Bangalore District Court
Chethan.N vs Savitha.R. Alias Savitha Nagaraj.R on 25 March, 2025
1
KABC0B0076452021
BEFORE THE MACT & XV ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-19) MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025
Present:
Sri. Mohan Sadashiv Pol,
B.A.LL.B.(Spl.)
XV Addl. Small Causes Judge
& XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
MVC.No.3913/2021
1) Sri. Chethan N. S/o.Narayanaswamy,
Age 22 years,
R/at Shivanapura, Hosakote,
Bangalore Rural-562 122. ..... Petitioner
(By Sri.M.D.Naveen, Adv.,)
-V/s-
1) Savitha @ Savitha Nagaraj R.
D/o. Rangappa,
No.193, 3rd Cross Balagere Bellandur,
In front of Government School,
Bangalore-560 003.
(RC Owner of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-53/MG-6960)
2) ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co., Ltd.,
No.121, the Estate, 9th Floor,
Deckonson Road, M.G. Road,
Bangalore-560 042. .....Respondents
SCCH - 19 2 MVC.3913/2021
(Policy No.SM560513,
Valid from 18.02.2020 to 17.02.2023)
(R.1 - Exparte)
(R.2 by Sri. P.S. Jagadish Adv.,)
Date of Institution of petition : 31-08-2021
Nature of petition : Petition U/Sec.166 of
MV Act.
Date of commencement of : 30-11-2022
Recording of evidence
Date of pronouncement of : 25-03-2025
Judgment
Total Duration : Year Months Days
03 06 24
JUDGMENT
The petitioner filed this petition under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989 against respondents, for claiming compensation due to injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief facts of the petitioner's case are that, on 30.06.2021 at about 4.30 p.m. he was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-53/EU-6053 from Shivanapura towards Kannamangala Village, on the left side of Chinthamani-Hosakote Main Road on state highway, near D.Shettihalli Gate in front of Madrid Factory, wherein the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53/ SCCH - 19 3 MVC.3913/2021 MG-6960 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, at high speed came from Hoskote towards Chinthamani and suddenly dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle from behind and caused the accident. As a result of forced impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Srinivas Specialty Hospital, Hoskote, thereafter he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient and undergone surgery and spent Rs.20,00,000/- towards medical expenses, transportation, conveyance and other charges.
3. Inspite of taking treatment, the petitioner undergoing tremendous hardship, pain and sufferings, mental agony and due to the said injuries, he cannot walk, sit, squat on the floor and cannot bear any weight, do any manual work and cannot walk without support and unable to discharge his day to day work and is feeling giddiness if he go to sunlight, hence, he lost his enjoyment in his life. Doctor has advice completely bed rest and to undergo 2 more surgery for his private part as it damage extensively, he has to incur more than Rs.5,00,000/- for future treatment.
4. Prior to the accident he was hale, healthy, aged about 22 years and doing flower merchant and earning a sum of Rs.35,000/-p.m. and due to accidental injuries he is not SCCH - 19 4 MVC.3913/2021 able to carry on his duties as before the accident and hence he lost his earnings. The Petitioner was suffering from pain, injury and mental agony and also facing great financial difficulties. This accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53/ MG-6960, hence, the Nandagudi Police have registered a case against driver of said vehicle in Crime No.103/2021n U/Sec.277 and 337 of IPC. Respondent No.1 and 2 are owner and insurer of the Car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prayed to grant the compensation.
5. In pursuance to the notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal and hence he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel & filed its written statement.
6. Brief averments of the written statement of respondent No.2 is that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and not admitting about issuance of insurance policy in respect of Car bearing Reg.No.KA- 53/MG-6960, this respondent denies the liability. Further contended that, there is unexplained delay of 3 days in lodging the police complaint and as per the MLC of Srinivasa Speciality Hospital, Hoskote, it reads as "RTA- Self fall on 30.06.2021 at 4.45pm near Shettyhalli while travelling on two wheeler. But it is not mentioned as hit by insured vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle did not SCCH - 19 5 MVC.3913/2021 possess valid D.L. and also not possess valid permit as on the date of the accident. hence, terms and conditions of insurance policy were violated. Further this respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner, medical expenses incurred by him and disability caused to him and also contended that, claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
7. On basis of the Pleadings and materials, this tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioner proves that, on 30.06.2021 at about 4.30 p.m when he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-53/EU-6053 from Shivanapura towards Kannamangala Village, proceeding on Chinthamani-Hoskote Main Road on State Highway, when he approached near D. Shettihalli Gate in front of Madrid Factory at that time driver of one Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53/MG-
6960 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endangering human life, came at a high speed and dashed to the petitioner motorcycle from behind. As a result of forced impact, the petitioner and pillion rider were fell down and sustained grievous Injuries?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3) Whether order or award?
