Bangalore District Court
Ramesh.C vs Kavitha.R on 1 December, 2025
KABC020175702023
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-17
Present: Sri.KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L, LL.M.,
Member, MACT
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 1st day of December - 2025
MVC No. 3970/2023
PETITIONER/S: Sri Ramesh C.,
Aged about 59 years,
S/o Late Chikkalingaiah,
R/at No.124, 'Nandagokula',
University Layout,
BEML 5th stage, Rajarajeshwari
Nagara, Bengaluru - 560 098.
(By Sri. Ashoka S.M. Adv.,)
V/s.
RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt. Kavitha R.,
Aged about 45 years,
W/o Harish Rao,
R/at No.16, New Samukha Enclave,
BEML Layout, 5th stage,
Rajarajeshwari Nagara,
Bengaluru - 560 098.
(Exparte)
SCCH-17 2 MVC No.3970/2023
2. Liberty General Insurance Ltd.,
No.21/5, The Lan Mark,
4th floor, M.G. Road,
Near Trinity Metro,
Bengaluru- 560 001.
(By Sri Kiran Pujar, Adv. )
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 15.08.2022.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 15.08.2022 at about 1.15 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing No. KA-05-ED-
1310 along with pillion Sri. Ramesh on 6 th cross, BEML 5th stage, Rajarajeshwari nagara, Bengaluru, at that time the rider of another motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-
1742 has ridden the same at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, when the petitioner has stopped his motorcycle in front of the house No.96, SCCH-17 3 MVC No.3970/2023 the said rider dashed the petitioner from behind and caused accident. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. On verification it was found by the petitioner that the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-41-ES-1742 was one Dakshinamurthy and he was minor at that time.
Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Sparsh Hospital wherein he was admitted as inpatient. Prior to the accident, petitioner was very hale and healthy, aged about 59 years and working as Government Electric Contractor and earning Rs.1,25,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries petitioner is not able to do his work as he was doing prior to the said accident and suffered loss of income.
The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
with interest.SCCH-17 4 MVC No.3970/2023
3. After service of summons, respondent No.1 - owner remained absent hence, the respondent No.1 was placed exparte.
Respondent No.2 - insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement by admitting the issuance of policy in respect of the motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742 and the liability of this respondent, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further contended that, at the time of accident, the minor rider was riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA-41-ES-1742 and he was not having driving license hence, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 insurance company denied the involvement of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-ES-1742. Further denied the age, avocation, alleged disability and income of the petitioner. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the respondent No.2 - SCCH-17 5 MVC No.3970/2023 insurance company prays to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival contention, the following issues are framed by this court:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, the accident occurred due to rash and negli-
gent act of riding of motorcycle bearing No.KA-41-ES-1742 and as a result he sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner proves the age and earnings of the petitioner as stated in the claim petition?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for com-
pensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 17 and P.27 and P.28. Further, examined two witnesses as PW.2 & 3 and got marked Ex.P18 to 26.
SCCH-17 6 MVC No.3970/2023
On the other hand respondent No.2 examined its officials as RW.1 and 2 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R4.
6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material evidence that are available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments in support of their arguments:
1. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 1970-1971 of 2023 - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
2. First Appeal No.1344/2014 DD.28.03.2025 - Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
3. 2025 INSC 1204 Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others.
The learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied on the following judgments in support of its defence:
MFA No.202712/2023 dated 07.01.2025 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ananthamma & others.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the partly affirmative,
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative,
SCCH-17 7 MVC No.3970/2023
Issue No.4 : As per final orders
for the following:-
: R E A S O N S:
ISSUE NO.1 :
8. That by reiterating all the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu of- examination in-chief, which is considered as P.W.1. In support of his case, he has produced true copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar along with sketch, IMV report, wound certificate, charge sheet and discharge summary, which are marked under Ex.P.1 to P8.
9. On perusal of Ex.P1- FIR which is registered on the basis of Ex.P2 first information given by one Nandakishore who is the son of the petitioner. Thereafter the spot mahazar along with sketch as per Ex.P3 and P.4 was conducted by the IO wherein it discloses that the accident spot is in the left side portion of the road. It is alleged that when the petitioner was standing by parking his two-wheeler, the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA- SCCH-17 8 MVC No.3970/2023 41-ES-1742 came from backside and dashed against the rear side of the motorcycle of the petitioner. The contents of mahazar and sketch as per Ex.P3 & 4 establishes the negligence of rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES- 1742 who came and dashed against the parked motorcycle.
