Bangalore District Court
Shobha.N vs Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd on 18 November, 2025
KABC020072952023
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE, ACJM AND MEMBER-MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-13)
DATED THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
PRESENT
Smt.Shyla S.M., B.B.M. LL.B.,
II Addl. Judge & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru
M.V.C.1600/23 C/W 1601/23 and 1602 OF 2023
Petitioner in Narayanaswamy B.C.
MVC.1600/2023 S/o.B.C.Narayanaswamy
Aged 58 years
R/At Jogyanahalli Village,
Nandiganahalli Post, Chintamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapura-563146.
(By Sri.Amaresha H.N., Adv.)
Petitioner in Soniya J.N.
MVC.1601/2023 D/o. Narayanaswamy B.C.
Aged 27 Years,
R/At Jogyanahall village
Nandiganahalli Post, Chintamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapura-563146.
(By Sri.Amaresha H.N., Adv.)
SCCH-13 2 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
Petitioner in Shobha N
MVC.1602/2023 W/o.Narayanaswamy B.C.
Aged 58 years
R/At Jogyanahalli Village,
Nandiganahalli Post, Chintamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapura-563146.
(By Sri.Amaresha H.N., Adv.)
Vs.
Respondents in all 1.Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd.,
the cases TP HUB, No. 28, 5th Floor,
Centenary Building, East Wing,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru-560001.
In policy No.141522223400004961
Validity: 30-10-2022 to 29-10-2023.
(By Sri.Gururaj Salur, Adv.,)
2. The Head Master
S.V. Central School
Vidyanagar, Bettalasur Post
Bengaluru International Airport Road
Bengaluru-562157.
(Owner of the School Bus bearing No.KA-
50-A-0411)
(By Sri.D.A.Shivakumar, Adv.)
SCCH-13 3 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
COMMON JUDGMENT
All these petitions are filed by the Petitioners
U/s.166 of MV Act, seeking compensation amount for
the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic
accident.
2. The cases arise out of one and same accident,
and the respondents are common in all the cases.
Therefore, to avoid repetition of facts, to convenience
the parties, and to save the precious time of the court,
these cases have been clubbed together for common
trial and the being disposed of by a common judgment.
The common evidence has been led in
MVC.No.1600/2023.
3.The brief facts of the case are that on
10.12.2022 at about 8:30 p.m., the petitioners were
traveling in a car bearing registration number Reg.No.
KA-67-M-0049, near Gopasandra village, Chintamani
Taluk, Chikkaballapura district. At the same time, a
school bus bearing registration number No.KA-50-A-
0411 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle")
was being driven at a high speed, in a rash and
SCCH-13 4 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
negligent manner. The driver of the offending vehicle
first dashed against a car bearing registration number
KA-40-M-7601, and subsequently collided with
another vehicle bearing registration number KA-53-
MF-1407, before finally crashing into the petitioners'
car.
4. As a result of the said accident, the petitioners,
who were occupants of the car, sustained grievous
injuries. They were immediately shifted to General
Hospital, Chintamani for first aid. The petitioner in
MVC No. 1600/2023 was later referred to Radha
Krishna Orthopedic and Multispeciality Hospital,
Chintamani, where he underwent surgical treatment
as an inpatient.
5. At the time of the accident: The petitioner in
MVC No. 1600/2023 was aged about 58 years,
engaged in agricultural work, and earning
approximately Rs. 30,000 per month.
6. The petitioner in MVC No. 1601/2023 was
aged about 27 years, employed as a Customer Officer
SCCH-13 5 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
at CSB Bank, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, earning
approximately Rs. 20,000 per month.
7. The petitioner in MVC No. 1602/2023 was
aged about 58 years, engaged in business, and earning
approximately Rs. 25,000 per month.
8. Due to the grievous injuries sustained in the
accident, the petitioners have suffered permanent
disability, leading to a considerable loss of earning
capacity, loss of amenities, and an inability to lead a
normal life as they did before the accident. They have
also incurred substantial expenses toward medical
treatment, hospitalization, surgery, transportation,
and other incidental costs.