SCCH - 19 6 MVC.3913/20218. In order to substantiate the case, petitioner got examined as PW.1 and got marked 22 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.20, Ex.P.24 and P.25. The petitioner got examined the MRD of Manipal Hospital as PW.2 and he got marked 03 documents at Ex.P.21 to P.23 and the petitioner also examined another witness by name Dr. Jamuna Rajeswaran as PW.3, who is the Professor of Neuropsychology, Department of Clinical Psychology, NIMHANS, Bangalore and she got marked a document at Ex.P.25. The petitioner examined one more witness by name Sri. Manjunatha C. as PW.4 he got marked a document at Ex.P.26. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 got examined the MRO of Srinivasa Hospital, Hosakote as RW.1 and he got marked 03 documents at Ex.R.1 to R.3 and also got examined its Legal Manager as RW.2 and he got marked a document at Ex.R.4.
9. Heard the arguments and perused the materials available on record.
10. For the following reasons, this Tribunal answers the above Issues as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.3 : As per final order, for the following:SCCH - 19 7 MVC.3913/2021
REASONS
11. Issue No.1:- The petitioner filed this petition against the respondents for claiming the compensation due to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.
12. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner Sri.Sandeep R. got examined himself as PW.1 and filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination. In his chief examination affidavit, he had reiterated the entire averments of the petition and got marked 22 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and P.24 and P.25. Ex.P1 is the F.I.R. Ex.P.2 is the Complaint, Ex.P3 is the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P4 is the IMV report, Ex.P5 is the Wound Certificate, Ex.P.6 is the notice U/Sec.133 of MV Act, Ex.P.7 is the reply of 133 notice and Ex.P.8 is the Charge Sheet. In the cross-examination he has stated that he has lost consciousness after accident, his uncle C. Manjunatha shifted him to the hospital. Further he has denied that the said accident is a self-fall and no other vehicle is caused the accident.
13. The petitioner got examined Sri. Siddappa Karegowdra, who is the MRD of Manipal Hospital as PW.2 and got marked 3 documents as Ex.P.21 to 23. Ex.P.21 is the authorization letter, Ex.P.22 is the discharge summary and Ex.P.23 is the inpatient record case sheet.
SCCH - 19 8 MVC.3913/2021In the cross-examination, nothing worthy has been elicited.
14. Dr. Jamuna Rajeswaran, who is the Professor of Neuropsychology, NIMHANS, Bangalore is examined as PW.3 and got marked a document as Ex.P.25 is the Neuropsychological Assessment Report. In the cross- examination she has stated that her department referred the petitioner for assessment of disability. Further denied that she has given higher disability.
15. The petitioner got examined his uncle Sri. Manjunatha C. as PW.4 and got marked Ex.P.16 is the Notarized Copy of Aadhar Card. In his chief-examination he has stated that he has lodged the complaint against the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-53/MG-6960 as per the information of the eye witnesses and also as the offending vehicle was parked near to the place of accident. Since, he was held up in the treatment of the petitioner, there is a delay of 03 days for filing the complaint. He has further stated that he has never given any statement before the Srinivasa Specialty Hospital, Bengaluru. In the cross-examination, he has denied that as per Ex.R.2 the history of accident is skid and fall. Further stated that the Car hit the bike.
16. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 examined the MRO of Hosakote Hospital as RW.1 and got marked 3 SCCH - 19 9 MVC.3913/2021 documents as Ex.R.1 to R.3. Ex.R.1 is the authorization letter, Ex.R.2 is the MLC and Ex.R.3 is the affidavit. The respondent No.2 has treated this witness as hostile and cross-examined. In the cross-examination by respondent No.2, he has deposed that, information to Ex.R.2 is given by Manjunath relative. During the cross-examination by the petitioner, he has stated that he cannot say who has written the Ex.R.2.
