Bangalore District Court
Nataraj Alias Mudgal Nataraj vs Md Waris Siddique on 6 October, 2025
KABC020527972024
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH-24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated:- This the 6th day of October 2025
M.V.C. No.6424 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
Nataraj @ Mudgal Nataraj
S/o Sivasaranappa,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at F No.T6, Prabavathi
Springs Flats, 7th cross,
Anant Nagar, Phase 2,
Electronic City,
Bengaluru -560100.
(By Sri. M D Krishnappa, Advocate)
- Vs -
RESPONDENT/S
1. Mr. MD Waris Siddique
S/o M D Arif Ali
R/at Near Nayab Dresses,
Nunikdih, Barkitand,
SCCH-24 2 MVC 6424/2024
Jamadoda, Jitpur,
Dhanbad,
Jharkhand -828309.
(RC owner of the Bullet Motorcycle
bearing No.JH-10-CW-4215)
Presently R/at C/o, Suryaprakasha Reddy
Building, Zodo Orchid, (PG),
Neeladrinagara,
Electronic city,
Bengaluru -560 100.
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
TP HUB No.69,
3rd floor, J P & Devi,
Jambukeshwara Arcade,
Millers Road,
Bengaluru -560 052.
(policy no. 01480775170001
valid from 14-04-2024 to 13-04-2029)
(R1 By Sri Syed Khaleel Pasha, Advocate)
(R2 By Sri H K Ramamurthy, Advocate)
*****
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
SCCH-24 3 MVC 6424/20242. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
That on 06-06-2024 at about 12-30 p.m., the petitioner was riding Activa Honda bearing Reg.No.KA- 51-ET-0951 on HCL 3rd gate, Bommasandra road, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, at that time all of a sudden a Bullet motorcycle bearing No.JH-10-CW-4215 came in one way in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle, result of which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Vijayashree Hospital, Bengaluru wherein first aid treatment was given and then he was shifted to HOSMAT Hospital, wherein admitted as an inpatient from 06-06- 2024 to 10-06-2024. Thereafter the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient at Vimalaya Hospital for 7 days. So far, the petitioner has spent Rs.4,00,00/- towards medical expenses and other incidental charges.
3. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy. He has aged about 49 years. The petitioner was working as a Business Development Manager at Testamatic Systems Pvt Ltd., Whitefield, Bengaluru and earning Rs.83,333/- per month. Due to the accident, he has suffered pain and sufferings, permanent disability, SCCH-24 4 MVC 6424/2024 loss of future income and other pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages.
4. Respondent no.1/owner of Bullet motorcycle bearing No.JH-10-CW-4215 has filed written statement and contended that he is the owner of the Bullet motorcycle and same was insured with the respondent no.2, the policy was in force as on the date of accident and there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the Bullet motorcycle.
5. The Respondent no.2/insurer of Bullet motorcycle bearing No.JH-10-CW-4215 has filed written statement and admitted the coverage of insurance policy and the liability if any subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. The respondent no.2 has contended that the petition is barred by limitation and that the alleged accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner himself who was riding the motorcycle without having driving licence and without wearing helmet. It is further contended that claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties.
SCCH-24 5 MVC 6424/20246. Heard the arguments and perused the entire materials placed on record.
7. Based on the pleadings, this tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained injuries on account of road traffic accident on 06-06-2024 at about 12-30 pm., on HCL 3rd Gate, Bommasandra Road, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of Bullet motor cycle bearing No.JH-10-CW-4215 ?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What order or Award ?
8. The petitioner got examined himself as Pw1 and three witnesses are examined as PW.2 to PW.4 and marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P28. On other hand, the Bill officer in Hosmat Hospital by name Shanthamma, S is examined as RW.1 and marked documents as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. The respondent no.1 got examined himself as RW.2.
