Bangalore District Court
Chandrashekar .H.S vs Bajaj All Gen Ins Co Ltd on 7 August, 2025
KABC020111162024
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
AT: BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.1675/2024
Dated this 7th day of August, 2025
Petitioner: Chandrashekar H.S., S/o Shivaramu H.T.,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.97-2, Therumalleshwar Nilaya,
Siddanayaka Circle,
Hiriyur Taluk,
Chitradurga-577 598.
(Shri B. K. Kumara, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Ltd.,
Golden Height, 4th Floor, No.1/2, 59th
C Cross, 4th M Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 010.
(Insurer of offending vehicle car
2 MVC No.1675/2024
bearing No. KA-05-AF-3562)
Shri K. Nagaraja, Advocate)
2. Nadeem Pasha S/o Pyare Jan,
Age: Major,
R/at No.8-2, Kempanna Street,
Doddamavalli,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru- 560 004.
(RC Owner of offending vehicle car
bearing No.KA-05-AF-3562)
(Ex-parte)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 19-12-2023, at about 4.30 to 4.31 p.m., the petitioner was riding his motor bike bearing Reg. No.KA-03- HQ-7442, on Marenahalli main road junction, 9th Block, 3 MVC No.1675/2024 Jayanagar, Bengaluru, slowly and cautiously, by observing the traffic rules and regulations. At that time, the driver of the Car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 came from Bhanashankari side, in rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner has fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Jayanagar General Hospital, Bengaluru, then he was referred to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an in- patient. Earlier to the accident, he was working as Uber driver and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, he has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity. The MICO Layout Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the said car, for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of I.P.C. The 4 MVC No.1675/2024 respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondent No.1 has appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.2 did not choose to appear and remained absent. Hence, the respondent No.2 is placed as ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 and its validity as on the date of accident. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner, injuries, medical expenses and treatment taken by him. It has contended that, the vehicle in question 5 MVC No.1675/2024 i.e. Car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 is not at all involved in the alleged accident, the same has been falsely implicated in order to get wrongful gain and to make wrongful loss to respondent No.1. The entire police records are manipulated by showing the registration number of Car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 and seasoned professional have joined hands with the petitioner and manipulated the charge-sheet. Further it is contended that, the petitioner has suppressed the true facts and colluded with the respondent No.2 and the jurisdictional police and fixed false case against the driver of Car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562. As per the police records there is delay in lodging complaint, the jurisdictional police have filed a false charge-sheet, by creating a false story and implicated the present vehicle and manipulated records. Further it is contended that, at the time of alleged accident, the petitioner was not wearing safety headgear and it is violation of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the claim petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Further it is 6 MVC No.1675/2024 contended that, on the date of accident, the driver of Car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The owner of the vehicle has allowed the said driver to drive the same, knowing fully well that he has no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle and the said car was not having valid permit and fitness certificate to ply in the place of accident. Hence, there is a violation of policy conditions as well as provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It has contended that, the petition is bad for non-compliance of provisions under Section 134(C) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he 7 MVC No.1675/2024 has sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident, alleged to have occurred on 19-12-2023 at about 4.30 to 4.31 p.m., near Marenahalli Junction, Marenahalli main road, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 26 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26. Further, he has got examined one more witness namely Dr. Chidanand K.J.C. as P.W.2 and closed his side. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has examined its Senior Executive-TP Claims as R.W.1 and got marked 4 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R4.
8 MVC No.1675/2024
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on 19-12-2023, at about 4.30 to 4.31 p.m., he was riding his motor bike bearing Reg. No.KA-03-HQ-7442, on Marenahalli main road junction, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, slowly and cautiously, by observing the traffic rules and regulations. At that time, the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 came from Bhanashankari side, in rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the motorcycle of 9 MVC No.1675/2024 the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner has fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident, he was working as Uber driver and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, he has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity.
10. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein he has reiterated entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of his oral evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 26 documents as Ex.P.1 to
26. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is certified copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of further statement of complainant, Ex.P.4 is certified copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 is certified copy of sketch, Ex.P.6 is certified copy of Motor Vehicle Accident Report, Ex.P.7 is certified copy of statement of 10 MVC No.1675/2024 witness, Ex.P.8 is notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.9 is certified copy of reply to notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act, Ex.P.10 is certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.11 is Discharge Summary, Ex.P.12 certified copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.13 is certified copy of order- sheet in C.C.No.1013/2024, Ex.P.14 is notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner, Ex.P.15 are Medical bills (total 26), Ex.P.16 are Advance bills (3 in Nos), Ex.P.17 are Prescriptions (total 3), Ex.P.18 are Tax invoices (16 in Nos), Ex.P.19 is notarised copy of Driving Licence, Ex.P.20 is notarised copy of Registration Certificate, Ex.P.21 & 22 are Bank account statements (2 in Nos), Ex.P.23 is Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner, Ex.P.24 is Clinical Note, Ex.P.25 is Case-sheet and Ex.P.26 is X-ray.
