Bangalore District Court
Anand.M vs Girish.B on 6 September, 2025
KABC020350832022
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU. (SCCH-_25)
-: PRESENT:-
PRESENT: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA. R,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
MVC Nos.6529/2022 & 6530/2022
PETITIONER/s Sri. M.Vittala
in MVC No.6529/2022: S/o V.R.Mohan,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at 12/1, 1st 'A' Main,
Brothers Mens Wear,
JC Nagar, Mahalaxmipuram,
Bengaluru - 560086.
(By Sri. Y.S.Prakash,
Advocate/s)
PETITIONER/s Sri. M.Anand
in MVC No.6530/2022: S/o V.R.Mohan,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at 12/1, 1st 'A' Main,
3rd Cross, JC Nagar,
Mahalaxmipuram,
Bengaluru - 560086.
(By Sri. Y.S.Prakash,
Advocate/s)
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.6529/2022
& MVC No.6530/2022
V/S
RESPONDENTS 1. Girish B.
in both the cases: S/o Basavaraju,
Renuka Nagara,
Mallappa Layout,
Nelamangala - 562 123.
(By Sri. Bylegowda B.,
Advocate/s.)
2. The Manager
ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins.
Co. ltd.,
Second SVR Complex,
Housur Main Road,
Bengaluru - 560068.
(Policy No.3003/243457443/00/000
dated : 25.03.2022 to 24.03.2023)
(By Sri. L.S.Renukappa,
Advocate/s.)
3. New Adarsha Chicken
Center
#178/42/3B,
Adarshanagar Main Road,
Arshinakunte (V),
Nelamangalal Taluk,
Bangalore - 562 123.
Rep. by its
Proprietor NH Gangarajaiah.
(By Sri. Bylegowda B.,
Advocate/s)
SCCH-25 3 MVC No.6529/2022
& MVC No.6530/2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
These judgments arises out of claim petitions filed by the claimants against respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "Act") praying to award compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them in the road traffic accident occurred on 17.07.2022. Since the respondents in these two cases are the same, these cases are consolidated and common evidence are ordered to be recorded in MVC No.6529/2022.
2. The case of the claimants in nutshell is that:
On 17.07.2022 at about 3.40pm, the petitioners in both the cases had visited for a function of their friend Devaraj house at Tata Apartment, situated at Makali - Huskur Road in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-HU-5065 while returning home near Aluru Cricket Stadium, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk from Makali side a LMV goods vehicle (APE) bearing Reg.No.KA-52-B-3800 came with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and was driven by its driver recklessly, unmindfully SCCH-25 4 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 wihtout following traffic rules and dashed to the petitioners' vehicle. Due to impact petitioners fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.6529/2022 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Abhay Vasishta Hospital and then shifted to Ramaiah Medical College Hospital at MSR Nagar, Bangalore wherein admitted as an inpatient for a period of 18 days and underwent Ex Fix removal of right lower limb and Ex Fix removal of right wrist and other medical treatment and then discharged with advice to take regular follow up treatment up to one year. So far he has spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses. On account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed ridden, he could not attend his work, undergoing deep mental shock since, the injuries caused are permanent in nature.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy, working as a Driver and earning a sum of Rs.19,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries SCCH-25 5 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 he could not attend his work, resulted in loss of earnings, earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.
5. It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.6530/2022 that:
Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Vijayanagar Hospital, Bangalore, wherein admitted as an inpatient for a period of 5 days and underwent ORIF of radius and ulna right under brachial block and several medical treatment and then discharged with advice to take regular follow up treatment up to one year. So far he has spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental expenses. On account of the said accidental injuries petitioner was completely bed ridden, he could not attend his work, undergoing deep mental shock since, the injuries caused are permanent in nature.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy, working as a Two Wheeler Mechanic and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries he could not attend his work, resulted in loss SCCH-25 6 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 of earnings, earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.
7. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the offending LMV Goods Vehicle bearing No.KA-52- B-3800. The Madanayakanahalli Traffic Police have registered a case in their Cr.No.346/2022 and filed charge sheet against the said driver p/u/Secs 279 & 337 of IPC. The respondents being the RC owners and the insurer of the offending LMV Goods Vehicle bearing No.KA-52-B-3800 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners in both the cases. Hence, in both the cases, each petitioners prays for award for the total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- respectively.
8. In pursuance of notice, the respondents appeared through their respective counsels and filed separate written statements.
8A. The respondent No.1 has filed written statement by denying all the petition averments except admitting that he was the driver of the said LMV Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-B-3800 SCCH-25 7 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 having with effective driving license and also had valid insurance policy with the respondent. Further stated that there is no negligence on the part of the R-1 in causing the accident. He further denied the age, occupation, income, manner of accident etc., Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against him.
9. That the respondent No.2 in the written statement has denied the entire petition averments and also denied the issuance of policy in respect of the LMV Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-B- 3800. There is non compliance of Sec.158(6) and 134(c) of MV Act. It has denied the negligence of the driver of the LMV Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA- 52-B-3800. But the accident caused due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the petitioner's vehicle. Further contended that the driver of the LMV Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-B-3800 did not possessed the valid and effective DL as on the date of accident. The accident occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-HU-5065. It has also denied the age, income, avocation, medical expenses of the SCCH-25 8 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 petitioners. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismiss the petition against it.
10. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
(Issues in MVC No.6529/2022) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 17.07.2022 at 3.40pm due to rash and negligent driving of driver of LMV Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-B-3800 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
(Issues in MVC No.6530/2022) Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 17.07.2022 at 3.40pm due to rash and negligent driving of driver of LMV Goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-52-B-3800 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
SCCH-25 9 MVC No.6529/2022& MVC No.6530/2022 Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? Form whom?
Issue No.3: What order or Award?
11. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioners of both cases have examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P12. Sri. Ravi Prakash B.G. - Attender at Medical Records Department at MS Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore examined as PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.13 to P.16. Sri. Naveen Kumar - Attender at Medical Records Department at Vijayanagar Hospital at PW.4 and got marked Exs.P.17 to P.20. Dr.Nagaraj B.N. - Orthopaedic Surgeon at Sai Ortho and Dental center and resident of Bangalore got examined in both the cases as PW.5 and got marked Exs.P.21 to P.24. The legal Manager of the respondent No.2 has got examined (in both the cases) as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 & R.2. The respondent No.3 has got examined himself as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R.3 and R.4.
12. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
SCCH-25 10 MVC No.6529/2022& MVC No.6530/2022 The counsel for the petitioner has produced the following citations:
1. 2011 ACJ 926 : Kusum Lata and Ors. Vs. Satbir and Ors.
2. 2011 ACJ 1261 : Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. ReeNA Awasthi and Ors.
3. ILR 2015 KAR 167 : Dr. Yashwanth Dongre Vs. Salman Rasheed and Ors.
4. 2011 ACJ PAGE 1: Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr.
5. 2005 ACJ 644 : M.V.Chowdappa Vs. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd. and Anr.
13. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my answers to the above issues (in both cases) are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order for the
foregoing:
#REASONS#
14. Issue No.1 in both the cases: In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioners of both cases have examined themselves as Pws.1 & 2. The petitioners have also got examined SCCH-25 11 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 Attender and Medical Record Keepers as Pws.3 & 4 and also got examined Doctor as PW.5. Exs.P1 to P.12 were marked through Pws.1 & 2. The Pws.3 & 4 have got marked Exs.P13 to 20. Exs.P21 to 24 have got marked thorugh PW.5. The legal officer of the respondent No.2 has examined himself as RW.1, got marked Exs.R1 & 2 and R-3 got examined himself as RW.2 and got marked Exs.R.3 & 4. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
15. The chief examination of the Pws.1 & 2 are nothing but a repetition of plaint averments. These witnesses have been subjected to cross examination. The relevant portion of the PW.1 is herewith reproduced:
The PW.1 has deposed that: "he was the rider of the motorcycle and he had DL as on the date of accident. The Road width was 20 feet. He has further denied other suggestions of the counsel."
