Bangalore District Court
Venkatarayappa G N vs Muniraju G S on 28 November, 2025
KABC020806562024
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-4
PRESENT: Smt.Gayathri S Kate,
B.Com., LL.B.,
XVIII ADDL., JUDGE & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 28th day of November-2025
MVC No.9244/2024
PETITIONERS: Mr.Venkatarayappa G.N.
S/o Late.Narasimhaiah G.N.
Aged about 60 years
R/at No.118/1, 1st Division
Someshwara Extension
Doddaballapura Town
Bengaluru Rural-561203.
(By Sri.CBH., Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENTS: 1. Mr.Muniraju G.S.
S/o Sanjeevappa
R/at Scout camp road,
Railway station,
Doddaballapur,
Bengaluru Rural-561203
SCCH-4 2 MVC No.9244/2024
(Exparte)
2. The United India Insurance
Co., Ltd., T.P.Hub,
Krushi Bhavan Building
6th Floor, Hudson Circle,
Bangalore-01.
(By Sri.VN., Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the present claim petition against the respondents under section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation towards the accidental injuries from date of accident till the date of payment together with cost and interest.
2. The factual matrix of the petition in the nutshell is as follows:
On 29-11-2024 at about 3.00 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding in his TVS excel heavy duty vehicle bearing registration No.KA-43-J-4531, near Muddanayakanapalya village, Kasaba hobli, SCCH-4 3 MVC No.9244/2024 Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru district. At that time one rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 50-EN-9648 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle. Due to impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries in the said accident.
3. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted Government Hospital, Doddaballapura for first aid treatment and later he was shifted to Victoria hospital, Bengaluru for further treatment.
4. The petitioner further pleaded that he has incurred huge amount towards medical expenses, traveling expenses and other incidental expenses.
5. Petitioner further submits that, he was hale and healthy and was aged about 60 years as on the date of accident. He was doing Electrical work was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries SCCH-4 4 MVC No.9244/2024 he is not able to continue his work and is under complete bed rest, as such incurring loss of income.
6. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-50-EN-9648. The respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and accident has taken place due to the negligent riding of the motor cycle. Hence the respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner prays to award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest from the date of accident till the realization. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
7. After registration of the petition. Notices were issued against respondents. Inspite of service of the notice, the respondent No.1 has not appeared before this court. Hence, after due service of notice against the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 is placed exparte. The respondent No.2 has appeared through its counsel SCCH-4 5 MVC No.9244/2024 and has filed its written statement. Further denied the petition averments in its written statement. The respondent not aware of involvement of alleged motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-50-EN-9648, its RC, FC, permit and DL of driver etc., The compensation claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant and fanciful. The rider of the alleged motor cycle does not possess any valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving licence. The petitioner was very negligent in riding his vehicle, without observing oncoming vehicle, without wearing helmet, aged more than 60 years, lost control on his vehicle he came in the middle of the road and he himself dashed against alleged motor cycle from opposite direction. This is clear case of volunti not fit injuria and he solely responsible for his injury/death by violating the mandatory provisions of law under the motor vehicle rules and responsible for his injury. There is violation of SCCH-4 6 MVC No.9244/2024 Section 134 (C) AND 158(6) of MV Act. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
8. In order to substantiate his claim, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. In addition to his evidence, the petitioner got examined the doctor, who has issued disability certificate for the injuries sustained by the petitioner as PW.2 and got marked 3 documents as per Ex.P12 to Ex.P14. The petitioner submitted that there was no further petitioner evidence, the further petitioner evidence was taken as closed. The respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW.1 and has got marked 6 documents as per Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and the case was posted for arguments.