SCCH-24 6 MVC 6424/20249. My findings on the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative. Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:- In order to explain the actionable negligence of the rider of offending vehicle, the P.W.1 has filed his affidavit explaining the vivid picture of the accident that took place on 06-06-2024 at about 12-30 p.m., when the petitioner was riding Activa Honda bearing Reg.No.KA-51-ET-0951 on HCL 3rd gate, Bommasandra road, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, at that time all of a sudden a Bullet motorcycle bearing No.JH-10-CW-4215 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) came in one way in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle, result of which the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. P.W.1 further deposed about the nature of injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent for treatment etc. SCCH-24 7 MVC 6424/2024
11. In support of the claim and to prove the rash and negligent riding, the P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.P1 to 8 which are the police records such as F.I.R with Complaint, spot mahazar, charge sheet, police intimation, wound certificate, Notice u/Sec. 133 of IMV Act and reply given thereon, IMV report, photographer of motorcycle etc.,
12. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Sri Lakshmaiah, case has been registered against the rider of offending vehicle in Crime No.0094/2024 by Jigani Police Station for the offence punishable under section 279 and 337 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the rider of offending vehicle for the offence punishable under section 279 and 338 of IPC.
13. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 during the course of argument at first has disputed the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident on the ground that there is delay of three days in lodging the complaint and in the medical records there is mention about self fall from the two wheeler .
SCCH-24 8 MVC 6424/202414. In the light of the objection raised by the respondent no.2, if the medical records are perused, in the MLC issued from Hosmat Hospital at Ex.P4 the alleged history is mentioned as " RTA two wheeler Vs two wheeler at around 12-00 pm on 06-06-2024 while patient was a rider in two wheeler". As per the case of the petitioner, soon after the accident he was shifted to Vijayashree Hospital Bangalore and from there on the date of accident itself he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital and from there he was shifted to Vimalaya Hospital, Electronic City Bangalore. It is true that petitioner has not produced MLC pertaining to Vijayashree Hospital. Though respondent no.2 during the course of argument has disputed the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident, but if the cross examination of PW.1 is perused, wherein by posing suggestion to the effect that "ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಮೋಟಾರ್ ಸೈಕಲ್ ಗೆ ಹೋಲಿಸಿದಾಗ ನನ್ನ ವಾಹನಕ್ಕೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಜಖಂಗಳು ಆಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅಪಘಾತ ಕಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಹೆಲ್ಮೆಟ್ಯನ್ನು ಧರಿಸದೇ ಅತೀ ವೇಗವಾಗಿ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಚಲಾಯಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ ವಿರುದ್ದ ದಿಕ್ಕಿನಿಂದ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಮೋಟಾರ್ ಸೈಕಲ್ ಗೆ ಡಿಕ್ಕಿ ಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ತಪ್ಪಿನಿಂದ ಅಪಘಾತ ನಡೆದಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಒಪ್ಪಿದರೆ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಸಿಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕಾ ಗಿ ಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಯ್ಯನವರ ಮೂಲಕ 2 ದಿನಗಳ ತರುವಾಗಿ ವಿರುದ್ದ ದಿಕ್ಕಿನಿಂದ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ವಾಹನದ ಸವಾರ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಸುಳ್ಳು ದೂರನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ವಿಜಯಶ್ರೀ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅಪಘಾತ ಯಾವ ರೀತಿ ನಡೆದಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ. ವಿಜಯಶ್ರೀ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಯ ದಾಖಲೆಯ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನಾನು SCCH-24 9 MVC 6424/2024 ಮೋಟಾರ್ ಸೈಕಲ್ ಅನ್ನು ಚಲಾಯಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗುವಾಗ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ವಾಹನದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಡಿಕ್ಕಿಯಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಕಾಣಿಸಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ" has admitted the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. Further if IMV report is perused, both the vehicles are got damaged. It is true that there is delay of three days in lodging the complaint, but the delay has been properly explained both in the complaint and FIR. Further complaint is lodged by an independent person who is the eye witness to the accident. Further though the respondent no.1 in his evidence has denied the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident but in his written statement except denying the averments of the petition in para wise has not denied in specific terms the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. Further all the medical records discloses the history of RTA. Hence, the very line of cross examination done by the respondent no.2 to the aforesaid effect would itself sufficient to hold that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.
