Bangalore District Court
Pruthivi M vs Bajaj All Gen Ins Co Ltd on 7 January, 2026
KABC020054282024
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, ACJM AND MEMBER-MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-13)
DATED THIS 7th DAY OF JANUARY 2026
PRESENT: Smt.Shyla S.M., B.B.M. LL.B.,
II Addl. Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No.946 OF 2024
Petitioner: Pruthivi M
S/o Madhukumar M.
Aged about 8 years
(Petitioner is minor Rep. By his
Mother Annapoorna as a natural
guardian)
Annapoorna B
W/o Madhu Kumar M
Aged about 32 years
Neeragunda, Sanenahlli,
Chitraudrga-577515.
(By Sri.C.K.Lokesh., Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Bajaj All Gen Ins Co Ltd.,
Golden Heights, 4th Floor, No.1/2,
59th C Cross, 4th M Block,
SCCH.13 2 MVC.946/2024
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560010.
(The insurer of the Motorcycle
Bearing No.KA-51-JB-0372)
(By Smt. Shwetha V Yadappanavar, Adv.)
2. Manoj Kumar A
S/o G.Anandareddy
R/At Mu kunda Reddy Building
Nikilan Colony, Bhavani Road
Hebbagodi, Opp To Onamma Temple
Bengaluru-56009.
(The owner of the Motorcycle
Bearing No.KA-51-JB-0372)
(By Sri.Raviprakash P., Adv.)
JUDGMENT
This present petition is filed under Sec.166 of MV Act 1989 injured minor petitioner through his natural guardian seeking compensation of ₹.27,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
2. It is case of the petitioner that: on 30-12-2023 at about 7.30 p.m. while the petitioner was standing by the side of the road near Shanimahathma Temple, Thirupalya, Jigani Hobli, the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-51-JB-0372 (herein after called as offending motorcycle) rode the same in a rash and SCCH.13 3 MVC.946/2024 negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained severe injuries all over his body.
3. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to Best Hospital, where he took treatment as an inpatient and incurred ₹.5,00,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motorcycle.
4. At the time of accident, Petitioner was aged 8 years and was a student. Due to the injuries sustained, he was unable to attend the school and participate his curricular and extra curricular activities, thereby adversely affecting his education and future prospects.
5. The Petitioner claims that the Respondents, being the insurer and owner of the alleged offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with interest for injuries, pain suffering and financial loss caused by the accident.
6. In response to the notice issued in the petition, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have appeared before the SCCH.13 4 MVC.946/2024 Court through their respective counsel and filed their written statements.
7. Respondent No. 1 - the Insurance Company, while denying the averments made in the petition, has admitted the issuance of an insurance policy in respect of the alleged offending vehicle and its validity as on the date of the accident. However, it has contended that its liability, if any, is strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.
8. Respondent No. 1 has further contended that the owner of the offending vehicle has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and that the police have also failed to comply with their statutory duties under Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further alleged that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and also did not have a valid helmet/other statutory compliance (if applicable).
9. Respondent No. 1 has denied the negligence on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle and has contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself, as he was allegedly SCCH.13 5 MVC.946/2024 standing in the middle of the road without observing the movement of vehicles. It has further denied the manner of the accident, the involvement of the offending vehicle, and has alleged that the petitioner sustained injuries elsewhere.
10. The Insurance Company has also denied the nature and extent of injuries allegedly sustained by the petitioner, the treatment undertaken, the medical expenses incurred, and the disability claimed. It has contended that the compensation sought is exorbitant, excessive, and without basis, and has therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.
11. Respondent No. 2, in his written statement, has denied all the averments made in the petition. He has contended that the accident did not occur due to any rash or negligent riding of the offending motorcycle, but solely due to the negligence of the petitioner, who allegedly crossed the road suddenly without observing the movement of vehicles and thereby caused the accident. He has stated that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and that the said vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No. 1 as on the date of the accident, and the policy was valid and in force.
SCCH.13 6 MVC.946/202412. Respondent No. 2 has further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exaggerated and excessive. On these grounds, Respondent No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
13. On the basis of the above, the following Issues arise for my consideration :-
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 30-12-
2023 at about 7.30 p.m., near Shanimahathma temple, Thirupalaya, Jigani Hobli, Ankel Taluk, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA- 51-JB-0372?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? If so, what amount?
3. What order or award?
14. In order to prove the claim, the natural guardian/mother of Petitioner is examined as PW.1, the doctor who has assessed the disability of Petitioner is examined as PW-2 and got marked the documents at SCCH.13 7 MVC.946/2024 Ex.P1 to Ex.P-19. On the other hand the Respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral and documentary evidence.
15. Heard arguments.
16. Learned counsel for 1st respondent has relied upon a citation reported in Civil Appeal No.7139/2013
- Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Ins.Co.Ltd., and another.