9. Heard the arguments on both side and perused the materials on record.
SCCH-4 7 MVC No.9244/2024
10. Based on the above said pleading, this tribunal has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries due to the actionable negligent riding of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-50-EN-9648 by its rider, in RTA took place on 29-11-2024 at about 3.00 p.m. near Muddanayakana-
palya village, Kasaba hobli, Doddaballa- pura Taluk, Bengaluru?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
11. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.3 : As per the final orders
for the following:-
: R E A S O N S:
ISSUE NO.1 :
12. The petitioner has made stand towards fact and factum of the accident that on 29-11-2024 at about 3.00 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding in his TVS excel SCCH-4 8 MVC No.9244/2024 heavy duty vehicle bearing registration No.KA-43-J-4531, near Muddanayakanapalya village, Kasaba hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bengaluru district. At that time one rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 50-EN-9648 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's vehicle. Due to impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries in the said accident.
13. The petitioner has claimed compensation against the respondents urging that the alleged accident took place on the alleged date, time, place and thereby the petitioner was called upon to substantiate the said stand.
14. By responding to the one way burden the petitioner has come up with oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. In his chief-examination, PW.1 has reiterated the petition SCCH-4 9 MVC No.9244/2024 averments and has specifically stated that, the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offender vehicle.
15. The petitioner was subjected to cross- examination by learned counsel for respondent. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW.1, so as to disbelieve his version.
16. Learned counsel for petitioner has addressed detail arguments on behalf of petitioner and filed memo with citations stating that the concept of the pay and recover exists till date though the New Amendment Act to Motor vehicle is introduced. It is further argued that the insurance company is also liable to pay compensation to the 3rd party coverage i.e., petitioner. Therefore prayed to allow the petition.
SCCH-4 10 MVC No.9244/2024
Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has filed written arguments with citations stating that Respondent No.1 owner of insured vehicle has handed over the insured vehicle to the accused no.1 by name Sathish who did not possess valid driving license as on the day of accident and the police have filed the charge sheet stating that the driver of the offender vehicle did not possessed the valid DL on the day of accident therefore prayed to absolve the insurance company from the liability in this case.
Further, Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has also argued that in rulings of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has pleased to fix the liability on the owner of the insured vehicle but not on insurance company because as per the new amendment Act on MV Act, the concept of pay and recover does not arise.
It is further argued that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 24.04.2025 in SLP(Civil) No.11757/2025 has SCCH-4 11 MVC No.9244/2024 pleased to pass the order that the owner did not mount the box nor was any license produce either of the person who was driving the vehicle or the person to whom it was entrusted. The owner thus failed to prove that the vehicle was entrusted to a person have a valid license. Therefore, we find absolutely no reason to entertain the special leave petition and dismiss the same.
Therefore Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has prayed to absolve the liability of the insurance company in view of the same.
To check the veracity of the contentions raised by respondent company it is worth to peruse the provisions of M.V. Act in detail.
As per Sec.147(6) of M.V. Act, which reads that the requirement of policies and limits of liability.
(6) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the
time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person SCCH-4 12 MVC No.9244/2024 or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.
Sec. 147(6) of MV Act emphasizes that an insurer issuing a policy of insurance shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in policy in respect of any liability, where the purpose of issuing the policy is covered.
In the instant cases insurance policy is in force as on date of occurrence of accident.
Further Sec.149 of MV Act states about settlement by insurance company & procedure therefore:-
The insurance company shall, upon receiving information of the accident either from claimant or through accident information report shall designate an officer to settle the Claims relating to such accident.SCCH-4 13 MVC No.9244/2024
Accordingly, the said designated officer shall make all sorts of efforts to settle the claims of such accident. Here, in the instance case, the insurance company has failed to comply the provisions of Sec.149 of MV Act, therefore, the claimant is before this Tribunal.
Sec. 150(2)(ii) of M V Act reads that:
(ii)a condition excluding driving by a named person or by any person who is not duly licenced or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs as laid down in section 185; or The insurance company can take defence on various grounds U/Sec.150(2) of the Act in which one of the ground is that the person who is not duly licenced or disqualified from holding or obtaining DL then the insurance company shall not pay compensation.
Further U/Sec.158(3) of MV Act, mandates that a person who has failed to produce required documents i.e., DL, RC, permit, FC etc., within 7 days from the date SCCH-4 14 MVC No.9244/2024 on which its production was required or from the date of occurrence of accident before such police officer or officer in charge of police station In the absence of production of required documents, certainly the Investigating officer shall mention is the charge sheet as no documents produced by concerned person. It is the duty of official appointed by respondent company to investigate the contents of Charge sheet as correct or not rather than deposing evidence on the basis of the police records.