9. Since the accident occurred solely due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
school bus the respondents are vicariously as well as
jointly and severally liable to pay just and reasonable
compensation to the petitioners under the applicable
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
SCCH-13 6 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
10. In response to the petition notice, both
Respondents have appeared before the court through
their counsel and filed their objections.
11. Respondent No.1 filed its written statement,
admitting the issuance of the insurance policy in
respect of the alleged offending vehicle, but contending
that its liability, if any, is subject to the terms and
conditions of the policy. It is further contended that
the owner of the vehicle and the concerned police
authorities failed to comply with the mandatory
provisions of Section 134(c) and Section 158(6) of the
Motor Vehicles Act.
12. Respondent No. 1 has specifically alleged that
the driver of the school bus was not holding a valid
and effective driving licence as on the date of the
accident and was not having valid permit and FC.
Further it has denied the involvement of offending
vehicle in the accident and also the manner of
accident. Further it has contended that there was no
negligence on the part of driver of offending school
bus. On the other hand, the accident has occurred
SCCH-13 7 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
due to negligence of driver of car bearing No.KA-67-M-
0049 and he was solely responsible for the accident.
Further, it has contended that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license.
The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties, as the owner and insurer of Car bearing
No.KA-67-M-0049 were not arrayed as Respondents in
the petition. It has also denied the occurrence of the
accident, the involvement of the said vehicle, the
nature and extent of injuries sustained by the
petitioners, their avocation, income, alleged future
medical expenses, other incidental expenses, and the
disability claimed. It is also contended that the
compensation claimed is highly excessive, exaggerated,
and without basis, and therefore, the petition is liable
to be dismissed.
13. The Respondent No.2- R.C.Owner in his
objection, denied the manner of accident and
negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle
and contended that the the accident occurred due to
negligence of driver of car bearing No.KA-67-M-0049 in
which petitioners were travelling. Further, he has
SCCH-13 8 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
denied the age, occupation, income of Petitioners,
expenses incurred by them. The compensation claimed
by the Petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant
and prayed to dismiss the petition.
14. On the basis of above pleadings, the following
issues have been framed in all the cases:
IN MVC.1600/2023:
1.Whether the petitioner proves that he
sustained injuries when he was traveling
in Car bearing No.KA-67-M-0049 on 10-
12-2022, about 8.30 p.m. near
Gopasandra Village, Chintamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District, only due to the
rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the school bus bearing No.KA-50-A-
0411?
2. What compensation Petitioner is entitled?
3. What order?
IN MVC.1601/2023:
1.Whether the petitioner proves that she
sustained injuries when she was traveling
in Car bearing No.KA-67-M-0049 on 10-
SCCH-13 9 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
12-2022, about 8.30 p.m. near
Gopasandra Village, Chintamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District, only due to the
rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the school bus bearing No.KA-50-A-
0411?
2. What compensation Petitioner is entitled?
3. What order?
IN MVC.1602/2023:
1.Whether the petitioner proves that she
sustained injuries when she was traveling
in Car bearing No.KA-67-M-0049 on 10-
12-2022, about 8.30 p.m. near
Gopasandra Village, Chintamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District, only due to the
rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the school bus bearing No.KA-50-A-
0411?
2. What compensation Petitioner is entitled?
3. What order?
15. In order to substantiate the claim, the
Petitioners have examined themselves as PW.1 to 3
and 2 witness are examined as PW-4 and 5 and in all
45 documents are produced which are marked as
Ex.P1 to 17.
SCCH-13 10 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
16. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has
examined the Superintendent RTO, Yelahanka as
RW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R.1 and 2.
The official of respondent No.1 is examined as RW-2
and got marked the documents at Ex.R.3 to 5.
Further, the Head Master of respondent No.2's School
is examined as RW-3 and got marked the documents
at Ex.R.6 and 7.
17. I have heard the counsel on both sides and
have perused the material on record.