10. The Ex.P5 is the IMV report reveals that the offending motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742 has got damages in its front registration number plate, head light assembly and instrument panel board, front both side indicators broken, left side portion of the front crash guard bent, left side portion of the foot gear lever bent. On the other hand, the motorcycle of the petitioner has got damages in its right side portion of the fuel tank, head light assembly, right side portion of the handle bar ben, front wheel hand brake lever broken, rubbing marks found on right side portion of instrument panel board. The Ex.P.5 establishes the involvement of both the vehicles. The contents of spot mahazar, sketch and IMV SCCH-17 9 MVC No.3970/2023 report helped the petitioner to prove the alleged negligence of rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES- 1742. Further it is very important to note that as pleaded by the petitioner in his petition, the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-41-ES-1742 was a minor as such he being a minor might have caused the accident without having control and not knowing the riding of the motorcycle.
11. In spite of sufficient opportunity the respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742 neither filed written statement nor examined its rider by denying the alleged negligence. Wherefore in the absence of any cogent evidence which could rebut the assertions made by PW-1 on oath supported by Ex.P-7 which is the charge sheet and the documents annexed therewith, this court should not have any impediment to conclude that the said documents prima-facie suffice to hold that accident occurred due to rash and actionable negligence on the SCCH-17 10 MVC No.3970/2023 part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-41-ES- 1742. The view taken by this Court that the police records are prima- facie proof in support of the case of the petitioner, is supported by the decision rendered in Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others reported in 2013 (4) T.A.C 5 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held thus:
In view of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal should have considered both oral and documentary evidence referred to supra and appreciated the same in the proper perspective and recorded the finding on the contentious issue No. 1 & 2 in the affirmative. But it has recorded the finding in the negative on the above issues by adverting to certain statements of evidence of AW-1 and referring to certain alleged discrepancies in the FIR without appreciating entire evidence of AW-1 and AW-2 on record properly and also not assigned valid reasons in not accepting their testimony. The Tribunal should have taken into consideration the pleadings of the parties and legal evidence on record in its entirety and held that the accident took place on 19.07.1992, due to which Tikaram sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same and the case was registered by the Uniara Police Station under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC read with Sections 133 and 181 of the M.V. Act against the first and second respondents. The registration of FIR and filing of the charge- sheet against respondent Nos.1 & 2 are not in dispute, therefore, the Tribunal should have no option but to accept the entire evidence on record and recorded the finding on the contentious issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the appellants.
(Emphasis supplied by me) SCCH-17 11 MVC No.3970/2023
12. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is expected to prove the inc ident on basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view taken by this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed that, it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105, where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka considering the fact that the rider of the offending vehicle was not examined to prove any contributory negligence on the part of scooterist held that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the rider of SCCH-17 12 MVC No.3970/2023 the offending van. Even here in this case the IO, as already observed, has clearly opined that the accident was occurred only due to the fault of the rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742.
13. The respondent No.2 insurance company examined its official as RW.1. As admitted by the RW.1 he has no personal knowledge about the accident and his evidence is based on the documents. Thus the documents shows the negligence of rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742. Thereby the evidence of RW.1 is not helpful for the respondents to disprove the case of the petitioner in respect of the negligence of rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742.
14. In view of the ratio laid down in the authorities referred to above and applying the settled principle of law to the case at hand, which is further supported by the oral and documentary evidence adduced by PW-1, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident SCCH-17 13 MVC No.3970/2023 leading to this case indeed occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the motor cycle bearing No. KA- 41-ES-1742 resulting in petitioner sustaining injuries. Thus, the allegation of rider of the motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742 riding his motor cycle in rash and negligent manner stands established. Accordingly, issue No.1 answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
15. As already held herein above, the petitioner has proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which is caused by the vehicle of respondent No.1. Hence, the petitioner is entitle for compensation. Now the quantum of compensation is to be ascertained on different heads.