15. So far as the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is concerned, at the time of accident the petitioner was proceeding from APC circle towards Bommasandra and the offending vehicle came from SCCH-24 10 MVC 6424/2024 opposite direction dashed to the vehicle of the petitioner. As per the case of the petitioner, it is one way road and against to the traffic rules, the offending vehicle came in one way road from opposite direction and hit to the vehicle of the petitioner. Hence, the topography of the scene of occurrence would itself sufficient to hold that the accident in question was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
16. Issue No.2:- The petitioner has given evidence to the effect of his sustained grievous injuries. As observed earlier, petitioner has produced medical documents i.e., Wound certificate and Discharge summary which are marked at Ex.P5 and P15. The petitioner has examined Prajesh -Accountant in Vimalalaya Hospital as PW.2 and through him discharge summary, medical bills, case sheet are marked as Ex.P17 to Ex.P19. On going through the medical documents it reveal that petitioner has taken treatment at HOSMAT Hospital from 06-06-2024 to 10-06-2024. From 10-06-2024 to 16-06-2024 as he has taken treatment as inpatient at Vimalaya Hospital and thus in all for a period of 12 days he has taken treatment as SCCH-24 11 MVC 6424/2024 inpatient. As per the wound certificate the petitioner has sustained two injuries which are grievous in nature.
17. Shanthamma S - MRO at Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru is examined as PW.3/RW.1 and through her MLC, police Intimation, Inpatient bills, X-ray films, outpatient record, Inpatient record are marked as Ex.P21 to Ex.P26 and Ex.R1. PW.3 /RW.1 has deposed that out of the medical bills, sum of Rs.2,27,844/- was reimbursed from Insurance Company and sum of Rs.33,316/- was paid by the petitioner and that the medicines purchased from the pharmacy is included in the Ex.R1 and that Sl No. 2 to 4, 9 to 11 and 16 in Ex.P11 are not included in the Ex.R1, where as Sl No. 5, 8, 12 and 15 are included in the Ex.R1 . The learned counsel for petitioner has filed memo of calculation of medical bills to the tune of Rs.3,88,989/-. If the medical bills are carefully perused, SL no. 2 and 4 for Rs.14,560/- in Ex.P11 are one and the same bill. Further Sl No. 3 and 9 for Rs.21,275/- are one and the same bill. Hence, out of Rs.3,88,989/- sum of Rs.35,835/- (ie., sum of Rs.14,560/- +Rs.21,275/-) has to be deducted. Thus it comes to Rs.3,53,154/- . Further as per the evidence of PW.3/RW.1, Sl No. 2 ie., sum of SCCH-24 12 MVC 6424/2024 Rs.14,560/-, Sl No. 3 ie., sum of Rs.21,275- , Sl No. 10 and 11 ie., sum of Rs.330 each and sl No. 16 ie., sum of Rs. 1,018/- are included in the Ex.P11. Hence, the said amount has to be deducted. Thus if Rs.58,788/- is deducted from Rs.3,53,154/-, the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner would comes around Rs.2,94,366/-. Admittedly, out of the bill amount of Hosmat Hospital sum of Rs.2,27,844/- was reimbursed from the Oriental Insurance Company.
18. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 has vehemently argued that when sum of Rs.2,27,844/- was reimbursed from the Insurance company the petitioner is not entitled to claim medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,27,844/-.
