Bangalore District Court
Prakash G M vs Bhusankar Reddy K on 19 November, 2025
KABC020325772024
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 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
MVC No.4075/2024
PETITIONER: Sri. Prakash.G.M.,
Son of Mallireddy,
Aged 43 years,
R/at Gownicheruvapalli
Village,
Peddur Post, Chintamani
Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District.
(By Sri. Shivakumar R.,
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri. K. Bhusankar Reddy
Son of Major, in-age,
R/at No.2-25-B-8-6-1,
Rajanagar, Madanapalli Town
and Taluk, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh-517 325.
SCCH-25 2 MVC No.4075/2024
RC Owner of Toyota Innova Car
bearing Reg.No.AP-39-BV-3398
(Ex-parte)
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO.LTD.,
Krishi Bhavan, 6th Floor,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
Policy No. 0516023124P100781154,
Valid from 14-4-2024 to 13-4-2025
Insurer of Vehicle bearing Reg.
No.AP-39-BV-3398
(By Smt. Geetha Raj,
Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
This judgment arise out of claim petition filed by the claimant 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 him in the road traffic accident occurred on 20.04.2024.
2. The case of the claimant in nutshell is that:
On 20.04.2024 at about 3.50am, the petitioner was proceeding by riding his Bajaj Platina Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-40-EC-1690 slowly, cautiously, SCCH-25 3 MVC No.4075/2024 observing all traffic rules and regulations from Gownicheruvapalli Village to Chintamani Market on Kadapa-Bengaluru High Way Road, when he reached near Gopalli Village Gate, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura Dist. an Innova Car bearing Reg.No.AP-39-BV-3398 came with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and came his extreme right side i.e., wrong side and dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle from opposite side. As a result, petitioner fell down and suffered grievous injuries.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Srinivaspura, wherein provided first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to Narendra Hospital, Kolar, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 20.04.2024 to 24.04.2024 for better treatment and thereafter he was shifted to St.John's Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 24.04.2024 to 03.05.2024, underwent operation CRIF IMILN of right as an Elective Procedure under SA on 26.04.2024 was done and injuries treated conservatively and discharged with advice. So far he has spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards hospitalization, SCCH-25 4 MVC No.4075/2024 conveyance, medical treatment, attendant and other incidental expenses. Due to the said accidental injuries, petitioner is suffering with permanent disability. He is not able to lead a normal life as prior to the accident.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, he was doing Agriculture and Milk Vending Work and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, he became permanently disabled and unable to do his profession and not getting his income.
5. The accident has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Innova Car bearing Reg.No.AP-39-BV-3398 and in this regard a case has been registered by Kencharlahalli Traffic Police under Cr.No.51/2024 against the driver of the said Innova Car P/U/Sec.279, 337 of IPC. Hence, the respondents being the RC owner and the Insurer of the Innova Car bearing Reg.No.AP-39-BV-3398 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, petitioner prays for award for the total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
SCCH-25 5 MVC No.4075/20246. In response to the notice, the respondent No.2 appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of summons, the respondent No.1 did not appear hence, placed ex-parte.
6A. The 2nd respondent in its written statement has denied the entire petition averments except admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the Innova Car bearing Reg.No.AP-39-BV-3398 in favour of the 1st respondent. There is non compliance of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid DL as on the date of accident. Further the offending vehicle plied without valid permit and fitness certificate as on the date of accident. It has also denied the manner of accident. Further, it has denied the age, occupation, medical expenses etc., of the petitioner. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against it.
7. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for determination.
SCCH-25 6 MVC No.4075/2024Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred on 20-04-2024 at 3:50am due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Innova car bearing Reg.No.AP-39- BV-3398 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
Issue No.2: Whether the petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
Issue No.3: What Order or Award?
8. In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 22 documents as per Exs.P.1 to 21 & 24. Dr.Chidanand K.J.C - Orthopedic Surgeon and Asso Professor Orthopedics at Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics, Bangalore got examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.22 & P.23. On the other side, the respondents did not examine any witness nor produced any documents on their behalf.