Further, the letter issued against owner only after the filing of this case before this court. The said letter returned as "Insufficient Address". This process is conducted by company representation only to escape from the liability to indemnify the claimant.
The respondent company official has admitted in cross-examination that the policy is in force as on the date of occurrence of accident, subject to terms and SCCH-4 15 MVC No.9244/2024 conditions which are in force on the said date. But the terms and conditions of policy does not discloses that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the person who did not possessed valid DL as on date of occurrence of accident. Under the circumstances, the insurance company is bound to pay compensation amount to the claimant.
Further as per Sec.147(6) of MV Act, the insurance policy is in force, therefore liable to indemnify the claimant rather than taking hollow support from police records.
Effect of absence of driving license Section 3 of MV Act mandates that the person shall possess effective driving license issued by RTO authority to drive the motor vehicle in any public place.
Section 5 of MV Act states that owner of the vehicle shall not permit any person who does not satisfy the section 3 or section 4 of MV Act.
SCCH-4 16 MVC No.9244/2024
In number of Judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court it is highlighted regarding absence of driving license that,
i)Mere absence of driving license not an adequate defence for the insurer to escape from liabilities insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in ensuring a duly licensed driver was driving the vehicle.
ii)The owner cannot be expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license with licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. It is the insurance company is required to verify with licensing authority even after issuance of notice to owner yet owner does not take appropriate action to verify the possession of driving license.
iii) The insurance company has to prove that the insured/owner was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care and caution regarding the use of insured vehicle at the time of accident to be exonerated of the liability towards insured/owner as well as third party.
In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Arti Devi and others dated: 31.01.2025 in deciding an appeal preferred by insurance company the Hon'ble SCCH-4 17 MVC No.9244/2024 High Court of Allahabad for the contentions raised by the claimant has opined that Even as on today, the Supreme Court has passed certain judgments whereby right to recover has been given to the Insurance Company and considering the fact that the Act is a beneficial legislation having benevolent object, the argument of Insurance Company that the award has to be made against the owner and the Insurance Company has to be completely freed from indemnifying the owner cannot be accepted.
Claimants being dependents of the deceased or themselves injured would not be in a position to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, keeping in view the object of the Act, immediate compensation has to be paid to the claimants by the Insurance Company.
If the Insurance Company keeps on issuing insurance policy and renew it without examining the requirements such as existence of a valid driving license or permit or other such components, in case breach of policy comes into light during the course of proceedings before Tribunal, the Company being at fault, it cannot absolve itself from liability to pay compensation and then recover from the owner.
Insurance policy is a contract between insurer and the owner and third party being alien to the contract, in case of breach of policy, claimants cannot suffer and beneficial legislation and object behind it containing provision of indemnifying the risk would stand frustrated if mere non- inclusion of proviso in sub-section (4) of Section 150 is SCCH-4 18 MVC No.9244/2024 interpreted to absolve the Insurance Company to first pay the amount to the claimants.
The substituted Section 150 does not contain any such provision giving right of recovery. As a matter of fact the proviso has been omitted and sub-section (2) of Section 150 clearly lays down that Insurance Company can defend the action on any of the grounds mentioned therein which include breach of a specified condition of the policy, specifying the conditions of breach also. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section 149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub-Section (4) of Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully examined, the words "shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect" would only mean that under the circumstances covered by sub- Section (4), either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would be well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would be absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner's risk. Such indemnification will still continue to remain alive and the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation through indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to recover from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate liability shall have to be borne by the owner and not by insurer. In such an event, there would be no financial loss to the insurer as it would be compensated through recovery from the owner. The aforesaid provisions are expressly to give defence to the insurer and have to be read to that extent only and not to interpret as if the liability to indemnify stands washed SCCH-4 19 MVC No.9244/2024 away. It therefore follows that even if the proviso to sub- Section (4) would not have been there before the amendment, the indemnification concept would have still remained alive and operative and, hence, mere omission of the proviso by the Amendment Act of 2019 would be of no avail.