17. By considering the evidences, arguments and the other materials available on record, I have answered the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative. Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative. Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
18. ISSUE NO.1:- It is case of the petitioner that on 30-12-2023 at about 7.30 p.m. while the petitioner was standing by the side of the road near Shanimahathma Temple, Thirupalya, Jigani Hobli, the rider of the offending motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the SCCH.13 8 MVC.946/2024 petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained severe injuries all over his body.
19. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the natural guardian of the petitioner was examined as PW-1, who filed her affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC, reiterating the averments made in the petition. PW-1 has produced FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, IMV report, wound certificate and charge sheet.
20. On perusal of the medical records and wound certificate, it is evident that the petitioner sustained multiple abrasions over the limbs, fractures involving the parietal, temporal and mastoid bones, auditory canal fracture, right fronto-parietal acute subdural hematoma, contusion of left fronto-temporo-parietal lobes with diffuse cerebral edema and associated complications. The doctor has opined that all the injuries are grievous in nature.
21. The respondents have contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner, alleging that he tried to cross the road without observing the movement of vehicles. During SCCH.13 9 MVC.946/2024 the course of cross-examination, PW-1 was confronted with this suggestion, which was specifically denied. Except for such suggestions made during cross- examination and the pleadings raised in the objections, the respondents have not placed any oral or documentary evidence on record to substantiate their defence.
22. Upon careful re-appreciation of the entire material on record, this Tribunal finds that there is no evidence whatsoever produced by the respondents to disprove the testimony of PW-1 or to establish contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. No independent witness has been examined, nor has any contrary investigation report been produced to rebut the police records.
23. It is a settled principle of law that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the Act being a beneficial legislation, strict proof of negligence as required in criminal proceedings is not mandatory. In the present case, after due investigation, the jurisdictional police have filed a charge sheet against the rider of the offending motorcycle, and the said charge sheet has not been SCCH.13 10 MVC.946/2024 challenged before any competent forum. Therefore, it carries prima facie evidentiary value.
24. The oral testimony of PW-1 is consistent and duly corroborated by contemporaneous police records and medical evidence. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the version of PW-1 or to accept the defence set up by the respondents.
25. Accordingly, this Tribunal holds that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle, and that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the said road traffic accident. Hence I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
26. ISSUE No.2:- The petitioner has stated that he was aged about 8 years at the time of the accident and had sustained head injury, traumatic brain injury and injuries to other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted to BEST Hospital, Bengaluru, where he was treated as an inpatient. Owing to the accidental injuries, the petitioner was unable to attend school and could not participate in curricular and co-curricular activities, which has adversely affected his studies and future prospects.
SCCH.13 11 MVC.946/202427. In order to establish the nature of injuries and disability, PW-2 Dr. Shailesh A. V. Rao, Senior Consultant Neurosurgeon at Padmasree Diagnostic, Bengaluru, was examined. PW-2 deposed that he examined the petitioner on 07-07-2025 and 01-08- 2025 for the purpose of assessment of disability. He stated that the petitioner had sustained head injury, had lost consciousness, and was reportedly suffering from seizures following the accident. His testimony establishes that the petitioner suffered neurological impairment consequent to the road traffic accident.
28. PW-2, the Neurosurgeon, has deposed in detail regarding the nature of injuries, course of treatment, and residual disability suffered by the minor petitioner. His evidence establishes that immediately after the accident, the petitioner was initially treated at Best Hospital, where his Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was recorded as E1V1M5, indicating a severe head injury. CT scan of the brain revealed bilateral parietal and temporal bone fractures, right frontoparietal acute subdural hematoma, left frontotemporoparietal contusion, diffuse cerebral edema, and pneumocephalus.
SCCH.13 12 MVC.946/202429. Due to the critical condition, the petitioner was treated with medications and mechanical ventilation and was later shifted to Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health, Bengaluru, where he continued on mechanical ventilation and underwent placement of a right external ventricular drain (EVD). Subsequently, he was treated at NIMHANS Hospital, where his GCS improved to E4M5V1.
30. On 30-01-2024, the right frontal EVD was removed and a left frontal EVD was inserted. On 07- 02-2024, a medium pressure VP shunt was placed. On 15-02-2024, a low-pressure VP shunt was inserted and exteriorized. Again, on 23-02-2024, the petitioner underwent right frontal EVD placement and insertion of a fresh left low-pressure VP shunt. He was ultimately discharged on 12-04-2024 with a GCS of E4V2M6 and continued on outpatient treatment thereafter.
31. PW-2 further stated that due to the above injuries and prolonged neurosurgical intervention, the petitioner has been suffering from difficulty in studies, frequent headaches, decreased memory, and cognitive impairment. On examination, the petitioner was conscious and ambulant but had multiple surgical SCCH.13 13 MVC.946/2024 scars over the head and abdominal wall, along with impaired memory and intelligence.