11. On meticulously going through the above police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 10 & Ex.P.12, prima-facia it reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car 11 MVC No.1675/2024 bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 and dashing the same to the motor bike of the petitioner, who was taking right turn towards 18th Main Road, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. Due to said impact the petitioner has fell down on the road and sustained grievous injury on his left leg. The investigation officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.12, has clearly stated that, the said accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car bearing Reg. No.KA- 05-AF-3562 and the petitioner has sustained grievous injury to his left leg in the said accident.
12. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, in the present case, the date, time and place of accident, the issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.1 in respect of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the above oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner has remained undisputed by the owner of offending vehicle/Respondent No.2, as he did not 12 MVC No.1675/2024 choose to appear and contest the case of the petitioner. Whereas, the respondent No.1 has specifically denied the above averred facts and circumstances of the accident and taken specific defence that, the insured car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 was not at all involved in the alleged accident, the same has been falsely implicated by the petitioner, in order to get wrongful gain and to make wrongful loss to the respondents. But, the respondent No.1 have failed to establish the said contentions. Except the self serving statements of R.W.1, who is the representative/ Senior Executive-TP Claims of respondent No.1 insurance company, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence placed on record by the respondent No.1 to establish the above contentions. If really the offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 was not all involved in the accident in question, the same could have been easily established by examining the eye-witness to the alleged accident. But, the respondent No.1 has not taken 13 MVC No.1675/2024 any strain to examine the eye-witness to the alleged accident, for the reasons best known to it. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no corroborative evidence on record to show that, the insured car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 has been falsely implicated by the petitioner in the alleged accident. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 and dashing the same to the motor bike of the petitioner, who was taking right turn towards 18th Main Road, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. Further, it reveals that, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries to his left leg i.e. Left Isolated Tibia Fracture. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence or which goes to show that, the 14 MVC No.1675/2024 said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the petitioner himself or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
13. Further, the Ex.P.4 spot mahazar and Ex.P.5 Sketch also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place in the junction of 100 feet wide Marenahalli Ring Road and Jayanagar 9th Block, 18th Main road, Bengaluru, in between the offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 and the motor bike bearing Reg. No.KA-03-HQ-7442 of the petitioner, when he was taking right turn towards 18th Main Road, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.6, the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident was not caused due to the any mechanical defects in the offending vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said 15 MVC No.1675/2024 accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562. On the other hand, the respondents have not produced any rebuttal evidence to show that, the said documents are false or concocted documents. Further, the investigation officer in his Ex.P.12 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 and the petitioner has sustained grievous injury to his left leg in the said accident. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged either by the driver or the owner of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, 16 MVC No.1675/2024 negligence of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to the petitioner in the said accident.
14. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.10 wound certificate, Ex.P.11 discharge summary, Ex.P.24 clinical-notes, Ex.P.25 case-sheet and Ex.P.26 x-ray, it clearly reveals that, the petitioner has suffered grievous injury in a road traffic accident i.e. Left Isolated Tibia Fracture and he has undergone surgery for the same. The same is deposed by P.W.2, who is the doctor who has clinically examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent No.1, to show that the above medical records are false documents. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Therefore, in such circumstances and in the light of above observations, it can safely be held that, the respondent No.1 has failed to rebut the oral and 17 MVC No.1675/2024 documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 and injuries sustained to the petitioner in the said accident.
15. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident claim cases the strict principle of proof in a criminal case are not required."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held that, "in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are merely required to establish their case on 18 MVC No.1675/2024 touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
17. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, he has sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 19-12-2023 at about 4.30 to 4.31 p.m., near Marenahalli Junction, Marenahalli main road, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
18. Issue No.2: While answering the above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car 19 MVC No.1675/2024 bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 and he has sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. The medical records placed on record clearly speaks that, the petitioner has sustained left isolated tibia fracture he has undergone surgery. Therefore, this Court is of the further opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under various heads. The damages are to be assessed under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages, such as medical treatment, attendants, transport, actual loss of earning, future loss of earning etc., and non-pecuniary damages, such as mental and physical shock, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, loss of prospects of marriage etc. The petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
i) Towards loss of future income: In order to determine the compensation towards loss of future income, the age, monthly income and disability of the petitioner are to be determined. To prove his age, the petitioner has produced the notarised copy of his driving licence and 20 MVC No.1675/2024 Aadhar card, which are marked as Ex.P.19 and 23. As per Ex.P.19 and 23, the date of birth of the petitioner is 20-3-
1988. The accident has taken place on 19-12-2023 at about 4.30 to 4.31 p.m. Therefore, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident was 35 years. Further, the P.W.2, who is the doctor who has examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of disability, has clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief affidavit that, on clinical examination he found that, the petitioner has suffered left isolated tibia fracture. Further he has deposed that, on clinical and radiological examination of injuries suffered by the petitioner he found that, there is 42% physical disability of left lower limb and 14% physical disability to the whole body of the petitioner. Further, the Ex.P.10 wound certificate, Ex.P.11 discharge summary, Ex.P.24 clinical notes, Ex.P.25 case-sheet and Ex.P.26 x-ray film clearly speaks that, the petitioner has suffered the above stated injuries and he has undergone surgery for the said injuries. 21 MVC No.1675/2024 Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 has cross- examined P.W.2 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence. Further, he has clearly denied the suggestions made to him that, there is no disability to the petitioner and he has exaggerated the percentage of disability to the petitioner. But, the P.W.2 has clearly admitted in his cross- examination that, the fracture is united and implants have been removed and the petitioner has undergone complete treatment. Further, he has clearly deposed that, the muscle power and hip-joint of the petitioner is normal. Therefore, in such circumstances and taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, injuries sustained, avocation of the petitioner, duration of treatment and oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that, considering the disability of 10% to the whole body of the petitioner would be justified. Hence, in the instant case the 22 MVC No.1675/2024 disability of 10% to the whole body of the petitioner is considered.
a) The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that, before accident he was working as Uber driver and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. Further, he has deposed that, due to grievous injuries suffered in the said accident he is unable to do his work. The respondent No.1 has specifically denied the same. In such circumstances, the burden was on the petitioner to prove his avocation and income. To substantiate the same, he has produced his driving licence, which is marked as Ex.P.19. But, he has not produced any document to show that, before accident he was working as a Uber driver and his income was Rs.40,000/- per month. Therefore, in such circumstances, there is no other option before this Court, except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident took place in 2023. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner 23 MVC No.1675/2024 is considered as Rs.15,500/- per month and the annual income of the petitioner as Rs.1,86,000/-.
b) As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier for a person whose is aged about 35 years is 16. Therefore, loss of future income is Total annual income X disability/100 X multiplier = Rs.1,86,000 X 10/100 X 16 = Rs.2,97,600/-.
ii) Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed that, he has incurred expenses of Rs.2,30,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charge etc. In order to prove the same, he has produced 26 medical bills, as per Ex.P.15. All the bills have been examined carefully and found that the petitioner has spent total amount of Rs.44,438/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.44,438/- under the head of medical expenses.
24 MVC No.1675/2024
iii) Pain and sufferings: In the present case, the petitioner has sustained grievous injury i.e. left isolated tibia fracture. As per Ex.P.11 discharge summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 12 days from 19-12-2023 to 30-12-2023, in Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bengaluru. Further, as per P.W.2, the said injuries have caused physical disability to the petitioner. In such circumstances, certainly the petitioner would have suffered pain and sufferings. Therefore, taking into considering the injuries sustained and disability to the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that, an compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- is to be awarded to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
iv) Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.11 discharge summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 12 days in Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bengaluru. He might have spent considerable amount towards attendant charges during 25 MVC No.1675/2024 that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.1000 x 12 = Rs.12,000/- is awarded towards the attendant charges.
v) Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.11 discharge summaries, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 12 days in Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bengaluru. He might have spent considerable amount towards food and nourishment during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 12 = Rs.9,600/- is awarded towards food and nourishment charges.
vi) Conveyance expenses: The petitioner has deposed that, he has spent Rs.1,57,600/- towards conveyance for his treatment. To establish the same, he has produced total 16 Tax-invoices, issued by Appu Tours & travels, Hiriyur. On meticulously going through the said tax- invoices, it reveals that, the same are dated after the date of discharge of petitioner from Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bengaluru. As per Ex.P.11 26 MVC No.1675/2024 discharge summary, the petitioner has taken treatment as in-patient for 12 days from 19-12-2023 to 30-12-2023, in Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bengaluru. There is absoltuely no evidence on record to show that, after discharge the petitioner has undergone follow-up treatement in the said hospital or any other hospital at Bengaluru. There is no corroborative evidence on record to show that, the petitioner has traveled from Hiriyur to Bengaluru on the dates mentioned in the said tax-invoices for follow-up treatment of the injuries sustained in the accident in question. Further, the said receipts do not contain the GST number and even, the author of said documents has not been examined by the petitioner, in order to prove the contents of said documents. Therefore, this Court declines to consider the same. But, the other oral and documentary evidence available on record clearly goes to show that, the petitioner is the resident of Therumalleshwar Nilaya, Siddanayaka 27 MVC No.1675/2024 Circle, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, the accident has taken place near Marenahalli Junction, Marenahalli main road, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru and he has taken treatment in Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bengaluru. Taking into consideration the distance in between the above places, compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards conveyance.