Non-receipt of premium as required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance Act, 1938 has now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects that even in a case where premium is not received by the Insurance Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as to avoid passing of award against it and, in that event also, award would be drawn against the owner. When payment or non-payment of premium is significant after amendment and has been made a ground of defence, the Court observes that a third party risk is covered under the policy which is a contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the insurer in relation to the contract. Therefore, policy continues to subsist to cover third party risk so long the premium is received and non-payment thereof would absolve the Insurance Company from its liability of an award being passed against it.
This Court also finds that since the contract of insurance is between insurer and the owner and has no concern with the claimants who are in fact victims of the accident, language used in Section 149 (prior to amendment) and Section 150 (after amendment) would show that notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy on account of breach of terms thereof, it shall pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the award. Therefore, whether Insurance Company cancels or does not cancel an insurance policy, the same has nothing to do with the claimants and they are entitled to get the amount from insurer. It means that SCCH-4 20 MVC No.9244/2024 claimants' right to receive compensation from the insurer at the first instance is unaffected by the inter-se rights and liabilities arising out of contract between the insurer and the owner.
From the over all discussion made above, it is crystal clear that the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, either before the amendment or thereafter, particularly covered by Chapter XI thereof, is to compensate victims of accidents in case of an insurance policy being in existence. In view of the interpretation made, holding that omission of the proviso would exonerate the insurer of its liability to indemnify at the first instance would be too wild a proposition and would result in creating a situation where the insurer would be out of scene despite an insurance policy being there and the claimants would have to again fight for getting the amount of compensation through execution proceedings in one way or the other, searching the owner through the process of Court. In such an event, the claimants would face further harassment and nobody knows that despite a money decree in the nature of an award being there in their favour, as to whether the claimants would ever be able to get the compensation realized through recovery proceedings directly from the owner. Accordingly, the legislative intent becomes clear and there is nothing to support the insurer's arguments flowing from interpretation of Statute or Causus Omissus. The contention advanced on behalf of insurer stands discarded.
17. The accident in question is not in dispute. Whereas Ex.P.1 is the FIR with complaint, Ex.P2 is the SCCH-4 21 MVC No.9244/2024 police intimation, Ex.P3 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P4 is the vehicle seizure mahazar, Ex.P5 is the IMV report and Ex.P7 is the charge sheet which clearly shows that, on the alleged date, time and place of the accident has occurred and in the said accident the offender vehicle is involved in the occurrence of the same.
18. The above referred documents clearly indicates that, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent offender vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-50-EN-9648. It is clear from the records that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and extended with treatment. There is no any adverse material available to disbelieve the stand taken by the petitioner to the extent of the factum of accident as introduced by him. Thus, this tribunal has answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
SCCH-4 22 MVC No.9244/2024
19. The petitioner has claimed compensation for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest from the date of accident till its realization. On the basis of the materials on record, it is necessary to examine claim of petitioner in appropriate manner. In support of the case petitioner has come up with various materials. As such it is necessary to examined the materials on record in the parameter of pecuniary and non-pecuniary character.
1. Pecuniary loss:- This head of compensation includes compensation towards the loss of earning capacity, medical and future medical expenditure, expenditure incurred towards conveyance allowance, attendant charges, special diet and other miscellaneous expenditure. As such these aspects are to be examined by examining the available materials on record.
(A) Loss of earning capacity and loss of future income/earnings:-
SCCH-4 23 MVC No.9244/2024
In order to determine the compensation under this head, it is necessary to consider the age of injured person, occupation, quantum of income, nature of injuries, percentage of disability and multiplier applicable are to be worked out on the available materials.