a) PAIN AND AGONY:- At the time of alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 59 years. The petitioner has produced Driving licence, PAN card and Aadhaar card marked at Ex.P15 to P.17. As per these documents the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.06.1962. The accident was took place on 15.08.2022.SCCH-17 14 MVC No.3970/2023
Hence as on the date of accident the petitioner was aged about 60 years. The petitioner has produced wound certificate and discharge summaries marked at Ex.P5 & P.8 and 9. On perusal of Ex.P8 and 9 the petitioner was admitted to Sparsh hospital, Bengaluru from 15.08.2022 to 20.08.2022 and from 23.09.2022 to 27.09.2022 and he has sustained neurovascular injury right foot with profuse bleeding, severely comminuted displaced fracture of calcaneum, undisplaced fracture of medial and lateral malleoli, chip fracture of lateral process of talus and was underwent debridement and exploration of posterior tibial, neurobascular bundles of right foot and clipping of the partially cut veins and branch of the posterior tibial artery. By considering the nature of injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident Rs.60,000/- may be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
b) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced the medical bills as per Ex.P12 amounting to SCCH-17 15 MVC No.3970/2023 Rs.7,54,667/-. Out of the inpatient bills the few inpatient bills in which the medi-claim benefits were taken by the petitioner. The said payment made by the petitioner's medi-claim policy details is hereby quoted for better reference:
Bill details Nature of Total amount Amount paid Amount paid bill by Medi-claim by petitioner policy Inpatient 23.09.2022 Rs.78,621/- Rs.59,908/- Rs.18,713/-
bill dated to
27.09.2022 27.09.2022
Inpatient 13.03.2023 Rs.2,14,767/- Rs.1,83,762 Rs.31,005/-
bill dated to
18.03.2023 18.03.2023
Inpatient 19.03.2023 Rs.49,261/- Rs.39,906/- Rs.9,355/-
bill dated to
21.03.2023 21.03.2023
TOTAL Rs.2,83,576/- Rs.59,073/-
In the above quoted bills out of the total amount of inpatient medical bills Rs.2,83,576/- was paid by Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. and Rs.59,073/-
was paid by the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay SCCH-17 16 MVC No.3970/2023 First Appeal No.1344/2014 and argued that the payments made by the medi-claim policies of injured cannot be deducted while awarding the compensation. In this regard in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA NO.894 OF 2020 (MV-I) Sri Milind Kunale V/S M/S.United India Insurance Company Limited & another held as follows:
"13. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Manish Gupta as stated supra, has held at paras-16, 17 and 22 as under:
16. A learned single Judge of this court in the case of Binup Kumar R. v. Prabhakar H.G., 2010 ACJ 2742 (Karnataka), was of the view that the claimants cannot get the benefit both under the mediclaim policy as well as under
the Act. Learned single Judge has also drawn an analogy in the case of a government servant inasmuch as whatever the amount a government servant gets reimbursed from his employer, the said amount will be deducted from out of the total amount arrived at by the Tribunal and the balance will have to be paid to him. On the same lines, whatever the amount the claimant gets from any scheme like mediclaim, etc., the said amount will have to be deducted from the actual amount payable to the claimant.SCCH-17 17 MVC No.3970/2023
17. In so far as the two decisions on which the claimants would place reliance are concerned, the Full Bench ruling of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kashiram Mathur v. Rajendra Singh, 1983 ACJ 152 (MP), has opined that there shall not be any deductions in respect of the amount, which is received under: (1) life insurance policy; (2) provident fund; (3) family pension; (4) gratuity. Insofar as the ex gratia payment is concerned, the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court was of the view that it is deductible from the amount of compensation. Madhya Pradesh High Court was of the view that amount, which is receivable by the claimants under the life insurance policy, cannot be deducted for the reason that the said amount of insurance is under a contract and for which deceased had paid premiums. The receipt of such amount is not deductible from the damages payable to them. The deceased had not insured himself and paid premiums all the year during his lifetime for the benefit of the tortfeasor. This sum represents his thrift for his own benefit and for the benefit of his family. Thus, the tortfeasor could not seek advantage out of this receipt.
Provident fund constitutes that which the deceased had himself deposited out of his salary for the rainy day. This amount was payable to him and the family would have been benefited even if the deceased were alive. This amount was not an advantage by reason of his death. The principle as applicable in case of insurance amount will apply to payment of provident fund and this sum is not deductible from compensation.
SCCH-17 18 MVC No.3970/2023
Gratuity under the conditions of service was the right of the deceased employee after completing certain years of service and if he survived, he would have received the same and his dependants would have taken advantage hereof. Payment of gratuity was not necessarily consequential to his death but was otherwise also payable to him and, therefore, this sum is also not deductible from compensation.
A family pension is payable on the basis of the contribution made by the employee in some form or other or it may be entirely paid by the employer. If the pension is non-
contributory, i.e., paid by the employer on his own, a deduction could be made only if the Tribunal has considered all the probable benefits available to the deceased in his full span of life while determining the amount of compensation, i.e., probable increments to the deceased in salary and dearness allowances, prospects of his possibility of useful employment on retirement, then deduction on account of family pension paid to the claimants can be made. But however, otherwise, the family pension is not deductible. We are in respectful agreement with the opinion rendered by the Full Bench.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
22. In the case on hand, the facts are almost similar. It is not in dispute that in all the claim petitions, the claimants had taken the mediclaim policies and they have claimed the amount under the policy. We are of the view that the question of the claimants claiming compensation in the claim petitions, which is filed under the Act for the amount SCCH-17 19 MVC No.3970/2023 expended by them for the treatment, certainly cannot be granted. The medical expenses, as observed, are classified as a pecuniary loss. Pecuniary loss in its context means the actual amount which is expended by claimant for treatment. If the said amount has been paid by the insurer under the mediclaim policy, the question of the claimant claiming the very same amount of the very same purpose, which is inclusive of the expenses, which are incurred by him for hospitalisation and for his treatment, does not arise. Undoubtedly, if the amount which is received by the claimant under the mediclaim policy falls short of the actual expenses expended by him, it is always open for him to claim the difference of amount spent from the Tribunal. But, however, he cannot claim compensation under both the mediclaim policy as well as the claim petition filed under the Act. The decision of the Apex Court in Helen C. Rebello's case, 1999 ACJ 10 (SC), was in respect of the life insurance policy and not in respect of a mediclaim policy and, therefore, the said decision is distinguishable.
