prove that as on the date of accident the driver had no driving licence to drive the transport vehicle.
33. Admittedly, offending vehicle is a six wheeler lorry and is a transport vehicle. The unladen weight of the said vehicle is 28000. A driving licence for a heavy transport vehicle is generally valid for 3 years from the date of issuance. This is in contrast to the licence for private vehicle which have a longer validity period. As per the own document of respondent no.2 ie., Ex.R4 the date of issuance of driving license for transport vehicle was 20-12-2021. If 3 year is reckoned from the said date, then the period of 3 years will expire on 19- 12-2023. The accident in question has occurred on 15- 03-2023. As observed supra, no charge sheet has been filed against the owner of the offending vehicle. Further in the reply to the notice u/sec.133 of MV Act also the owner has furnished the particulars of the driving license. Further, the copy of the driving license produced by the petitioner also discloses that, as on the date of accident the driving license to drive SCCH-24 20 MVC 5790/2023 transport vehicle was in force. Without there being authenticated document, only based on Ex.R4, the respondent no.2 contends that the driver had no valid driving license which has no force. It is argued by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 that it is in Karnataka State only, the driving license for heavy vehicle will be issued for a period of 3 years and that it is not necessary that even in the State of Jarkhand the driving license for heavy vehicle will be issued for a period of 3 years and it may be given for a period of one year and hence as per Ex.R4 the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid license. As observed supra, now before the court there are two documents i.e., Ex.R4 the online copy of the driving license and xerox copy of the driving license produced by the petitioner. As per the driving license produced by the petitioner, the driving license was valid as on the date of accident and as per the online copy of the driving license produced by the respondent no.2 as on the date of accident the driving license was not in force. In order to clarify the said fact, the respondent no.2 could have summoned the RTO, Jarkhand. Hence, based on the aforesaid materials it can be said that as on the date of accident SCCH-24 21 MVC 5790/2023 the driving license was in force and hence respondent no.2 is liable to pay the compensation.
34. Even if it is taken for a while for the sake of argument that as on the date of accident the driving license was not in force, then also liability can be imposed on the respondent no.2 to pay the compensation at the first instance and to recover the compensation amount from the respondent no.1.
35. The learned counsel for respondent no 2 has submitted that subsequent to the amendment no pay and recovery can be ordered. It is submitted by the learned counsel that, the right to recover compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle flows from the proviso attached to sub section (4) of section 149 of M.V. Act 1988 has been omitted by Act of 2019 and therefore in case of a breach of policy, it is only the owner against whom award can be directly made and insurer is liable to be relieved from any liability to indemnify the owner.
36. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 at this juncture has referred the judgment reported in SCCH-24 22 MVC 5790/2023 MFA No. 3297/2019 between Smt. Adilakshmammama & Ors., Vs. Sri Raju B & Anr., In the said case, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license and the Hon'ble High Court exonerated the insurance company from the liability. In the said case, the accident in question was occurred prior to the amendment.
37. Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the Judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in MFA No.21760/2011 between The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. LTD., vs. Kotrappa and others is perused wherein, in the similar set of facts the Hon'ble High Court has ordered pay and recovery even though the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving licence. In the said case, reference was made of full bench of Hon'ble High Court in New India Assurance Company limited Vs. Yellavva and another. In the said case also, though the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid licence the Hon'ble High Court full bench has ordered the insurance company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In the said case the Hon'ble Full SCCH-24 23 MVC 5790/2023 bench has considered the situation under which the order to pay and recover could be passed against the insurer when there is violation of condition/s of the insurance policy.
38. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court has opined that 'even when there is breach of policy conditions by the insured, the insurer cannot escape the liability to pay the compensation to the claimant- third party in the absence of any fraud on his part'. However, it can recover the same from the insured.
39. Hence even if it is proved that there is violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, the pay and recovery could be ordered prior to the amendment to MV Act. But what is the legal position subsequent to the amendment act is to be appreciated.
40. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that even though accident in question has occurred subsequent to the amendment to MV Act but pay and recovery still be ordered against the Insurance Company.
SCCH-24 24 MVC 5790/202341. On perusal of the document, the accident in question has occurred on 15-03-2023 I.e, subsequent to the amendment dated 1-4-2022. Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No.3593-94 of 2024 between Rajesh Mitra and another V/s Karnani Properties Ltd., wherein reference was made of case in Goutam Dey V/s Jyotsna Chetterji reported in 2012 Online Culcutta 642 wherein it was held that, "The New statute with touches upon the existing rights cannot be retrospective, without an express provision or necessary implication expressing the clear intent of the legislature". It was further observed that the enforcement of the new statute Ipso facto will not take away the rights already accrued under a repealed statute, unless this intention is reflected in the new statute.