17. The respondent No.2 examined its Legal Manager, Sri. Naveena S. as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R.2 is the copy of policy.
18. The Counsel for the Respondent No.2 argued that, this accident is a self fall of the petitioner, there is a 3 days delay in lodging the complaint, the vehicle has been falsely implicated and filed the false petition. The counsel for the respondent No.2 relied upon Ex.R.2 wherein the entry has been made as self-fall.
19. PW.4 has stated that, he has lodged the complaint against the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-53/MG-6960 as it was parked near to the place of the accident. Since, he was held up in the treatment of the petitioner there is a delay of 03 days for filing the complaint. He has further stated that he has never given any statement before the Srinivasa Specialty Hospital, Bengaluru. In the cross- examination, he has denied that as per Ex.R.2 the history SCCH - 19 10 MVC.3913/2021 of accident is skid and fall. Further stated that the Car hit the bike. On perusal of the evidence of PW.4, it appears that he has shifted the petitioner to the hospital and he was engaged in treatment. He has denied to have been given the information to Ex.R.2. As he is not an eye- witness to the accident, the information given by him cannot be taken as a conclusive. He himself stated that he was engaged in the treatment and thereby lodged the complaint after 3 days and as per the say of witnesses the Car was traced as it was parked near by th place of the accident. On perusal of Ex.P.4 IMV report, it appears that the front left side Bumper is scratched. Hence it appears that, the offending vehicle is involved in the accident. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the respondent No.2 as above is not sustainable.
20. On perusal of Ex.P.3 spot mahazar, it discloses that the accident occurred as offending vehicle has hit the motorcycle of the petitioner from backside and caused the accident. Further on perusal of Ex.P.6 and 7 i.e., notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act and reply to the said notice, in the reply the owner of the vehicle admitted that one Arun Kumar was driving the vehicle on the date of alleged accident and he is having valid D.L. and insurance with Bharati Axa Gen. Ins. Policy No.SM560513 was in force on the date of accident. So it clearly indicates that the offending vehicle is involved in the accident. Further on SCCH - 19 11 MVC.3913/2021 perusal of charge sheet it discloses that, the Nandagudi Traffic Police filed the case against the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53/MG-6960 for the offence punishable U/Sec.279 and 338 of IPC. But, there is no any material to hold that, there is a contributory negligence on the part of the Petitioner.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR(Civil) 319 Kausum and others V/s Satbir and others held that, in the petition for compensation U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act.1988 the Petitioners have to prove the incident only on the preponderance of the probabilities and standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt is not required.
22. After careful scrutiny of Ex.P1-F.I.R. Ex.P2-first information, Ex.P3-spot mahazar, Ex.P4-IMV report, Ex.P5-Wound certificate, Ex.P6-notice U/Sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P7-reply to the notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act and Ex.P.9-Charge sheet, it appears that, the offending Car came from back side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle and caused the accident. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that, this accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53/MG- 6960. Hence, this Tribunal answered the Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
SCCH - 19 12 MVC.3913/202123. Issue No.2:- The petitioner claimed the compensation amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. As per Ex.P.5 wound certificate, the petitioner had sustained the injuries as...
1) Basal Skull fracture with diffuse axonal injury.
2) Diffuse Lateral edema.
3) Bilateral occipital condyle fracture.
4) Fracture C6 spinous process.
5) Left lung contusion with mediastinal haematoma.
6) Both Ear Lacerations.
7) Mild liver contusional injury.
8) Left Femur Shaft Fracture.
The doctor opined that, out of the said injuries, injury No.1 to 4 and 8 are grievous in nature and injury No.5 to 7 are simple in nature. Hence, by considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the Petitioner is entitled for amount of Rs.1,30,000/- as reasonable compensation under the head of pain and suffering.
24. The petitioner had produced medical bills which are marked as Ex.P.13. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has contended that the said bills are duplicate and some of them are cash receipts and advance receipts. Further PW.1 has produced the medical bills at Ex.P.25. The medical bills at Ex.P.13 Sl.No.1 and Ex.P.25 are one and the same and Ex.P.25 is the original bill. On perusal of bills at Sl.No.2 to 8 in Ex.P.13, it appears that, they are the cash receipts and advance bills, therefore, they have SCCH - 19 13 MVC.3913/2021 not been considered. As per Ex.P.25 it appears that, the total bill paid by the petitioner is of Rs.15,53,999/-. Hence, by considering the bills, the petitioner is entitled to claim the amount of Rs.15,53,999/- under the head of medical expenditure.