16. The PW.2 has denied the material suggestions in the cross examination.
17. The official of the insurer company has reiterated the defense set out in the written SCCH-25 12 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 statement in her chief examination. She has been subjected to cross examination. The RW.1 further denied all the material suggestions of the petitioner counsel.
18. The respondent No.3 has reiterated the defense set out in the written statement in his chief examination. He has been subjected to cross examination. The RW.2 has stated that he was not traveling in the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. He has not given any complaint relating to the accident. Further admitted that the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Further the offending vehicle was driven by R-1.
19. It is well settled position of law that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are summary in nature and it is beneficial legislation and the evidence required about negligence act is sufficient if it is in the nature of preponderance of probability.
20. The petitioners have totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's driver. It is no doubt the police have submitted the charge sheet against SCCH-25 13 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 the driver of the offending LMV Goods vehicle after thorough investigation. The spot mahazar indicates that the Petitioners riding by their motorcycle (which is involved in the accident) were proceeding towards Aluru Road and at 4.00pm an APPE Goods vehicle came from opposite direction i.e., from Malaki and dashed to the petitioners' motorcycle and both were fell down and suffered injuries. The oral evidence of the petitioners have coupled with documentary evidence. The insurance company has denied the accident and manner of accident. But the material on record clearly depicts that the petitioners were on their road and the offending vehicle was came from opposite direction. So, the arguments does not holds any kind of water. The material on records are clearly indicates that the accident has occurred sole negligence on the offending vehicle's driver. When the driver of the offending Goods vehicle had taken minimal care, the accident would have been postponed or not occurred.
21. The contention of the insurance company that the driver of the offending Vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. The RW.1 has reiterated the same along with other SCCH-25 14 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 facts in his chief examination affidavit. The RW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. Nothing has been elicited throughout the cross examination.
22. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused or driver of the offending vehicle which is belongs to respondent No.1 and further the police have charge sheet against the driver/respondent No.1 for the offense punishable under sections 279. 338 and 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The police have referred section 279, 338 of IPC and section 187 of MV Act against the accused i.e., driver of the offending offending vehicle. Hence, it can be hold that the driver of the offending vehicle does not possessed the valid driving license at the time of the alleged accident. As I referred above, the police have not charge sheet against the rider of the bike. Though, the rider of the bike was not possessed the driving license but it cannot be held that the he contributed to the accident to occur when all other convincing evidence speaks that the rider of the other vehicle which is involved in the accident was solely at fault. In this regard, I would like to rely on the judgment of Our Hon'ble High Court. Our Hon'ble High Court of SCCH-25 15 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 1 Karnataka has held in MFA No.617-2021(MV-I) dated 16.07.2025 that "11. Only because the appellant was not holding driving license to ride his vehicle which is involved in the accident it cannot be held that the he contributed to the accident to occur when all other convincing evidence speaks that the rider of the other vehicle which is involved in the accident was solely at fault. Therefore, this Court holds that the tribunal erred in attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant."
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a decision 22018 (5) SCC 656 held "24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein it was contended by the vehicle owner that the criminal case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal and for which reason the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act ought to be rejected. This Court negatived the said argument by observing 1 Shivegowda VS Nanjeshgowda and another 2 Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCCH-25 16 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 that the nature of proof required to establish culpable rashness, punishable under IPC, is more stringent than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The observation made in para 3 of the judgment would throw some light as to what should be the approach of the Tribunal in motor accident cases. The same reads thus :
"3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy SCCH-25 17 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighbor. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practiced by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard."