18. On the basis of evidence and material
available on record and by considering the facts, I have
answered the above issues in all the cases as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
19. Issue No.1 in all the petitions:- Petitioner in
all the petitions have examined as PW.1 to 3. They
SCCH-13 11 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
deposed that on on 10.12.2022 at about 8:30 p.m., the
petitioners were traveling in a car bearing registration
number Reg.No. KA-67-M-0049, near Gopasandra
village, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura district. At
the same time, the offending vehicle was being driven
at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. The
driver of the offending vehicle first dashed against a
car bearing registration number KA-40-M-7601, and
subsequently collided with another vehicle bearing
registration number KA-53-MF-1407, before finally
crashing into the petitioners' car. As a result of the
said accident, the petitioners, who were occupants of
the car, sustained grievous injuries.
20. In order to establish the negligence of the
driver of the offending bus, the petitioners relied upon
the police documents. PW1 produced the FIR,
Complaint, Spot Mahazar, Spot Sketch, IMV Report,
Wound Certificate, and Charge Sheet, which were
marked as Exs. P1 to P7. PW2 and PW3 have produced
their Wound Certificates at Exs. P9 and P11. Based on
the first information statement, the police registered
the FIR, prepared the Spot Mahazar and Spot Sketch,
SCCH-13 12 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
inspected the vehicles, and thereafter filed a charge
sheet against the driver of the offending bus.
21. The Wound Certificates clearly show that the
petitioners sustained injuries. Respondent No. 1, the
insurer of the offending vehicle, contended that the
accident did not occur in the manner alleged and
claimed that it was due to the negligence of the driver
of the car. To substantiate this defence, the official of
Respondent No. 1 was examined as RW2, who
produced Exs. R4 and R5. However, despite
specifically disputing the cause of the accident, the
respondent no 1 has not adduced any rebuttal
evidence to prove its defence.
22. After due investigation, the police filed the
charge sheet against the driver of the offending bus.
Neither the insured nor the insurer of the offending
bus challenged or questioned the charge sheet before
the competent court. Furthermore, during the cross-
examination of PW1 to PW3, Respondent No. 1 merely
offered denials and failed to produce any cogent
material to discredit the petitioners' version or to
SCCH-13 13 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
counter the corroborating entries in the medical and
investigation records.
23. In the absence of any credible or substantive
evidence to the contrary, this Tribunal finds no merit
in the assertion of Respondent No. 1 that the accident
was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the
car. The petitioners have successfully proved
negligence through consistent and corroborated oral
and documentary evidence. Conversely, the
respondents have failed to produce any contra
evidence to show that the driver of the offending bus
was not negligent.
24. Having regard to the oral and documentary
evidence on record, it is evident that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending bus. It is a well-settled principle
that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation,
and the Tribunal is not required to insist upon strict
proof of negligence as demanded in a criminal trial.
Accordingly, this Tribunal holds that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the
SCCH-13 14 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
offending bus and answer Issue No.1 in all petition
in the Affirmative.
25. Issue No.2 in MVC.1600/2023 : As per the
medical records, the petitioner sustained a right
comminuted subtrochanteric fracture with a right
patella fracture, frontal cerebral contusion in the right
fronto-retro-orbital region with pneumocephalus,
fracture of the lateral and anterior wall of the right
orbit, and fracture of the right half of both tables of the
frontal sinus. These injuries have been classified as
grievous in nature.
26. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner
was taken to the General Hospital, Chintamani , where
first aid was administered. He was thereafter shifted to
Radhakrishna Hospital, Chintamani , where he was
treated as an inpatient from 10-12-2022 to 20-12-
2022. PW4, the Medical Records Officer from
Radhakrishna Hospital, has produced the case sheet
of the petitioner, which is marked at Ex. P14.
27. The petitioner further examined Dr. Nagraj
B.N., Orthopedic Surgeon at Sai Ortho and Dental
SCCH-13 15 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
Centre, as PW5. PW5 produced the documents marked
as Exs. P15 and P16 and deposed that the petitioner
had sustained a right comminuted subtrochanteric
fracture with right patella fracture and the associated
frontal cerebral contusion with orbital and frontal
sinus fractures. PW1 stated that the petitioner
underwent CRIF with long PFN at Radhakrishna
Hospital.