(i) The age and applicable multiplier:- The petitioner has contended in his petition that, as on the date of accident he was aged about 60 years. The material pertaining to Cr.No.376/24 and other medical documents contemplated as on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 60 years. In addition to that, the petitioner has placed his reliance on the Ex-P8-copy of Aadhaar card. The said Aadhaar card reflected the date of birth of petitioner as 01-01-1958. The accident has occurred on 29-11-2024. Upon computing the age of the petitioner based on all these materials, it clearly shows that, the petitioner is aged of 66 years as on the date of occurrence of accident.SCCH-4 24 MVC No.9244/2024
As per the documentary evidence available on record, the age of the petitioner is considered as 66 years as on the date of the accident. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and Others Case reported in 2009 ACJ SC 1298, the multiplier of 05 is applicable to the present content. Hence, the multiplier of 05 is considered to determine the claim made herein.
(ii) The occupation of petitioner and quantum of income:- The petitioner has contended that, prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and was doing electrical work and he was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. He has not produced any documents to prove the said income. Hence, in the absence of express proof, it is necessary to determine the income of the petitioner based on the principles of notional income.
The Karnataka State Legal Service Authority has fixed a chart for notional income. By placing reliance SCCH-4 25 MVC No.9244/2024 on the said income slab. The income of the petitioner is to be determined. As per the said chart the income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.16,500/- per month as operated to the year 2024. The annual income of the petitioner shall arrive at Rs.1,98,000/- (Rs.16,500 X 12)
(iii) Nature of injury and percentage of disability:- To prove the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner he has examined one doctor Ramesh- Orthopedic Surgeon at Victoria hospital, Bengaluru, is examined as PW.2 and got marked 3 documents as per Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14. PW.2/doctor has deposed that, the petitioner has sustained injuries i.e., right type 3 B open segmental femur fracture. PW-2 further deposed that on examination he found following injuries i.e., restriction of joint movement of right knee flexion extension. This witness has opined that, petitioner has sustained permanent present physical disability of 36% of right lower limb which is 18% to the whole-body. The injuries SCCH-4 26 MVC No.9244/2024 are permanent in nature. Petitioner has contended that, he is doing electrical work and assessed disability causes effect on the avocation of petitioner. Hence, the disability is considered at 18%. The said extent of disability is considerable to determine the compensation under this head.
The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on the 23rd of September, 2023 in MISC. APPEAL No. 3496 of 2019 has opined that "This court is of the considered opinion that merely because Dr.Ashish Mehrotra was not the treating doctor, his testimony cannot be discarded, and the Claims Tribunals should also keep this aspect in mind that not all the doctors are always willing to come to court to be subjected to cross examination, and in such circumstances, if a disability certificate has been issued by a non-treating doctor, its evidentiary value should be assessed on its own merits, without being influenced by the fact that the doctor issuing the same is not a treating doctor. This court is also of the opinion that merely because a disability certificate has been issued after some delay, it cannot be rejected on its face value, unless some specific reasons are assigned for the same."
SCCH-4 27 MVC No.9244/2024However, in Human Anatomy i.e., the scientific study of structure of human body, the said human body is divided into 3 parts i.e., Head, Trunk and Tail. Applying the said study to the assessment of the disability, then the disability to particular limb is to be divided by 3, wherein we arrive disability to whole body.
In the present case, the doctor has assessed 36% disability to particular limb and 18% disability to whole body. At this stage, this Court does not find any impediment to consider the assessment of disability arrived by the doctor.
The injuries are permanent in nature. Petitioner has contended that, he does Electrical work and assessed disability causes effect on the avocation of petitioner. Hence, the disability is considered at 18%. The said extent of disability is considerable to determine the compensation under this head.
SCCH-4 28 MVC No.9244/2024
Annual income X Multiplier X permanent physical disability = Loss of earning capacity.
Rs.1,98,000 X 05 X 18/100= Rs.1,78,200/-. Thereby the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,78,200/- towards loss of earning capacity and future earnings.
The petitioner was doing Electrical work and contended that, he used to earn Rs.35,000/- per month. In this regard the petitioner has not produced any documents to prove his avocation and income. In the absence of proof, the notional income is considered as Rs.16,500/- per month. Under the circumstances, the per day income of the petitioner would arrive at Rs.550/-.
