Bangalore District Court
Rakesh C.S vs Gangaramaiah B.L on 2 February, 2026
KABC020189332022
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
AT: BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.3370/2022
Dated this 2nd day of February, 2026
Petitioner: Rakesh C.S. S/o Shivanna,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at Narayanakere, Channavalli,
Tumkur - 572 120.
(Sri Shivaramaiah, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Gangaramaiah B.L. S/o
Lakshmegowda,
Beeramaranahalli, Idaguru Post,
C.S. Pura Hobli, Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District.
(RC owner of Maruti Omni Van
bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950)
(Sri Venkata Reddy N., Advocate)
2 MVC No.3370/2022
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office,
#9/2, Mahalakshmi Chambers,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Policy No.
98000031210110340472, valid
from 25-07-2021 to 24-07-2022)
(Sri V. Shrihari Naidu, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 08-05-2022 at about 7.45 p.m. the petitioner after attending the Beegara Oota at Ranganathaswamy Temple Samudaya Bhavana, situated at Surugenahalli, was returning back to his village in his relative's car. His relative dropped him on the way at Kerekodi, near Hebbur, Kodipalya. Thereafter, the petitioner crossed the Kunigal- 3 MVC No.3370/2022 Tumkur road, bt carefully observing the vehicle movements and was a pedestrian on the extreme left side of the road towards his village Hebbur. At that time, suddenly a Maruti Omni Van bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950 came from behind i.e. from Tumkur towards Hebbur side, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life, without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to M.C. Orthopaedic, Arthroscopy and Joint Replacement Center, Ashok Nagar, Tumkur, wherein he took treatment as an in-patient. Earlier to the accident, he was working as auto driver and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, he has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity. The Hebbur Police have registered the case against the driver of the said Maruthi Omni Car, for the 4 MVC No.3370/2022 offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel. The respondent No.2 has filed its written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.1 did not choose to file his written statement.
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has denied the involvement of the Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N- 3950 in the alleged accident and also the manner of accident. Further it has denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner, injuries sustained, medical expenses and 5 MVC No.3370/2022 treatment taken by him. It has contended that, at the time of alleged accident the driver of the Omni car was driving the same carefully, cautiously and on the correct side of the road. The accident in question has taken place solely due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the petitioner himself, who was darting across the road without observing the flow of traffic on the busy road. Further it is contended that, the injuries if any sustained by the petitioner are simple in nature and the petitioner has recovered from the same and he is leading a normal life. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950 in favour of respondent No.1 and the same was valid from 25-07-2021 to 24-07-2022. Further it is contended that, the owner of the vehicle has willfully entrusted the vehicle to the person who did not had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the Omni car on the date of the accident. Hence, there is a breach and violations of the terms and conditions of the policy. It seeks protection 6 MVC No.3370/2022 under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it has contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance of provisions under Section 134(C) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the petitioner has contributed to the cause of the accident and the degree of negligence on the part of the petitioner was on the higher side, as such the liability if any, as far as this respondent is concerned should considerably be reduced and mitigated by taking into consideration of the higher degree of the negligence on the part of the petitioner. Further, it has sought permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
7 MVC No.3370/2022
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident, alleged to have occurred on 08-05-2022 at about 7.45 p.m., near Kodipalya Village, Tumkur-
Kunigal road, Hebbur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, Tumkur, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Omni Car bearing Reg. No.KA-
06-N-3950 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 17 documents as Ex.P.1 to 17. Further, he has got examined one more witness namely Dr. Ramesh B., as P.W.2. On the other hand, 8 MVC No.3370/2022 the respondents No.1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on 08-05-2022 at about 7.45 p.m., near Hebbur, Kodipalya, when he crossed the Kunigal-Tumkur road carefully and was walking on the extreme left side of the road, towards his village Hebbur, at that time suddenly the driver of offending Maruti Omni Van bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, 9 MVC No.3370/2022 endangering to human life, without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the petitioner from behind. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident, he was working as auto driver and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, he has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity.
10. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein he has reiterated entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of his oral evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 17 documents as Ex.P.1 to
17. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.4 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is true copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.6 is 10 MVC No.3370/2022 true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.7 and 8 are discharge summaries (total 2), Ex.P.9 are prescriptions (total
19), Ex.P.10 are medical bills (total 20), Ex.P.11 are x-rays (total 5), Ex.P.12 is true copy of statement of witness, Ex.P.13 is true copy of insurance policy, Ex.P.14 is notarized copy of Aadhar card, Ex.P.15 is notarized copy of driving licence, Ex.P.16 is OPD book and Ex.P.17 is x-ray.
11. On meticulously going through the above police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 6 and 12, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950 and dashing the same to the petitioner from behind, who was pedestrian on the said road. Due to said impact the petitioner has fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his left leg, shoulder and ankle and other parts of the body. The investigation officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.3, has clearly stated that, the said accident is caused due to 11 MVC No.3370/2022 rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950.
12. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, the issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 in respect of car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner has remained undisputed by the owner of offending vehicle/Respondent No.1, as he did not choose to file his written statement and contest the case of the petitioner. Whereas, the respondent No.2 insurance company has specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and taken specific defence that, the alleged accident has taken place solely due to the carelessness and negligence of the petitioner himself, who was darting across the road without observing the flow of traffic on the busy road and there was no 12 MVC No.3370/2022 negligence on the part of the driver of Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950 and the said vehicle is not at all involved in the alleged accident. But, the respondent No.2 has failed to establish the said contentions. It has neither adduced any evidence, nor produced any document to establish the said contentions. Even, the respondent No.2 has not stepped into witness box to depose the above contentions on oath. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950 and dashing the same the petitioner, who was pedestrian on Tumkur- Kunigal road. Further it reveals that, due to said impact the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries on his left leg, shoulder and ankle in the said accident. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his 13 MVC No.3370/2022 mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence or which goes to show that, the said accident has taken place due to the negligence of the petitioner himself or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
13. Further, the Ex.P.4 spot mahazar also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on the extreme left side of 33 feet wide on Tumkur-Kunigal road, Hebbur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, due to dashing of offending Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950 to the petitioner, who was pedestrian on the said road. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.6, the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle involved in the accident. When the accident was not caused due to the any mechanical defects in the offending vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said 14 MVC No.3370/2022 accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.3 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950 and the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged either by the driver or the owner of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, negligence of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to the petitioner in the said accident.
14. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.5 wound certificate, Ex.P.7 and 8 discharge summaries (total 15 MVC No.3370/2022
2), Ex.P.11 x-rays (total 5), Ex.P.16 OPD book and Ex.P.17 x- ray, it clearly reveals that, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. The petitioner has suffered fracture lateral end of clavicle displaced. The same is deposed by P.W.2, who is the doctor who has clinically examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent No.2, to show that the above medical records are false documents. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Therefore, in such circumstances and in the light of above observations, it can be safely held that, the respondent No.2 has failed to rebut the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950 and injuries sustained to the petitioner in the said accident.