16. Apart from the aforementioned two decisions, learned counsel for appellant- claimant has also relied on the other decisions as stated supra, to primarily contend that, any amount i.e. awarded under the contractual obligation cannot be deducted under the statutory obligation. Therefore, he contends that the claimant while contributing to the premium under the Health Insurance Policy Scheme every year, which is a contractual obligation, he would have made a wise forethought that in case of any eventuality, he would get financial assistance under the SCCH-17 20 MVC No.3970/2023 Mediclaim Health Insurance Policy Scheme, which cannot be deducted from the statutory authority for the gross negligence of others in the occurrence of a road traffic accident. For the sake of repetition, it is contended by learned counsel for appellant-claimant that the tortfeasor in whatever circumstances cannot take advantage of the foresightedness and wise financial investment made by the deceased or by the injured and that the fruits of the premium paid in the past should not be given to the benefit of the wrong doer by deducting the same out of the damages assessed.
17. On careful perusal of these voluminous decisions relied upon by learned counsels for both parties, it is seen that no doubt, the claimant has wisely invested in the Mediclaim Health Insurance Policy Scheme for addressing any of the eventualities, but unfortunately, he met with an accident and suffered injuries, due to which, he was treated in the Hospital for the injuries expending financial expenditure, underwent pain, trauma and suffering. The tribunal has dealt with the aspect of compensation under other heads. But, taking note of the clear admission made by the appellant-claimant that he has been reimbursed Rs.3,60,000/- under the Mediclaim Health Insurance Policy Scheme by the other Insurance Company, the tribunal felt it appropriate to deduct the said amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from the entire compensation and awarded Rs.40,000/- as a total compensation. The tribunal came to the conclusion that since the amount has already been reimbursed, the claimant would not be entitled to the said amount which has been SCCH-17 21 MVC No.3970/2023 admittedly paid by the other Insurance Company.
20. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Manish Gupta as stated supra, has dealt with the similar situation at para- 22 of its judgment, which is extracted hereinabove. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the reimbursement received by the claimant to an extent of Rs.3,60,000/- expended towards medical treatment under the Mediclaim Health Insurance Policy Scheme by the Star Health & Allied Insurance Company Limited cannot be ordered to be once again paid by the respondent- Insurance Company, as the same would amount to double benefit. This would be the appropriate method to be followed for the reason that the Motor Vehicles Act has come into force as a Welfare Legislation to see that just and reasonable compensation is paid. The just and reasonable compensation cannot be double benefit for one and deprivation to the other and so also, it cannot be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. If the claimant had not received the benefit from the Mediclaim Health Insurance Policy Scheme, then he would have been certainly entitled to the said amount. However, nothing is forthcoming in the judgment of the tribunal or any evidence as to what is the premium paid by the claimant. Hence, this Court cannot award any such premium as well".
Thereby admittedly only Rs.59,073/- was paid by the petitioner towards his inpatient medical bills. He has SCCH-17 22 MVC No.3970/2023 not paid the entire inpatient medical bills and if the entire inpatient medical bills is reimbursed it becomes unjust benefit for the petitioner. Hence by relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka out of the entire amount of the inpatient medical bills the petitioner is entitle for only Rs.59,073/- as he paid only that amount towards inpatient bill.
The other bills are not seriously disputed by the respondents and no grounds are made out to disbelieve the other bills produced by petitioner. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in combined with the alleged injuries the petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement of the same by rounding off the same i.e., Rs.4,75,200/-.
c) Loss of income during laid up period : The petitioner has stated that he was working as Government Electric Contractor, and earning Rs.1,25,000/- p.m. To prove the said fact the petitioner has produced Class-I Electrical contractor licence and income tax return SCCH-17 23 MVC No.3970/2023 acknowledgment at Ex.P.13 and P.14. As per the Ex.P.14 for the assessment year 2022-2023 total income of the petitioner was Rs.14,89,120/-. Further in the assessment year 2023 the total income of the petitioner was Rs.15,40,860/-. Thereby the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently argues that even after the accident the income of the petitioner was increased, as such there is no functional disability to the petitioner. When the same is suggested to the PW1 at the time of cross-examination, the said suggestion was denied by the PW1. But as per the documents marked at Ex.P.14 even after the accident the income of the petitioner is not decreased. The account statement or any other documents pertaining to the financial transactions of the petitioner is not produced. Thereby there is no evidence is placed by the petitioner by showing the exact income of the petitioner. The accident was on 15.08.2022, as per the Ex.P.14 the total declared yearly income of the petitioner in the assessment year 2022-23 is of SCCH-17 24 MVC No.3970/2023 Rs.14,89,120/- and in the assessment year 2023-24 it was Rs.15,40,860/-. In the absence of any document to show the exact income by relying on Ex.P.14 the notional income of the petitioner is considered at Rs.10,00,000/- p.a. and per month will be Rs.83,000/- per month approximately.