19. As counter blast to the aforesaid line of argument canvassed by the learned counsel for respondent no.2, the counsel for petitioner has referred judgment reported in ILR 2008 Kar 3277 between Shaheed Ahmed Vs. Shankaranarayana Bhat & Anr. In the said case, the Insurance Company, as like in the present case has raised the contention that the claimant got reimbursement the amount spent by him for medical SCCH-24 13 MVC 6424/2024 expenses under a Medical Policy hence not entitled to claim compensation under the head medical expenses. Under the given set of facts it was held that "Compensation payable under Motor Vehicles Act is statutory, while the amount receivable under the Life Insurance Policy or Mediclaim Policy is contractual - FURTHER HELD - The insurance money is by virtue of a contractual relationship between the deceased/injured and the Insurance company and is payable to the legal heirs of the deceased/injured in terms of the contract. Such money cannot be said to have been received by the heirs/injured only on account of the accidental death of the deceased/accidental injuries of the claimant, but truly it is a fruit of the premium paid by the deceased during his life time/injured. The amount received by the claimant herein under Mediclaim Policy from Sundaram Insurance Company would not come within the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. The Mediclaim amount received by the claimant from Sundaram Insurance Company in this matter cannot be deducted from out of the total compensation to be paid to the claimant. In view of the same, the deduction of Rs.1,22,000/- (Mediclaim Insurance amount) paid to SCCH-24 14 MVC 6424/2024 claimant from the total amount of compensation is unsustainable. Therefore, the respondent no.2/insurance company is liable to pay the medical expenses spent by the claimant".
20. In First Appeal No. 1344/2014 by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature At Bombay. In the said case, question raised for consideration before the larger Bench was "whether the amount received by a claimant under a mediclaim policy or under a Medical Insurance Policy is liable to be deducted from the amount of compensation payable to a Claimant under the head "Medical Expenses" in proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?" It was observed that "the amount received under a Mediclaim policy was not liable to be set off or deducted from the amount of compensation payable under Sec. 166 of MV Act". It was further observed that "mediclaim policy is based on a contract between the Insurer - Insurance Company and insured - the purchaser of such policy. On a claim being made on the occurrence of an accident in the case of a mediclaim policy, the insured is entitled to the benefits of the same. Under the provisions of Section 168 of the M.V Act, a claimant is entitled to an amount of just SCCH-24 15 MVC 6424/2024 compensation which claim is liable to be satisfied by the insurer of the offending vehicle. Such liability is statutory in nature and it flows from the concept of a 'compulsory third party insurance policy'.
21. It was further observed that "As far as any amount paid under any insurance policy is concerned, whatever is added to the estate of the deceased or his dependents is not because of the death of the deceased but because of the contract entered into between the deceased and the insurance company from where he took out the policy. The deceased paid premium on such life insurance and this amount would have accrued to the estate of the deceased either on maturity of the policy or on his death, whatever be the manner of his death. Theses amounts are paid because the deceased has wisely invested his savings. Similar would be the position in case of other investments like bank deposits, shares, debentures, etc., The tortfeasor cannot take advantage of the foresight and wise financial investments made by the deceased".
22. Considering the observation made in the aforesaid rulings it can be said that even if sum of Rs.2,27,844/- was reimbursed from Insurance company SCCH-24 16 MVC 6424/2024 said amount cannot be deducted. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,94,366/-.
23. Dr. S. Ramachandra - Senior Consultant in Orthopaedics and DNB Post Graduates Professor at General Hosptial Bengaluru is examined as Pw.4 and through him OPD patient slip with calculation sheet and X-ray film are got marked as Ex.P27 and 28. The P.W.4 has deposed that he examined the petitioner on 20-06- 2025 for assessment of disability. PW.4 further deposed that petitioner suffered permanent residual physical disability of right lower limb at 62.70% and to the whole body at 31.35% and that petitioner needs three more surgeries for removal of implants from right femur after achieving complete union of fracture, removal of implants from right tibia and Diagnostic Arthroscopy and proceed for rectification of IDK (Internal Derangement of knee) and damaged ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament) of right knee by reconstruction procedure.
24. If the evidence of PW.4 is perused, he is not a treated doctor. As per the evidence of PW.4 there is restriction in the movement. It is admitted by PW.4 that if there is any restriction in the movement, the doctor will SCCH-24 17 MVC 6424/2024 advise to take physiotherapy treatment but the PW.4 has not given any advice to take physiotherapy treatment. Further there is no fracture in the joint and no damage was caused to the nerves and there is no shorting of limbs. According to the PW.4 the fracture is partially united. The PW.4 has assessed the disability on particular limb at 62.70%. It is admitted by PW.4 that if there is amputation of below knee, the percentage of disability would be 60%. Even if there is no amputation and even if fracture is partially united, the PW.4 has assessed the disability on particular limb at 62.70% and to the whole body at 31.35%. In a judgment reported in 2014 (4) Kar.L.J 157 Vijaya Kumar Alias Babu Rao Vs The Secretary, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Balki, Taluk it was observed that "normal rule would be disability in the lower limb would be 1/3 rd of the particular limb". Hence, this court inclines to assess the disability of petitioner on whole body at 20%.