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and SCCH-25 18 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied"
The Court cannot adopt strict liability as conducted in a criminal case to prove rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the respondent vehicle. But there should be prima-facie materials regarding rash and negligence to fix the owner and insurance company for payment of compensation. Therefore, a straight jacket formula cannot be adopted in accepting the rash and negligence on the part of driver of the insured. The materials on records are clearly indicates that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. So, I hold issue No.1 in both the cases in the affirmative.SCCH-25 19 MVC No.6529/2022
& MVC No.6530/2022
24. Issue No.2 in MVC 6529/2022:
The petitioner/PW.2 of MVC No.6529/2022 has produced the wound certificates from the concerned hospital. The wound certificate (Ex.P8) discloses that, the petitioner has sustained (i) right lower limb : sutured wound over anterior aspect of right knee, CLW over anterior aspect of proximal leg swelling, tenderness, X-ray shows comminuted fracture of distal end of right femur (b) (RP) proximal tibial fibula open fracture. (ii) Right 2nd metatarsal fracture, (iii) (Rt) trooper terrarium fracture and (iv) Abrasion over right shoulder. Out of these injuries, injury Nos.1, 2 and 3 are grievous in nature and injury No.4 is simple in nature. The petitioner got examined two Attender at Medical records Department as Pws.3 and 4 and got marked Exs.P.13 to 20. During the cross examination of Pws.3 & 4, nothing worthwhile is elicited. Apart from this, the petitioner has examined one Dr. Nagaraj B.N. as PW.5. The PW.5 has stated in the chief examination affidavit paragraph Nos.3 to 7 that "upon clinical examination it is found that the petitioner has sustained compound comminuted fracture of the right distal femur and right proximal tibia with compound fracture of the right trapezium and 2nd Metacarpal SCCH-25 20 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 fracture. He has undergone right knee spanning Ex-
Fix application and Ex-Fix for the right forearm and wrist on 19.07.2022 and later discharged. He has complains of pain in the right knee, limping gait, unable to sit down, squat and sit cross leg and carry his job as tailor. On examination the petitioner has wasting of the right thing muscles, with limping gait, shorting of the right lower limb, knee movements only 30 degree shortening of 4 inches. X-ray of the right femur and tibia shows mal-united fracture femur with implant in situ. On examination the petitioner has wasting of the right forearm muscles, restricted right forearm movements. The X-ray of right forearm shows united fracture with implanst in situ. The PW.5 has opined that the physical disability of the right lower limb at 66% and to whole body disability at 22%.
The PW.5 has been subjected to cross examination. During the cross examination he has not given treatment to the petitioner. He has not seen the case sheet. Further stated that the bones are crookedly joined together.
25. Before discussing on this point, it is necessary to advert to the observations made by the SCCH-25 21 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay 3 Kumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned".
26. Our Hon'ble High Court has held in a 3 2011 ACJ 1 SCCH-25 22 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 case MFA.811 OF 2015 (MV-I) decided on 18 July, 2019 in between Rajanna @ Raju and another V/s Srinivas and another that "It is necessary to understand the meaning of the expression "permanent disability", which has been elucidated in Rajkumar. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to SCCH-25 23 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is
permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent,
whether it is permanent total disablement or
permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person."
SCCH-25 24 MVC No.6529/2022& MVC No.6530/2022
27. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained grievous and simple injuries. And it certainly affected on functioning over the right leg. The medical officer has given physical disability at 22 Points for whole body. The petition discloses that the petitioner was doing Driving work. The material on record and the evidence of the medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, it is very difficulty to do his routine work. It means, the petitioner is not in position to do the earlier/Driving work effectively. As such, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 22% whole body. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
28. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Abhay Vasishta Hospital, Bangalore and then shifted to Ramaiah Medical College Hospital at MSR Nagar Bangalore. The SCCH-25 25 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 Petitioner has not produced the discharge summary to show the duration/period of the treatment in the above said hospitals. The petitioner has produced medical bills at Ex.P.1 for a sum of Rs.25,103/-. On careful perusal of the medical bills, it is appears to Court that there is no repetitive bills. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.25,103/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of treatment and medical expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospitals as inpatient for a period of nearly 18 days as said in the petition but they have not produced any relevant documents for the same. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.500/-per day for attendant and Rs.500/- for food and nourishment charges, which would comes Rs.18,000/-. A sum of Rs.18,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
29. The claimant has contended that, he was working a Driver and was earning of Rs.19,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has not placed any kind of document. He has failed to prove his exact income. So, considering the nature of work notional income of Rs.15,500/-pm is calculated to SCCH-25 26 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.9,000/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
30. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as PW-5. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability of 22%. On perusal of documents and PW.5 assessment and considering the fractures sustained by the petitioner, this tribunal holds that the petitioner has disability of 22% Points for functional loss of malocclusion. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 33 years. The Aadhar Card marked at Ex.P12 clearly discloses that, the age of the petitioner was 33 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 33 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 16. As I have already stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.15,500/-pm, The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.15,500/- (Monthly income X 12 (Months) X 16 X 22%/100 = Rs.6,54,720/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant.