vii) Loss of income during treatment period: The petitioner has taken treatment for 12 days as in-patient at Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bengaluru, for the grievous injuries sustained by him. He might have taken rest for about 2 months and lost his income for the said period. Therefore, Rs.15,500/- x 2 = Rs.31,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period.
viii) Loss of amenities: It is evident from the documents placed on record that, as on the date of accident the age of the petitioner was 35 years and unfortunately he 28 MVC No.1675/2024 has suffered left isolated tibia fracture. Further, he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10% to the whole body. Therefore, awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities would be just and reasonable.
ix) Future medical expenses: The P.W.2 has clearly deposed in his evidence that, the petitioner has undergone complete treatment and there is no need of further treatment. In such circumstances, the question of awarding compensation for future medical expenses does not arise. Hence, no compensation is awarded under the head of future medical expenses.
19. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads as follows:
1. Loss of future income Rs. 2,97,600-00
2. Medical expenses 44,438-00
3. Pain and sufferings 40,000-00
4. Attendant charges 12,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 9,600-00 29 MVC No.1675/2024
6. Conveyance expenses 10,000-00
7. Loss of income during 31,000-00 treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 30,000-00
9. Future medical expenses Nil Total Rs. 4,74,638-00 In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,74,638/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
20. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.1 is the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF- 3562. The policy bearing No.12-1831-0003694669-00, issued by the respondent No.1 was valid for the period from 31-08- 2023 to 30-08-2024. As such the said policy was valid as on the date of accident. Further, as per the true copy of reply given by the owner of offending vehicle, to the notice issued by the investigation officer under Sec.133 of Motor Vehicles Act, which is marked as Ex.P.9, and as per the the 30 MVC No.1675/2024 xerox copy of Driving Licence available on record, the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 by name Mohammed Ekram M. S/o Mohammed Alfa was holding valid and effective driving licence bearing No. KA0620140000294 to drive the said vehicle, as on the date of accident and it is valid till 27-12-2033. There is no evidence on record to show that, there is any breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the respondent No.2. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AF-3562 the accident in question has taken place. In such circumstances, the respondent No.2 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.1 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.2. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the 31 MVC No.1675/2024 petitioner. However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,74,638/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, from the respondent No.1, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
21. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.4,74,638/- (Rupees four lakh seventy four thousand six hundred and thirty eight only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the 32 MVC No.1675/2024 above compensation amount to the petitioner. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.1
- Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order.
The entire compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be released in favour to the petitioner through e-payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 7 th day of August, 2025) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: Chandrashekar H.S., S/o Shivaramu H.T., P.W.2: Dr. Chidanand K.J.C. S/o Chandrashekhar 33 MVC No.1675/2024 Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: Certified copy of First Information
Statement
Ex.P.3: Certified copy of further statement of
complainant
Ex.P.4: Certified copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5: Certified copy ofSketch
Ex.P.6: Certified copy Motor Vehicle Act Report
Ex.P.7: Certified copy of Statement of Witness
Ex.P.8: Certified copy of Notice U/Sec.133 of
M.V.Act
Ex.P.9: Certified copy of Reply to Notice U/Sec.133
of M.V.Act
Ex.P.10: Certified Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.11: Discharge Summary
Ex.P.12: Certified copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.13: Certified copy of Order-sheet in
C.C.No.1013/2024
Ex.P.14: Notarised copy of Aadhar card
Ex.P.15: Medical bills (total 26)
Ex.P.16: Advance bills (total 3)
Ex.P.17: Prescriptions (total 3)
Ex.P.18: Tax-Invoices (total 16)
Ex.P.19: Notarised copy of Driving Licence Ex.P.20: Notarised copy of Registration Certificate Ex.P.21 & Bank Account Statements (total 2) 22:34 MVC No.1675/2024
Ex.P.23: Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P.24: Clinical Note Ex.P.25: Case-sheet Ex.P.26: X-ray Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1: Ruchitha D/o Renukesha V. Documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Ex.R.1: Authorisation Letter
Ex.R.2: True copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.R.3: Notice issued to owner of offending vehicle
Ex.R.4: Return RPAD Envelope.
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.