As per the discharge summary marked at Ex.P8 & 9 petitioner was admitted to Sparsh hospital and underwent operation. Thereafter usually the healing period has to be considered for which in the absence of evidence, this court is of the opinion that in total 2 months period may be considered under this head as a loss of income. So, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.83,000 X 2 months = Rs.1,66,000/- during the laid up period.
c) Disability;- To prove the nature of injuries sustained by him the petitioner has examined Dr. Nagaraj B N, Orthopaedic Surgeon at SOADS Hospital as PW.3 and through him clinical notes and X-rays were got SCCH-17 25 MVC No.3970/2023 marked at Ex.P25 & 26. According to the evidence of this witness the petitioner sustained crush injury right foot with severely comminuted fracture of the calcaneum, undisplaced fracture of the medial and lateral malleoli, chip fracture of the lateral talus and he underwent procedure of debridement and exploration of posterior tibial, neurobascular bundles of right foot and clipping of the partially cut veins and branch of the posterior tibial artery. This aspect is not impeached during the course of cross-examination. The disability caused to the petitioner may affect on his occupation to some extent.
According to the petitioner he was working as Government Electrical contractor and suffered multiple fractures. As per the evidence of PW3 doctor petitioner suffered with right lower limb disability of 41% and whole body physical disability of 14%. But as discussed above as per Ex.P.14 income tax returns the income of the petitioner is increased in the assessment year 2023-24 comparing to the assessment year 2022-23. thereby no SCCH-17 26 MVC No.3970/2023 much functional disability is caused to the petitioner. But the petitioner due to the permanent disability unable to involve in his work like earlier. The disability caused to the petitioner may affect on his occupation to some extent. Hence, I hold that the petitioner sustained disability of 8% to the whole body.
As per Sarala Verma's case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age of petitioner is '9'. Hence, I inclined to award future loss of income at Rs.83,000 X 12 X 9 X 8% =Rs.7,17,120/- which is the total loss of future income.
e) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE; As per Ex.P8 and 9 discharge summaries, the petitioner took treatment as inpatient for a period of 11 days. As per wound certificate marked at Ex.P6 the petitioner has sustained grievous injury. By considering the nature of the injury and period he spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the accident. Hence looking to the treatment taken by the petitioner and injury sustained he SCCH-17 27 MVC No.3970/2023 is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards food and nourishment, conveyance.
f) ATTENDANT CHARGES: The petitioner sustained grievous injury in the accident. The petitioner has spent 11 days in the hospital and there is no evidence or pleading in this regard to show that the petitioner is in need of attendant. But by considering the nature of the fracture as discussed above, it may be considered to award attendant charges at Rs.1,000/- per day i.e., Rs.11,000/- in total as the petitioner has spent 10 days in the hospital.
g) Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life:
The petitioner admitted to the hospitals for the injuries sustained by him, which might certainly have deprived him of the basic comforts and enjoyment.
Therefore, it is just and proper to award a reasonable sum of Rs.30,000/- under this head.SCCH-17 28 MVC No.3970/2023
h) Towards future medical expenses: There is no evidence is available to hold that there is a need of future medical expenses. As per the evidence of PW3 doctor the implants are already removed. Hence, I declined to award compensation under this head.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
a. Towards pain and agony Rs. 60,000/- b. Towards medical expenses Rs. 4,75,200/- c. Towards loss of income during Rs. 1,66,000/-
laid up period d. Towards disability Rs. 7,17,120/- e. Towards food, nourishment and Rs. 20,000/-
conveyance f. Towards attendant charges Rs. 11,000/- g. Towards loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/-
Total Rs. 14,79,320/-
16. Liability:- According to the petitioner the
respondent No.1 & 2 are the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742. The respondent No.2 in its objection statement has admitted the issuance SCCH-17 29 MVC No.3970/2023 of policy to the said vehicle and the policy was in force at the time of accident.
17. The respondent No.2 insurance company has taken specific contention that as per Ex.P7 charge sheet, the rider of offending motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-
1742 at the time of accident was minor and was not having valid license as such, it cannot indemnify the liability of the respondent No.1.