SCCH-25 27 MVC No.6529/2022& MVC No.6530/2022 NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
31. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
32. As per the version of PW.5, the Petitioner needs arthrolysis surgery and the estimate of this surgery is around Rs.60,000/-. In this regard neither the petitioner nor PW.5 has produced any estimation bill about further surgery. As per the evidence of Pws.1 & 5 and looking at the earlier treatment cost and the evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Future Medical Expenses.
33. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
SCCH-25 28 MVC No.6529/2022& MVC No.6530/2022 Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses Rs.25,103=00 02 Loss of income during Rs.9,000 =00 treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.18,000=00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000=00 05 Loss of future earning on Rs.6,54,720 =00 account of disability 06 Future Medical Expenses Rs.25,000=00 TOTAL Rs.7,81,823=00
34. Issue No.2 in MVC 6530/2022:
The petitioner/PW.1 of MVC No.6530/2022 has not produced the wound certificate or discharge summary to show the fractures and details of treatment taken by the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has examined one Dr. Nagaraj B.N. as PW.5. The PW.5 has stated in the chief examination affidavit Apart from this, the petitioner has examined one Dr. Nagaraj B.N. as PW.5. The PW.5 has stated in the chief examination affidavit paragraph Nos.11 to 14 that "upon clinical examination it is found that the petitioner has sustained fracture of the radius SCCH-25 29 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 and ulna fo the right forearm and underwent ORIF with plate and screws on 19.07.2022 and later discharged on 21.07.2022 and later he was on regular follow up treatment and again on 23.01.2024 got admitted for bone grafting and later discharged on 25.01.2024. The petitioner complains of unable to lift weights in the right forearm and carry his work as Mechanic. On examination the petitioner has wasting of the right forearm muscles, restricted right forearm movements. The X-ray of right forearm shows united fracture with implants in situ. The PW.5 has opined that the petitioner has disability of the Right arm at 39% and to the whole body disability at 13%. The PW.5 has been subjected to cross examination.
During the cross examination he has stated that the fractures are united.
35. By considering the dictums of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Our Hon'ble High Court and also evidence led by the medical officer, It is appears to Court that, the petitioner has sustained grievous and simple injuries. And it certainly affected on functioning over the right hand. The medical officer has given physical disability at 13 Points for whole body. The petition discloses that the petitioner was doing Mechanical work. The material on record and SCCH-25 30 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 the evidence of the medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, it is very difficulty to do his routine work. It means, the petitioner is not in position to do the earlier/Mechanic work effectively. As such, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 13% whole body. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
36. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Vijayanagar Hospital, Bangalore. The documents placed by the petitioner indicates that he has taken treatment before the said hospital. The Petitioner has not produced the discharge summary to show the duration/period of the treatment in the above said hospitals. The petitioner has also not produced any medical bills to prove his medical expenses towards treatment. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitle any compensation to the claimant under the head of treatment and medical expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospital as inpatient for a period of nearly SCCH-25 31 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 5 days as said in the petition but they have not produced any relevant documents for the same. Hence, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.500/-per day for attendant and Rs.500/- for food and nourishment charges, which would comes Rs.5,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
37. The claimant has contended that, he was working a Mechanic and was earning of Rs.30,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has not placed any kind of document. He has failed to prove his exact income. So, considering the nature of work notional income of Rs.15,500/-pm is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.2,500/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
38. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as PW-5. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability SCCH-25 32 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 of 13%. On perusal of documents and PW.5 assessment and considering the fractures sustained by the petitioner, this tribunal holds that the petitioner has disability of 13% Points for functional loss of malocclusion. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 32 years. The Aadhar Card marked at Ex.P11 clearly discloses that, the age of the petitioner was 31 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 31 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 16. As I have already stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.15,500/-pm, The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.15,500/- (Monthly income X 12 (Months) X 16 X 13%/100 = Rs.3,86,880/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES)
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
39. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
SCCH-25 33 MVC No.6529/2022& MVC No.6530/2022
40. As per the version of PW.5, the Petitioner needs one more surgery for the removal of implants and the estimate of this surgery is around Rs.60,000/-. In this regard neither the petitioner nor PW.5 has produced any estimation bill about further surgery. As per the evidence of Pws.1 & 5 and looking at the earlier treatment cost and the evidence on record, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of Future Medical Expenses.
41. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses NIL 02 Loss of income during Rs.2,500 =00 treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.5,000=00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000=00 05 Loss of future earning on Rs.3,86,880 =00 account of disability 06 Future Medical Expenses Rs.25,000=00 TOTAL Rs.4,69,380=00 SCCH-25 34 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022
42. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As the respondents failed to prove their defense. The petitioner proved that as on the date of accident the policy was in force. Therefore, Respondent No.2 has to indemnify the respondent No.1 and liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, I answer issue No.2 in both the cases partly in affirmative.
43. Issue No.3 in both cases:- In view of my findings to the above points, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petitions filed by claimants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are allowed in part against respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.6529/2022 is entitled for
SCCH-25 35 MVC No.6529/2022
& MVC No.6530/2022
compensation of Rs.7,81,823/-
(Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighty One
Thousand Eight Hundred and
Twenty Three Only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to till realization.
The Petitioner of MVC
No.6530/2022 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,69,380/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Nine
Thousand Three Hundred and
Eighty only) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to till realization.
On deposit of compensation,
the petitioners of both cases
entitled to withdraw 70% and
remaining 30% shall be invested as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.
The Advocates fee of Rs.1,000/- fixed.
Keep the copies of this judgment in MVC No.6530/2022.SCCH-25 36 MVC No.6529/2022
& MVC No.6530/2022 Draw the award accordingly. (Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 6th day of September, 2025) (RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Petitioner:
PW.1 : Sri. Anand M.
PW.2 : Sri. M. Vittala
PW.3 : Sri. Ravi Prakash B.G.
PW.4 : Sri. Naveen Kumar
PW.5 : Dr. Nagaraj B.N.
List of documents marked for the petitioner:
Ex.P1 Medical Bills 49 in Nos.
Ex.P2 True copy of spot mahazar
Ex.P3 True copy of Notice and reply u/Sec.133
of MV Act.
Ex.P4 True copy of seizure mahazar
Ex.P5 True copy of statement of injured
Ex.P6 True copy of Additional statement of
Victim
Ex.P7 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P8 True copy of Wound Certificate 2 in Nos.
SCCH-25 37 MVC No.6529/2022
& MVC No.6530/2022
Ex.P9 True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P10 Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of
Ananda
Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of Adhaar card of Vitala Ex.P13 Authorization letter Ex.P14 Attested copy of MLC report Ex.P15 Attested copy of Police Intimation Ex.P16 Case sheet related to Vitala Ex.P17 Authorization letter Ex.P18 Attested copy of MLC report Ex.P19 Attested copy of Police Intimation Ex.P20 Case sheet related to Anand Ex.P21 Clinical Notes Ex.P22 X-ray Ex.P23 Clinical Notes Ex.P24 X-ray List of witnesses examined for the Respondents.
RW.1 : Sri. R.Roshni Ashwitha RW.2 : Sri. N.H.Gangarajaiah
List of documents marked for the Respondents: Ex.R.1: Authorization letter Ex.R.2: Copy of insurance policy SCCH-25 38 MVC No.6529/2022 & MVC No.6530/2022 Ex.R.3: Attested copy of DL Ex.R.4: Attested copy of RC smart Card (RAGHAVENDRA R.) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.Digitally signed by RAMACHANDRAPPA
RAMACHANDRAPPA RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA Date: 2025.09.10 16:35:17 +0530