9. I have heard the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before this tribunal, my SCCH-25 7 MVC No.4075/2024 answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.3: As per final order for the foregoing:
#REASONS#
11. Issue No.1: In order to substantiate the claim petition contention, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1. The petitioner has got examined Dr.Chidanand K.J.C as PW.2. Exs.P1 to 21 & 24 were marked through PW.1. The PW.2 has got marked Exs.P22 & 23. The details of the exhibits are given in the annexure of the judgment.
12. The chief examination of the PW.1 is nothing but a repetition of plaint averments. The PW.1 has been subjected to cross examination. The PW.1 has deposed that the bike ridden by him is belonged to himself only. On that particular day of accident he was going to market to sell the Brinjal and he had 10Kgs of Brinjal Bag on the back side of the Bike. The accident spot was Highway Road. There is no divider on the Road. The Road was 40 feet width. There were no vehicles on the left and right side of him as on the date of accident. Further SCCH-25 8 MVC No.4075/2024 stated that in the morning time the vehicle movements were less. There was 3-4 feet wideth mud road on the footpath. He saw the Innova Car from 20 feet distance. He was on the left side of the road and the road had a curve road. The Car dashed to his bike's front side. Complaint was lodged by his wife Shobha. The accident spot was shown in the Ex.P.4 is correct. The front portion of the bike was damaged. Further he denied other suggestions of the counsel in the cross examination.
13. The petitioner has totally relied on the police documents to establish the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle's driver. The spot mahazar to Sketch indicates that petitioner was moving near Gopalli Village, at that time the offending Innova Car came from Bangalore side with high speed and dashed to the petitioner's motorcycle and caused the accident. The Sketch also shows the spot of the accident it is the Highway Road that too Two way road towards Chinthamani and Madanapalli. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was moving towards Chinthamani side and the offending Car was coming/going opposite direction towards Madanapalli. So, it indicates that the two vehicles were on the opposite direction. The accident SCCH-25 9 MVC No.4075/2024 spot itself indicates that the offending vehicle was on right side of the path. It is undisputed fact that the accident spot having little curve. It does not mean that the vehicle are at liberty to cross their lane to turn their vehicle. Or in other words, it is duty of the driver of the offending vehicle to observe the opposite coming vehicle, they ought to confirm themselves or himself about clearance of the Road or on coming vehicles. In the same time, the oncoming vehicle have also taken utmost care of coming vehicle on the opposite road because its a Two way Road. The petitioner has suffering from stroke 2 episodes and the same is borne out from the Ex.P7. So, the tribunal cannot be brushed aside about sudden shock of the petitioner due watching the vehicle from 20 feet. Apart from that, the sketch itself indicates that there was sufficient space for two wheeler to proceed on his left side. It means, the petitioner has not made any attempt to avoid the accident. Hence, both the petitioner and driver of the offending vehicle have contributed to accident in dispute. Both these persons have taken minimal care and caution, the accident might have postponed. It is no doubt the police have submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle after thorough investigation. But the final report is not sole basis to SCCH-25 10 MVC No.4075/2024 come to definite conclusion regarding the rashness as alleged. The final report is certainly helping toll to the tribunal to ascertain the rashness. However, the person who alleges about the negligence on the offending vehicle ought to have prove his case by touchstone of preponderance of all probability.
14. The insurance company has taken a contention that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. A perusal of the charge sheet, the police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused or driver of the offending Car. The police have referred section 279 & 338 of IPC against the accused. The police have not charge sheeted for the offense punishable under section 3 read with 181 of Motor Vehicle Act. Thus in overall consideration, the petitioner has contributed 10% towards the accident and the driver of the offending vehicle has contribute at the ratio of 90% to accident in dispute. Hence, I decline to hold that the accident was occurred on sole negligence of offending vehicle's driver. So, I hold issue No.1 partly in affirmative.