18. In respect of this, on perusal of Ex.P7 head of charge sheet, the offences punishable under Sec.5(1) r/w 180 of IMV Act is invoked by alleging the negligence of the rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742. The Ex.P.7 which is the charge sheet in the crime No.233/2022 of Kengeri Traffic PS is filed against the respondent No.1 by alleging that, the respondent No.1 allowed a minor to ride the motorcycle. The column No.17 in Ex.P7 is hereby quoted for better appreciation:
"ದೋಷಾರೋಪಣಾ ಅಂಕಣ 12 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಮೂದಿಸಿರುವ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಎ1 ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಮೋಟಾರ್ ಸೈಕಲ್ ನಂಬರ್ ಕೆಎ-41- SCCH-17 30 MVC No.3970/2023 ಇಎಸ್-1742ರ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ದಿನಾಂಕ 15.08.2025 ರಂದು ಮಧ್ಯಾ ಹ್ನ ಸುಮಾರು 1-15 ಗಂಟೆಯ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ನಗರದ ಕೆಂಗೇರಿ ಸಂಚಾರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣಾ ವ್ಯಾ ಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬರುವ ಆರ್ ಆರ್ ನಗರದ ಬಿ.ಇ.ಎಮ್.ಎಲ್ 5ನೇ ಹಂತದ 6ನೇ ಕ್ರಾ ಸ್ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ 60 ಅಡಿ ರಸ್ತೆ ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ವೇಗವಾಗಿ ಹಾಗೂ ನಿರ್ಲಕ್ಷತೆಯಿಂದ ಸವಾರಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ಬಿ.ಇ.ಎಮ್.ಎಲ್ 5ನೇ ಹಂತದ 6ನೇ ಕ್ರಾ ಸ್ ಮನೆ ನಂ.956ರ ಮನೆ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ-2 ರವರ ಕೆಎ-05-ಇಡಿ-1310ರ ಹಿಂಬದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ-3ರವರು ಕೂರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ನಿಂತಿದ್ದ ವಾಹನಕ್ಕೆ ಹಿಂದಿನಿಂದ ಡಿಕ್ಕಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾ ನೆ. ಅದರ ಪರಿಣಾಮ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ-2 ಹಾಗೂ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ-3ರವರು ವಾಹನ ಸಮೇತ ಕೆಳಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದು ಸವಾರ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ -2 ರವರು ಬಲಕಾಲು ಹಾಗೂ ಮೈಕೈಗೆ ತೀವ್ರ ಪೆಟ್ಟು ಬೆದ್ದಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
ಈ ಅಪಘಾತಕ್ಕೆ ಜೆ1 ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಆರ್ ಆರ್ ನಗರದ ಬಿ.ಇ.ಎಮ್.ಎಲ್ 5ನೇ ಹಂತದ 6ನೇ ಕ್ರಾ ಸ್ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ 60 ಅಡಿ ರಸ್ತೆ ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ವೇಗವಾಗಿ ಹಾಗೂ ನಿರ್ಲಕ್ಷತೆಯಿಂದ ಸವಾರಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ಬಿ.ಇ.ಎಮ್.ಎಲ್ 5ನೇ ಹಂತದ 6ನೇ ಕ್ರಾ ಸ್ ಮನೆ ನಂ.956ರ ಮನೆ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ-2 ರವರ ಕೆಎ-05-ಇಡಿ-1310ರ ಹಿಂಬದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ-3ರವರು ಕೂರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ನಿಂತಿದ್ದ ವಾಹನಕ್ಕೆ ಹಿಂದಿನಿಂದ ಡಿಕ್ಕಿ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದೆ ಕಾರಣವಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಕಾನೂನು ಸಂಘರ್ಷಕ್ಕೊ ಳಗಾದ ಬಾಲಕನಿಗೆ ವಾಹನ ಸವಾರಿ ಮಾಡಲು ವಾಹನ ನೀಡಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಎ1ಆರೋಪಿರ ಮೇಲೆ ಕಲಂ- 5(1) ರ/ವಿ 180 ಐ.ಎಂ.ವಿ ಆಕ್ಟ್ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಅಪರಾಧವೆಸಗಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ."
Thereby as per the Ex.P.7, the said Ex.P.7 charge sheet was filed only against the respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Sec.5(1) r/w 180 of IMV Act for allowing the minor/child conflict with law to ride the motorcycle. But as per column No.5 of Ex.P.7 it is stated that, the separate charge sheet was going to be filed against the minor/child conflict with law before Juvenile SCCH-17 31 MVC No.3970/2023 Justice Board. The contents of column No.5 in Ex.P7 is hereby quoted:
"ಕಾನೂನು ಸಂಘರ್ಷಕ್ಕೊ ಳಗಾದ ಬಾಲಕನಿಗೆ ವಾಹನ ಸವಾರಿ ಮಾಡಲು ವಾಹನ ನೀಡಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಎ1ಆರೋಪಿರ ಮೇಲೆ ಕಲಂ-5(1) ರ/ವಿ 180 ಐ.ಎಂ.ವಿ ಆಕ್ಟ್ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಅಪರಾಧವೆಸಗಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಜೆ1 ಆರೋಪಿತನ ಮೇಲೆ ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕ ದೋಷಾರೋಪಣಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ಮಾನ್ಯ ಬಾಲನ್ಯಾ ಯ ಮಂಡಳಿಗೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲಾಗುವುದು."