28. PW5 clinically and radiologically examined
the petitioner and noted his complaints of pain in the
right thigh, inability to sit, squat, sit cross-legged, and
difficulty in walking without support, along with
restricted movements of the right hip and knee. PW5
assessed the permanent disability at 47% of the right
lower limb and 16% of the whole body. PW5 had not
personally treated the petitioner; his role was limited
to disability assessment, and he had not considered
the cause of injury. PW5 also admitted that the
petitioner could perform day-to-day activities, albeit
with difficulty.
29. It is significant to note that although PW5
assessed 47% disability of the right lower limb and
SCCH-13 16 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
16% to the whole body, he did not specifically assess
the functional disability, i.e., the actual impact on the
petitioner's daily life, mobility, and earning capacity.
The petitioner sustained injuries to the patella and
subtrochanteric region, and such fractures do affect
mobility and daily functioning. Taking all relevant
factors into consideration, the Tribunal notes that the
petitioner is able to move independently though with
certain restrictions.
30. In view of the medical evidence and the actual
functional limitations, the Tribunal finds that the
assessment of 47% permanent disability of the right
lower limb appears excessive. The Tribunal therefore
concludes that a functional disability of 10% is just
and appropriate for the purpose of computing the
future loss of earning capacity.
31. In the petition the age of the petitioner is
mentioned as 58 years. Ex.P.8 - Aadhar card of the
petitioner shows that he was born on 01-06-1965, the
same is considered, then age of the petitioner as on
the date of accident as 57 years and the multiplier
applicable to the case on hand is 9.
SCCH-13 17 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
32.The petitioner has deposed that, at the time of
the accident, he was engaged in agriculture and
business, earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per
month. Due to the accidental 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 to substantiate his
income. 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.
33. The alleged accident has taken place in the
year 2022, the notional income of the injured could be
assessed at Rs 15,500/- Per Month. Thus this tribunal
is of the opinion that the petitioner who sustained the
injuries is entitled for compensation under the
following heads:
34. 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 10% is reasonable and just.
SCCH-13 18 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
35. The petitioner was 57 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 9. The notional
income taken as Rs.15,500 x 12 x 9 x 10/100=
Rs.1,67,400/- towards loss of future income.
36. 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 ₹.₹.50,000/- would be just
and fair compensation under the head pain and
sufferings.
37. 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 ₹.30,000/- under
head of loss of amenities of life.
SCCH-13 19 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
38. Future medical expenses: PW-5 Doctor has
stated that Petitioner needs surgery for removal of
implants which cost around Rs.60,000/-. But he has
not produced any estimation report. In the absence of
clear evidence, it is just and reasonable to award
₹.15,000/- towards future medical expenses.
39. Conveyance, food, nourishment and
attendant charges: Ex.P.17 - Discharge summary
shows that Petitioner was treated as an inpatient at
Radhaa Krishna hospital, Chintamani, from 10-12-
2022 to 20-12-2022. i.e. for a period of 10 days.
Therefore, it is just and reasonable to award
compensation of ₹.10,000/- under the head of
conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges.
40. 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 3 months for rest is considered . As the
monthly income of the Petitioner is already considered
SCCH-13 20 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
as ₹.15,500/- per month, loss of earning during laid
up period would be ₹.15,500 x 3 = Rs.46,500/-.
41. Thus the compensation awarded under the
various heads are as under:
Sl. Nature of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Loss of future earnings ₹ 1,67,400/-
2. Pain and Sufferings ₹ 50,000/-
3. Loss of amenities ₹ 30,000/-
4. Future Medical expenses ₹ 15,000/-
5. Conveyance, Food, ₹ 10,000/-
Nourishment & Attendant
charges
6. Loss of income during laid ₹ 46,500/-
up period
Total Rs. 3,18,900/-
Hence, I answer this Issue No.2 partly in the
Affirmative.