25. As per Ex.P.8 discharge summary the petitioner took treatment at Manipal Hospital from 30.06.2021 to 31.07.2021 for 31 days. Therefore, by considering the period of treatment taken as inpatient this tribunal awarded reasonable compensation of Rs.31,000/- under the head Transportation, Nourishment and Conveyance charges.
26. To prove the assessment of disability, the petitioner got examined Dr. Jamuna Rajeswaran as PW-3. In the chief examination, she has deposed that the petitioner had alleged history of Traumatic brain injury in 2021 following which he had behavioral and memory issues and a diagnosis of diffused cerebral edema was made. He was referred from Department of Neurosurgery, NIMHANS, Bangalore for Neuropsychological assessment Neuropsychology Unit on the 9th June 2023 for cognitive disability assessment. On clinical observation patient came walking to the testing room, he was alert and conscious and oriented to time, place and person. Report could be established his attention could not be aroused but difficult to sustain, he was not cooperative and SCCH - 19 14 MVC.3913/2021 motivated. He could understand and follow even simple instructions but difficult instructions he could not understand. His speech was clear, his mood was unstable and gets irritable easily, his psychomotor activity was decreased, his reaction time was increased. Further she deposed that on NIMHANS head injury battery impairment was seen in category fluency, phonemic fluency, verbal working memory, visual workingmemory and verbal learning and memory indicating by-frontal and left temporal involvement. He gets a cognitive disability is 18.18% with the above disability the patients need help in some of his activities of daily living and vocation and she produced the Neuropsychological Assessment Protocol. In the cross-examination she has stated that she is not a treated doctor, her department referred the petitioner for assessment. She denied that she has given higher disability. However, by considering the evidence of PW.3 and medical documents produced by the PW.1 and 3, this Tribunal had taken the disability of the Petitioner at 14% to the whole body.
27. Petitioner has contended that, prior to the accident the he was doing his own business and earning Rs.35,000/- p.m. and due to accidental injuries he is not able to carry on his work as before the accident, hence, he lost his earnings. The petitioner had not produced any document to prove his income and avocation. In present SCCH - 19 15 MVC.3913/2021 days the Coolie worker get Rs.400/- to 500/- per day. However by considering the age and occupation of petitioner this Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the Petitioner at Rs.15,000/-.
28. As per Ex.P.10 Notarized Copy of Aadhar Card, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 26.05.1999. Therefore, age of the petitioner is taken as 22 years at the time of accident. Then the proper multiplier applicable is 18 which comes as follows:
Rs.15,000 x 12 x 18 x14% = Rs.4,43,600/-
Hence, this Tribunal awards Rs.4,53,600/- under the head loss of future earning capacity on account of disability.
29. The petitioner stated that, prior to the accident he was doing self business and earning Rs.35,000/- p.m. and due to injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to attend the work and facing financial difficulties. The petitioner had not produced any document to prove his income and avocation. This accident occurred in the year 2021. However by considering the age and nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal awarded reasonable compensation amount of Rs.60,000/- under the head loss of income during laid up period.SCCH - 19 16 MVC.3913/2021
30. The petitioner was doing his own Business and earning Rs.35,000/- p.m. due to accidental injuries his routine work was hampered for some days. The petitioner was admitted as an inpatient for 31 days. Therefore, by considering this aspect and the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this tribunal awarded the amount of Rs.60,000/- as reasonable compensation under the head loss of amenities.
31. Considering oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence, it is just and proper to grant compensation as follows:
Sl. Under the heads Amount
No.
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,30,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 15,53,999/-
3. Transportation, Nourishment, 31,000/-
Conveyance and attendant Rs.
charges.
4. Towards loss of future income on Rs. 4,43,600/-
account of permanent disability
5. Towards future medical expenses Rs. NIL
6. Loss of income during laidup Rs. 60,000/-
period.