25. Hence, considering the nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment taken this court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads.
SCCH-24 18 MVC 6424/202426. Towards pain and sufferings, petitioner shown to have sustained two grievous injuries. Hence taking in to consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and time taken for treatment and sufferings during the treatment it is reasonable to hold that petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.70,000/- towards pain and suffering.
27. It is stated that petitioner was working as Business Development Officer at Testamatic Systems Pvt Ltd., at KIADB Industrial Estate, ITBP, Whitefiled, Bengaluru and drawing a salary of Rs.83,333/- per month. In this regard, the petitioner has produced salary slips as Ex.P29. Hence, the monthly income of petitioner is considered as Rs.83,333/-.
28. The petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and taken treatment at Hosmat Hospital and Vimalalaya Hospital. Hence the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner which is grievous in nature it is reasonable to hold that period of 4 months as complete laid down period. Though this court has taken 4 months period as laid down period, but petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the head loss of income during the SCCH-24 19 MVC 6424/2024 laid down period for the reason that the PW.1 in his evidence has clearly deposed that though he was under
rest for 6 months, but out of humanitarian ground, even for the period of rest, his employer had given salary. Hence, it can be said that there is no loss of income during the laid down period.
29. From the evidence of Pw.1 and as borne out by medical records, petitioner has taken treatment at Hosmat Hospital and Vimalalaya Hospital. Further for 12 days of hospitalization requires an attendant, was traveled to hospital for treatment. He has taken nourishment and need further nourishment at this age and incurred other incidental expenses. Therefore all together incidental expenses is assessed at Rs.50,000/- taking in to consideration the cost of living and value of money during the year 2024.
30. Though this court has considered the disability of petitioner on whole body at 20% but he is not entitled for compensation even under the head loss of future income due to disability for the reason that as per the evidence of PW.1 at the time of accident his salary was Rs.83,000/- and from the date of accident till this date SCCH-24 20 MVC 6424/2024 his monthly salary is regularly credited to his account and now also he is drawing monthly salary of Rs.83,000/-. Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the judgment reported in MFA No 5506 and 5848 of 2005 between Subash Vs/ The new India Assurance Company Ltd., decided on 22-03-2010 wherein the claimant has been continued in the services of the corporation as 'conductor'. If the claimant is continued in service then, the question of awarding compensation towards loss of future income does not arise. In the said case, the compensation awarded towards loss of future income was set aside.
31. In MFA No. 6290 of 2013: between Sri. S.K.Manjunath Vs. Shivabasappa K & Ors., decided on 20-09-2013 In the said case claimant is medical practitioner. She has not produced any materials to show that on account of accidental injuries she has given up her profession owing to physical disability. Hence, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation on the head loss of future earning capacity. The said order of the tribunal was upheld by Hon'ble High Court.
SCCH-24 21 MVC 6424/202432. Coming to the case in hand, in view of the fact that even after the accident petitioner has continued the job and getting salary, he is not entitled for compensation under the head loss of future income due to disability.
33. So far as the future medical expense is concerned, PW.4 has deposed that petitioner is advised to undergo three more surgeries for removal of implants from right femur after achieving complete union of fracture, removal of implants from right tibia and Diagnostic Arthroscopy and proceed for rectification of IDK (Internal Derangement of knee) and damaged ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament) of right knee by reconstruction procedure. But PW.4 has not given any estimation for the expenses going to be incurred by the petitioner for undergoing aforesaid surgeries. Even no oral evidence is given as to the approximate cost of future treatment. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards Future medical expenses.