32. Radiological investigations were also placed on record. An X-ray of the skull dated 17-07-2025 revealed fractures of the left frontal and right parietal regions with burr holes and the presence of a right VP shunt tube. CT scan of the brain dated 26-07-2025 showed the VP shunt in situ and gliotic changes in the corpus callosum and left temporoparietal regions, indicating permanent brain damage.
33. Neuropsychological assessment conducted on 17-07-2025 showed that the petitioner obtained an IQ score of 71 ( 90-110). On IDEAS, with a disability score of 7, suggestive of <40% mild disability. Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) conducted on 01- 08-2025 yielded a low score of 17/30, indicating cognitive impairment. Based on these findings, PW-2 assessed neuro-cognitive disability at 20% to the whole body, which, according to him, is permanent in nature. PW-2 produced supporting documents at Exhibits P-13 to P-19.
34. During cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that MMSE is not a standard tool for assessing SCCH.13 14 MVC.946/2024 disability in minors and that he was not the treating doctor. He also admitted that CT scans, X-rays, and neuropsychological assessments were conducted by other doctors at his request. He stated that assessing permanent disability in children is difficult, and there is a possibility of improvement due to age. However, he categorically opined that in the present case, improvement is extremely unlikely, considering the severity of brain injury and the surgical interventions undertaken.
35. There is no material on record to show that prior to the accident the petitioner suffered from any neurological or cognitive deficit. Though no documentary proof of pre-accident normalcy is produced, the oral evidence of PW-2 coupled with medical records sufficiently establishes that the disability is a consequence of the accident.
36. In view of the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that assessment of compensation in cases involving children with permanent disability is inherently difficult, the Tribunal must adopt a pragmatic and reasonable approach. Considering the tender age of the petitioner, severity of head injury, extent of neurosurgical SCCH.13 15 MVC.946/2024 treatment, cognitive impairment, and the medical opinion of PW-2, this Tribunal assesses the permanent functional disability to the whole body at 15%.
37. There is no material evidence to establish that the petitioner has already suffered a specific loss to his educational career. Hence, no separate compensation is awarded under the head of loss of education.
38. As held in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 396, where the permanent disability is above 10% and up to 30%, a compensation of ₹3,00,000/- is just and reasonable, unless exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. Applying the said principle, the petitioner is entitled to ₹3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, discomfort, and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability.
39. Considering the prolonged hospitalization, and the hardship suffered by the parents during the treatment period, an additional sum of ₹1,00,000/- is awarded towards discomfort, inconvenience, and loss of parental happiness during hospitalization.
SCCH.13 16 MVC.946/202440. With regard to medical expenses, PW-1 has produced medical bills at Exhibit P-11 amounting to ₹2,10,732/-. On perusal, the bills appear genuine and correlate with the treatment records. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to ₹2,10,732/- towards medical expenses.
41. By considering the above judgment, and taking into consideration of all the materials produced by the Petitioner, this tribunal awards compensation under the following heads:
Sl.N HEAD COMPENSATION o.
1. Pain and suffering already ₹. 3,00,000/- undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience and discomforts etc., and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability
2. Discomfort, inconvenience and ₹. 1,00,000/- loss of earnings to the parents during the period of hospitalization
3. Medical expenses ₹. 2,10,732/-
TOTAL ₹.6,10,732/-
SCCH.13 17 MVC.946/202442. Liability: The policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, the Respondent No.1 and 2 being the insurer and insured of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. However, in view of the issuance policy, the Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner with interest at 6% per annum. With these observations, I have answered Issue No.2 Partly in the Affirmative.
29 ISSUE NO.3 : In view of the above discussion,reasons stated and findings given to Issue Nos. 1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is allowed in part with cost.
Petitioner is awarded compensation of ₹.6,10,732/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization.
Respondent No.1 shall pay the aforesaid amount within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, entire amount shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized bank till he attains the age of majority or for a period of 2 years whichever is later.SCCH.13 18 MVC.946/2024
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court dated this the 7th day of January 2026).
(SHYLA S.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACJM Member, MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner :
PW.1 : Annapoorna B.
PW.2 Dr.Shailesh A.V.Rao
List of documents marked for Petitioner :
Ex.P.1& 2 True Copy of FIR and Complaint Ex.P.3 True Copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P.4 True Copy of seizure mahazar Ex.P.5 True Copy of IMV report Ex.P.6 True copy of wound certificate Ex.P.7 True copy of charge sheet Ex.P.8 & 9 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of Petitioner and PW-1 Ex.P.10 Discharge summary Ex.P.11 Medical bills SCCH.13 19 MVC.946/2024 Ex.P.12 Prescriptions Ex.P.13 OPD record Ex.P.14 X-ray report Ex.P.15 CT brain report Ex.P.16 Neuro psychological assessment report Ex.P.17 Mini mental status examination report Ex.P.18 & X-ray and CT scan films 19 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.