As per the discharge summary the petitioner was admitted to hospital as an inpatient for 10 days and after discharge from the hospital there must be necessary to take bed rest for at least 50 days. So, the petitioner is SCCH-4 29 MVC No.9244/2024 entitled to compensation towards laid up period with one attendant charge at the same rate which comes to Rs.66,000/- (60 days X 550 = Rs.33,000 + 33,000).
(B) Medical expenditure:-
The petitioner contended that, she has incurred Rs.2,50,000/- towards hospitalization, conveyance, medical treatment, attendant and nursing care expenses. The petitioner has not placed any medical bills before this court. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation under this head.
(C) Future medical expenditure The petitioner has not claimed compensation towards future medical expenses, follow up treatment and even the doctor/PW.2 has not deposed in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation under this head.SCCH-4 30 MVC No.9244/2024
(D) Conveyance allowances, food, nourishment and special diet:-
As per the available material it is clear that the petitioner was under treatment for a period of 10 days. This shows that petitioner has incurred expenditure towards conveyance, food, nourishment and special diet to meet the treatment. Under the circumstances if the conveyance charges fixed at Rs.1,000/- per day then it is necessary to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.1,000/- X 10 days) towards conveyance allowance, food, nourishment and special diet.
(e) Pain and sufferings and mental agony:-
According to medical records, the petitioner has sustained injuries as on the date of accident. The said accidental injuries have caused lot of pain to suffer in the future life span. Pain and suffering would be categorized as a non-pecuniary loss as it is incapable of being SCCH-4 31 MVC No.9244/2024 arithmetically calculated. Therefore, when compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including the victim's age, the unusual deprivation the victim has suffered, the effect thereof on his or her future life. Considering the nature of the injuries caused to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is awarded with compensation of Rs.30,000/- under this head.
(f) Loss of enjoyment of life and amenities of life:-
This includes a variety of matters such as the inability to walk, run or sit, etc. This shows that the injuries caused to petitioner has impacted on the enjoyment of the personal life and amenities of life. Hence, it is necessary to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- under this head.SCCH-4 32 MVC No.9244/2024
20. Based on aforesaid considered heads of compensation the tabulations is calculated as below:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1 Loss towards earning Rs. 1,78,200/-
capacity/ loss of future
income
2 Loss of income during the Rs. 66,000/-
laid up period
3 Medical expenses -NIL-
4 Future Medical expenses -NIL-
5 Conveyance allowance, Rs. 10,000/-
food, nourishment and
special diet
6 Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/-
7 Loss of enjoyment and loss Rs. 10,000/-
of amenities of life
Total Rs. 2,94,200/-
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total
compensation award amount of Rs.2,94,200/- which is just and proper.
21. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. SCCH-4 33 MVC No.9244/2024
Hence, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 being the insurer is bound to indemnify the respondent No.1. Hence, respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, I answer this issue partly in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
22. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.2,94,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
SCCH-4 34 MVC No.9244/2024
Considering the quantum of amount awarded to petitioner, it is ordered to release the entire amount in his favour.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of November, 2025) (Gayathri S Kate) XVIII ADDL.JUDGE & ACJM Court of Small Causes Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Venkatarayappa G.N. List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of police intimation
Ex.P3 True copy of spot mahazar
Ex.P4 True copy of vehicle seizure mahazar
Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P7 True copy of charge sheet
SCCH-4 35 MVC No.9244/2024
Ex.P8 True copy of Aadhar card of petitioner
Ex.P9 Original discharge summary
Ex.P10 Followup record
Ex.P11 X-rays
Ex.P12 Outpatient book
Ex.P13 Case sheet
Ex.P14 X-ray
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 N.G.Prashanth.
List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorisation letter
Ex.R2 Insurance policy
Ex.R3 133 notice
Ex.R4 Reply to 133 notice
Ex.R5 Notice sent to owner of the offender vehicle i.e.,
respondent No.1
Ex.R6 RPAD returned cover
XVIII ADDL.JUDGE & ACJM
Court of Small Causes
Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
GAYATHRI S
GAYATHRI KATE
S KATE Date:
2025.12.11
16:03:56
+0530