Thereby before this tribunal there is no charge sheet is available by showing which sections are invoked against the rider of motorcycle bearing No. KA-41-ES- 1742. But the Ex.P.7 charge sheet establishes that at the time of accident the rider of vehicle bearing No.KA-41-ES- 1742 was a minor and had driving licence to ride the motorcycle. The said Ex.P7 charge sheet discloses that the separate charge sheet was going to be filed against the child conflict with law before the Juvenile Justice board. The Ex.P7 charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.1 herein as she allowed the minor to ride the motor cycle without DL. Thus it is evident that the respondent No.1 being the owner of motor cycle bearing SCCH-17 32 MVC No.3970/2023 No. KA-41-ES-1742 allowed minor to ride the motor cycle. Thereby in the Ex.P7 charge sheet necessary sections are also invoked against the respondent No.1 for allowing the person who has no driving license and also a minor to ride the motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742.
19. The respondent No.1 owner even after service of summons neither appeared nor produced any contrary documents to show that the rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742 was having driving license at the time of accident. The respondent No.2 insurance company to discharge its burden of proving the violation of policy condition by the respondent No.1 filed IA No.5 U/O 16 Rule 1 of CPC and thereby summons was issued to the investigating officer and also to the respondent No.2 herein to produce the driving licence of S. Dakshina Murthy S/o Shivaram who was the rider of the motorcycle at the time of accident. In pursuance of the summons and NBW issued on IA No.5 the respondent No.1 herein appeared and as per Order dated 24.02.2025 she herself SCCH-17 33 MVC No.3970/2023 submitted to the court that at the time of alleged accident the rider of the offending motorcycle was a minor and he had no driving licence to drive the motorcycle. Further it is also submitted by the respondent No.1 that she has voluntarily pleaded guilty and paid the fine before the Magistrate Court. The order dated 24.02.2025 is hereby quoted for better appreciation.
"Counsel for petitioner and R.2 present. For respondent evidence, witness no.2/R.1 mentioned in the I.A.No.V present and submits that at the time of the alleged accident minor was riding the offending vehicle and the said rider has not possessing D.L. and further she has submitted that in the said accident matter she has voluntarily pleaded guilty and paid the fine amount before the Magistrate Court. "
Along with this if we perused the pleadings of this petition and also the evidence affidavit filed by the petitioner in lieu of his chief examination, the petitioner himself pleaded and admitted that at the time of accident the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742 was a minor and had no valid driving licence. Further the SCCH-17 34 MVC No.3970/2023 respondent No.2 examined its official as RW1 and produced the Ex.R.2 and R3 i.e., copy of notice and reply issued under Sec.133 of MV Act. On perusal of the Ex.R3 the reply given by the respondent No.1 discloses that the respondent No.1 being the owner of offending vehicle given statement before the investigating officer shows that one Dakshinamurthy S/o Shivaram was riding the motorcycle and he was aged about 16 years at the time of accident. The Ex.R.3 also discloses that the respondent No.1 herein had not furnished any driving licence details of the said Dakshinamurthy. Thus, the respondent No.2 insurance company successfully established the violation of policy condition by establishing that the rider of the motorcycle was minor and also had no driving licence to ride the motorcycle at the time of accident.
20. By the evidence of RW.1 in corroboration with contents of Ex.P7 charge sheet, the respondent No.1 insurance company successfully discharged its burden that the rider of the motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES- SCCH-17 35 MVC No.3970/2023 1742 was minor and also was not having valid DL at the time of accident and thereby the condition of the policy is violated.
21. The respondent No.2 insurance company successfully discharged the burden and proved the violation of conditions of policy as the rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742 was not having valid DL at the time of accident. Hence, next point needs to be considered is to whom the liability has to be fastened. In the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA no.7683/2014 C/w MFA Cross Objection No. 54/2020 dated 28-05-2024 between The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Bibi Naphisha wherein it has held as follows:
"9. For applying the principles of pay and recovery as per sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if any of the conditions is violated, though Insurance Company can be exonerated from the liability, but the order of pay and recovery can be made. But in the present case, while considering Sub- Clause (ii) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the case of a minor boy of 16 years old who was riding SCCH-17 36 MVC No.3970/2023 the vehicle and caused the accident, this proviso is not applicable so as to say that terms and conditions of the Insurance Company are violated. Where a minor boy under the age of 16 years cannot be said to be a qualified person to apply for driving licence, it cannot also be categorized that he is not duly licenced so as to come within the ambit of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (2) Section 149 of the MV Act when a minor boy of 16 years old inherently is not a qualified person so as to apply for driving licence. Therefore, the principle of pay and recovery is not applicable in case minor boy drives the vehicle and causes the accident.