42. Issue No.2 in MVC.1601/2023: As
discussed in issue No.1 that it was the negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicle. With respect to the
SCCH-13 21 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
quantum of compensation, the Petitioner has claimed
that she incurred ₹1,00,000/- towards medical
treatment, food, conveyance and other incidental
expenses. As per Ex.P.9-wound certificate, the
Petitioner sustained abrasion over forehead, doctor
has opined that the injury is simple in nature. She
was managed conservatively without any surgical
intervention.
43. The petitioner has not produced any medical
bills and that she was working as a Customer
Relationship officer at CSB Bank, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru, earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per
month. However, she has not produced any
supporting documents to establish her avocation and
income, nor has she adduced any evidence to prove
that the injuries have resulted permanent disability or
that she is unable to perform her work as earlier. No
medical expert has been examined to substantiate any
claim of permanent disability.
44. There is also no cogent evidence to show that
her injuries have affected her daily activities or caused
long term functional impairment.
SCCH-13 22 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
45. Considering the nature of the injury and in
the absence of medical evidence specifically
quantifying disability, this tribunal is of view that the
petitioner must have endured considerable pain and
suffering. Taking into account her age and the
physical and emotional distress caused by the injury,
this court deems it appropriate to award global
compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. Hence, I answer
this Issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
46. Issue No.2 in MVC.1602/2023: As
discussed in issue No.1 that it was the negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicle. With respect to the
quantum of compensation, the Petitioner has claimed
that she incurred ₹1,00,000/- towards medical
treatment, food, conveyance and other incidental
expenses. As per Ex.P.11-wound certificate, the
Petitioner sustained abrasion over forehead and
forearm and other injuries, doctor has opined that
injuries are simple in nature. She was managed
conservatively without any surgical intervention.
SCCH-13 23 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
47. The petitioner has not produced any medical
bills and that she was doing business and earning
Rs.25,000/- p.m. However, she has not produced any
supporting documents to establish her avocation and
income, nor has she adduced any evidence to prove
that the injuries have resulted permanent disability or
that she is unable to perform her work as earlier. No
medical expert has been examined to substantiate any
claim of permanent disability.
48. There is also no cogent evidence to show that
her injuries have affected her daily activities or caused
long term functional impairment.
49. Considering the nature of the injury and in
the absence of medical evidence specifically
quantifying disability, this tribunal is of view that the
petitioner must have endured considerable pain and
suffering. Taking into account her age and the physical
and emotional distress caused by the injury, this court
deems it appropriate to award global compensation of
Rs.20,000/-. Hence, I answer this Issue No.2
partly in the Affirmative.
SCCH-13 24 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
50. Liability: Since it has been held that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of
the offending bus, Respondent No. 2 appeared before
this Tribunal and stated that the bus was duly insured
with Respondent No. 1, and therefore the insurer is
liable to indemnify the claim. To substantiate this
contention, Respondent No. 2 examined himself as
RW3.
51. Respondent No. 1 - the Insurance Company -
denied liability on the ground that the bus did not
possess a valid permit to ply at the place of the
accident. To prove this defence, the insurer examined
his official as RW2. The RTO official as RW1, who
produced the permit marked as Ex. R2. As per Ex. R2,
the permit was valid only within the territorial limits of
Bengaluru District, whereas the accident took place in
Chikkaballapur District. RW1 clearly stated that the
bus had no permit to operate in the place where the
accident occurred.
52. Respondent No. 2 contended that a vehicle
may operate outside the permit area for repair
purposes. However, it is noted that Respondent No. 2
SCCH-13 25 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
has not produced any document to substantiate that
the vehicle had gone outside the permit area for
repairs. In the absence of any supporting material, this
Tribunal cannot draw a presumption that the vehicle
was being taken for repairs. As per Ex R2, the permit
was restricted solely to Bengaluru District, and the
record does not disclose any valid reason for the
vehicle being operated outside the permit area.
53. The Insurance Company relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gohar
Mohammad v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation & Others, Civil Appeal No. 9322 of
2022, to argue that violation of permit conditions
renders the owner liable and absolves the insurer. The
petitioners and Respondent No. 2 have relied upon
certain decisions reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 -
Shamanna and another Vs. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., and others, First Appeal from
Order No.1780/2024 - ICICI Lombard
Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Smt.Arti Devi and 8 others.