16 MVC No.3370/2022
15. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident claim cases the strict principle of proof in a criminal case are not required."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held that, "in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are merely required to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
17 MVC No.3370/2022
17. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, he has sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 08-05-2022 at about 7:45 p.m., on Tumkur-Kunigal road, Hebbur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
18. Issue No.2: While answering the above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending Omni car bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950 and he has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. The medical records placed on record clearly speaks that, the petitioner has sustained fracture lateral end of clavicle displaced and for the said injuries he has undergone surgery. Therefore, 18 MVC No.3370/2022 this Court is of the further opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under various heads. The damages are to be assessed under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages, such as medical treatment, attendants, transport, actual loss of earning, future loss of earning etc., and non- pecuniary damages, such as mental and physical shock, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, loss of prospects of marriage etc. The petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
19. Towards loss of future income: In order to determine the compensation towards loss of future income, the age, monthly income and disability of the petitioner are to be determined. To prove his age, the petitioner has produced the notarised copy of his Aadhar card and driving licence, which are marked as Ex.P.14 and 15. As per Ex.P.14 and 15, the date of birth of the petitioner is 08-04-1998. The accident has taken place on 08-05-2022 at about 7:45 p.m. 19 MVC No.3370/2022 This clearly goes to show that, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident was 24 years. Further, the P.W.2, who is the doctor who has examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability, has clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief affidavit that, on clinical examination he found that, the petitioner has suffered fracture lateral end of clavicle displaced. Further he has deposed that, on clinical and radiological examination of injuries sustained by the petitioner he found that, there is 15% physical disability to left upper limb and 5% physical disability to the whole body of the petitioner. Further, the Ex.P.5 wound certificate, Ex.P.7 and 8 discharge summaries (total 2), Ex.P.11 x-rays (total 5), Ex.P.16 OPD book and Ex.P.17 x-ray clearly speaks that, the petitioner has suffered the above stated injuries and for the said injuries he has undergone surgery. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross-examined P.W.2 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which 20 MVC No.3370/2022 creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence. Further, he has clearly denied the suggestions made to him that, the petitioner has not suffered any disability and he has exaggerated the percentage of disability. Further, it is pertinent to note that, the P.W.2 has deposed in his evidence that, the accident has occurred on 08-05-2022 and he has assessed the disability to the petitioner on 13-10- 2025, which is after lapse of three years and five months from the date of injuries caused to the petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to note that, P.W.2 has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that, the petitioner has suffered undisplaced fracture, the said fracture is at lateral portion of clavicle bone, as it is a simple fracture the same has been operated by fixing K-wire, the said K-wire is removed, there is no outer wound and fracture is united properly, alignment is normal, there is no loss of muscle, the petitioner has been advised to undergo physiotherapy, he can do his work on his own and he can perform day to day 21 MVC No.3370/2022 activities with some difficulties. Therefore, in such circumstances and taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, injuries sustained, avocation of the petitioner, duration of treatment and oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that, considering the physical disability of 4% to the whole body of the petitioner would be justified. Hence, in the instant case the disability of 4% to the whole body of the petitioner is considered.
20. The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that, before accident he was working as auto driver and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Further he has deposed that, due to grievous injuries suffered in the said accident he is unable to do his work. The respondent No.2 has specifically denied the same. In such circumstances, the burden was on the petitioner to prove his avocation and income. To substantiate the same, he has produced driving licence, which is marked as Ex.P.15. But, the petitioner has 22 MVC No.3370/2022 failed to establish the same through cogent and corroborative evidence. He has not produced any document to show that, before accident he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no other option before this Court, except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident took place in 2022. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.15,500/- per month and the annual income of the petitioner at Rs.1,86,000/-.
21. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier for a person whose is aged about 24 years is 18. Therefore, loss of future income is Total annual income X disability/100 X multiplier = Rs.1,86,000 X 4/100 X 18 = Rs.1,33,920/-.
23 MVC No.3370/2022
22. Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed that, he has incurred expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charge etc. In order to prove the same, he has produced 25 medical bills, as per Ex.P.10. All the bills have been examined carefully and found that the petitioner has spent total amount of Rs.85,042/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.85,042/- under the head of medical expenses.
23. Pain and sufferings: In the present case, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries i.e. fracture lateral end of clavicle displaced. As per Ex.P.7 and 8 discharge summaries (total 2), the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 8 days from 08-05-2022 to 13-05- 2022 and 01-07-202 to 02-07-2022, in M.C. Orthopaedic, Arthroscopy and Joint Replacement Centre, Tumkur. Further, as per P.W.2, the said injuries have caused physical disability to the petitioner. In such circumstances, certainly 24 MVC No.3370/2022 the petitioner would have suffered pain and sufferings. Therefore, taking into consideration the injuries sustained and disability suffered by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that, an compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
24. Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.7 and 8 discharge summaries (total 2), the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 8 days in M.C. Orthopaedic, Arthroscopy and Joint Replacement Centre, Tumkur. He might have spent considerable amount towards attendant charges during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.1000 x 8 = Rs.8,000/- is awarded towards the attendant charges.
25. Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.7 and 8 discharge summaries (total 2), the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 8 days in M.C. Orthopaedic, Arthroscopy and Joint Replacement Centre, Tumkur. He might have spent considerable amount towards food and 25 MVC No.3370/2022 nourishment during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 8 = Rs.6,400/- is awarded towards food and nourishment charges.
26. Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the resident of Narayanakere, Channavalli, Tumkur, the accident has taken place on Tumkur-Kunigal road, Hebbur Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and the petitioner has taken treatment at M.C. Orthopaedic, Arthroscopy and Joint Replacement Centre, Tumkur. Taking into consideration the distance in between the place of accident and place of treatment, compensation of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards conveyance.
27. Loss of income during treatment period: The petitioner has taken treatment for 8 days as in-patient at M.C. Orthopaedic, Arthroscopy and Joint Replacement Centre, Tumku, for the grievous injuries sustained by him. He might have taken rest for about 2 months and lost his income for the said period. Therefore, Rs.15,500 x 2 = 26 MVC No.3370/2022 Rs.31,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period.
28. Loss of amenities: It is evident from the documents placed on record that, as on the date of accident the age of the petitioner was 24 years and unfortunately he has suffered fracture lateral end of clavicle displaced. Further, he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 4% to the whole body. Therefore, awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities would be just and reasonable.
29. Future medical expenses: The P.W.2 has not stated that, the petitioner is in need of any further treatment. Further as per Ex.P.8 discharge summary, the implants have been removed. In such circumstances, question of awarding compensation to the petitioner towards future medical expenses does not arise. Hence, no compensation is awarded under the head future medical expenses. 27 MVC No.3370/2022
30. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads as follows:
1. Loss of future income Rs. 1,33,920-00
2. Medical expenses 85,042-00
3. Pain and sufferings 40,000-00
4. Attendant charges 8,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 6,400-00
6. Conveyance expenses 5,000-00
7. Loss of income during 31,000-00 treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 30,000-00
9. Future medical expenses Nil Total Rs. 3,39,362-00 In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,39,362/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization.
31. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N- 3950. As per Ex.P.13 insurance policy bearing 28 MVC No.3370/2022 No.98000031210110340472, issued by the respondent No.2, in respect of offending Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-06-N-3950, was valid from 25-07-2021 to 24-07-2022. As such, the said policy was valid as on the date of accident i.e. 08-05-2022. There is no evidence on record to show that, there is breach of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by the respondent No.2. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-06-N-3950 the accident in question has taken place. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, the primary liability is on the 29 MVC No.3370/2022 respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,39,362/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of petition till its realization, from the respondent No.2, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
32. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,39,362/- (Rupees three lakh thirty nine thousand three hundred and sixty two only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount to the 30 MVC No.3370/2022 petitioner. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.2
- Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order.
The entire compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through e-payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 2 nd day of February, 2026) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: Rakesh C.S. S/o Shivanna
P.W.2: Dr. Ramesh B. S/o V. Bangaru
31 MVC No.3370/2022
Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement Ex.P.3: True copy of Charge-sheet Ex.P.4: True copy of Spot Mahazer Ex.P.5: True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.6: True copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.7 & 8: Discharge Summaries (total 2) Ex.P.9: Prescriptions (total 19) Ex.P.10: Medical Bills (total 25) Ex.P.11: X-rays (total 5) Ex.P.12: True copy of Statement of Witness Ex.P.13: True copy of Insurance Policy Ex.P.14: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card Ex.P.15: Notarized copy of Driving Licence Ex.P.16: OPD Book Ex.P.17: X-ray Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.