34. The petitioner at his age of 49 years has suffered grievous injury and permanent disability of 20%. Hence it may cause some amount of loss of amenities SCCH-24 22 MVC 6424/2024 and discomfort. Hence this court inclines to award sum of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head loss of amenities and discomfort. Thus the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
Sl. Heads Amount
No.
1. Towards pain & sufferings Rs. 70,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs. 2,94,366/-
3. Towards Conveyance, Attendant Rs. 50,000/-
charges and nourishing food
4. Future medical expenses Rs. 50,000/-
5. Loss of comfort and amenities Rs. 1,50,000/-
Total Rs. 6,14,366/-
Therefore this court holds that petitioner is entitled for Rs.6,14,366/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Six only).
35. As regarding liability is concerned, respondent no.1 is the RC owner and respondent no.2 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle. There is no dispute that offending vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent and policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further the driver of the offending vehicle had driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Hence it can be said that all the documents pertaining to the vehicle in question was valid SCCH-24 23 MVC 6424/2024 and in force as on the date of accident. Hence by fastening liability on the respondent no.2 this court directs the respondent no.2 to pay compensation to the petitioner along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment of entire amount. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered.
36. Issue No.3: In the light of the findings given on Issue No.1 and 2, my finding on this Issue is as per the following final order.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,14,366/- + cost of Rs.1,500/- imposed vide order on IA No.III and IV. The petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.6,15,866/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Six only).
After deducting cost of Rs.1,500/- and future medical expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/- balance sum of Rs.5,64,366/-
SCCH-24 24 MVC 6424/2024shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. n The Respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation and is directed to deposit the compensation along with interest within two months from the date of award.
On deposit of the said amount and interest, 60% of compensation payable to the petitioner shall be deposited in is name in any nationalized bank of the choice of petitioner for a period of 3 years and the remaining 40% shall be released to the petitioner through E-payment on proper identification.
Advocates' fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 6th day of October 2025.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM Bengaluru.
SCCH-24 25 MVC 6424/2024ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of petitioner:-
PW.1 - Mr. Nataraj @ Mudgal Nataraj PW.2 - Mr. Prajesh PW.3 - Smt Shanthamma S PW.4 - Dr.S.Ramachandra
List of documents marked on behalf of petitioner:-
Ex.P1 Certified copy of FIR with Complaint. Ex.P2 Certified copy of Spot Mahazar.
Ex.P3 Certified coy of Charge Sheet. Ex.P4 Certified copy of Police intimation. Ex.P5 Certified copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.P6 Certified copy of Notice u/Sec.133 of IMV Act and reply given there on. Ex.P7 Certified copy of IMV report. Ex.P8 Photographs of motor cycle. Ex.P9 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner
(Compared with original and original is returned to the party.) Ex.P10 Notarized copy of RC and DL of the petitioner. (Compared with original and original is returned to the party.) Ex.P11 Medical Bills. 46 in nos.
Ex.P12 Medical Prescriptions.
Ex.P13 Photographs of the injuries sustained by
the petitioner.
Ex.P14 X-ray films. 20 in nos.
Ex.P15 Discharge summary
Ex.P16 Authorization Letter.
Ex.P17 Discharge Summary.
SCCH-24 26 MVC 6424/2024
Ex.P18 Medical Bills.
Ex.P19 Case sheet.
Ex.P20 Authorization Letter.
Ex.P21 MLC (Compared with original and original
is returned to the party.)
Ex. P22 Police Intimation. (Compared with original
and original is returned to the party.) Ex. P23 Inpatient bills.
Ex. P24 X-ray films. Ex. P25 Out patient record. Ex. P26 In patient record. Ex.P27 Out patient slip with calculation sheet Ex.P28 X-ray film 2 in nos Ex.P29 Salary slip 2 in nos
List of witness examined on behalf of respondents:-
RW.1 Shanthamma S RW.2 Md Waris Siddique
List of documents marked on behalf of respondents:-
Ex.R1 IP Package final bill
Ex.R2 Authorization letter
XXII Addl. SCJ & ACJM
Bengaluru.
Digitally
signed by
ROOPASHRI
ROOPASHRI Date:
2025.10.06
15:03:57
+0530