7. Towards loss of amenities of 60,000/-
life
Total Rs. 22,78,599/-
The Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.22,78,599/-. It is rounded off to Rs.22,78,600/-.SCCH - 19 17 MVC.3913/2021
32. Interest:
For awarding interest, in MFA.No.103557/2016 (between Sriram General Insurance Co. ltd., V/s Smt. Lakshmi & others, dd 20-03-2018) the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, held that as per Sec.34 of CPC the rate of interest can be awarded in MVC Cases, cannot be more than 6% p.a. Hence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for interest @6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
33. Liability:-
As per the Petition, the Respondent No.1 & 2 are the RC Owner & Insurer of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53/MG-6960. The respondent No.2 has contended that, it has not issued the insurance to the offending vehicle. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the offending vehicle has been insured under the policy No.SM560513 through Bharati Axa Gen.Ins.Co., presently this company is merged with the respondent No.2 company and the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. On perusal of Ex.P.7 reply given by the owner of the offending vehicle, it is clear that, the offending vehicle is covered by the policy No.SM560513. RW.2 has also produced the said policy at Ex.R.4. On perusal of it, it appears that the policy is of No.P33/SM560513/4102/006269 and it was issued for SCCH - 19 18 MVC.3913/2021 Hundai Venue HY-422P Model Car, the Chassis Number and Engine Number are clearly mentioned. It is not the case of the respondent No.2 that the said Chassis Number and Engine Number are not of the offending vehicle. Since, the policy is of new vehicle, obviously the vehicle number will not be entered. The policy is issued by Bharati Axa Gen. Ins. Co., but, it bears the seal of respondent No.2. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
34. As already discussed in the Issue No.1 it is proved that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle, hence Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Further the Respondent No.2 being Insurer of the offending vehicle is primarily held liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Tribunal answered Issue No.2 in the Partly Affirmative.
35. Issue No.3: for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The claim petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby Partly allowed with cost.SCCH - 19 19 MVC.3913/2021
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.22,78,600/- interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
The Respondent No.1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Further, Respondent No.2 being insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation amount together with 6% interest within 60 days from the date of this order.
After deposit, the entire compensation amount along with interest shall be released in favour of the Petitioner with proper identification (as the petitioner has incurred huge amount for medical expenses).
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 25th day of March 2025) MOHAN Digitally signed by MOHAN SADASHIV POL SADASHIV Date: 2025.04.03 POL 17:06:09 +0530 (Mohan Sadashiv Pol) XV ASCJ & Member, MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 : Sri.Chethan N. PW.2 : Sri. Siddappa Karegowdra. PW.3 : Dr. Jamuna Rajeswaran. PW.4 : Sri. Manjunatha C.
List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of F.I.R. Ex.P.2 : True Copy of Complaint. Ex.P.3 : True Copy of Spot Mahazar. SCCH - 19 20 MVC.3913/2021 Ex.P.4 : True Copy of IMV report. Ex.P.5 : True Copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.P.6 : True Copy of Notice U/Sec.133 of MV Act. Ex.P.7 : True Copy of Reply to the Notice. Ex.P.8 : Discharge summary. Ex.P.9 : True Copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.P.10 : N/c of Aadhar Card of the petitioner. Ex.P.11 : N/c of Property Sale Deed. Ex.P.12 : RTC Copy of Property. Ex.P.13 : Medical bills. Ex.P.14 to 19: Six Photos. Ex.P.20 : C.D. Ex.P.21 : Authorization Letter. Ex.P.22 : Discharge Summary. Ex.P.23 : Inpatient Record Case Sheet. Ex.P.24 : Discharge Summary. Ex.P.25 : Medical Bill. Ex.P.25 : Neuropsychological Assessment Report produced by the PW.3. (Ex.P.25 is marked two times) Ex.P.26 : N/c of Aadhar Card of PW.4.
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 : Sri.Manjunath. RW.2 : Sri. Naveena S.
List of documents marked for Respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Authorization Letter.
Ex.R.2 : MLC
Ex.R.3 : Copy of Affidavit.
Ex.R.4 : Copy of Policy. Digitally signed by
MOHAN MOHAN SADASHIV
SADASHIV POL
Date: 2025.04.03
POL 17:06:16 +0530
(Mohan Sadashiv Pol)
XV ASCJ & Member, MACT,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.