15. Issue No.2: The petitioner has produced the wound certificate and call the medical records from the concerned hospital. The wound certificate SCCH-25 11 MVC No.4075/2024 (Ex.P5) discloses that, the petitioner has sustained (1) Fracture of right side of leg bones, (2) Fracture of right thigh bones, (3) Cut wound in left side of scalp, (4) H/o at head injury, (5) Right shaft of femur fracture and (6) Right femur partial but the DVT which are grievous in nature. In this regard, the petitioner has examined Dr.Chidanand K.J.C. as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.22 & P.23. PW.2 has reiterated the petition averments in his chief examination. The PW.2 has stated in the chief examination affidavit that "on examination, PW.2 diagnosed that the petitioner suffered Right Femur shaft fracture, underwent surgery in the form of CRIF with IMIL nailing at St. John's hospital, Bangalore. On examination he observed that the petitioner had range of movements of knee, hip restricted quadriceps wasting is seen, painful hip and knee joint line, associated with pain on movements knee hip, daily activities cross leg sitting, squatting for using Indian Toilets were found to be difficulty in limb. X-ray femur shows fracture united with implants in situ. The PW.2 has opined that the petitioner has permanent physical disability for limb is 45% and to the whole body at 15%. PW.2 has been cross examined by the counsel for R-2. During the cross examination of PW.2, he has deposed that he SCCH-25 12 MVC No.4075/2024 was not treated the petitioner. He has gone through discharge summary and wound certificate. The fractures are united. Further admitted that PW.2 mentioned the difficulties in his certificate but there were not shown in the medical documents. There were no muscle loss to the petitioner.
16. Before discussing on this point, it is necessary to advert to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay 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 SCCH-25 13 MVC No.4075/2024 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.
17. Our Hon'ble High Court has held in a 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 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 SCCH-25 14 MVC No.4075/2024 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."
18. 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 SCCH-25 15 MVC No.4075/2024 injuries. And it certainly affected on movement of the right leg. The petition discloses that the petitioner was doing Agriculture and Milk vending work. The evidence of the medical officer clearly clinches that on clinical examination, the medical officer has pointed out the difficulties of the injured person to do routine work and also squat on floor, climb upstairs. It means, the petitioner is not in position to do the earlier work effectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a judgment/decision of 1ALIVELI MALLAREDDY Vs SURTHANI LINGANNA @ CHINNA LINGANNA & Others. in paragraph No.10 "This evidence has been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and having regard to the fact that the Almanco Manual would suggest that the disability when not assessed to the whole body, the disability to the lower limb will be 1/5 and upper limb be ¼ of the disability assessed."
By considering the age, nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered functional disability 9% (45% / 1/5 of right lower limb) to the whole body. As such, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 9% whole body. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under the following heads. 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19636 of 2024) dated 07.04.2025 SCCH-25 16 MVC No.4075/2024 PECUNIARY DAMAGES I. Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and misc. expenditures.
19. The claimant has contended that he has taken treatment at Government Hospital, Srinivasapura and thereafter shifted to Narendra Hospital, Kolar, wherein took treatment as an inpatient for 5 days and thereafter shifted to St.John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 24.04.2024 to 03.05.2024, took conservative treatment and discharged with advice for complete bed rest. Further the Discharge Summaries of St. John's Medical College hospital produced by the petitioner at Exs.P.12 & 13 indicates that, the petitioner was admitted on 24.04.2024 and discharged on 03.05.2024 and again admitted on 31.08.2024 and discharged on 02.09.2024. The petitioner has produced the Medical bills of St. Jonh's Medical College Hospital and IP Bills of Narendra Hospital as per Exs.P.18, 21 & 24. On careful perusal of the medical bills, it is worth note herein that the serial No.19 to 21 of Ex.P18 are not medical bills because these bills are written on SCCH-25 17 MVC No.4075/2024 prescription and in serial No.19 bill neither hospital seal or authorised signatory signature are available. Hence, I decline to grant the amount referred in these bills to petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,31,972/-under the head of Medical Expenses. As supra said, the petitioner has admitted in the said Hospital as an inpatient for a period of 16 days. 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.16,000/-. A sum of Rs.16,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant, food and nourishment charges.