Respondent No.2 has relied on MFA.30274/2010 -
Rehmat Bee and others Vs. Liiyaqat Ali,
SCCH-13 26 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
MFA.120/2011 - Durgamma Vs. S.G.Naresh and
another, ILR 200 KAR 1302 - United India
Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Chandamma and others, Civil
Appeal No.4834/2013 - S.Iyyapan Vs. M/s.United
India Ins.Co.Ltd., and another to support their
respective contentions.
54. After considering all the authorities cited, this
Tribunal notes that the decision relied upon by
Respondent No. 1 is a recent judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court delivered in 2022. Being the law
declared by the Apex Court, the same is binding. The
Supreme Court has clearly held that where a vehicle
plied on a route different from the one specified in the
permit, the owner fails to give any justification for such
deviation, it amounts to a violation of permit conditions.
The appellant failed to give any explanation to refute
the observations made by MACT that the vehicle was
operated on the Roorkee by pass to Haridwar via
Meerut which did not fall within the route of permit
issued by transport authority. This factual finding
have been affirmed by the High court as well. The
concurrent finding of the fact were upheld by the
SCCH-13 27 MVC.1600,1601 &
1602/2023
Hon'ble Apex court, which held that the violation of
permit conditions absolves the insurer from liability".
55. In the present case, Respondent No. 2 is a
school, and there is no legal impediment preventing
the insurer from satisfying the award in favour of the
third-party claimant. Hence, notwithstanding the
violation of permit conditions, this Tribunal is of the
view that the principle of "pay and recover" does not
require consideration in these circumstances.
Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 to pay the
compensation amount with 6 % interest. to the
petitioners. With these observations, I have answered
Issue No.2 Partly in the Affirmative.
56. Issue No.3 in all the petitions: In view of
the above discussion, reasons stated and findings
given to Issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
All these claim Petitions filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is allowed in part with cost.
SCCH-13 28 MVC.1600,1601 &1602/2023 The petitions against the respondent No.1 are dismissed.
Petitioner in MVC.1600/2023 is awarded compensation of ₹3,18,900/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. (except future medical expenses) from the date of petition till the realisation.
Petitioner in MVC.1601/2023 is awarded compensation of ₹20,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the realisation.
Petitioner in MVC.1602/2023 is awarded compensation of ₹20,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the realisation.
Respondent No.2 - owner shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of the compensation amount in MVC.1600/2023, 25% of the amount shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of 2 years. Remaining 75% amount shall be disbursed to him through E- payment on proper identification.
After deposit of the compensation amount in MVC.1601/2023 and 1602/2023, entire amount with interest shall be released in SCCH-13 29 MVC.1600,1601 & 1602/2023 favour of the Petitioners through E-payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at ₹1,000/- each.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court dated this the 18th day of November 2025).
(SHYLA S.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACJM, Member, MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioners :
PW.1 Narayanaswamy B.C. PW.2 Soniya J.N. PW.3 Shobha N. PW.4 Radhaa Krishna PW.5 Dr.Nagaraj. B.N.
List of documents marked for Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 &2 : True Copy of FIR & FIS Ex.P.3 & 4 : True Copy of spot mahazar & spot sketch 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 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of PW-1 SCCH-13 30 MVC.1600,1601 & 1602/2023 Ex.P.9 : True Copy of wound certificate Ex.P.10 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of PW-2 Ex.P.11 : True Copy of wound certificate Ex.P.12 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of PW-3 Ex.P.13 : Authorization letter Ex.P.14 : True copy of case sheet Ex.P.15 : Clinical notes Ex.P.16 : X-ray Ex.P.17 : Discharge summary List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 Shivakumar N. RW.2 Ashwini J. RW.3 Shreepad Ganesh Joshi
List of documents marked for Respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Authorization letter Ex.R.2 : Permit copy Ex.R.3 : Authorization letter Ex.R.4 : Copy of policy Ex.R.5 : Office Copy of letter Ex.R.6 : FC Ex.R.7 : Insurance policy (SHYLA S.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACJM, Member, MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.