Hence, the prayer of pay and recovery is hereby rejected.
10. Respondent No.4-Mohammad Mustapa being the owner of the motor cycle has handed over the motor cycle to the minor boy. Hence, in this regard, owner of the vehicle namely, Mohammad Mustapa alone shall pay the compensation to the claimants and not the Insurance Company. Hence, judgment and award of the Tribunal fixing the liability on the Insurance Company is set aside''.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 insurance company has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.202712/2023 dated SCCH-17 37 MVC No.3970/2023 07.01.2025 between The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ananthamma & others wherein it is held as follows:
"06. The evidence available on record before the Tribunal shows that the driver of the Car after the accident ran-away from the spot and ultimately, the police had filed charge-sheet against the respondent No.6 as he had giventhe said vehicle to a person who is not authorized and ineligible to drive the Car.
Therefore, the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the respondent No.6 - Matham Rachayya Swamy"
In the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that the Principle of pay and recover is not applicable when the driver/rider is a minor and ineligible to obtain the driving licence, thereby the liability has to be fastened on the owner of the vehicle instead of the insurance company.
23. There is no dispute that at the time of accident the vehicle was covered with insurance. But the violation of the condition of insurance policy is stands established. SCCH-17 38 MVC No.3970/2023 As per Ex.R1 insurance policy it contains the condition that it covers the risk provided the person driving the vehicle holds an effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding such licence.
24. In this case, the respondent No.1 owner of the motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742 not adduced any evidence by showing that the rider of offending vehicle was having valid driving licence at the time of accident on the other hand the respondent No.1 appeared and stated that the rider had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. Thus, it is proved that on the date of accident, the rider of motor cycle bearing No. KA-41-ES-1742 was not having driving licence and also he was a minor. Thereby the conduct of respondent No.1 allowing of the minor person to ride the vehicle without having DL is a fundamental breach of policy condition and thereby the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability. The respondent No.1 being the owner cannot take the benefit SCCH-17 39 MVC No.3970/2023 of her own wrong. Under such circumstances, the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability of pay and recover when there is clear breach of policy conditions and liability to pay compensation is on the respondent No.1- owner. The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, the respondent No.1 owner is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitle for compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, this issue answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
25. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.14,79,320/- (Rupees Fourteen lakh seventy nine thousand three hundred twenty only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.), from the date SCCH-17 40 MVC No.3970/2023 of petition till the realization from respondents.
The respondent No.1 owner is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
The case against respondent No.2- insurance company stands dismissed.
Out of total compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner, 75% of the same to be released in favour of petitioner through E- payment on his proper identification and remaining 25% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in his name.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 1st day of December, 2025) (Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) XIX ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Sri Ramesh C.
PW.2 Sri Sateesh Kumar B.R.
PW.3 Dr. Nagaraj B N.
SCCH-17 41 MVC No.3970/2023
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner/s:
Ex.P1 : FIR Ex.P2 : Complaint Ex.P3 : Spot mahazar Ex.P4 : Spot sketch Ex.P5 : IMV report Ex.P6 : Wound certificate Ex.P7 : Charge sheet Ex.P8 & 9 : Discharge summaries Ex.P10 : MRI Report Ex.P11 : X-rays Ex.P12 : Medical bills Ex.P13 : Class I contractor licence Ex.P14 : Income Tax return acknowledgment Ex.P15 : Driving licence Ex.P16 : PAN card Ex.P17 : Aadhaar card Ex.P18 : Authorization letter Ex.P19 : Copy of MLC register extract Ex.P20 : Police intimation Ex.P21 : 4 case sheets Ex.P22 : 3 X-rays Ex.P23 : CD Ex.P24 : Certificate under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act SCCH-17 42 MVC No.3970/2023 Ex.P25 : Clinical notes Ex.P26 : X-ray Ex.P27 : Application given under RTI Ex.P28 : Representation dated 08.10.2025
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 : Santhosh B.L. RW.2 : Santhosh B.L. List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents: Ex.R1 : Copy of insurance policy Ex.R2 : True copy of Notice under sec.133 of MV Act Ex.R3 : True copy of reply of the notice under sec.133 of MV Act Ex.R4 : Authorisation letter along with condition (Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) XIX ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru. Digitally signed by KANCHI KANCHI MAYANNA MAYANNA GOUTAM Date: GOUTAM 2025.12.12 12:44:41 +0530