42. Now at this juncture it is opt to refer here the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High court of judicature at Allahabad in 2025 AFC 14110 between ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s Smt.Arti Devi and 8 others decided on 31-01-2025. In the said appeal question of law raised is in the light of motor vehicles (amendment) Act 2019, wherein question is also raised SCCH-24 25 MVC 5790/2023 as to whether mere omission of proviso attached to sub section (4) of section 149 of M.V. Act 1988 after its replacement by section 150 by amendment Act 2019 would mean that, the liability of the insurer to pay and its right to recover the amount from the owner has been taken away and does not survive in relation to accident occurring after 1-4-2022. The Hon'ble High court of judicature at Allahabad after elaborately discussing the purposive interpretation of statute, concept of pay and recovery, leading authority has arrived at the conclusion that "Mere omission of proviso attached to sub section (4) of Section 149 of M.V. Act 1988 after its replacement by section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019, neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and un- effected by amendment Act 2019 and hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accident taking place after 1-4-2022 and PAY AND RECOVER principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the statute protecting third party interest. The principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in SCCH-24 26 MVC 5790/2023 National Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s Swarna Singh and others has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso."
43. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture has referred the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court Karnataka in MFA No. 202104/2024 disposed on 19-09-2024 between the Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Nibhaye Vadde General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pooja & Ors., In the said case also the accident in question was occurred subsequent to the amendment i.e., on 21-08-2022 and in the said case also the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The Hon'ble High Court in the given set of fact has observed that even though there is violation of policy condition by the owner of the lorry but as MV Act is a benevolent legislation, the claimants cannot be deprived of the compensation so awarded. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation, as the policy was in force as on the date of accident and Insurance company has to indemnify the said compensation so awarded and to SCCH-24 27 MVC 5790/2023 recover the same from the owner of the lorry by executing the award against to him.
44. By referring the aforesaid judgment the learned counsel for petitioner has argued that, even if section 149 (4) of M.V. Act is omitted but there is no specific reference in the amendment to M.V. Act dated 1-4-2022 regarding deletion of the principle of pay and recovery.
45. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 has referred one more judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 11757/2025 between Mahaveer Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., & Ors. In the said case, since the driver did not posses valid driving license, liability to pay compensation was imposed on the owner of the offending vehicle.
46. If the said judgment is perused, challenging the judgment and order dated 12-04-2017 passed in MFA No.21167/2013 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench, the aforesaid Special Leave Petition was preferred. Hence, it can be said that the accident in question in the said case was occurred SCCH-24 28 MVC 5790/2023 earlier to 2018 ie., prior to the amendment Act. So far as position of law prior to amendment is concerned, it has been well discussed in a case National Insurance Co.Ltd.,/Swarna Singh & Ors., and observation made therein has to be applied.
47. In the present case, it is proved that as on the date of accident the driver had valid driving license. Hence, the respondent no.2 the insurer of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. In the result Issue No.2 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
48. Issue No.3: In the light of the findings given on Issue No.1 and 2, my finding on this issue is as per the following final order.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
SCCH-24 29 MVC 5790/2023The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,55,612/- + cost of Rs.2,000/- imposed vide order on IA No.II and VI. The petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.6,57,612/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Twelve only).
After deducting cost of Rs.2,000/- and future medical expenses to the tune of Rs.30,000/- balance sum of Rs.6,25,612/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount with interest within 2 months from the date of award.
On deposit of the said amount and interest, 50% of compensation payable to the petitioner shall be deposited in his name in any nationalized bank of the choice of petitioner for a period of 3 years and the remaining 50% shall be released to the petitioner through E-payment on proper identification.
SCCH-24 30 MVC 5790/2023Advocates' fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 1st day of August 2025.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of petitioner:-
PW.1 - Mr. Harish K N PW.2 - Dr. Krishan Prasad
List of documents marked on behalf of petitioner:-
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with Complaint.
Ex.P2 True copy of Spot Mahazar. Ex.P3 True copy of Seizer mahazar. Ex.P4 True copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.P5 True copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.P6 True copy of IMV report. Ex.P7 True copy of Notice u/Sec.133 of IMV Act and reply given there on. Ex.P8 Indemnity bond. Ex.P9 Registration certificate. Ex.P10 Letter issued by MVJ hospital. Ex.P11 Discharge Summary. Ex.P12 Medical Bills. 31 in nos. SCCH-24 31 MVC 5790/2023 Ex.P13 X-ray films. Ex.P14 Notarized copy of Aadhra card of petitioner.
(Compared with original and original is returned to the party.) Ex.P15 Notarized copy of DL (compared with original and original is returned to the party) Ex.P16 Out patient record 2 in nos.
Ex.P17 Inpatient record 1 in nos. Ex.P18 X-ray film 2 in nos. Ex.P19 Authorization Letter. Ex.P20 Neurosurgeon report.
List of witness examined on behalf of respondents:-
RW.1 K Anandhi List of documents marked on behalf of respondents:-
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Letter returned to the owner of the vehicle
Ex.R3 Postal receipts
Ex.R4 DL extract
Ex.R5 Policy copy
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.