(ii) LOSS OF EARNING
20. The claimant has contended that, he was an Agriculturist and Milk Vendor and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has not produced any other documents like vouchers, Bank Statement etc., He has failed to prove his exact income. So, considering the nature of work notional income of Rs.16,500/-pm. is calculated to award loss of earning, it would meets the ends of justice. Therefore, I award Rs.8,800/- to the claimant under the head of loss of earning during the treatment.
SCCH-25 18 MVC No.4075/2024(b) LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
21. The claimant has examined the Doctor to substantiate the disability as PW-2. As already discussed above, the petitioner was suffered disability. The medical officer has given physical disability of 15% Points for functional loss of malocclusion. By considering the nature of injuries and treatment, it is appears to Court that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 9%. As per the petition averments, the age of the claimant is 43 years. The Aadhar Card, PAN Card and DL of the petitioner marked at Exs.P14, 15 & 16 clearly discloses that, the age of the petitioner was 42 years. Therefore, the age of the claimant is considered as 42 years to assess the loss of future earning and the multiplier is 14. As I have already stated the notional income of the claimant is Rs.16,500/-pm, The loss of future earning is calculated as Rs.16,500/- (Monthly income) X 12 (Months) X 14 (multiplier) X 9 (disability)÷100 =Rs.2,49,480/- which is the just and proper compensation payable to claimant.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES (GENERAL DAMAGES) SCCH-25 19 MVC No.4075/2024
(iii) Damages for pain and suffering and trauma consequence of the injuries.
22. The claimant has undergone pain and suffering during the accident and during the rehabilitation period. Therefore, I award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant under the head of pain and suffering.
23. The claimant in all entitled for just compensation under the following heads:
Sl. NATURE OF THE HEADS COMPENSATION No. 01 Medical Expenses Rs.3,31,972=00 02 Loss of income during Rs.8,800=00 treatment 03 Attendant, Food & Rs.16,000=00 Nourishment charges 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000=00 05 Loss of future earning on Rs.2,49,480 =00 account of disability TOTAL Rs.7,06,252=00
24. The next question is the liability to pay the said compensation. As I discussed in supra, the petitioner had contributed 10% towards the accident SCCH-25 20 MVC No.4075/2024 and the driver of the offending vehicle has contribute at the ratio of 90% to accident in dispute. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.6,35,625=00 (Rs.07,06,250=00 × 90 ÷100). 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 petitioner. Hence, I answer issue No.2 partly in affirmative.
25. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings to the above Issues, I proceed to pass the following:
-: ORDER :-
The claim petition filed by claimant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is allowed in part as against respondent No.2.
The Petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.6,35,625/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs Thirty Five
Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty
Five Only) with interest at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and directed to deposit the same SCCH-25 21 MVC No.4075/2024 within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation, the petitioner is 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.
Draw the award accordingly. (Directly typed and computerized by the stenographer, corrected by me then pronounced in the open Court on this the 19th day of November, 2025) (RAGHAVENDRA.R) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Sri. G.M.Prakash PW.2 Dr. Chidanand K.J.C.
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
Exs.P3 True copy of spot mahazar along with
&4 sketch
SCCH-25 22 MVC No.4075/2024
Ex.P5 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P6 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P7 IMV report
Ex.P8 True copy of Notice and reply
u/Sec.133 of MV act
Ex.P9 Photos
Exs.P10 OPD Cards and Recommendation & 11 Exs.P12 Two Discharge summaries & 13 Ex.P14 Attested copy of Adhaar card of petitioner (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P15 Attested copy of PAN card of petitioner (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P16 Attested copy of DL of petitioner (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P17 Attested copy of RC (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P18 Medical bills 51 in Nos.
Ex.P19 Prescriptions 22 in Nos.
Ex.P20 Advance bills 9 in Nos.
Ex.P21 Vouchers 21 in Nos.
Ex.P22 Clinical Notes
Ex.P23 X-ray
Ex.P24 IP bills
SCCH-25 23 MVC No.4075/2024
List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
-- NIL --
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
-- NIL --
(RAGHAVENDRA.R) XXIII ASCJ, MEMBER MACT, Bangalore.